Automatic generation of just-in-time online assessments from software design models

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 173-192

  Zualkernan, Imran A ^a   El Naaj, Salim Abou ^b   Papadopoulos, Maria ^c   Al Amoudi, Budoor K ^d   Matthews, Charles E ^e  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF SHARJAH   (United Arab Emirates)

^b GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION   (United States)

^c International School of Choueifat   (United Arab Emirates)

^d Thuraya Satellite Telecommunications Company   (United Arab Emirates)

^e Fifth Generation Systems Ltd   (Canada)

Author keywords

Assessment generation; Design certification; QTI; Web services

Indexed keywords

EID: 68949184865     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Anderson, P., Reps, T., & Teittelbaum, T. (1989). Design and implementation of a fine-grained software inspection tool. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(8), 721-733.
2. Andrews, A., France, R., Ghosh, S., & Craig, G. (2003). Test adequacy criteria for UML design models. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 13(2), 95-127.
3. Apvrille, L., Courtiat, J., Lohr, C., & Saqui-Sannes, P. (2004). TURTLE: A real-time UML profile supported by a formal validation toolkit. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(7), 473-487.
4. Axis (2008). The Apache Axis Project. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://ws.apache.org/axis/
5. Bigot, C., Valot, Y., Gallois, J., Gérard, S., Terrier, F., & Lugato, D. (2004). Validation and automatic test generation on UML models: the AGATHA approach. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 5(2), 124-139.
6. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green.
7. Boland, P., H. Singh, H, & Cukic, B. (2003). Comparing partition and random testing via majorization and Schur functions. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(1), 88-94.
8. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, B. (1989). Situated learning and the culture of learning. Education Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
9. Brykczynski, B. (1999). A survey of software inspection checklist. ACM Software Engineering Notes, 24(1). 82-89.
10. Chow, T. C. (1978). Testing design modeled by finite-state machines. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 4(3), 178-186.
11. Clocksin, W. F., & Mellish, C. S. (1994). Programming in Prolog (4th ed). Springer-Verlag.
12. Confora, G., Cimitile, A., Carlini, U., & De Lucia, A. (1998). An extensible system for source code analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(9), 721-740.
13. DeMillo, R. A., Lipton, R. J., & Sayward, F. G. (1978). Hints on test data selection: Help for the practicing programmer, IEEE Computer, 11(4), 34-41.
14. Eshuis, R., & Wieringa, R. (2004). Tool support for verifying UML activity diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(7), 437-447.
15. GCS. (2008). Gas Compliance System. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.eei.com
16. Hendrix, D., Cross, J. H., & Maghsoodloo, S. (2002). The effectiveness of control structure diagrams in source code comprehension activities. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(5), 463-477.
17. Howden, W. E. (1982). Weak mutation testing and completeness of test sets. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 8(4), 371-379.
18. Hundausen, C., Douglas S., & Stasko, J. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(3), 259-290.
19. IMS-QTI (2006). IMS Question & Test Interoperability Specification. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from http://www.imsglobal.org/question/index.html.
20. Kim, S., J., Clark, A., & McDermid, J. A. (1999). The rigorous generation of Java mutation using HAZOP. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software and Systems Engineering and Their Applications (ICSSEA '99), 9-10.
21. Lanza, M., & Ducasse, S. (2003). Polymetric views: A lightweight visual approach to reverse engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29 (9), 782-795.
22. Lave, J., & Chaiklin, S. (Eds.). (1993). Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context, Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
23. Lehman, J. A. (1989). An empirical comparison of textual and graphical data structure documentation for COBOL programs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14(9), 1131-1135.
24. Luqi, L., Berzins, V., & Qiao, Y. (2004). Documentation driven development for complex real-time systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30 (12), 936-952.
25. Miller, J., & Yin, Z. (2004). A cognitive-based mechanism for constructing software inspection teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(11), 811-825.
26. MySQL (2008). MySQL, Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.mysql.com/
27. Nebut, C., Fleurey, F., Le Traon, Y., & Jézéquel, J. (2006). Automatic test generation: A use case driven approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 32(3), 140-155.
28. OMG-UML (2003). Unified modeling language specification. (version 1.5). Retrieved May 21, 2006, from http://www.omg.org/technology/documents-/formal/uml.htm.
29. OMG-XMI (2006). XML metadata interchange (XMI) specification, version 1.1 Retrieved May 21, 2006, from http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2000-11-02.
30. Simon, H. (1983). Sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Soap (2008). The SOAP Interface/Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.w3.org/TR/soap/
32. Stasko, J, Dominique, J. B., Brown, M. H., & Price, B. A. (1988). Software visualization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. SWI-Prolog (2008). SWI Prolog. Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.swi-prolog.org
34. Thelin, T., Runeson, P., & Wohlin, C. (2003). An experimental comparison of usage-based and checklist-based reading. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(8), 687-704.
35. Tomcat. (2008). The Apache Tomcat Project. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://jakarta.apache.org/tomcat
36. Tonella, P. (2003). Using a concept lattice of decomposition slices for program understanding and impact analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29(6), 495-509.
37. Traore, I., & Aredo, D. B. (2004) Enhancing structured review with model-based verification, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(11), 736-753.