Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Rabea Aden

dblp:68/8164 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computing education · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › software evaluation
software review
0.112010
An empirical analysis of team review approaches for teaching quality software development · ICSE (1) 2010
Computing education
software engineering education
0.012010
An empirical analysis of team review approaches for teaching quality software development · ICSE (1) 2010
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 An empirical analysis of team review approaches for teaching quality software development
abstract
Reviews are an integral part of the software development process. They are one of the key methodologies that undergraduates study in order to develop quality software. Despite their importance, reviews are rarely used in software engineering projects at the baccalaureate level. This paper demonstrates results from a study conducted on students at baccalaureate level enrolled in a one-semester software engineering course at the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences -- Foundation for Advancement of Science and Technology (NUCES-FAST) in Pakistan. The objectives of the study are: to determine how the various team review techniques help to educate students about the importance of the review process and find which technique is more suitable for teaching reviews to undergraduates. Two variations on team review are proposed: Similar Domain Review (SDR) and Cross-Domain Review (CDR) without author. The paper presents a comparison of the proposed and existing team review techniques and measures their effectiveness in terms of defect detection. The results show that the proposed variation SDR is more effective in defect detection than CDR (with/without author). Another interesting result is that the proposed CDR-without author is better than CDR with author (the existing team review approach). Also, early defect detection enabled students to incorporate changes and improve the software quality.
Amna Humayun, Wafa Basit, Ghulam A. Farrukh, Fakhar Lodhi, Rabea Aden
ICSE (1)5