Reflection Paper

In addition to discussing papers in class, you will be asked to summarize your reaction to the papers in the first half of class in the form of a reflection paper. The reflection paper provides you to an opportunity to apply critical reasoning skills in the context of the research papers that we discuss in class. In the reflection paper, you will summarize and respond to at least six of the papers that we will discuss in the first six weeks of class. This is not a literature review: the goal with this paper is for you to provide some editorial critiques of the work and express your own opinions, rather than to provide a fair and direct summary of the contents of each paper. The expected length of the reflection paper is roughly 2,500 words.

The objectives for the reflection paper are to:

Compare and contrast different software testing and analysis approaches
Critically analyze research projects
Cultivate new ideas for research directions

All of the papers on the course reading list are related to each other in some way, so rather than aim to select the 6 most similar papers, I suggest that you select the six that you find most personally interesting. Do not be afraid to select papers that you had more difficulty understanding - after all, those might be the most interesting!

Once you have selected the papers that you will respond to, consider one (or more) of the following prompts:

What are common themes or goals between these papers? Do they share similar assumptions (in terms of how software is designed and tested)?
How do these works complement each other?
Based on your own experiences developing software, do you believe that the evaluations in these papers provide sufficient evidence to draw the conclusions that are claimed?
If you have experience with other related works in software engineering, how do you think those works compare?
Are there next-steps that you think could be applied to extend the ideas presented in these papers?
Were there parts of some of these works that you thought were poorly explained, and could have been written in another way to be more accessible?

You should consider these prompts as jumping-off points: feel free to respond to one or more of these questions in your paper, or alternatively, something completely different. The most important part is that your paper should convey your own reactions to six of the papers that we read and discussed in class — demonstrating that you read the papers and thought about them. I strongly encourage you to participate actively in the discussions in class and take notes — perhaps the easiest way to formulate this paper is to reflect on your reading of the papers and our in-class discussions.

Formatting

Feel free to use whatever word processing environment you prefer. I strongly encourage that you use some editor that will help you manage a bibliography — like LaTeX + BibTex, or Word + Endnote. Please clearly identify the (at least) six papers from the first six weeks of class that you intend to discuss — one way to do that might be to include them in your bibliography, and cite them in the first paragraph of your paper.

Grading

Your reflection paper will be graded on the scale of (Unacceptable, Check-, Check, Check+). The criteria for each grade are described below.

To receive the grade of Check, the paper must satisfy all of these criteria:

The paper is approximately 2,500 words (plus or minus a few hundred is OK; if you are far short of 2,500 you might consider deepening your exploration; if you are far over 2,500 words, you might consider condensing your efforts)
The paper responds to at least six of the papers discussed in the first six weeks
The paper demonstrates a thoughtful understanding of the papers selected
The paper uses relevant examples from the papers discussed in class to support and describe your reactions to the works
The paper uses language that is understandable, and generally does not distract from the content of the work

To receive the grade of Check-, the paper must satisfy all of these criteria:

The paper is between 1,500-2,500 words
The paper responds to at least six of the papers discussed in the first six weeks
The paper demonstrates a limited understanding of the papers selected, focusing primarily on summarizing the content of the papers without demonstration of higher-level understanding of them

Submissions that do not meet the criteria for “Check-“ will receive the grade of “Unacceptable.” Submissions that exceed the qualities outlined for “Check” (e.g. include additional, insightful connections between the papers discussed in class and other works, uses particularly sophisticated and engaging language, and generally demonstrates an exceptional and thorough understanding of the selected papers) may receive the grade of “Check+”. As per the course policies, note that a grade of “Check” is sufficient to receive an A in the class.

Submission

Submit your paper on Canvas. The paper is due on October 22nd at 11:59pm. No late submissions will be accepted.

Revision

Students who make a good faith effort on the paper (e.g. submit a document on time that is conformant to the general guidelines explained above), and receive a grade below “Check” will receive detailed feedback on their paper, and be allowed up to two resubmissions of the paper, under the understanding that the highest grade of the submissions will be used. Students who receive a grade of “Check” may not resubmit their work to attempt to achieve a “Check+” (again, note that in this situation, this would have no impact on your course grade).