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
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
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
Why do some students achieve more than others? Students goals, their belief in their ability to reach those goals and their prior experience are key factors. But how do they interplay? Join us for our monthly ACM SIGCSE journal club meetup on Zoom to discuss a prize-winning paper [1] on this topic by Hannu Pesonen, Juho Leinonen, Lassi Haaranen and Arto Hellas from Aalto University in Finland and the University of Auckland. From the abstract:
We explore achievement goal orientations, self-efficacy, gender, and prior experience, and look into their interplay in order to understand their contributions to course performance. Our results provide evidence for the appropriateness of the three-factor achievement goal orientation model (performance, mastery approach, mastery avoidance) over the more pervasive four-factor model. We observe that the aspects and the model factors correlate with course achievement. However, when looking into the interplay of the aspects and the model factors, the observations change and the role of, for example, self-efficacy as an aspect contributing to course achievement diminishes. Our study highlights the need to further explore the interplay of aspects contributing to course achievement.
We’ll be joined by one of the papers co-authors, Hannu, who’ll give a lightning talk summary to kick off our discussion. This paper won a best paper award at ukicer.com this year. All welcome, meeting details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us
Microcredentials are mini-qualifications that allow learners to provide evidence of their broader skills alongside their traditional academic awards. How can these awards be integrated into existing educational qualifications? Join us on Monday 4th September at 2pm BST (UTC+1) to discuss a paper on this topic by Rupert Ward, Tom Crick, James H. Davenport, Paul Hanna, Alan Hayes, Alastair Irons, Keith Miller, Faron Moller, Tom Prickett and Julie Walters. From the abstract:
Employers are increasingly selecting and developing employees based on skills rather than qualifications. Governments now have a growing focus on skilling, reskilling and upskilling the workforce through skills-based development rather than qualifications as a way of improving productivity. Both these changes are leading to a much stronger interest in digital badging and micro-credentialing that enables a more granular, skills-based development of learner-earners. This paper explores the use of an online skills profiling tool that can be used by designers, educators, researchers, employers and governments to understand how badges and micro-credentials can be incorporated within existing qualifications and how skills developed within learning can be compared and aligned to those sought in job roles. This work, and lessons learnt from the case study examples of computing-related degree programmes in the UK, also highlights exciting opportunities for educational providers to develop and accommodate personalised learning into existing formal education structures across a range of settings and contexts.
We’ll be joined by Rupert Ward and some of the other co-authors of the paper who will give a five-minute lightning talk to kick-off our discussion. All welcome, as usual we’ll be meeting on Zoom, details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us.
What is the most dangerous course to teach in Computing? Join us on Monday 7th August at 2pm BST (UTC+1) to discuss an opinion piece by Tony Clear from Auckland University of Technology on this very subject. Tony argues that introductory programming (aka CS1) is the most dangerous course for educators to teach. Do you agree with him? From the intro to his paper:
This column reflects on some of my own experiences, observations, and research insights into CS1 teaching over more than 25 years in my own institution and others. The challenges facing first year programming educators and the inability of universities and their managers to learn from the copious literature relating to the teaching of introductory programming seem to be perennial. This places first year programming educators in some peril!
All welcome, as usual, we’ll be meeting on zoom, details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us. Thanks to James Davenport at the University of Bath for nominating this months paper. 🙏
The textbook has long been a mainstay of education. Although online textbooks can give students easy (and sometimes free) access to increasingly interactive resources, authors have a bewildering array of tools and publishing models to select from. Software such as asciidoctor.org, bookdown.org, leanpub.com, pretextbook.org, quarto.org, rephactor.com, runestone.academy, zybooks.com, and many others allow instructors to publish course material freed from the constraints of printed paper, monolithic Learning Management Systems (LMSs) and Monolithic Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Join us on Monday 12th of June at 2pm BST (UTC+1) to discuss a paper describing one example: Dive Into Systems an undergraduate textbook on computer systems. We’ll be joined the co-authors of a paper [1] and corresponding textbook by Suzanne Matthews, Tia Newhall and Kevin C. Webb from Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania and the United States Military Academy at westpoint.edu, New York. 🇺🇸 From the abstract of their paper:
This paper presents our experiences, motivations, and goals for developing Dive into Systems, a new, free, online textbook that introduces computer systems, computer organisation, and parallel computing. Our book’s topic coverage is designed to give readers a gentle and broad introduction to these important topics. It teaches the fundamentals of computer systems and architecture, introduces skills for writing efficient programs, and provides necessary background to prepare students for advanced study in computer systems topics. Our book assumes only a CS1 background of the reader and is designed to be useful to a range of courses as a primary textbook for courses that introduce computer systems topics or as an auxiliary textbook to provide systems background in other courses. Results of an evaluation from students and faculty at 18 institutions who used a beta release of our book show overwhelmingly strong support for its coverage of computer systems topics, its readability, and its availability. Chapters are reviewed and edited by external volunteers from the CS education community. Their feedback, as well as that of student and faculty users, is continuously incorporated into its online content at diveintosystems.org/book
We’ll also be discussing options for adding interactivity to textbooks, see diveintosystems.org/sigcse23. So join us to find out more about what the future of textbooks might look like using Dive Into Systems as an exemplar. All welcome, as usual, we’ll be meeting on zoom, details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us
Nominate papers you’d like us to discuss at future journal club meetings at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/papers.
More and more software development tools are available in the cloud, with tools like Replit, CodingRooms, GitHub Codespaces, Amazon Web Services Cloud9, JetBrains and Eclipse all offering online tools for developers to code collaboratively in the cloud. Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) which have traditionally been available as “fatter” clients are increasingly available as “thinner” web-based clients running in a browser. These tools can lower some of the barriers to installation and maintenance for their users. What are the strengths and weaknesses of these new tools for teaching introductory programming courses? Join us on Monday 6th February at 2pm GMT to discuss a paper by Phil Hackett and his colleagues at the Open University on this very topic [1], from the abstract:
This paper discusses a pilot research project, which investigated the use of online collaborative IDEs (Integrated development environments) during a first-year computing degree course. The IDEs used can be described as virtual computing labs because they replicate some of the actions possible in physical computing labs. Students were supported by a tutor with real-time help and feedback provided, whilst they were programming, without being collocated. The use of two different platforms is considered with the benefits and drawbacks discussed. Students and tutors indicated that they would like to use a virtual computing lab approach in the future.
We’ll be joined by the lead author of the paper Phil Hackett, who’ll give us a lightning talk summary of the paper to kick-off our journal club discussion. The paper was presented at Computing Education Practice (CEP) in Durham earlier this month. [1]
All welcome, as usual we’ll be meeting on zoom, details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us.
Computing is widely taught in schools in the UK and Ireland, but how does the subject vary across primary and secondary education in Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland? Join us to discuss via a paper published at UKICER.com by Sue Sentance, Diana Kirby, Keith Quille, Elizabeth Cole, Tom Crick and Nicola Looker. [1]
Many countries have increased their focus on computing in primary and secondary education in recent years and the UK and Ireland are no exception. The four nations of the UK have distinct and separate education systems, with England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland offering different national curricula, qualifications, and teacher education opportunities; this is the same for the Republic of Ireland. This paper describes computing education in these five jurisdictions and reports on the results of a survey conducted with computing teachers. A validated instrument was localised and used for this study, with 512 completed responses received from teachers across all five countries The results demonstrate distinct differences in the experiences of the computing teachers surveyed that align with the policy and provision for computing education in the UK and Ireland. This paper increases our understanding of the differences in computing education provision in schools across the UK and Ireland, and will be relevant to all those working to understand policy around computing education in school.
(we’ll be joined by the co-authors of the paper: Sue Sentance and Diana Kirby from the University of Cambridge and the Raspberry Pi Foundation with a lightning talk summary to start our discussion)
All welcome, as usual we’ll be meeting on zoom, details at sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us. Thanks to Joseph Maguire at the University of Glasgow for proposing this months paper.