Reflecting on CS222 Spring 2023 and the problem of participation

This was my second semester using Dart and Flutter in CS222, and I have no regrets about the platform  and language change. I still have many lingering questions about how best to introduce the topics and pace them, and I have some related research questions as well: Does learning null safety make students better or worse at managing null values when using a non-null-safe language? Does Flutter's declarative UI approach make students more or less able to learn other UI frameworks—as well as game engines—later?

The other major change that was made just this semester was the separation of assigned non-project work into "activities" and "challenges," where the latter can be resubmitted for a higher grade a la mastery learning but the former are fixed in time. From a philosophical point of view, I think this also worked, in that it captured in words something that was previously only in my mind. The presentation and distinction among these can be clarified to the students, and it probably should be, given the small but non-zero number of students who tried to resubmit "activities."

There were three projects this semester, and all of the teams did a fine job bringing the programs together. Unfortunately, all three also dropped the ball at the end when it came to rigor. Some had made changes to their code that broke their unit tests, while others had no indication of understanding TDD despite having reasonable model-view separation. Put another way, I think they got caught up in cowboy coding at the end, trying to make it work rather than trying to make it right. This is a strong temptation to students, and while it's frustrating, it is also an excellent assessment of whether or not they learned the topics of the class. The central topic of the course is, essentially, that software development should be done right. I don't think there are any traps here besides the ones the students set for themselves, but I will continue to try to find ways to keep the presentation of expectations clear. I still suspect that very few students actually read and review the requirements, preferring to do what they want rather than what I ask.

A much more troubling observation from the semester is the very low levels of participation in the mastery grading aspect of the class. I haven't kept rigorous notes, but I remember feeling like participation was low last semester. This may be a trick memory, though, given how many other people on campus are talking about low engagement rates. I sat with my spreadsheet this morning to try to quantify participation, and I have included the table below.

Score
3	10	10	4	4	3	7	3	5
2	0	1	6	4	4	1	1	1
1	1	1	3	0	1	0	4	1
0	3	2	1	6	6	6	6	7
% Satisfactory	71.43%	78.57%	71.43%	57.14%	50.00%	57.14%	28.57%	42.86%

The columns after the first are the challenges. Following triage grading, a student can earn 3, 2, 1, or 0 points for each: 3 means it's basically correct, 1 means it is incorrect, 2 means it is middling, and 0 means it was not turned in. 

The table tells an important story of the semester. The first challenges, which were quite easy, were completed successfully by almost everybody. Not all of these were successfully completed on the first try, of course, but they were done. Almost immediately, by week two, there's a significant decline in correctness. This is followed, between weeks two and three, by a significant decline in participation. By the fourth challenge, a plurality of students did not submit anything at all. They also did not take the opportunity to resubmit this work despite many reminders and even admonitions. To be clear, especially at the end of the second iteration of the final project, I pointed out to them the low rates of participation, and I posed the question, "How will you be able to apply principles for chapters you haven't read?"

It's not a rhetorical question, but no one was able to answer it. I am really baffled. It should be no surprise that "good students" did the reading, submitted things, got some feedback, and then showed some understanding of the concepts. I really don't know what happened with the other ones. Did they forget, time and again? It's possible, since they also don't write anything down. Did they not care? Also possible: maybe they see the class as an impediment to be avoided rather than an adventure to be undertaken. 

Here's the real kicker: 5% of the students' grades comes from participation in the achievement system. The achievements are meant to be fun explorations of new ideas that clearly connect the concepts of the class with students' interests. Many are designed to help them become better learners. This semester, only two students submitted any achievements at all. Those two earned 10 and 12 points out of possible 12. No one else submitted any, nor did they even ask about them, despite repeated reminders. What makes a student look at a part of a class like this and simply reject it? The conventional wisdom for teachers is that if you value something, put points on it, but when 12/14 of the class won't even pursue the points, you know there must be something else going on.

Without answers to those questions, I am left unsure of what kinds of change might improve participation. I have kicked around some ideas of a major overhaul to the course, using only badges and gated progressions. Given my other goals for the summer, though, I don't think I will have the spare cycles to commit to something like that.