=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3043/poster8
|storemode=property
|title=Using Online Working Sessions as an Evaluation Technique for Research in SPE: Experience and Lessons Learned (Poster)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3043/poster8.pdf
|volume=Vol-3043
|authors=Floriment Klinaku,Alireza Hakamian,Steffen Becker
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/kpdays/KlinakuH021
}}
==Using Online Working Sessions as an Evaluation Technique for Research in SPE: Experience and Lessons Learned (Poster)==
<pdf width="1500px">https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3043/poster8.pdf</pdf>
<pre>
Using Online Working Sessions as an Evaluation
Technique for Research in SPE: Experience and
Lessons Learned
Floriment Klinaku, Alireza Hakamian and Steffen Becker
Software Quality and Architecture, University of Stuttgart, Germany

Keywords
online working sessions, model-based software engineering, software performance engineering,




Context
Evaluating tools, languages and frameworks is crucial in software engineering research. A
common user group for such evaluations are bachelor and master students studying related
courses. Two problems with such studies remain: the incentive and the format. The recent
pandemic affected both; especially the format of the study.


Objective
In this talk we will share our experience and lessons learned with designing and conducting an
online working session for master students in the Model Driven Software Engineering course.
Our design decisions were based on two requirements: (1) students should strengthen the
lecture material and (2) evaluate a language for modelling scaling policies for cloud applications.
The first requirement was the incentive for the students whereas the second was the ”no free
lunch” part.


Method
We designed a two-day working sessions with two different goals: strengthening the course
material and evaluating a prototype language for modelling scaling policies for cloud applica-
tions. We avoided using multiple sheets and instead we used only one shared document for
collaborative working. Hence, there was no screen sharing and all material was stored in one
document. The collaborative document started empty and was filled incrementally where in
some parts students had to contribute.


SSP 2021: 12th Symposium on Software Performance 2021
Envelope-Open floriment.klinaku@iste.uni-stuttgart.de (F. Klinaku); alireza.hakamian@stud.uni-stuttgart.de (A. Hakamian);
steffen.becker@iste.uni-stuttgart.de (S. Becker)
                                    © 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
 CEUR
 Workshop
 Proceedings
               http://ceur-ws.org
               ISSN 1613-0073
                                    CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
Results
On the first and second day we had 5 and 7 participants respectively. At the end of each day we
ask students to fill a survey which contains question of interests for both goals.
  The results are promising for both requirements. For lessons learned we emphasize on:

    • Such a hands on workshop with two goals requires effort in design but is beneficial if
      content-wise the goals align.
    • Two working sessions of 90 minutes length each, resulted to be enough to reach teaching
      and evaluation goals with a group of students.
    • An important aspect is the expected level of skills and domain expertise for the target
      users of the artefact being evaluated. If this contradicts with the teaching goals then such
      working sessions are not the way to go.
    • The main effort should go in preparing simple examples and tooling to support the online
      session.

  Furthermore, in the talk we will share feedback given by students on both goals. To emphasize
on the feedback:

    • One or more students (1) were not able to complete the hands on due to overloaded
      content, (2) had technical problems with their development environment and (3) managed
      to follow through the end with all tasks completed.
    • All students were able to follow the rationale of the modelling language.
    • Most students (1) were able to come up with examples for different language concepts,
      (2) found the format of the workshop suitable.

</pre>