Myths and Facts about a Career in Software Testing: The Perspectives of Students and Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Testing is an indispensable part of software development. However, a career in software testing is reported to be unpopular among technology students. This can potentially create a shortage of testers in the software industry in the future. The question is, whether the perception that undergraduate students have about software testing is accurate and whether it differs from the experience reported by those who work in testing activities in the software development industry. We obtained 63 answers from practitioners in the software industry, and previous surveys analyzed the perceptions of 648 students from software engineering. This investigation demonstrates that a career in software testing is more exciting and rewarding, as reported by professionals working in the field, than students may believe. Therefore, in order to guarantee a workforce focused on software quality, the academy and the software industry need to work together to better inform students about software testing and its essential role in software development. In particular, courses in testing automation are expected to increase the popularity of the area among students.
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 | 0.035 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".