Friday, July 26, 2013

Revising Courses, Part III: Advanced Programming

was straightforward, and was an incremental improvement. Now, I will share the story of the biggest renovation in my Summer of Course Revision: complete renovation of my Advanced Programming course.



CS222: Advanced Programming has been around for about four years now, and I have taught it more often than any other. Several posts on my blog reflect on this course, including from the first semester's experience and reflecting on this past academic year. For the past several offerings, I have used the same fundamental course structure: , using daily or weekly writing assignments for the first several weeks, gradually turning toward a focus on a pair-programmed two-week project and then a small-team six-week project. I have been basically happy with the structure, but reflecting on my experiences, I identified the following pain points:




* The course was sequenced along a particular path of learning that did not resonate with all the students.

* There was not enough mastery learning: students would often do poorly on an assignment and clearly not revisit it, since weeks later, they still didn't understand the concept. This caused especial pain when these assignments covered technology that was core to my pedagogy such as distributed version control.

* It was easy to slip into a mode where I would talk for the whole class meeting. The studio orientation--through which students show artifacts that represent their learning, and these artifacts are subject to formal and informal peer and expert critique--was not guaranteed in my course structure: it relied on daily ingenuity rather than codified form. (The time and space constraints imposed by the university negatively affect studio orientation as well, but these are beyond my control.)

* It was not clear that all the team members were engaged in reflective practice when working on their projects. That is, I felt that there were people falling in the cracks, not learning adequately from the team projects, sometimes dues to lack of reflection and sometimes due to lack of practice.

* Students enter the course with high variance in knowledge, skill, experience, and motivation.



In addressing these pain points, I wanted to make sure I kept all the good parts of the course. Students work in teams on projects of their own design, using industrial-strength tools and techniques. Teams have to incorporate some kind of management techniques and give multiple milestone presentations, both of which remind students about the "soft skills" of Computer Science. There is a good overall flavor of , , object orientation with , and the importance of and lifetime learning.



If you've read my posts, you probably see where this is going! I decided to replace the daily and weekly assignments with a system of course achievements (a.k.a. ), and students will write reflections that relate the achievements to of the course. The , or you can choose to view .



I have developed the following set of essential questions:



* What does it mean to be a "professional" in software development?

* How do you know when a feature is done?

* How do small teams of developers coordinate activity?

* How does a Computer Science professional use ubiquitous and chaotic information to be a lifetime learner?



As in my , students' grades will be based on number of achievements earned and written reflections on those experiences. There are also four "meta-achievements" that can be earned by completing sets of regular achievements. These are and reflect four different potential paths of mastery: a Clean Coder has documented evidence of applying ideas from each of the first twelve chapters of the book; a White-Collar has demonstrated savvy at project management and presentation; an Engineer is moving toward an understanding of software architecture and patterns; and a User-Centered Designer has designed, evaluated, and iterated on user-facing systems. The introduction of these meta-achievements was partially inspired by an alumnus who, when I told him about this redesign, said that most courses were like a Call of Duty game, but that this was more like Deus Ex, and that it would benefit from having more quests.

I want to help students succeed in this kind of learning environment, and so the first month is designed to help them understand what it means for them to have more ownership over course activity. In the first week, I will provide a review of important CS1 and CS2 topics, focusing on the mechanics of object-oriented programming in Java. Knowing that student experience and comfort with this material is highly variable, I can use this week to focus on how to navigate the course structure. In fact, I will strongly recommend that their first achievement is Studious, which requires them to read 's excellent and write a study plan for the semester.

We will still use as a shared focus, but I have changed how I am scaffolding students' experience in integrating its expert tips. Previously, I had identified specific tips or chapters for students to read and then asked them to apply these tips to their projects--past or current. There was little evidence that this "stuck" with the students, as later coursework would violate the concepts supposedly learned. This was, in part, due to lack of mastery learning, where students would accept a low grade and move on without having learned the material. Furthermore, because we paced Clean Code readings and assignments through the semester, I would frequently encounter examples in class and in critiques that afforded application of a tip that the students had not yet studied. In the revised course, we will read the book relatively quickly, but then keep returning to it in informal expert critiques, adopting an iterative approach that is more apropos to how one learns and remembers these tips: a bit at a time, and a bit more next time.

In my , students are required to present to the class to earn their achievements, but the enrollment in that course is half that of this one. I toyed with the idea of having my CS222 students post their work on the walls, a portion of the class each day, but I feared that this would have too many negative consequences. Instead, I am requiring students to post their artifacts to a wiki, and my intention is to review the wiki changes between class meetings to identify notable entries. This way, I can bring up the wiki on the projector and model an appropriate critical process. I can also insert mini-lectures as necessary to clarify misunderstandings. I am eager (or perhaps anxious) to see how the density of misunderstandings in this redesigned course, which encourages mastery learning through reflection, compares to that of my current status quo, which encourages correctness up front. We'll be using BlackBoard's wiki only because it's easy for all the students to find; it was frustrating to me during my experimentation that it has no editor. If the wiki turns out not to work for us, we can always move to an in-person poster-style presentation.



Since I will be doing more just-in-time teaching--reacting to students' insights and confusions--I have decided to expand the conventional six-week, two-milestone project to three milestones over about eight weeks. The students like this part of class the most, and I like the idea of adding another milestone, since this gives them another opportunity to learn from mistakes in tools, design, organizational structures, and presentation. For both this large project and the small project, I will provide common requirements that everyone must follow, such as using distributed version control. Previously, these things were simply worth some points on the project; however, if I want to focus on assessing their reflections while also requiring some shared technological experience, it's fairly easily done with a hard-and-fast requirement. With multiple milestones, there will be an opportunity to ensure each team is following the requirements. For example, if I see a team not using DVCS, then I can remind them.



I am eager to see how students take these changes. I expect to be able to blog about some of the day-to-day experiences, and I anticipate writing some academic papers on aggregate student performance in all these modified classes.



Here are the critical links again:
Full Post

No comments:

Post a Comment