Thursday, December 30, 2010

Fall CS222 Redux

I'm teaching CS222: Advanced Programming again in Spring. Fall was the first offering of the course, and in the grand scheme of things, I am happy with the results. However, I think think there are many opportunities for improvement. The course had two major components:
  1. Daily writing assignments, many of which were based on readings of Effective Java, relating the lessons of that book to current and past programming tasks.
  2. A few small individual programming assignments early, a two-week pair project at the early-middle, and a six-week team project delivered in two milestones.
In keeping with the "2" theme, there are two key observations I have upon reflecting on the course. The first is fairly simple: when we spent some time reflecting on how we learned, reading Effective Java did not come up. I spoke with some students after the meeting who admitted that for most of the class, they saw this as busywork, but towards the end, they could see more how it related to their work. Some students complained that the readings weren't tied to lecture and that they didn't like the "textbook," which betrays the fact that they didn't really get the point: it's not a "textbook," and it was supposed to affect practice, not waste time being reiterated in lecture.

The other observation is more confounding. In the six-week project, there was a milestone deliverable and presentation at week three. I explained to the class that it was purely a formative assessment: it would let them get feedback and see what their grade would be if they turned this in. In addition, the students were given a checklist of the features and ideas I expected to see in the project (such as automated unit tests and evidence of best practices a la Effective Java). Many of the milestone deliverables lacked required elements, and so their formative evaluation reflected this. I was explicit in my feedback about what was lacking. In the final deliverable, at the end of the semester, most projects still lacked those elements that were lacking at week three. That is, there is no evidence that any team actually used the formative evaluation to influence their practice!

In the final analysis, another interesting and perhaps predictable trend emerges: students' grades on the writing assignments were not significantly different from their grades on the programming assignments.

Here are some ideas I'm kicking around for revising the course. I welcome your comments.
  • More programming projects. They should be programming all the time.
  • Require programming projects to have accompanying technical reports that explicitly connect the artifact to theory.
  • Rather than provide goalposts for students to show competency in specific skills, provide a list of concepts and allow students to demonstrate competency in their own way. That is, provide them with a checklist of sorts that they keep throughout the semester, and that I check off when I believe they have shown adequate competency in an area. The course grade then would be directly and transparently derived from this document.
  • Rather than assign specific sections of Effective Java as I find them interesting, require students to browse the book and understand its structure, then require them to incorporate relevant areas into their programs throughout the semester. That is, replace assigned reading&writing assignments with student-directed inquiry.
  • Introduce Mercurial very early in the semester and require all projects to be hosted. This way, I can easily pull up any student's project during lecture to use as an example with fiddling with switching laptops or strange computer configurations.
  • Mandate some kind of individual accountability into team projects, such as modified Sprint Burndown charts. This would help students learn to identify tasks and estimate effort in addition to increasing the transparency of team operation.
The main problem for which I do not yet have a solution comes down to the teams' need for individualized consultation balanced against teams' dominant interests in their own projects. The students develop their own project ideas, and so each project is different. Hence, the concepts and tools that one team needs to succeed will be different from another. For example, I had one team in Fall who were using Android: they would have benefited from more time spent with me discussing how to architect Android applications, but this would probably not have been motivating to anyone other team. By itself this is not a problem, since I could add "work days" to the class schedule, during which time I would circulate among teams and provide more guidance. (Note that office hours inevitably do not coincide with student working hours: they're in class while I'm available to help, and when they're working, I'm at home.) There is an opportunity for students to share their individual findings through class presentations, but I have not yet found a good mechanism for adequately incentivising both presenters and the audience. I do not want to introduce inauthentic artifacts purely for assessment, such as graded quizzes or audience feedback, but I have a hard time conceiving of an authentic incentive that could be used.

For what it's worth, I'm still quite on the fence regarding adding "work days" to the course meeting schedule. The class does not have a scheduled lab component, but maybe it needs one. On this issue, I have a hard time separating my knowledge about teaching and learning, my intuition, and my own K-12 and undergraduate experience. Added into the mix, I am not sure how many of these problems are really due to structural issues beyond my control, namely the fact that this is one of several disconnected learning experiences that students are engaged in. However, this would certainly help with my sense that I was talking too much in class.

No comments:

Post a Comment