Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Kai A. Hackney

Publications and source records attributed to Kai A. Hackney.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Design, development, and preliminary validity and reliability evidence of the Software Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale (SESES)

The purpose of this research is to design, develop, implement, and provide preliminary validity and reliability evidence of the Software Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale (SESES). Framed by a conceptual framework using guidance in software engineering curriculum and concepts along with the notion of self-efficacy, we generated an initial item pool of n = 87 items to operationalize and measure software engineering self-efficacy among undergraduate computing students. The conceptual framework traces five dimensions: 1) Requirements Engineering, 2) Teamwork and Collaboration, 3) Software Quality Management, 4) Software Design and Architecture, and 5) Software Agile Methodologies. We pilot tested the SESES with n = 527 undergraduate computing students who had completed a software engineering course in the current semester or a previous academic semester. We employed Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with the Principal Axis Factoring method and an oblique (Promax) rotation to examine the underlying structure of the SESES, resulting in the same five internally consistent latent constructs in the conceptual framework with minimal cross-loading and a simple structure in the pattern matrix, explaining approximately 57% of the variability in these data. Our findings suggest that software engineering self-efficacy is a multidimensional construct of five theorized and correlated, yet distinct latent factors. We unpack the limitations and delimitations of the research while exploring undergraduate computing students' software engineering self-efficacy using necessary domain-specific measurements.

cs.SE↗

Same Rules, Mixed Messages: Exploring Community Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty in Computing Education

Academic dishonesty has long been a concern in computing education, and the rapid growth of online learning and generative artificial intelligence (AI) has further complicated how cheating is perceived and addressed. We report on a study examining how different actors in the computer science (CS) classroom interpret potential cheating scenarios and the motivations behind academic dishonesty. Participants included instructors (n = 6), teaching assistants (TAs; n = 21), and undergraduate students (n = 538) enrolled in two CS courses at a large Southeastern institution in the United States. Respondents classified scenarios as serious cheating, trivial cheating, or not cheating and answered to an open-ended question about motivations for academic dishonesty. Our findings reveal notable discrepancies across groups: instructors most often attribute cheating to grade pressure and laziness, while students and TAs emphasize gaps in prerequisite knowledge and time management challenges. These results highlight misaligned perceptions of academic dishonesty and underscore the need for clearer communication and curricular strategies in computing education, particularly in post-COVID learning environments where hybrid instruction, increased reliance on digital resources, and AI-assisted tools have reshaped students' approaches to coursework and learning.

cs.CY↗