Tag Archives: cs1

Join us to discuss the most dangerous course to teach in Computing on Monday 7th August at 2pm BST

Posted on by
Skeleton image from flaticon.com

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. 🙏

References

  1. Clear, Tony (2022) CS1: The Most Dangerous Course for CS Educators to Teach? ACM Inroads, Volume 13, issue 4, DOI:10.1145/3571089

Join us on Zoom to dive into open online interactive textbook publishing on Monday 12th June at 2pm BST

Posted on by
CC licensed Scuba diver by flaticon.com

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.

References

  1. Suzanne J. Matthews, Tia Newhall and Kevin C. Webb (2021) Dive into Systems: A Free, Online Textbook for Introducing Computer Systems SIGCSE ’21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Pages 1110–1116 DOI: 10.1145/3408877.3432514

Join us to discuss failure rates in introductory programming courses on Monday 1st February at 2pm GMT

Posted on by
Reply
Icons made by freepik from flaticon.com

Following on from our discussion of ungrading, this month we’ll be discussing pass/fail rates in introductory programming courses. [1] Here is the abstract:

Vast numbers of publications in computing education begin with the premise that programming is hard to learn and hard to teach. Many papers note that failure rates in computing courses, and particularly in introductory programming courses, are higher than their institutions would like. Two distinct research projects in 2007 and 2014 concluded that average success rates in introductory programming courses world-wide were in the region of 67%, and a recent replication of the first project found an average pass rate of about 72%. The authors of those studies concluded that there was little evidence that failure rates in introductory programming were concerningly high.

However, there is no absolute scale by which pass or failure rates are measured, so whether a failure rate is concerningly high will depend on what that rate is compared against. As computing is typically considered to be a STEM subject, this paper considers how pass rates for introductory programming courses compare with those for other introductory STEM courses. A comparison of this sort could prove useful in demonstrating whether the pass rates are comparatively low, and if so, how widespread such findings are.

This paper is the report of an ITiCSE working group that gathered information on pass rates from several institutions to determine whether prior results can be confirmed, and conducted a detailed comparison of pass rates in introductory programming courses with pass rates in introductory courses in other STEM disciplines.

The group found that pass rates in introductory programming courses appear to average about 75%; that there is some evidence that they sit at the low end of the range of pass rates in introductory STEM courses; and that pass rates both in introductory programming and in other introductory STEM courses appear to have remained fairly stable over the past five years. All of these findings must be regarded with some caution, for reasons that are explained in the paper. Despite the lack of evidence that pass rates are substantially lower than in other STEM courses, there is still scope to improve the pass rates of introductory programming courses, and future research should continue to investigate ways of improving student learning in introductory programming courses.

Anyone is welcome to join us. As usual, we’ll be meeting on zoom, see sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us for details.

Thanks to Brett Becker and Joseph Allen for this months #paper-suggestions via our slack channel at uk-acm-sigsce.slack.com.

References

  1. Simon, Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Vangel V. Ajanovski, Eric Fouh, Christabel Gonsalvez, Juho Leinonen, Jack Parkinson, Matthew Poole, Neena Thota (2019) Pass Rates in Introductory Programming and in other STEM Disciplines in ITiCSE-WGR ’19: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Pages 53–71 DOI: 10.1145/3344429.3372502

Join us to discuss ungraded assessment on Monday 4th January at 2pm GMT

Posted on by
Reply
Image via Good Ware and monkik edited by Bruce The Deus, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons w.wiki/qWo

The more time students spend thinking about their grades, the less time they spend thinking about their learning.

Ungraded (pass or fail) assessment provides an alternative to letter grading (A, B, C etc) which can address this issue. Join us on Monday 4th January at 2pm to discuss a new paper by David Malan which describes removing traditional letter grading from CS50: An introduction to Computer Science [1]. Heres is the abstract:

In 2010, we proposed to eliminate letter grades in CS50 at Harvard University in favor of Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory (SAT / UNS), whereby students would instead receive at term’s end a grade of SAT in lieu of A through C- or UNS in lieu of D+ through E. Albeit designed to empower students without prior background to explore an area beyond their comfort zone without fear of failure, that proposal initially failed. Not only were some concentrations on campus unwilling to grant credit for SAT, the university’s program in general education (of which CS50 was part) required that all courses be taken for letter grades.

In 2013, we instead proposed, this time successfully, to allow students to take CS50 either for a letter grade or SAT/UNS. And in 2017, we made SAT/UNS the course’s default, though students could still opt out. The percentage of students taking the course SAT/UNS jumped that year to 31%, up from 9% in the year prior, with as many as 86 of the course’s 671 students (13%) reporting that they enrolled because of SAT/UNS. The percentage of women in the course also increased to 44%, a 29-year high. And 19% of students who took the course SAT/UNS subsequently reported that their concentration would be or might be CS. Despite concerns to the contrary, students taking the course SAT/UNS reported spending not less but more time on the course each week than letter-graded classmates. And, once we accounted for prior background, they performed nearly the same.

We present the challenges and results of this 10-year initiative. We argue ultimately in favor of SAT/UNS, provided students must still meet all expectations, including all work submitted, in order to be eligible for SAT.

As usual, we’ll be meeting on zoom, see sigcse.cs.manchester.ac.uk/join-us for details.

References

  1. David Malan (2021) Toward an Ungraded CS50. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’21), March 13–20, 2021, Virtual Event, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA. DOI:10.1145/3408877.3432461

Join us to discuss student misconceptions in programming, March 23rd from 1pm to 2pm

Posted on by
Reply
The Scream by Edvard Munch 😱, reproduced in LEGO by Nathan Sawaya, the BrickArtist.com

Join us to discuss Identifying Student Misconceptions of Programming by Lisa Kaczmarczyk et al [1] which was voted a top paper from the last 50 years by SIGCSE members in 2019. Here is a summary:

Computing educators are often baffled by the misconceptions that their CS1 students hold. We need to understand these misconceptions more clearly in order to help students form correct conceptions. This paper describes one stage in the development of a concept inventory for Computing Fundamentals: investigation of student misconceptions in a series of core CS1 topics previously identified as both important and difficult. Formal interviews with students revealed four distinct themes, each containing many interesting misconceptions. Three of those misconceptions are detailed in this paper: two misconceptions about memory models, and data assignment when primitives are declared. Individual misconceptions are related, but vary widely, thus providing excellent material to use in the development of the CI. In addition, CS1 instructors are provided immediate usable material for helping their students understand some difficult introductory concepts.

In case you’re wondering, CS1 refers to the first course in the introductory sequence of a computer science major (in American parlance), roughly equivalent to first year undergraduate in the UK. CI refers to a Concept Inventory, a test designed to tell teachers exactly what students know and don’t know. According to Reinventing Nerds, the paper has been influential because it was the “first to apply rigorous research methods to investigating misconceptions”.

References

  1. Kaczmarczyk, Lisa C.; Petrick, Elizabeth R.; East, J. Philip; Herman, Geoffrey L. (2010). Identifying student misconceptions of programming, SIGCSE ’10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 107–111. doi:10.1145/1734263.1734299