a three-level approach for teaching programming to undergraduate engineering students

19
A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students Akash Pooransingh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of the West Indies St. Augustine

Upload: rafe

Post on 06-Jan-2016

36 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students. Akash Pooransingh Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of the West Indies St. Augustine. Overview. Rationale Problem Possible Approaches Mode of Delivery Motivation - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate

Engineering Students

Akash PooransinghDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of the West IndiesSt. Augustine

Page 2: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Overview• Rationale• Problem• Possible Approaches – Mode of Delivery – Motivation

• Proposed Three Level Approach• Conclusion

Page 3: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Rationale

• This paper targets students’ learning style and motivation toward programming in a unique manner

• Part of the delivery mechanism for a first level undergraduate programming course at the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, the University of the West Indies

• This paper focuses on the first of the two courses that introduces the students to the fundamentals of programming utilizing the C++ environment

Page 4: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Learning Objectives for First Level Programming Course

Page 5: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

The Problem• Programming is fast becoming a fundamental input

to all the related fields of electrical engineering. • Unfortunately there is an associated negative sigma

and difficulty level associated with students’ motivation and ability to learning programming.

• In fact many students would often many would choose options to minimize the risk of undertaking any programming (Jenkins 2002).

• This is not a new problem. (Bonar and Soloway, 1983) stated that even the simplest level of programming may be difficult to learn.

Page 6: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Possible Approaches

• Tertiary level teaching follows a `chalk and talk’ method

• Improvement on the traditional method of delivery for programming may focus on two aspects: – Mode of Delivery – Motivation

Page 7: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Possible Approaches: Mode of Delivery

• Online delivery of material (Landry, Payne and Koger 2008) – terms of students’ time constraints – participants’ physical location (distance education offerings) – and the ability to deliver additional forms of content that

may not suit a physical classroom environment (such as group collaborative work)

• Supplementary notes, tutorials, review questions, quizzes, audio and video provide examples of how additional material can be delivered for a single learning objective via mix mode of delivery (Adamchik and Gunawardena, 2003)

Page 8: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Possible Approaches: Motivation

• Out of classroom support (Stamouli, Doyle and Huggard, 2004)– Programming Support Center providing one-on-

one assistance with programming difficulties– The major resource for this method was staff

support.

Page 9: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Proposed Three Level Approach

• Phase One– Chalk and Talk+ (within an enabling environment

together with online delivery of material), • Phase Two– Group Based Learning and Lab Based Preparation

sessions • Phase Three– Oral Assessment and Remedial Intervention.

Page 10: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Schedule of Delivery Illustrating the Three-Level Approach

Page 11: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Phase One - Chalk and Talk+ • Traditional Chalk and Talk (projector slides +

white board)• In class demonstration (building, debugging

and execution of sample code)– Limited by laboratory space– Recommended by the CSE group that all DECE

students utilize own laptops (on booklist)– Recommended by the CSE group that all

classrooms for programming outfitted with electrical outlets and wireless internet connectivity

Page 12: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Phase One - Chalk and Talk+

• Online delivery via the eLearning portal– Lecture, notes, supplemental material

Page 13: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Phase One - Chalk and Talk+

• In house learning videos

Page 14: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Phase Two - Group Based Learning and Lab Based Preparation

• First method of assessment after first phase geared toward group learning.

• Cognitive skills are developed in a peer based environment (Newman, Webb and Cochrane, 1995).

• It is assumed in this context that students in these groups have different levels of learning abilities toward programming but are able to communicate effectively with each other to promote effective learning.

• The students are given three weeks to interact and propose a solution for the assignment.

• eLearning portal is utilized for the posting and submission of assignments.

Page 15: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Phase Two - Group Based Learning and Lab Based Preparation

• Lab-based sessions are delivered to all students to act as a preparation activity for the assignment

Page 16: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Phase Three - Oral Assessment and Remedial Intervention

• Oral assessment exercises are held in the computer lab and assessed on a group by group basis

• Assessment is done on an individual basis• Students are allowed time to solve questions that

are based on the learning objectives of the group assignment

• Assistance is given to students who are ‘stuck’ with a partial deduction of marks

• More help is given as desired– Ensures student develops competence before the end of

the exam session

Page 17: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Phase Three - Oral Assessment and Remedial Intervention

• Students are given immediate feedback on performance

• Students on a weaker threshold (attaining < 50%) are identified and encouraged to attend a Remedial Intervention session

• Weaker students are paired for one-on-one interaction with instructors

• Students would guide the instructors on what aspects of the learning objectives are not understood

Page 18: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Conclusion• This paper presented a three level method to address

students’ learning style and motivation for an introductory programming course

• A mixed mode approach to the traditional chalk and talk method of teaching was presented that was followed by group based assignments with lab based preparation.

• Assessment of learning objectives were conducted by oral examinations with direct intervention and remedial support provided to weaker students.

• Follow up work would help identify effective learning styles and the value this approach provides in terms of students’ motivation (Yorke 2003).

Page 19: A Three-Level Approach for Teaching Programming to Undergraduate Engineering Students

Reference Listing• Adamchik, V., & Gunawardena, A. (2003, April). A learning objects Approach to teaching programming. In

Information Technology: Coding and Computing [Computers and Communications], 2003. Proceedings. ITCC 2003. International Conference on (pp. 96-99). IEEE.

• Bonar, J., & Soloway, E. (1983, January). Uncovering principles of novice programming. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages (pp. 10-13). ACM.

• Jenkins, T. (2002, August). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual

Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 53-58). • Landry, B. J., Payne, D., & Koger, M. S. (2008). From'chalk and talk'to online offerings: keeping pace with

technology in education. International Journal of Management in Education, 2(3), 300-317. • Newman, D. R., Webb, B., & Cochrane, C. (1995). A content analysis method to measure critical thinking

in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology, 3(2), 56-77.

• Stamouli, I., Doyle, E., & Huggard, M. (2004, October). Establishing structured support for programming

students. In Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual (pp. F2G-5). IEEE. • Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the

enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher education, 45(4), 477-501.