Page 471 - confbook2022

The Tenth International Arab Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education ﻲﻟﺎﻌﻟا ﻢﯿﻠﻌﺘﻟا ةدﻮﺟ نﺎﻤﻀﻟ ﺮﺷﺎﻌﻟا ﻲﻟوﺪﻟا ﻲﺑﺮﻌﻟا ﺮﻤﺗﺆﻤﻟا

We easily find the time rhythm in sprints design, which helps Agile teams to be more organized. Also their
definition of done is clear through their design of Trello lists, and backlogs content, and tasks cards. Where waterfall
teams took a long time in requirement elicitation and SRS preparation, then they had dived in coding, and put off
testing, where their colleagues in Scrum teams building their low and high fidelity prototypes, involving their
customer, prioritizing their requirements and refine the next sprint planning.
The agile teams were almost self-organized [3], but roles not repeatedly rotated which dissipate the students’
efforts and times. Indeed we take into consideration the individuals’ abilities and tendencies, and let all members be
conscious of all practices and activities even by observation. Another reason is the fact the developer in market does
not do a role each morning.

1.11 Product Quality:
For the second set of hypotheses of the methodology factor, the product quality is indicated by bugs divided by
lines of code. The bugs included the interface and usability problems. Table 6 shows that rates in general is lower for
agile teams, so we can reject the null hypothesis.

Table 6. Products Quality.
Bugs/ Bugs/
Team Bugs/KLOC Team
KLOC KLOC
A1 95/4.2 22.6 24.6 105/4.3 W1
A2 120/5.7 21 18.5 92/5 W2
A3 84/7.7 11 38 243/6.4 W3
A4 70/4.7 14.9 27.3 120/4.4 W4

We find less bugs per KLOC at the left part of the table, except pair 2, perhaps of team's less code, and features, and
sometimes “W2”team had customer meetings as needed.

Agile team of third pair have distinct result, despite the biggest code and features of an accounting
system; that’s of frequent releases and testing are very helpful in quality improvement.

1.12 Students Satisfaction:
A questionnaire of fifteen statements on 5-Point Likert Scale. Overall feedback was positive (see Fig. 2). The
second part asks if they recommend this course to their colleagues. All answers were “Yes”. The results in details
includes more graphs and tables [27].

Fig. 2. Top/Bottom five results of the fifteen statements, with its percentage of satisfaction.

With overall satisfaction of 87.6%, results points a sense that the design and content of the course are mature enough.
However some negative feedback received on time offered compared to work required.

٤٥٠