Several significant events during the past few years in the field of object-oriented technology have reshaped the industry. Among these are the rapid increase in the use and interest of Java, and the adoption of the Unified Modeling Language (UML) by the Object Management Group (OMG) in November 1997. These, and other, events continue to change the pattern of OO use in industry and course offerings in academia. This study specifically looks at the changes in academia. As OO continues its growth in industry, institutions of higher education will be expected to prepare their students for the OO development environment. In an effort to evaluate academia’s ability to produce OO developers, information has been collected from higher education (IS departments) in 1992, 1996, and most recently, in 1998 regarding OO topic offerings. This paper reports the results of the most recent findings as compared to the 1992 and 1996 data. Specifically, changes in OO programming languages, OO methods, and OO tools are presented. The trends exhibited during this time frame should provide guidance for both academia and industry as to the commitment of IS degree programs in providing a significant share of the talent pool to support the shift to OO development

Douglas, David

Hardgrave, Bill

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)AMCIS 1998 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS)December 1998Trends in Information Systems Curricula: Object-Oriented TopicsBill HardgraveUniversity of ArkansasDavid DouglasUniversity of ArkansasFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1998This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in AMCIS 1998 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationHardgrave, Bill and Douglas, David, "Trends in Information Systems Curricula: Object-Oriented Topics" (1998). AMCIS 1998Proceedings. 230.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis1998/230-686-Trends in Information Systems Curricula:  Object-Oriented TopicsBill C. HardgraveDavid E. DouglasComputer Information Systems and Quantitative AnalysisUniversity of ArkansasIntroductionSeveral significant events during the past few years in the field of object-oriented technology have reshaped the industry.Among these are the rapid increase in the use and interest of Java, and the adoption of the Unified Modeling Language (UML)by the Object Management Group (OMG) in November 1997.  These, and other, events continue to change the pattern of OOuse in industry and course offerings in academia.  This study specifically looks at the changes in academia.  As OO continuesits growth in industry, institutions of higher education will be expected to prepare their students for the OO developmentenvironment.  In an effort to evaluate academia’s ability to produce OO developers, information has been collected from highereducation (IS departments) in 1992, 1996, and most recently, in 1998 regarding OO topic offerings.  This paper reports the resultsof the most recent findings as compared to the 1992 and 1996 data.  Specifically, changes in OO programming languages, OOmethods, and OO tools are presented. The trends exhibited during this time frame should provide guidance for both academiaand industry as to the commitment of IS degree programs in providing a significant share of the talent pool to support the shiftto OO development.Methods and ResultsRespondentsAn e-mail questionnaire was sent to 435 IS department chairs listed in the 1995 Directory of Management InformationSystems Faculty. Seventy e-mails were returned because of bad addresses, leaving 365 departments that successfully receivedthe questionnaire.  One hundred six usable responses were received representing a 29 percent response rate.  Details concerningthe data collection for the 1992 and 1996 surveys can be found in Massey and Douglas (1993) and Douglas and Hardgrave(1997).In 1992, 38 percent of the schools were teaching OO topics; in 1996, 71 percent were teaching OO and 17 percent had plansto do so.  This study (1998) found 84 percent of the schools teaching OO - remarkably close to the previous (1996) study’sprediction of 88 percent (71 percent teaching and 17 percent planning to teach).  Overall, an upward trend continues in thenumber of schools teaching OO topics.Programming LanguagesTable 1 summarizes the OO programming languages (OOPLs) identified from the three surveys as being taught in IS degreeprograms.  In 1992 and 1996, C++ represented the language most often taught.  However, in 1998, Visual Basic unseated C++as the most popular language. Visual Basic also represents the largest increase in the most recent survey, jumping from 8% in1996 to 70% in 1998.  Java also increased from 0% in 1996 to 44% in 1998.  The 1996 finding is not surprising given that Javawas formally introduced by Sun Microsystems in May 1995 (Deitel and Deitel, 1997).  The 1998 finding of 44% for Java isamazing given the infancy of the language.  Other increases from 1996 to 1998 include: Object COBOL from 0% to 7%; andC++ from 48% to 53%.  Languages that appear to be declining, based upon the most recent data, include: Ada (-7%), Eiffel (-2%), Lisp (-1%), Object Pascal (-5%), Objective-C (-1%); and Smalltalk (-5%). Interestingly, the “pure” OO languages (Henderson-Sellers and Edwards, 1994), such as Actor, Eiffel, Simula, and Smalltalkare used very little and/or are declining in use (Java is the exception to this trend).  “Hybrid” languages (Henderson-Sellers andEdwards, 1994), such as C++ and Object COBOL, continue to increase in popularity.  Visual Basic, considered an object-basedlanguage (Brown, 1997), is growing rapidly.  The number of different OO languages taught is down from 8 in 1996 to 6 in 1998, perhaps indicating a move toward a‘standard’ set of languages. The number of institutions teaching more than one OO language has almost doubled from 28% in1996 to 55% in 1998.  This would imply a wider use of OO languages in the curriculum, possibly supplanting traditionallanguages, such as COBOL. Development MethodsThe OO development methods  currently taught are shown in Table 2.  In the most recent survey, UML is the most popular“method”.  Without getting into an explanation or debate here, UML is clearly not a methodology (Henderson-Sellers, 1998).-687-Table 1: OO Languages TaughtLanguage1992(n = 92)1996(n =101)1998(n =106)% (#) % (#) % (#)Actor 2% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0)Ada 2% (2) 7% (7) 0% (0)C++ 20% (18) 48%(48)53%(56)CLOS 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)Eiffel 0% (0) 2% (2) 0% (0)Java 0% (0) 0% (0) 42%(45)Lisp 1% (1) 2% (2) 1% (1)ObjectCOBOL0% (0) 0% (0) 7% (7)Object Pascal 3% (3) 5% (5) 0% (0)Objective-C 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0)Simula 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)Smalltalk 10% (9) 9% (9) 5% (5)Visual Basic 2% (2) 8% (8) 70%(74)# of languages 7 8 6teach morethan 1 OO language7% (6) 28%(28)55%(58)Table 3: OO ToolsTools1996(n = 72)1998(n = 89)% (#) % (#)OODBMS 15%(11)2% (2)OO CASE 44%(32)35%(31)Table 2: OO Development Methodologies1992(n = 92)1996(n =101)1998(n =106)% (#) % (#) % (#)Booch 11% (10) 21%(21)18%(19)Coad &Yourdon15% (14) 16%(16)19%(20)Jacobson 0% (0) 3% (3) 6% (6)OMT 0% (0) 10%(10)14%(15)Open – – 1% (1)UML – – 21%(22)However, it is the newly adopted  notation set and metamodel whichincorporates elements of Booch’s method, OMT, and Jacobson’sObjectory.  Thus, it is not surprising that UML is the most popular,given the popularity of Booch and OMT as indicated in the 1996survey.  It is surprising that schools have made the switch so quicklyto UML when the adoption only became official in November 1997and very little information (in the form of textbooks) is available.Booch, OMT, and Jacobson’s Objectory are still being taught, butthese should gradually disappear within the next few years as UMLbecomes more well known.  Open, a relatively new and completemethodology, is being used at one respondent’s university.Coad and Yourdon’s method continues to increase in usage.Despite the growing popularity of Booch, OMT, and Jacobson, and theultimate adoption of UML, Coad and Yourdon’s method remainsstrong.  This may be due to its simplicity and its strong relationship totraditional development methods.  As an introduction to OO analysisand design, Coad and Yourdon’s method may be the simplest to teach.Tools: OODBMS and OO CASEThe current use of object-oriented database management systems (OODBMS) and OO CASE tools is low.  Of those schoolsteaching OO technology, only 2% are utilizing OODBMS, and 35% are using OO CASE tools for instructional purposes.  Bothreflect decreases from the 1996 survey of 15% and 44% for OODBMS and OO CASE tools, respectively (see Table 3).  For OODBMS, the decrease may be attributed to the lack of standards anda solid theoretical basis (Blaha and Premerlani, 1998; Brown, 1997). The use ofOODBMS in industry is also very low (Jones, 1995). Currently, the ObjectDatabase Management Group is working to define a set of standards for object-oriented databases (Brown, 1997; Henderson-Sellers and Edwards, 1994).  Therecent rise in so-called “Object/Relational DBMS” (Hunter, 1997) may also beimpacting the use of a “pure” OODBMS.  Due to the overwhelming use ofexisting relational database technology, companies and schools may be lookingat Object/Relational databases as their migration path. The use of OO CASE tools has probably been hampered by the recentadoption of UML.  As shown earlier, 21% of the schools are now teaching UML,but the OO CASE tool vendors are behind in providing OO CASE tool supportfor the new UML standard.  OO CASE tools that supported Booch and OMT, forexample, may no longer be useful for UML due to the changes in notation.  Now-688-that UML has been adopted, one would expect to see a plethora of OO CASE tools become available and subsequent utilizationof those OO CASE tools in higher education curricula.  Course OfferingsOf the 106 respondents, 84% teach at least one OO language, 51% teach at least one OO method, and 47% teach at leastone OO language and one OO method.  Those schools offering OO courses (i.e., teach OO language and/or OO method courses)provide a median of 2 courses per school (mean = 2.84; mode = 2).   Many indicated that OO is integrated in several coursesrather than having separate courses for OO.  Thus, the actual number of courses incorporating OO would be higher than 2,although we cannot say by how much.  For example, Object COBOL may be integrated into an existing COBOL class, or OOmethods may be integrated into an existing analysis and design class.   The bureaucratic difficulty in introducing new coursesinto a curriculum may be forcing many programs to introduce OO into existing courses. SummaryIn the six year period of time (1992 - 1998), the percentage of IS departments offering OO technologies has increased from38 percent to 84 percent which exceeds the percentage of organizations currently developing, and planning to develop OOapplications in the next few years (Computerworld, 1994). Visual Basic, C++, and Java are the most popular languages in IS programs.  Visual Basic and Java have increasedtremendously in the past few years, whereas C++ increased slightly from 1996.   Object COBOL, although not yet standardized,exhibited signs of early use (7%).  On the other hand, Smalltalk continues to decrease in use (now down to 5%).UML, recently adopted by OMG as the standard OO notation set, is the most utilized method.  Booch, OMT, and Jacobson’sObjectory continue to be widely used, but should decrease with the adoption of UML.  Coad and Yourdon’s method continuesto be popular as an OO method to teach.Disappointingly, but not unexpected, OODBMS and OO CASE tools are not widely used.  There are many reasons for thelack of use, not the least of which, is the lack of good tools provided by tool vendors.  OODBMS have yet to find their nichein the marketplace, and the lack of a standard notation set has hindered a consistent set of OO CASE tools.As companies move to OO, they will depend on IS departments, among others, to provide OO developers.  Results of thisstudy indicate that IS departments are increasing their offerings of OO technologies and are preparing their graduates for jobsin an IS field moving to OO development.  Overall, more OO courses are being taught by more IS departments throughout theUnited States and Canada compared to just a few years ago.ReferencesBlaha, M., and Premerlani, W., Object-Oriented Modeling and Design for Database Applications, Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ, 1998.Brown, D., Object-Oriented Analysis: Objects in Plain English, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1997.Coad, P., Object Models: Strategies, Patterns, and Applications, Yourdon Press / Prentice Hall, 2nd edition, 1997.“Corporate IS Considers Object Plans,” Computerworld, 28 (4), Jan 24, 1994, 61, 64.Deitel, H.M., and Deitel, P.J., Java: How to Program, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997.Douglas, D., and Hardgrave, B.C., “Object-Oriented Trends: Information Systems Degree Programs,” 1997 AIS AmericasConference on Information Systems, August 1997, 754-755.Henderson-Sellers, B., and Edwards, J.,  BookTwo of Object-Oriented Knowledge:  The Working Object, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.Hunter, S.K., “Cutting to the Chase: Marketing Wars are in Full Gear, But What Does ORDBMS Really Mean?” ObjectMagazine, 7 (6), Aug 1997, 32-41.Jones, N.,   “Results of an Interactive Survey on Object Orientation,” Gartner Group, Research Note: T-700-1192, July 12, 1995.Massey, P.D, and Douglas, D.E., “Object-Oriented Technologies in Information Systems Curricula,” Journal of ComputerInformation Systems, 34 (1), Fall 1993, 3-7.

Trends in Information Systems Curricula: Object-Oriented Topics

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1657&amp;context=amcis1998

Trends in Information Systems Curricula: Object-Oriented Topics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)