Journal club is taking a break for August, we’ll be back in September for the United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research conference (UKICER.com), 5th & 6th of September in Manchester.
If you’ve any papers you’d like to discuss at future journal clubs, send us your paper nominations via the usual channels, see the nominate details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/papers
Many employers struggle to recruit and retain software engineers with the skills needed to contribute to the modern workplace. What do employers and educators need to do to address this wicked problem? Join us to discuss the broken pipeline problem and its potential solutions in cybersecurity and beyond on Monday 1st July at 2pm BST. We’ll be joined by Shamal Faily and James Sharp from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL – an executive agency of the UK Ministry of Defence – MoD) who will give a lightning talk summary of their paper published at the High Integrity Software Conference (HISC) in 2024. From the abstract:
Industry sectors producing High Integrity software, like Defence and Aerospace, require a consistent and reliable supply of software engineering suitably qualified and experienced persons (SQEP). Much of this SQEP is drawn from UK Computer Science undergraduate programmes. However, these sectors face several challenges meeting the quantity and quality of the desired supply. First, classic but relevant material on Software Engineering is slowly being de-emphasised from Academic Computing programmes, and even removed from specialist programmes such as Cyber Security. For example, at several institutions, modules on Software Engineering have been replaced with more restricted material on Software Design, often delivered in the first year of a degree programme. Second, because of how degree and apprenticeship accreditation criteria are interpreted, foundational topics on software requirements and specifications are delivered inconsistently. On some programmes, user needs and software requirements are considered to be synonymous. On others, material that is covered early in the curriculum is not reinforced in later years, once students begin to encounter non-trivial systems. Third, as Software Engineering is no longer an active area of research in the UK, the SQEP available to deliver best practice and research results in Software Engineering is becoming eroded. This has implications on the ability to teach material such as Model-Driven Software Engineering, but also on what ‘software engineering’ is understood to be. For example, many ICT projects employ agile methods where code is valued over documentation. Software for many critical systems is too complex to reason about independently, and – given the life span of such systems – non-software artefacts are essential for activities like validation, knowledge exchange, and certification. To begin addressing these challenges at scale, we propose three possible solutions. First, we must talk more widely about the Software Engineering SQEP pipeline problem. The more awareness there is of this pipeline problem, the more likely it is different stakeholders will start collaborating to strengthen the pipeline. Second, to halt further erosion of the Software Engineering curricula, degree accreditors need to be prepared to identify and call out anti-patterns in Software Engineering education. This should not be a punitive process, but a vehicle for proposing remediations, albeit as a pre-requisite for continued accreditation. Third, material on software certification should be embodied into the Software Engineering curriculum for all Computer Science course derivatives. Safety and Security is increasing expected by consumers in systems of all shapes and sizes, driven by a need to introduce automation throughout everyday life. Introducing a focus on certification will encourage innovation research and education around how to do this at the same pace as modern software engineering. Moreover, those with cogent knowledge should also be prepared to share it, to ensure a certification curricula can be delivered at scale across all UK HEIs.
All welcome, as usual, we’ll be meeting online joining details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us
Teamwork makes the dream work, or so the cliché goes. So how do you assess students ability to work together towards shared goals? Teaching students to collaborate in teams (agile or otherwise) is notoriously problematic. Dream work can rapidly descend into a nightmare struggle to motivate the free-riders while restraining the self-appointed dictators. Who gets the credit for what? What did the team agree on exactly? Join us to discuss how to develop students confidence and abilities to collaborate in teams of diverse engineers, from a paper published at ITiCSE. [1] From the Abstract
We had an outdated, unsuitable pair of courses covering software engineering over an academic year, which were rewritten last summer. Out went the plan-driven project approach of GANNT charts, and a belief that ‘better estimates’ would save the day. In came a lightweight focus on a mix of extreme programming and scrum to incrementally, and iteratively build products. The classroom changed too. Out went lecture slides in the classroom, plus self-directed pick and choose practical sessions. In came video-led lectures based on the pandemic experience, experiential learning, and more suitable practical sessions to guide students in what they need know to build their product prototypes.The initial results suggest we are headed in the right direction. It still needs more work, but shows students are developing products more confidently as teams of students.
We’ll be joined by Bruce Scharlau, author of the paper, who’ll give us a five minute lightning talk to kick-off our discussion about teaching team collaboration. All welcome, joining details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us/
Employers often love academic group projects while students often loathe them. How can Agile group projects be used to develop students skills, both hard technical skills and softer people skills? Join us on Monday 13th May at 2pm BST to discuss a paper on this published by Jordan Allison and his collaborators at the University of Gloucestershire and the University of Bristol in the Journal of Further and Higher Education. [1] From the abstract:
This article presents the usage of Integrated Course Design (ICD) in the design and evaluation of applying agile methodologies within an undergraduate module of study to foster the development of computer science students employability skills. Undergraduate programs of computer science typically follow traditional educational methods which can lead to students unable to connect knowledge learned in class to actual situations and students are often assessed individually, whereas collaborative group projects are more akin to industry practice. The teaching experience reported gives students the opportunity to relate concepts learnt in class to a practical group-based project. Students must meet the requirements of a ‘client’ who will provide feedback and additional challenges for students while following the Agile framework SCRUM. Positive student feedback and module grades 7.70% higher than the department average over a four year period indicates the teaching structure and assessment presented is an effective method to foster the development of technical and soft skills of undergraduate computer science students.
We’ll be joined by the co-authors who will give us a five-minute lightning talk summary of their paper to kick-off our discussion. All welcome, joining details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us
Some competencies in software engineering are either difficult to teach and/or hard to measure, especially in a purely academic environment. Professional competencies in software engineering are often easier to learn in the workplace, rather than taught in a University lab, workshop or lecture theatre. What evidence can students provide of the professional competencies they develop while employed in a, workplace? Join us on Monday 8th April at 2pm BST (UTC+1) to discuss a paper on this published in this years SIGCSE technical symposium (sigcse2024.sigcse.org) by Matthew Barr, Oana Andrei, Alistair Morrison and Syed Waqar Nabi at the University of Glasgow [1]. From the abstract:
Competencies may be defined as the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions that an individual is required to demonstrate in order to be considered professionally competent. Competency-based education has long been a feature of professional degree programs, but the discipline of Computing Science has only recently begun to embrace competencies as a means of structuring or evaluating students’ learning. Meanwhile, the practice of work-based learning – also well-established in other professional disciplines– has become more prevalent in Computing Science education, with increasing emphasis placed on work-based modes of learning, such as internships and apprenticeships. In this paper, we examine how students enrolled on a degree-level apprenticeship in Software Engineering have developed their professional competencies in the workplace. The paper is based on an analysis of 38 student assignments, wherein apprentices were asked to identify the competencies they have demonstrated, with reference to a portfolio of work. The UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence and Commitment, which outlines the competencies required for certification as an Incorporated Engineer, provided the necessary framework. Competencies relating to communication and inter-personal skills were among those most often cited by apprentices, with competencies relating to knowledge and understanding and design and development systems also featuring prominently. Competencies relating to responsibility, management, or leadership were less prevalent, with professional commitment proving to be the least commonly cited category of competencies. We provide examples of how apprentices claim to have demonstrated each competency, and discuss the implications of these findings for competency-based learning in Computing Science education
We’ll be joined by the co-authors who will give us a five-minute lightning talk summary of their paper to kick-off our discussion. All welcome, joining details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us
CC licensed image from flaticon.com
How can we increase participation of women in computing? How can we recruit and retain more women to study computing? Curricula are an obvious place to start. Understanding student motivations for their learning choices can help educators develop more effective programs of study. Join us to discuss a paper modeling women’s elective choices in computing by Steven Bradley, Miranda C. Parker, Rukiye Altin, Lecia Barker, Sara Hooshangi, Thom Kunkeler, Ruth G. Lennon, Fiona McNeill, Julià Minguillón, Jack Parkinson, Svetlana Peltsverger and Naaz Sibia from the Proceedings of the 2023 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE). From the abstract:
Evidence-based strategies suggest ways to reduce the gender gap in computing. For example, elective classes are valuable in enabling students to choose in which directions to expand their computing knowledge in areas aligned with their interests. The availability of electives of interest may also make computing programs of study more meaningful to women. However, research on which elective computing topics are more appealing to women is often class or institution specific. In this study, we investigate differences in enrollment within undergraduate-level elective classes in computing to study differences between women and men. The study combined data from nine institutions from both Western Europe and North America and included 272 different classes with 49,710 student enrollments. These classes were encoded using ACM curriculum guidelines and combined with the enrollment data to build a hierarchical statistical model of factors affecting student choice. Our model shows which elective topics are less popular with all students (including fundamentals of programming languages and parallel and distributed computing), and which elective topics are more popular with women students (including mathematical and statistical foundations, human computer interaction and society, ethics, and professionalism). Understanding which classes appeal to different students can help departments gain insight of student choices and develop programs accordingly. Additionally, these choices can also help departments explore whether some students are less likely to choose certain classes than others, indicating potential barriers to participation in computing.
We’ll be joined by some of the co-authors of the paper who will give us a five minute lightning talk summary to kick-off our discussion. As usual we’ll be meeting on zoom, all welcome, joining details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us
CC licensed image via flaticon.com
“See one, do one, teach one” is a popular technique for teaching surgery to medical students. It has three steps:
If you’re teaching engineers, what do you need to know beyond the seeing and doing? Understanding how human memory and learning works and the differences between beginners and experts can improve your teaching. So what practical steps can engineers take to improve the training and development of other engineers? What do engineers need to know in order to improve their own learning?
Join us on Monday 5th February at 2pm GMT (UTC) for our monthly ACM SIGCSE journal club meetup on zoom to discuss a paper on this topic by Neil Brown, Felienne Hermans and Lauren Margulieux, published in (and featured on the cover of) the January issue of Communications of the ACM. [1]
We’ll be joined by the lead author, Neil Brown of King’s College London, who will give us a lightning talk summary of the paper to kick off our discussion.
All welcome, as usual, we’ll be meeting on zoom, details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us
Rather than meeting online in January, we’ll be meeting in person. So join us at Durham University for the annual Computing Education Practice (CEP) conference which takes place on Friday 5th January, with a pre-conference dinner in the evening of Thursday 4th January.
Thanks to our program chair Jane Waite, general chair Ryan Crosby and program committee for organising this event.
The full conference program and registration details are available at cepconference.webspace.durham.ac.uk/programme
How good is generative AI at passing exams? What does this tell us about how we could design better assessments? Join us on Monday 4th December at 2pm GMT (UTC) to discuss a paper on this by Joyce Mahon, Brian Mac Namee and Brett Becker at University College Dublin published at UKICER earlier this year. [1] From the abstract:
We investigate the capabilities of ChatGPT (GPT-4) on second level (high-school) computer science examinations: the UK A-Level and Irish Leaving Certificate. Both are national, government-set / approved, and centrally assessed examinations. We also evaluate performance differences in exams made publicly available before and after the ChatGPT knowledge cutoff date, and investigate what types of question ChatGPT struggles with.
We find that ChatGPT is capable of achieving very high marks on both exams and that the performance difference before and after the knowledge cutoff date are minimal. We also observe that ChatGPT struggles with questions involving symbols or images, which can be mitigated when in-text information ‘fills in the gaps’. Additionally, GPT-4 performance can be negatively impacted when an initial inaccurate answer leads to further inaccuracies in subsequent parts of the same question. Finally, the element of choice on the Leaving Certificate is a significant advantage in achieving a high grade. Notably, there are minimal occurrences of hallucinations in answers and few errors in solutions not involving images.
These results reveal several strengths and weaknesses of these exams in terms of how generative AI performs on them and have implications for exam design, the construction of marking schemes, and could also shift the focus of what is examined and how.
We’ll be joined by the papers lead author Joyce, who will give us a lightning talk summary of her paper to start our discussion. All welcome, as usual we’ll be meeting on zoom details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us
All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances. And one teacher in their time plays many parts.
As students watch academic actors enter and exit their lecture theatres on University campuses around the world, what role can drama play in their teaching and learning? How can theatre and storytelling facilitate students understanding of whatever is they are supposed to be learning?
Are we walking shadows and poor players that strut and fret our hour upon the stage, and then are heard no more? Do we tell tales like an idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing? In short, how much should teachers embrace theatricality, both amateur and professional, on their respective stages? Can drama and storytelling actually improve students learning and if so, how? 🎭
Join us on Monday 6th November at 2pm UTC for our monthly ACM SIGCSE journal club meetup on zoom to discuss a paper on this topic by David Malan. [1] From the abstract
In Fall 2020, Harvard University transitioned entirely from on-campus instruction to Zoom online. But a silver lining of that time was unprecedented availability of space on campus, including the university’s own repertory theater. In healthier times, that theater would be brimming with talented artisans and weekly performances, without any computer science in sight. But with that theater’s artisans otherwise idled during COVID-19, our introductory course, CS50, had an unusual opportunity to collaborate with the same. Albeit subject to rigorous protocols, including face masks and face shields for all but the course’s instructor, along with significant social distancing, that moment in time allowed us an opportunity to experiment with lights, cameras, and action on an actual stage, bringing computer science to life in ways not traditionally possible in the course’s own classroom. Equipped with an actual prop shop in back, the team of artisans was able to actualize ideas that might otherwise only exist in slides and code. And students’ experience proved the better for it, with a supermajority of students attesting at term’s end to the efficacy of almost all of the semester’s demonstrations. We present in this work the design and implementation of the course’s theatricality along with the motivation therefor and results thereof. And we discuss how we have adapted, and others can adapt, these same moments more modestly in healthier times to more traditional classrooms, large and small.
This paper was presented at the SIGCSE 2023 Technical Symposium in Toronto, a video presentation of the paper is also available below. All welcome, as usual, we’ll be meeting on zoom, details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us