A SURVEY OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING COURSES
A.A.J. Hoffman, Director, Computer Science Program,
Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas 76129
Together with the recent, rapid growth
in numbers of technical papers, survey
articles, symposia, conferences, and books,
there is also a corresponding increase in
software engineering education activities.
In order to obtain some insight into the
number and nature of course offerings,
Peter Freeman of the University of Cali-
fornia, Irvine, published a survey form in
early 1977 in both the ACM Software
Engineering Notes and the IEEE TC/SE News-
letter. Figure 1 replicates this survey
form. Most responses were received by
April, 1977. Recently, Peter Freem~n
forwarded these responses to A.A.J.
Hoffman of Texas Christian Universit I for
analysis and reporting.
There were a total of 28 responses
from 26 traditional educational institu-
tions, offering regular and special
courses, industrial organizations, and
professional development companies. Table
1 is a list of the organizations represented
by survey respondents. While most
responses came from the United States,
others originated in France, Canada, and
the United Kingdom. The majority of the
respondents simple returned the completed
survey form, while others submitted course
outlines and brochures. Software
Engineering was the most popular course
title (used by ten different organiz-
ations). There were two each with titles
of Introduction to Software Engineering,
Software Design,--an~-'~6ed Software
SyStem Design.
The compl~list of course titles is as
shown in Table 2.
Items 3 and 4 on the survey requested
course level (beginning, intermediate
or advanced) and type (undergraduate,
graduate, professional development, manu-
facturer). The tabulation of responses
to items 3 and 4 are shown in Table 3.
Most courses are shown to be inter-
mediate to advanced graduate, although the
bulk of the undergraduate offerings are
listed as intermediate. The latter
result appears to be inconsistent.
All the respondents (28) offer
courses in lecture form with eight
indicating concurrent laboratory. Eight
titles are offered as seminars both in
conjunction with a lecture series and by
themselves. No respondents indicated
offer~na a speaker series.
The rapid growth in courses is
shown by responses to the "date first
offered" item. No courses were listed
as beginning prior to 1972. In that year
only two were offered. Table 4 shows the
rapid growth in course starts from 1972,
with 2, to 1977, with 8 starts. Most
responses indicated that offerings were
repeated 1 to 12 times. The institutions
of higher education Offer courses each
semester while professional development
groups offer courses more frequently.
It appears that all courses are offered
repeatedly and regularly once initiated.
Furthermore, they are well attended. Some
classes average 90 students, while others
average as low as 5. The most prevalent
size average is in the range of 20 to 25
students. The length of the offerings
ranged from one four hour session to a
15-week one semester university class,
meeting one hour, three times each week
plus laboratory. Most fall into the
latter category. The shorter courses (3
to 10 weeks) tend to be most intense with
some scheduling 6 or 7 hours of class per
day.
It is of interest to note that in
almost every case the persons listed as
instructors also are course developers.
The course materials listed include text-
books, lecture notes, and reprints of
technical articles. Reprints are the
most prevalent course material used, with
a range of one to 30 reprints per class.
The average number of reprints used was
four. A few instructors indicated use of
visual aids and audio cassettes. Some
outside speakers were also indicated.
The required work for semester
courses typically included a series of
readings, four or five programs, and a
term paper. One class offered by D.J.
Reifer of UCLA includes a discussion
topic each session during which contro-
versial issues are debated. Anita Jones
80
