Posts tagged ‘evaluation’

Attending the amazing 2017 Computing at School conference #CASConf17

June 17, Barbara and I attended the Computing at School conference in Birmingham, England (which I wrote about here).  The slides from my talk are below. I highly recommend the summary from Duncan Hull which I quote at the bottom.

CAS was a terrifically fun event. It was packed full with 300 attendees. I under-estimated the length of my talk (I tend to talk too fast), so instead of a brief Q&A, there was almost half the time for Q&A. Interacting with the audience to answer teachers’ questions was more fun (and hopefully, more useful and entertaining) than me talking for longer. The session was well received based on the Tweets I read. In fact, that’s probably the best way to get a sense for the whole day — on Twitter, hashtag #CASConf17. (I’m going to try to embed some tweets with pictures below.)

Barbara’s two workshops on Media Computation in Python using our ebooks went over really well.

I enjoyed my interactions all day long. I was asked about research results in just about every conversation — the CAS teachers are eager to see what computing education research can offer them.  I met several computing education research PhD students, which was particularly exciting and fun. England takes computing education research seriously.

Miles Berry demonstrated Project Quantum by having participants answer questions from the database.  That was an engaging and fascinating interactive presentation.

Linda Liukas gave a terrific closing keynote. She views the world from a perspective that reminded me of Mitchel Resnick’s Lifelong Kindergarten and Seymour Papert’s playfulness. I was inspired.

The session that most made me think was from Peter Kemp on the report that he and co-authors have just completed on the state of computing education in England. That one deserves a separate blog post – coming Wednesday.

Check out Duncan’s summary of the conference:

The Computing At School (CAS) conference is an annual event for educators, mostly primary and secondary school teachers from the public and private sector in the UK. Now in its ninth year, it attracts over 300 delegates from across the UK and beyond to the University of Birmingham, see the brochure for details. One of the purposes of the conference is to give teachers new ideas to use in their classrooms to teach Computer Science and Computational Thinking. I went along for my first time (*blushes*) seeking ideas to use in an after school Code Club (ages 7-10) I’ve been running for a few years and also for approaches that undergraduate students in Computer Science (age 20+) at the University of Manchester could use in their final year Computer Science Education projects that I supervise. So here are nine ideas (in random brain dump order) I’ll be putting to immediate use in clubs, classrooms, labs and lecture theatres:

Source: Nine ideas for teaching Computing at School from the 2017 CAS conference | O’Really?

My talk slides:

July 10, 2017 at 7:00 am 1 comment

SIGCSE 2016 Preview: Miranda Parker replicated the FCS1

I’ve been waiting a long time to write this post, though I do so even now with some trepidation.

In 2010, Allison Elliott Tew completed her dissertation on building FCS1, the first language-independent and validated measure of introductory computer science knowledge (see this post summarizing the work). The FCS1 was a significant accomplishment, but it didn’t get used much. Allison had concerns about the test becoming freely available and no longer useful as a research instrument.

Miranda Parker joined our group and replicated the FCS1. She created an isomorphic test (which we’re calling SCS1 for Secondary CS1 instrument — it comes after the first). She then followed a rigorous process for replicating a validated instrument, including think-aloud protocols to check usability (do the problems read as she meant them?), large-scale counter-balanced study using both tests, and analysis, including correlational and item-response theory (IRT) analysis. Her results support that SCS1 is effectively identical to FCS1, but also point out the weaknesses of both tests and why we need more and better assessments.

(Note: Complaining in this paragraph — some readers might just want to skip this.) As the first time anyone had ever replicated a validated CS research instrument, the process is a significant result. SIGCSE reviewers did not agree. The Associate Chair’s comment on our rejected paper said, “Two reviewers had concerns about appropriateness of this paper for SIGCSE: #XXX because it didn’t directly address improved learning, and #YYY because replicating the FCS1 wasn’t deemed to be as noteworthy as the original work.” An assessment tool doesn’t improve learning, and a first-ever replication is not publishable.

Miranda was hesitant to release SCS1 for use (e.g., post in my blog, send emails on CSEd-Research email lists) until the result was peer-reviewed. A disadvantage that my students have suffered for having an advisor who blogs — some reviewers have rejected my students’ papers because my blogging made it discoverable who did the research, and thus our papers can’t be sufficiently anonymized to meet those reviewers’ standards. So, I haven’t talked about SCS1, despite my pleasure and pride in Miranda’s accomplishment.

I’m posting this now because Miranda does have a poster on SCS1 at the SIGCSE 2016 Technical Symposium. Come see her at the 3-5 pm Poster Session on Friday. Miranda had a major success in her first year as a PhD student, and the research community now has a new validated research instrument.

Here’s the trepidation part: her paper on the replication process was just rejected for ITICSE. There’s no Associate Chair for ITICSE, so there’s no meta-review that gives the overall reasons.  One reviewer raised some concerns about the statistics, which we’ll have to investigate.  Another reviewer strongly disagrees with the idea of a replication, much like the #YYY reviewer at SIGCSE. One reviewer complained that this paper was awfully similar to a paper by Elliott Tew and Guzdial, so maybe it shouldn’t be published.  I’m not sure how we convince SIGCSE and ITICSE reviewers that replication is important and something that most STEM disciplines are calling for more of. (Particularly aggravating point: Because FCS1 is not freely available, the reviewer doesn’t believe that FCS1 is “valid, consistent, and reliable” without inspecting it — as if you can tell those characteristics just by looking at the test?)

I’m talking about SCS1 now because she has her poster accepted, so she has a publication on that.  We really want to publish her process and in particular, the insights we now have about both instruments.  We’ll have to wait to publish that — and I hope the reviewers of the next conference don’t give us grief because I talked about the result here.

Contact Miranda at scs1assessment@gmail.com for access to the test.

March 2, 2016 at 8:00 am 7 comments

CMU launches initiative to improve student learning with technology

Interesting results, and nice to hear that the new initiative will be named for Herb Simon.

The Science of Learning Center, known as LearnLab, has already collected more than 500,000 hours’ worth of student data since it initially received funding from the National Science Foundation about nine years ago, its director Ken Koedinger said. That number translates to about 200 million times when students of a variety of age groups and subject areas have clicked on a graph, typed an equation or solved a puzzle.

The center collects studies conducted on data gathered from technology-enhanced courses in algebra, chemistry, Chinese, English as a second language, French, geometry and physics in an open wiki.

One such study showed that students performed better in algebra if asked to explain what they learned in their own words, for example. In another study, physics students who took time answering reflection questions performed better on tests than their peers.

via Carnegie Mellon U. launches initiative to improve student learning with technology | Inside Higher Ed.

January 3, 2014 at 1:03 am Leave a comment

Entrepreneurial MOOCs to teach CS: Different values, different evaluation

Lisa Kaczmarczyk wrote a blog post about a bunch of the private, for-profit groups teaching CS who visited the ACM Education Council meeting on Nov. 2.  I quoted below the section where the Ed Council asked tough questions about evaluation.  I wonder if the private efforts to educate mean the same things about evaluation as the academic and research folks mean by “evaluation.”  There are different goals and different value systems between each.  Learning for all in public education is very different from a privatized MOOC where it’s perfectly okay for 1-10% to complete.

Of course there was controversy; members of the Ed Council asked all of the panelists some tough questions. One recurrent theme had to do with how they know what they are doing works. Evaluation how? what kind? what makes sense? what is practical? is an ongoing challenge in any pedagogical setting and when you are talking about a startup as 3 out of the 4 companies on the panel were in the fast paced world of high tech – its tricky. Some panelists addressed this question better than others. Needless to say I spent quite a bit of time on this – it was one of the longer topics of discussion over dinner at my table.

Neil Fraser from Googles Blockly project said some things that were unquestionably controversial. The one that really got me was when he said several times, and with followup detail that one of the things they had learned was to ignore user feedback. I can’t remember his exact words after that but the idea seemed to be that users didnt know what was best for them. Coming on the heels of earlier comments that were less than tactful about computing degree programs and their graduates … I have to give Neil credit for having the guts to share his views.

via Interdisciplinary Computing Blog: Entrepreneurial MOOCs at the ACM Ed Council Meeting.

November 12, 2013 at 1:07 am Leave a comment

Say Goodbye to Myers-Briggs, the Fad That Won’t Die

Once in our Learning Sciences seminar, we all took the Myers-Briggs test on day 1 of the semester, and again at the end.  Almost everybody’s score changed.  So, why do people still use it as some kind of reliable test of personality?

A test is reliable if it produces the same results from different sources. If you think your leg is broken, you can be more confident when two different radiologists diagnose a fracture. In personality testing, reliability means getting consistent results over time, or similar scores when rated by multiple people who know me well. As my inconsistent scores foreshadowed, the MBTI does poorly on reliability. Research shows “that as many as three-quarters of test takers achieve a different personality type when tested again,” writes Annie Murphy Paul in The Cult of Personality Testing, “and the sixteen distinctive types described by the Myers-Briggs have no scientific basis whatsoever.” In a recent article, Roman Krznaric adds that “if you retake the test after only a five-week gap, there’s around a 50% chance that you will fall into a different personality category.”

via Say Goodbye to MBTI, the Fad That Won’t Die | LinkedIn.

November 5, 2013 at 1:53 am 5 comments

What to do about laptops in lectures: Worse for the bystanders

Fascinating result: The bystanders have their learning impacted more than the ones who opened up the laptop.

There is a fundamental tension here, and I don’t know how to resolve it. On the one hand, I like it when students have their laptops in class. Many of them are more comfortable taking notes this way than longhand. In the middle of a lecture I might ask someone to look something up that I don’t know off the top of my head.

On the other hand, the potential for distraction is terrible. I’ve walked in the back of the classroom of many of my colleagues and seen that perhaps 50% of the students are on the Web.

via What to do about laptops in lectures? – Daniel Willingham.

November 1, 2013 at 1:07 am 7 comments

September 2013 Special Issue of IEEE Computer on Computing Education

Betsy DiSalvo and I were guest editors for the September 2013 special issue of IEEE Computer on Computing Education.  (The cover, copied above, is really nice!)  The five articles in the issue did a great job of pushing computing education beyond our traditional image of CS education.  Below I’m pasting our original introduction to the special issue — before copy-editing, but free for me to share, and it’s a reasonable overview of the issue.

Introduction to the Special Issue

Computing education is in the news regularly these days. England has just adopted a new computer science curriculum. Thousands of people are taking on-line courses in computer science. Code.org’s viral video had millions of people thinking about learning to code.

A common thread in all of this new computer science education is that it’s not how we normally think about computing education. Traditional computing education brings to mind undergraduates working late night in labs drinking highly-caffeinated beverages. “CS Class” brings to mind images of students gaining valuable vocational skills in classrooms. The new movement towards computing education is about computing education for everyone, from children to working adults. It’s about people learning about computing in places you wouldn’t expect, from your local elementary school to afterschool clubs. It’s about people making their own computing on things that only a few years ago were not computable at all, like your personal cellphone and even your clothing.

Computing has changed. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, computing moved from the laboratory into the business office. In the PC revolution, it moved into our homes. Now in the early 21st Century, it is ubiquitous. We use dozens of computers in our everyday life, often without even recognizing that the processors are there. Knowing about computing today is necessary for understanding the world we live in. Computer science is as valuable as biology, physics, or chemistry to our students. Consider a computer science concept: that all digitized information is represented in a computer, and the same information could be a picture or text or a virus. That is more relevant to a student today than the difference between meiosis and mitosis, or how to balance an equilibrium equation.

Computing also gives us the most powerful tool for creative expression humans have ever invented. The desktop user interface we use today was created at Xerox PARC in order to make the computer a creative device. Today, we can use computing to communicate, to inform, to delight, and to amaze. That is a powerful set of reasons for learning to control the computer with programming.

The papers in this special issue highlight how computing education has moved beyond the classroom. They highlight computing as porous education that crosses the boundaries of the classroom, and even boundaries of disciplines. These papers help us to understand the implications and the new needs of computing education today.

Maria Knobelsdorf and Jan Vahrenhold write on “Addressing the Full Range of Students: Challenges in K-12 Computer Science Education”. The issues change as computer science education moves down from higher education into primary and secondary education. What curricula should we use in schools? How do prepare enough teachers? Maria and Jan lay out the challenges, and use examples from Germany on how these challenges might be addressed.

“STEAM-Powered Computing Education using E-Textiles: Impacting Learning and Broadening Participation” by Kylie Peppler talks about integrating art into traditional STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) classrooms through use of new kinds of media. Kylie has students sewing computers into fabrics. Her students combine roles of engineers, designers, scientists and artists as they explore issues of fashion and design with electronic circuits and computer programming.

In “The Porous Classroom: Professional practices in the computing curriculum”, Sally Fincher and Daniel Knox consider how computer science students learn beyond the classroom. Learning in the classroom is typically scripted with careful attention to students activities that lead to learning outcomes. The wild and unconstrained world outside the classroom offers many more opportunities to learn, and Sally and Daniel look at how the opportunities outside the school walls influence students as they move between the classroom and the world beyond.

Karen Brennan’s paper “Learning Computing through Creating and Connecting” starts from the programming language, Scratch, which was created to introduce computing into afterschool computer clubhouses. Students using Scratch learned through creating wonderful digital stories and animations, then sharing them with others, and further learning by mixing and re-mixing what was shared. Karen then considers the porous education from the opposite direction — what does it take to take an informal learning tool, such as Scratch, into the traditional classroom?

The paper by Allison Elliott Tew and Brian Dorn, “The Case for Validated Tools in Computing Education Research”, describes how to measure the impacts of computing education, in terms of learning and attitudes. This work ties these themes together and back to the traditional classroom. Wherever the learning is occurring, we want to know that there is learning happening.  We need good measurement tools to help us know what’s working and what’s not, and how to compare different kinds of contexts for different students. Allison and Brian tell us that “initial research and development investment can pay dividends for the community because validated instruments enable and enhance a host of activities in terms of both teaching and research that would not otherwise be feasible.”   Tools such as these validated instruments may allow us to measure the impact of informal, maker-based, or practice-based approaches.  Work in basic tools for measurement help us to ground and connect the work that goes on beyond our single classroom through the porous boundary to other disciplines and other contexts.

The story that this special issue tells is about computer science moving from subject to literacy. Students sometimes learn computer science because they are interested in computers. More often today, students learn computer science because of what they can do with computers. Computing is a form of expression and a tool for thinking. It is becoming a basic literacy, like reading, writing, and arithmetic. We use reading and writing in all subject areas. We see that students are increasingly using programming in the same way. The papers in this special issue offer a view into that new era of computing education.

September 18, 2013 at 1:54 pm Leave a comment

Older Posts


Recent Posts

September 2017
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Feeds

Blog Stats

  • 1,428,341 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,144 other followers

CS Teaching Tips