advertisement

sigcse2003

100 %
0 %
advertisement
Information about sigcse2003
Entertainment

Published on December 7, 2007

Author: funnyside

Source: authorstream.com

advertisement

Introductory Programming, Criterion-Referencing, and Bloom :  Introductory Programming, Criterion-Referencing, and Bloom Raymond Lister & John Leaney University of Technology, Sydney Australia McCracken, et al.:  McCracken, et al. Insert their graph here points to make ... Multi-institutional! weaker students flounder ... Leading to quote on next page ... Buck & Stucki, SIGCSE 2001 :  Buck & Stucki, SIGCSE 2001 Students who are required to write complete programs as lab assignments are ... “... overwhelmed, uncertain of how to begin, and grasping at the air … [leading] … to the self-destructive tendency to do experimental programming, where they just randomly throw things in to see if it helps ”. McCracken, et al.:  McCracken, et al. After their first “clean compile”, the weak students ... “... are then surprised by what the program really does when presented with data”. Norm-referenced Assessment:  Norm-referenced Assessment Same assessment activity for all students Students graded “to a curve” Aimed at the “middle student”? Weak students flounder ... ... but pass anyway? Strong students do well ... ... but were they challenged? Criterion-Referenced Assessment:  Criterion-Referenced Assessment Qualitatively different assessment activities for each grade. “Truth in sentencing” Weak students learn something, without holding back strong students. Strong students are challenged without hurting the weak students. Grades & Bloom’s Taxonomy:  Grades & Bloom’s Taxonomy “A” Bloom’s Synthesis & Evaluation level “B” “C” Bloom’s Knowledge & Comprehension level The message of Bloom: test at all levels of the taxonomy. Bloom’s Application & Analysis level “C” and Bloom’s Knowledge/Comprehension (1):  “C” and Bloom’s Knowledge/Comprehension (1) No requirement that a ‘C’ student manifest any sort of design skill. Lab Exam: Translate pseudo-code of a complete Java class into correct, readable code that compiles. For example ... For example ...:  For example ... Declare a header for a public class, called "BMIApplet", a subclass of Applet, which implements the methods prescribed by the "ActionListener" interface. Declare a header for a public constructor, which takes zero parameters. Declare an integer "BMI” and assign a value to "BMI", by calling "computeBMI", a method in this class. “C” and Bloom’s Knowledge/Comprehension (2):  “C” and Bloom’s Knowledge/Comprehension (2) The ability to read code, and demonstrate an understanding of what that code does. Tested by multiple choice questions. Pass mark is a “mastery” 70%, not 50%. For example ... For example ...:  For example ... The code for a class called “Counter” is given as follows (consider carefully the use of the “static” keyword). public class Counter { private static int count = 0; public void increment( ) { ++count; } public int getCount( ) { return count; } } If the following code is executed: Counter counter1 = new Counter( ); Counter counter2 = new Counter( ); counter1.increment( ); counter2.increment( ); int total = counter1.getCount( ) + counter2.getCount( ); the value in “total” is: a) 0 b) 1 c) 2 d) 3 e) 4 Rote Learning for a “C” ?:  Rote Learning for a “C” ? Approximately 30 “bottom passing” students with mark in the multiple choice exam of 70-77% On questions with previously seen code, 63-89% of bottom passing students got the question right, median 81%. On questions with unseen code, 63-85% of bottom passing students got the question right, median 78%. Conclusion: Not rote learners!!! Slide13:  30% fail the multiple choice exam at their first attempt. Truth in sentencing: If some students can’t even read code, how can we expect them to write code? Why assess them by asking them to write code? The message of Bloom: test at all levels of the taxonomy. The Story So Far:  The Story So Far “A” Bloom’s Synthesis & Evaluation level “B” “C” Completion of pseudo code; multiple choice questions Bloom’s Application & Analysis level “B” and Bloom’s Application/Analysis (1):  “B” and Bloom’s Application/Analysis (1) Bloom distinguishes between comprehension and application as follows: “A demonstration of comprehension shows that the student can use the abstraction when its use is specified. A demonstration of application shows that he (sic) will use it correctly, given an appropriate situation in which no mode of solution is specified.” “B” and Bloom’s Application/Analysis (2):  “B” and Bloom’s Application/Analysis (2) No surprises here ... Assessed traditionally, with an assignment. “Pig World” Third of class opt out and happy with “C”. The Story So Far:  The Story So Far “A” Bloom’s Synthesis & Evaluation level “B” “C” Completion of pseudo code; multiple choice questions Traditional assignment The “A” Part 1: Bloom’s Synthesis level:  The “A” Part 1: Bloom’s Synthesis level Bloom defines “Synthesis” as ... "Skill in writing, using an excellent organization of ideas and statements" (p.169). (essays? programs?) “... ability to write creatively a story, essay, or verse for pleasure, or for the entertainment or information of others" (p. 169).” assessed by a project ... The “A” Part 1: Bloom’s Synthesis level (cont.):  The “A” Part 1: Bloom’s Synthesis level (cont.) “Write a program. You decide what it does.” To avoid a token effort, we specify: - at least 100 lines of code. - at least 4 classes - etc. We want to let HD students to learn-from-play. Constructivism rules! The “A” Part 2: Bloom’s Evaluation level:  The “A” Part 2: Bloom’s Evaluation level Bloom defines “Evaluation” as ... "the making of judgments about the value, for some purpose, of ideas, works, solutions … ” (p.185). Assessed by peer review. - I provide some vague evaluation criteria. * clarity of code. * quality of user interface. Conclusion:  Conclusion “A” Self-selected project; peer review. “B” “C” Completion of pseudo code; multiple choice questions Truth in sentencing The message of Bloom: test at all levels of the taxonomy. Traditional assignment Survey Results (1):  Survey Results (1) "My learning experience in this subject were interesting and thought provoking". Agreed 69% Neutral 18% Disagreed 13% Survey Results (2):  Survey Results (2) "I found the assessment fair and reasonable". Agreed 64% Neutral 30% Disagreed 7% Grade Distribution:  Grade Distribution Grade After After First MCQ Exam Second MCQ Exam Fail 29% 10% C 18% 37% B 47% as before A 6% as before

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

SIGCSE: Computer Science Education

Provides a forum for college educators working to develop, implement and evaluate components of Computer Science programs.
Read more

SIGCSE2003 - California State University, Northridge

SIGCSE2003 (Click on any of these large thumbnails to enlarge these photos further))
Read more

bYTEBoss SIGCSE2003

Java Programming Errors SIGCSE 2003 Identifying and Correcting Java Programming Errors for Introductory Computer Science Students Maria Hristova, Ananya ...
Read more

Google

Advertising Programmes Business Solutions +Google About Google Google.com © 2015 - Privacy - Terms. Search; Images; Maps; Play; YouTube; News; Gmail ...
Read more

Supporting Discrete Structures Courses with a web-based tool

Supporting Discrete Structures Courses with a web-based tool Christelle Scharff, Pace University, NY Andrew Wildenberg, SUNY Stony Brook, NY Context ...
Read more

Technological Impact on Academic Integrity

Technological Impact on Academic Integrity KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY HONOR AND INTEGRITY SYSTEM FACULTY BROWN BAG SESSION SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 Overview Out-of ...
Read more

Cyber Security Lectures by Mateti - College of Engineering ...

Cyber Security Lectures Prabhaker Mateti. ... SIGCSE2003 slides : Slides of my presentation at SIGCSE2003, Feb 21,2003: SIGCSE2003 paper
Read more

Cyber Security Lectures by Mateti

SIGCSE2003 slides: Slides of my presentation at SIGCSE2003, Feb 21,2003: SIGCSE2003 paper: PDF of the paper appearing in the Proceedings of SIGCSE2003.
Read more

Integrating XML into a database systems course

UWEC CS Dept., http://jonah.cs.uwec.edu/Notes/SIGCSE2003/PsychGo/PsychGoSurvey.xsd 10 UWEC CS Dept., http://jonah.cs.uwec.edu/Notes ...
Read more

Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on ...

Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2003, Reno, Nevada, USA, February 19-23, 2003
Read more