An Experiment on the Effects of Modularity on Code Modification and Understanding
Pages 105 - 112
Abstract
Good modularity is seen as an important goal in software design. Achieving this goal is claimed to improve, among other things, the understandability and modifiability of a design. Yet, when teaching software design, we see that students limit the amount of modularity that they introduce into their code and cannot see the benefit of further modularity. This could be because they do not understand the benefits, but it could also be that these benefits are limited for inexperienced developers. In order to teach the benefits of modularity we need to understand what, if any, benefits exist for students. We conducted a controlled experiment where 40 students performed a modification task on two different designs, one with higher modularity than the other. Students were better able to successfully complete the task with the design with higher modularity. However, we found a trend where understanding was lower for the high modularity design. These results suggest modularity is beneficial to students, and that understanding of modularity needs to be better supported when teaching software design.
References
[1]
Edward V. Berard. 1993. Essays on object-oriented software engineering (vol. 1). Prentice-Hall, Inc.
[2]
Andrew P. Black, Kim B. Bruce, Michael Homer, James Noble, Amy Ruskin, and Richard Yannow. 2013. Seeking Grace: A New Object-Oriented Language for Novices. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Denver, Colorado, USA) (SIGCSE ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445240
[3]
Barry W Boehm, John R Brown, and Myron Lipow. 1976. Quantitative evaluation of software quality. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering. 592–605.
[4]
B. W. Boehm, J. R. Brown, M. Lipow, G. J. MacLeod, and M. J. Merritt. 1978. Characteristics of Software Quality. Elsevier North-Holland.
[5]
Grady Booch. 1994. Object-Oriented Analysis and Design: with Applications (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
[6]
Kim B. Bruce. 2004. Controversy on How to Teach CS 1: A Discussion on the SIGCSE-Members Mailing List. In Working Group Reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Leeds, United Kingdom) (ITiCSE-WGR ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 29–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/1044550.1041652
[7]
Yuanfang Cai, Daniel Iannuzzi, and Sunny Wong. 2011. Leveraging design structure matrices in software design education. In 2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE T). 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2011.5876085
[8]
Yuanfang Cai, Rick Kazman, Ciera Jaspan, and Jonathan Aldrich. 2013. Introducing tool-supported architecture review into software design education. In 2013 26th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET). 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEET.2013.6595238
[9]
Marian Daun, Carolin Hübscher, and Thorsten Weyer. 2017. Controlled Experiments with Student Participants in Software Engineering: Preliminary Results from a Systematic Mapping Study. arxiv:1708.04662 [cs.SE]
[10]
Pablo Anderson de L. Lima, Gustavo da C. C. Franco Fraga, Eudisley G. dos Anjos, and Danielle Rousy D. da Silva. 2015. Systematic Mapping Studies in Modularity in IT Courses. In Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2015, Osvaldo Gervasi, Beniamino Murgante, Sanjay Misra, Marina L. Gavrilova, Ana Maria Alves Coutinho Rocha, Carmelo Torre, David Taniar, and Bernady O. Apduhan (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 132–146.
[11]
Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, Catherine Mooney, John Homer, Zachary C Albrecht, and Garrett B. Powell. 2021. On Designing Programming Error Messages for Novices: Readability and Its Constituent Factors. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445696
[12]
Norman E Fenton and Shari L Pfleeger. 1998. Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. PWS Publishing Co., Boston, MA, USA. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=580949
[13]
International Organization for Standardization. 2011. ISO/IEC 25010:2011: Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — System and software quality models. https://www.iso.org/standard/35733.html.
[14]
Lyndsey Franklin, Kristina Lerman, and Nathan Hodas. 2017. Will Break for Productivity: Generalized Symptoms of Cognitive Depletion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.01521(2017).
[15]
Richard Gauthier and Stephen Pont. 1970. Designing Systems Programs. Prentice-Hall.
[16]
Daniel Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2017. Unhappy developers: Bad for themselves, bad for process, and bad for software product. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C). IEEE, 362–364.
[17]
Sandra G Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 50. Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 904–908.
[18]
Sandra G Hart and Lowell E Staveland. 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. Human Mental Workload, Vol. 52. North-Holland, Amsterdam ;. 139–183 pages.
[19]
Michael Kölling. 1999. The Problem of Teaching Object-Oriented Programming, Part I: Languages.JOOP 11 (04 1999), 8–15.
[20]
M. Kolling. 1999. The problem of teaching object-oriented programming, Part 2: Environments. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 11, 9 (1999), 6–12. http://bluej.kent.ac.uk/papers/1999-09-JOOP2-environments.pdf
[21]
Joseph Lawrance, Christopher Bogart, Margaret Burnett, Rachel Bellamy, Kyle Rector, and Scott D Fleming. 2010. How programmers debug, revisited: An information foraging theory perspective. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39, 2 (2010), 197–215.
[22]
Robert C. Martin. 1995. Object Oriented Design Quality Metrics: an analysis of dependencies. C++ Report (Sep/Oct 1995).
[23]
Robert C. Martin. 2003. Agile Software Development: Principles, Patterns, and Practices. Prentice Hall.
[24]
J. McCall, P. A. Richards, and Gene F. Walters. 1977. Factors in software quality: concept and definitions of software quality. Nat’l Tech. Information Service 1, 2, 3 (1977).
[25]
Craig S. Miller and Amber Settle. 2016. Some Trouble with Transparency: An Analysis of Student Errors with Object-Oriented Python. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ICER ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960327
[26]
Nathan Mills, Allen Wang, and Nasser Giacaman. 2021. Visual Analogy for Understanding Polymorphism Types. In ACE ’21: 23rd Australasian Computing Education Conference, Auckland, New Zealand (and virtually), 2-5February, 2021, Claudia Szabo and Judy Sheard (Eds.). ACM, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441636.3442304
[27]
Fred GWC Paas and Jeroen JG Van Merriënboer. 1994. Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks. Educational psychology review 6, 4 (1994), 351–371.
[28]
D. L. Parnas. 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM 15, 12 (1972), 1053–1058. https://doi.org/10.1145/361598.361623
[29]
Chris Parnin. 2010. A cognitive neuroscience perspective on memory for programming tasks. Programming Interest Group(2010), 27.
[30]
Chris Parnin and Spencer Rugaber. 2011. Resumption strategies for interrupted programming tasks. Software Quality Journal 19, 1 (2011), 5–34.
[31]
Shari L Pfleeger. 1998. Software Engineering: Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall.
[32]
Iflaah Salman, Ayse Tosun Misirli, and Natalia Juristo. 2015. Are Students Representatives of Professionals in Software Engineering Experiments?. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1(Florence, Italy) (ICSE ’15). IEEE Press, 666–676.
[33]
R. Shmallo and N. Ragonis. 2021. Understanding the “this” reference in object oriented programming: Misconceptions, conceptions, and teaching recommendations.Educ Inf Technol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10265-6
[34]
Dag Ingar Kondrup Sjøberg, Jo Erskine Hannay, Ove Hansen, Vigdis By Kampenes, Amela Karahasanovic, Nils-Kristian Liborg, and Anette C. Rekdal. 2005. A Survey of Controlled Experiments in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31, 9 (September 2005), 733–753. https://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TSE.2005.97
[35]
D. I. K. Sjøberg, A. Yamashita, B. C. D. Anda, A. Mockus, and T. Dybå. 2013. Quantifying the Effect of Code Smells on Maintenance Effort. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 39, 8 (Aug. 2013), 1144–1156. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.89
Index Terms
- An Experiment on the Effects of Modularity on Code Modification and Understanding
Recommendations
Design module: a modularity vision beyond code: not only program code but also a design model is a module
MiSE '13: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Modeling in Software EngineeringWe propose a new modularity vision to integrate design modeling with programming. A system consists of not only program code but also design models. However, design models such as UML diagrams have been treated as not modules but complementary ...
Automatic modularity conformance checking
ICSE '08: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineeringAccording to Parnas's information hiding principle and Baldwin and Clark's design rule theory, the key step to decomposing a system into modules is to determine the design rules (or in Parnas's terms, interfaces) that decouple otherwise coupled design ...
Assessing modularity using co-change clusters
MODULARITY '14: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on ModularityThe traditional modular structure defined by the package hierarchy suffers from the dominant decomposition problem and it is widely accepted that alternative forms of modularization are necessary to increase developer's productivity. In this paper, we ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
January 2023
139 pages
ISBN:9781450399418
DOI:10.1145/3576123
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 30 January 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ACE '23
ACE '23: Australasian Computing Education Conference
January 30 - February 3, 2023
VIC, Melbourne, Australia
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 161 of 359 submissions, 45%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 61Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)37
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9
Reflects downloads up to 14 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format