Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 18

Proceedings of the 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Participating in an Industry Based Social Service Program: a Report of Student Perception of What They Learn and What They Need


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2019F279

Citation: Proceedings of the 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 18, pages 861870 ()

Full text

Abstract. Skills demanded by the IT industry from graduates should be aligned with the curricula of Computer Science undergraduate programs. It is well-known that theoretical knowledge undergraduate students acquire during their studies needs to be complemented with practical experience; therefore, participating in university supported real life projects is a viable option for the students to get prepared for the industry. This paper reports findings from a survey applied to students who had been involved in an industry-based program meant to fulfill their graduation requirements, including the opportunity to develop a capstone project. We gathered their perceptions regarding what they learned during their studies, what they acquired in the industry-based program and what they consider useful for their current jobs. The results show that most topics are aligned between the Bachelor's degree program and the industry needs, but there is a strong separation in the cognitive levels students achieve at each stage. The paper provides insight into the needs of Computer Science students and contributes to finding ways of increasing undergraduate student satisfaction with skills acquired at university and their application in real contexts.


  1. ACM-IEEE. Software engineering curriculum guidelines, 2014.
  2. Tero Ahtee and Timo Poranen. Risks in students’ software projects. In 22nd Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, 154–157. IEEE, 2009.
  3. Lorin Anderson, David Krathwohl, Peter Airasian, Kathleen Cruikshank, Richard Mayer, Paul Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin Wittrock. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, Abridged edition, Longman, 2001.
  4. Barry Boehm and Daniel Port. Educating software engineering students to manage risk. In 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, 591–600, IEEE, 2001.
  5. David Broman, Kristian Sandahl, and Mohamed Abu Baker. The company approach to software engineering project courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(4):445–452, 2012.
  6. Bernd Brügge, Stephan Krusche, and Lukas Alperowitz. Software engineering project courses with industrial clients. TOCE, 15:17:1–17:31, 2015.
  7. QS Crimson. QS World university rankings, 2019.
  8. Diario Oficial de la Federación (Official Journal of the Federation). Reglamento para la prestación del servicio social de los estudiantes de las instituciones de educación superior en la República Mexicana (Regulation for the social service provision of the students of the tertiary education institutions in Mexico), 1981.
  9. Dora Dzvonyar and Bernd Bruegge. Reaching steady state in software engineering project courses. In Combined Workshops of the German Software Engineering Conference (SE 2018), 8–11, 2018.
  10. Fabian Fagerholm, Arto Hellas, Matti Luukkainen, Kati Kyllönen, Sezin Yaman, and Hanna Mäenpää. Designing and implementing an environment for software start-up education: Patterns and anti-patterns. Journal of Systems and Software, 146:1 – 13, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.08.060
  11. Fabian Fagerholm and Arto Vihavainen. Peer assessment in experiential learning assessing tacit and explicit skills in agile software engineering capstone projects. In 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1723–1729. IEEE, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6685132
  12. Vinícius Gomes Ferreira and Edna Dias Canedo. Design sprint in classroom: exploring new active learning tools for project-based learning approach. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 1–22, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-019-01285-3
  13. Panos Fitsilis and Alex Lekatos. Teaching software project management using agile paradigm. In 21st Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics, 47:1–47:6, ACM, 2017. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3139367.3139413
  14. ISO/IEC TR 29110-5-1-2:2011 software engineering – lifecycle profiles for very small entities (VSEs) – part 5-1-2: Management and engineering guide: Generic profile group: Basic profile, ISO, 2011.
  15. M.J.I.M. Genuchten, van and D.R. Vogel. Getting real in the classroom. Computer, 40(10):106–108, 2007.
  16. Carlo Ghezzi and Dino Mandrioli. The challenges of software engineering education. In 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 637–638, ACM, 2005. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1062455.1062578
  17. Shanika Karunasekera and Kunal Bedse. Preparing software engineering graduates for an industry career. In 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET’07), 97–106. IEEE, 2007.
  18. Supannika Koolmanojwong and Barry W. Boehm. A look at software engineering risks in a team project course. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET), 21–30, 2013.
  19. Stephan Krusche, Lukas Alperowitz, Bernd Bruegge, and Martin O Wagner. Rugby: an agile process model based on continuous delivery. RCoSE, 14:42–50, 2014.
  20. Viljan Mahnic. A capstone course on agile software development using scrum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55:99–106, 2012.
  21. Anne-Maarit Majanoja and Timo Vasankari. Reflections on teaching software engineering capstone course. In 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, volume 2 of CSEDU 2018, 68–77, 2018.
  22. Erick Matla-Cruz, Miguel Morales-Trujillo, and David Velázquez-Portilla. Disciplinando equipos pequeÃśos con prácticas ágiles (agile practices and small teams discipline). Difu100cia, 8(2):28–33, 2014.
  23. Christoph Matthies. Scrum2kanban: integrating kanban and scrum in a university software engineering capstone course. In 2nd International Workshop on Software Engineering Education for Millennials, 48–55, ACM, 2018.
  24. Merriam-Webster.com. Capstone, 2019.
  25. Ana M Moreno, Maria-Isabel Sanchez-Segura, Fuensanta Medina-Dominguez, and Laura Carvajal. Balancing software engineering educa- tion and industrial needs. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(7):1607–1620, 2012.
  26. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2019.
  27. Maria Paasivaara, Dragoş Vodă, Ville T Heikkilä, Jari Vanhanen, and Casper Lassenius. How does participating in a capstone project with industrial customers affect student attitudes? In 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training, 49–57, ACM, 2018.
  28. Marko Poženel and Viljan Mahnič. Studying agile software estimation techniques: the design of an empirical study with students. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 18(2), 2016.
  29. Guillermo Rodriguez, Álvaro Soria, and Marcelo Campo. Virtual Scrum: A teaching aid to introduce undergraduate software engineering students to Scrum. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(1):147–156, 2015.
  30. Manuel Rodríguez, Mario Vázquez, Hariklia Tsalapatas, Carlos de Carvalho, Triinu Jesmin, and Olivier Heidmann. Introducing lean and agile methodologies into engineering higher education: The cases of Greece, Portugal, Spain and Estonia. In IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, 720–729, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363302
  31. Robbie Simpson and Tim Storer. Experimenting with realism in software engineering team projects: an experience report. In 30th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET), 87–96. IEEE, 2017.
  32. IEEE Computer Society, Pierre Bourque, and Richard E. Fairley. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK(R)): Version 3.0. IEEE Computer Society Press, 3rd edition, 2014.
  33. Davide Taibi, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Muhammad Ahmad, Kari Liukkunen, Maria Lunesu, Martina Matta, Fabian Fagerholm, Jürgen Münch, Sami Pietinen, Markku Tukiainen, Carlos Fernández, Juan Garbajosa, and Kari Systä. “Free” innovation environments: Lessons learned from the software factory initiatives. In International Conference on Software Engineering Advances IARIA, 2015.
  34. DGOSE UNAM. Dirección General de Orientación y Atención Educativa (General Directorate of Educational Orientation and Attention), 2017.
  35. DGPL UNAM. Portal de estadística universitaria (Statistics web portal of the University), 2019.
  36. SIASS UNAM. Sistema de Información Automatizada de Servicio Social (Social Service Information System), 2019.
  37. Jari Vanhanen, Timo OA Lehtinen, and Casper Lassenius. Software engineering problems and their relationship to perceived learning and customer satisfaction on a software capstone project. Journal of Systems and Software, 137:50–66, 2018.
  38. Elaine Venson, Rejane Figueiredo, Wander Silva, and Luiz Ribeiro. Academy-industry collaboration and the effects of the involvement of undergraduate students in real world activities. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1–8, IEEE, 2016.
  39. Ira Weissberger, Abrar Qureshi, Assad Chowhan, Ethan Collins, and Dakota Gallimore. Incorporating software maintenance in a senior capstone project. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education, 8(1):31–38, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.7903/ijcse.1238
  40. Claes Wohlin and Björn Regnell. Achieving industrial relevance in software engineering education. In 12th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (Cat. No. PR00131), 16–25, IEEE, 1999.
  41. Murat Yilmaz, Faris Serdar Tasel, Ulas Gulec, and Ugur Sopaoglu. Towards a process management life-cycle model for graduation projects in computer engineering. PLOS ONE, 13(11):1–17, 11 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208012