An Empirical Comparison of Reuse in Embedded and Nonembedded Systems

High-quality software, delivered on time and budget, constitutes a critical part of most products and services in modern society. Our government has invested billions of dollars to develop software assets, often to redevelop the same capability many times. Recognizing the waste involved in redeveloping these assets, in 1992 the Department of Defense issued the Software Reuse Initiative. The vision of the Software Reuse Initiative was "To drive the DoD software community from its current "re-invent the software" cycle to a process-driven, domain-specific, architecture-centric, library-based way of constructing software.'' Twenty years after issuing this initiative, there is evidence of this vision beginning to be realized in nonembedded systems. However, virtually every large embedded system undertaken has incurred large cost and schedule overruns. Investigations into the root cause of these overruns implicates reuse. Why are we seeing improvements in the outcomes of these large scale nonembedded systems and worse outcomes in embedded systems? This question is the foundation for this research. The experiences of the Aerospace industry have led to a number of questions about reuse and how the industry is employing reuse in embedded systems. For example, does reuse in embedded systems yield the same outcomes as in nonembedded systems? Are the outcomes positive? If the outcomes are different, it may indicate that embedded systems should not use data from nonembedded systems for estimation. Are embedded systems using the same development approaches as nonembedded systems? Does the development approach make a difference? If embedded systems develop software differently from nonembedded systems, it may mean that the same processes do not apply to both types of systems. What about the reuse of different artifacts? Perhaps there are certain artifacts that, when reused, contribute more or are more difficult to use in embedded systems. Finally, what are the success factors and obstacles to reuse? Are they the same in embedded systems as in nonembedded systems? The research in this dissertation is comprised of a series of empirical studies using professionals in the aerospace and defense industry as its subjects. The main focus has been to investigate the reuse practices of embedded systems professionals and nonembedded systems professionals and compare the methods and artifacts used against the outcomes. The research has followed a combined qualitative and quantitative design approach. The qualitative data were collected by surveying software and systems engineers, interviewing senior developers, and reading numerous documents and other studies. Quantitative data were derived from converting survey and interview respondents' answers into coding that could be counted and measured. From the search of existing empirical literature, we learned that reuse in embedded systems are in fact significantly different from nonembedded systems, particularly in effort in model based development approach and quality where the development approach was not specified. The questionnaire showed differences in the development approach used in embedded projects from nonembedded projects, in particular, embedded systems were significantly more likely to use a heritage/legacy development approach. There was also a difference in the artifacts used, with embedded systems more likely to reuse hardware, test products, and test clusters. Nearly all the projects reported using code, but the questionnaire showed that the reuse of code brought mixed results. One of the differences expressed by the respondents to the questionnaire was the difficulty in reuse of code for embedded systems when the platform changed. The semistructured interviews were performed to tell us why the phenomena in the review of literature and the questionnaire were observed. We asked respected industry professionals, such as senior fellows, fellows and distinguished members of technical staff, about their experiences with reuse. We learned that many embedded systems used heritage/legacy development approaches because their systems had been around for many years, before models and modeling tools became available. We learned that reuse of code is beneficial primarily when the code does not require modification, but, especially in embedded systems, once it has to be changed, reuse of code yields few benefits. Finally, while platform independence is a goal for many in nonembedded systems, it is certainly not a goal for the embedded systems professionals and in many cases it is a detriment. However, both embedded and nonembedded systems professionals endorsed the idea of platform standardization. Finally, we conclude that while reuse in embedded systems and nonembedded systems is different today, they are converging. As heritage embedded systems are phased out, models become more robust and platforms are standardized, reuse in embedded systems will become more like nonembedded systems.

The Utility of the CVLT-C as an Embedded Validity Indicator After Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

Results of neuropsychological examinations depend on valid data. Whereas clinicians previously believed that clinical skill was sufficient to identify non-credible performance by examinees on standard tests, research demonstrates otherwise. Consequently, studies on measures to detect suspect effort in adults have received tremendous attention in the previous twenty years, and incorporation of validity indicators into neuropsychological examinations is now seen as integral. Few studies exist that validate methods appropriate for the measurement of effort in pediatric populations. Of extant studies, most evaluate standalone measures originally developed for use with adults. The present study examined the utility of indices from the California Verbal Learning Test – Children's Version (CVLT-C) as embedded validity indicators in a pediatric sample. Participants were 225 outpatients aged 8 to 16 years old referred for clinical assessment after mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Non-credible performance (n = 39) was defined as failure of the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). Logistic regression demonstrated that only the Recognition Discriminability index was predictive of MSVT failure (OR = 2.88, p < .001). A cutoff of z ≤ -1.0 was associated with sensitivity of 51% and specificity of 91%. In the current study, CVLT-C Recognition Discriminability was useful in the identification of non-credible performance in a sample of relatively high-functioning pediatric outpatients with mTBI. Thus, this index can be added to the short list of embedded validity indicators appropriate for pediatric neuropsychological assessment.

Investigating and Understanding Student Learning Outcomes in an Online and Face-to-Face Graduate Level Legal Administration Course: An Embedded Mixed Methods Design

Online education is a new teaching and learning medium with few current guidelines for faculty, administrators or students. Its rapid growth over the last decade has challenged academic institutions to keep up with the demand, while also providing a quality education. Our understanding of the factors that determine quality and effective online learning experiences that lead to student learning outcomes is still evolving. There is a lack of consensus on the effectiveness of online versus face-to-face education in the current research. The U.S. Department of Education conducted a meta-analysis in 2009 and concluded that student-learning outcomes in online courses were equal to and, often times, better than face-to-face traditional courses. Subsequent research has found contradictory findings, and further inquiry is necessary. The purpose of this embedded mixed methods design research study is to further our understanding of the factors that create quality and successful educational outcomes in an online course. To achieve this, the first phase of this study measured and compared learning outcomes in an online and in class graduate-level legal administration course. The second phase of the study entailed interviews with those students in both the online and face-to-face sections to understand their perspectives on the factors contributing to learning outcomes. Six themes emerged from the qualitative findings: convenience, higher order thinking, discussions, professor engagement, professor and student interaction, and face-to-face interaction. Findings from this study indicate the factors students perceive as contributing to learning outcomes in an online course are consistent among all students and are supported in the existing literature. Higher order thinking, however, emerged as a stronger theme than indicated in the current research, and the face-to-face nature of the traditional classroom may be more an issue of familiarity than a factor contributing to learning outcomes. As education continues to reach new heights and developments in technology advance, the factors found to contribute to student learning outcomes will be refined and enhanced. These developments will continue to transform the ways in which we deliver and receive knowledge in both traditional and online classrooms. While there is a growing body of research on online education, the field’s evolution has unsettled earlier findings and posed new areas to investigate.