Teaching Software Product Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Software Product Line (SPL) engineering has emerged to provide the means to efficiently model, produce, and maintain multiple similar software variants, exploiting their common properties, and managing their variabilities (differences). With over two decades of existence, the community of SPL researchers and practitioners is thriving, as can be attested by the extensive research output and the numerous successful industrial projects. Education has a key role to support the next generation of practitioners to build highly complex, variability-intensive systems. Yet, it is unclear how the concepts of variability and SPLs are taught, what are the possible missing gaps and difficulties faced, what are the benefits, and what is the material available. Also, it remains unclear whether scholars teach what is actually needed by industry. In this article, we report on three initiatives we have conducted with scholars, educators, industry practitioners, and students to further understand the connection between SPLs and education, that is, an online survey on teaching SPLs we performed with 35 scholars, another survey on learning SPLs we conducted with 25 students, as well as two workshops held at the International Software Product Line Conference in 2014 and 2015 with both researchers and industry practitioners participating. We build upon the two surveys and the workshops to derive recommendations for educators to continue improving the state of practice of teaching SPLs, aimed at both individual educators as well as the wider community.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".