Adopción de metodologías ágiles en estudiantes de Ingeniería de Software

Juan Carlos Guzmán Preciado; Wendy Paola  Ramírez Ozua; Yobani  Martínez Ramírez; Alan  Ramírez Noriega

doi:10.62457/y91ms932

Authors

Juan Carlos Guzmán Preciado Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6534-876X
Wendy Paola Ramírez Ozua Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3659-814X
Yobani Martínez Ramírez Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4967-9187
Alan Ramírez Noriega Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8634-9988

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62457/y91ms932

Keywords:

agile methodologies, education, Scrum, Kanban, educational assessment

Abstract

Agile methodologies have become established in software engineering education due to their emphasis on collaboration, iterative cycles, and early value delivery. However, their effective adoption in academic projects is not guaranteed simply by incorporating them into the curriculum; factors such as a lack of daily practice, low automation, and unstable coordination routines also play a role. This study describes the level of adoption/perception of agile practices among 108 students at a public university in Mexico (two parallel groups: A = 54; B = 54) at the beginning of the academic year.

A standardized questionnaire of 24 questions was administered, organized into eight domains (Likert 1–5): iteration planning (IP), iterative development (ID), continuous integration (CI), daily stand-ups (DS), customer/user contact (CU), acceptance testing (AT), retrospectives (RT), and visual management/workflow with WIP limits (VF). In this study, means, standard deviations, ranges, frequencies (1–5), low percentages (1–2), and high percentages (4–5) were calculated. Internal reliability was estimated by subscale and overall using Cronbach's alpha. Exploratory comparisons were also performed using ANOVA for Group (A/B) and for the stated methodology.

The study yielded a total index of 4.00 with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.66. Means per domain ranged from 3.82 (SD) to 4.19 (AT). Subscale reliability was α = .662–.832, and the overall α was .946. Comparisons between Groups A/B and by methodology showed little difference and were not statistically significant. The results suggest reinforcing daily meetings, implementing continuous integration and work-in-progress (WIP) limits, and maintaining strengths in acceptance testing and user contact.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alami, A. (2016). Why do information technology projects fail? Procedia Computer Science, 100, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.124

Beck, K., et al. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Agile Alliance.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Garousi, V., Giray, G., & Küçük, B. (2019). Bridging industry and academia in teaching agile software development: An empirical study of student perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3071–3095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09907-1

Mahnič, V. (2012). A capstone course on agile software development using Scrum. IEEE Transactions on Education, 55(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2011.2142311

Mishra, D., & Mishra, A. (2011). Complex software project development: Agile methods adoption. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 23(8), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.497

Paasivaara, M., Durasiewicz, S., & Lassenius, C. (2008). Using Scrum in distributed agile development: A multiple case study. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGSE.2008.39

Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit. Addison-Wesley.

Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide. Scrum.org.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Turley, R., & Bieman, J. (2016). Software Engineering Education. CRC Press.

Williams, L. (2010). Agile software development methodologies and practices. Advances in Computers, 80, 1–44.