[Sylvi Alexander] Effective Learning and Teaching (BookFi

Effective Learning and Teaching in Computing How can you make your teaching more effective? Written to meet the needs o...

0 downloads 85 Views 3MB Size
Effective Learning and Teaching in Computing How can you make your teaching more effective? Written to meet the needs of teachers, lecturers and tutors, this is the guide to understanding the key issues, best practices and new developments in learning and teaching in information and computer sciences in higher education. It covers the spectrum of issues relating to teaching within the broad discipline of computing at under- and post-graduate level, including curricula, assessment, links with industry, international perspectives, innovative techniques for teaching and effective use of ICT in teaching. It will be essential reading for both less experienced teachers seeking authoritative guidance and experienced teachers seeking material for reflection and advice. Alastair Irons is Associate Dean (Learning and Teaching) in the School of Informatics, Northumbria University, UK. Sylvia Alexander is Lecturer in Computing at the University of Ulster, Jordanstown, UK, and Manager of the Learning and Teaching Support Network Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences.

ELAA01

1

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Series Edited by Sally Brown

The Higher Education Academy ‘Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education’ series

The Higher Education Academy is the UK national organization committed to the support of teaching and learning in higher education. It seeks to increase the professional standing of all HE staff by facilitating professional development and awarding professional accreditation in teaching and learning. The Higher Education Academy is also committed to improving the student experience, providing a wide range of support and services to aid the whole spectrum of higher education activity, including networks of subject centres and centres of excellence in teaching and learning through the promotion of evidence based practice. The ‘Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education’ series is written in accordance with the aims of the Higher Education Academy, and these titles will be essential reading for subject specialists wanting to improve their practice, and also for those studying for professional accreditation.

Effective Learning and Teaching in Law Edited by Roger Burridge, Karen Hinnett, Abdul Paliwala and Tracey Varnava Effective Learning and Teaching in Business and Management Edited by Bruce Macfarlane and Roger Ottewill Effective Learning and Teaching in Mathematics and its Applications Edited by Joseph Kyle and Peter Kahn Effective Learning and Teaching in Medical, Dental and Veterinary Education Edited by John Sweet, Sharon Huttly and Ian Taylor Effective Learning and Teaching in Social Work and Social Policy Edited by Hilary Burgess and Imogen Taylor ( forthcoming) Effective Learning and Teaching in Engineering Edited by Caroline Baillie and Ivan Moore ( forthcoming)

ELAA01

2

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

Effective Learning and Teaching in Computing Edited by Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander

ELAA01

3

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

To Ruary

First published 2004 by RoutledgeFalmer 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by RoutledgeFalmer 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2004. RoutledgeFalmer is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group © 2004 Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Effective learning and teaching in computing / edited by Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander. p. cm. — (Effective learning and teaching in higher education) ISBN 0-415-33500-0 (hardback) — ISBN 0-415-33501-9 (pbk.) 1. Computer science—Study and teaching (Higher) 2. Information technology—Study and teaching (Higher) I. Irons, Alastair, 1962– II. Alexander, Sylvia, 1965– III. Series. QA76.27.E33 2004 004′.071′1—dc22 2003027718 ISBN 0-203-41603-1 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-43858-2 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-33500-0 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-33501-9 (pbk)

ELAA01

4

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

Contents

About the editors and specialist contributors Series editor’s foreword Foreword

1.

ix xiv xv

Introduction Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander Setting the scene 1; Identifying the audience 2; Outlining the aims 3; Outlining the structure 4; Meeting the challenge 4; References 5

1

Current issues Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander Introduction 6; Pre-entry 8; Workload – reading for a degree 9; Curriculum issues 10; Transferable skills 11; Pedagogy 12; Learning resources 13; Increasing participation 13; Widening participation 13; HE in FE 15; Accessibility/disability 15; Female entrants 15; Developing strategies 16; Summary 16; References 17

6

Part 1. Teaching and the support of learning

ELAA01

19

2.

Motivating computing students Peggy Gregory and Tony Jenkins Introduction 21; Understanding motivation 22; Practical ideas for motivating computing students 24; The top ten tips 27; Further references 28

21

3.

The role of practical skills in computing education Fintan Culwin Introduction 29; A taxonomy of programming courses 30; The philosophy of skills learning 33; Conclusion 35; References 36

29

5

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

vi Contents

4.

Learning and teaching with computers Ian Benest Introduction 38; Online lectures 40; Structure of lectures 40; Static display of content 41; Creating the aural fragments 42; Constructing the lecture 43; Disability considerations 44; Navigation 45; Summary 46; References 47

38

5.

Accessibility, disability and computing David Sloan and Lorna Gibson Introduction 48; Teaching students to think about accessibility 49; Accessibility defined 49; Support for accessibility 50; Disabled users as end users 51; Accessibility and the teaching and learning environment 52; Case study: Division of Applied Computing, University of Dundee 54; Conclusion 55; References 56

48

6.

Variations on a theme: divisions and union in a maturing discipline Lillian N. Cassel Introduction 57; Computing curricula developments 57; Continuous curriculum and programme development 59; Looking ahead 63; References 66

Part 2. Learning activities for computing students

ELAA01

57

67

7.

Groupwork for computing students Liz Burd Achievement of educational goals 70; Fostering quality teamwork 72; Fair assessment for all 73; Final conclusions 74; References 75

69

8.

Automating the process of skills-based assessment Mike Joy Introduction 76; Computer-assisted assessment (CAA) 76; Assessment of programming skills 78; Issues 79; Generic products 80; Case study 1: CourseMarker 82; Case study 2: BOSS 82; Conclusion 83; Further information 84; Acknowledgements 84; References 84

76

9.

Motivation and electronic assessment Stephen Bostock Assessment, motivation and learning 86; Innovative assessment 88; Computer-assisted assessment (CAA) 89; Group assessment 91; Peer assessment 91; Self-assessment 94; Students setting assessments 94; Conclusion 95; References 96

86

6

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

Contents vii

10.

ELAA01

Reducing plagiarism in computing Alastair Irons Introduction 100; What is plagiarism? 101; Why is plagiarism an issue? 103; Why do students plagiarize? 104; How big an issue is it? 104; How to tackle plagiarism? 105; Summary 108; References 109

100

Part 3. Developing effective learning environments

111

11.

Evaluating what works in distance learning Patrick McAndrew Introduction 113; Distance learning 113; Evaluation approaches 115; The computing course 115; Evaluation 116; Lessons learnt 117; Examples of evaluation data 118; Use of online questionnaires 119; Conclusions 121; Acknowledgements 121; References 122

113

12.

Industrial input to the computing curriculum Nancy R. Mead Some industry beliefs about software engineering graduates 123; Studies of industry/university collaboration 125; The approach 127; Successful collaboration construction and execution 129; Industry viewpoint 132; Other sources of industrial input 133; Acknowledgement 134; References 134

123

13.

Computing education and entrepreneurial spirit Sylvia Alexander, Gerry McAllister and Deborah Trayhurn Background 136; The changing business environment 137; What is entrepreneurship? 138; Entrepreneurship and HE 139; Teaching entrepreneurship 140; Team approach 143; Deliverables and assessment 144; Incubation 146; Lifelong learning 146; References 147

136

14.

Higher education, IT and industry Gillian Lovegrove Introduction 148; Historical view 149; Masters conversion courses 149; Employment 150; Gender 151; Answering our critics 152; Graduates’ views 153; Inside our universities 154; Support to lobby for 154; Possible action 155; Summary 156; References 156

148

7

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

viii Contents

Part 4. Reflective practice and personal development 15.

ELAA01

Continuing professional development for the computing academic: wheeling in the Trojan Horse Su White and Hugh Davis Introduction 161; Motivations 162; Barriers 164; Objectives 165; Awareness 166; Understanding 168; Use 169; Conclusion 171; Thanks and acknowledgements 171; Further reading 171

159

161

16.

Improving the quality of teaching in computing Andrew McGettrick Introduction 172; What is quality? 172; Published quality documents 173; Nature of learning and teaching 176; Assessment issues 178; Some important observations 179; Nature of improvement 180; Concluding comments 181; References 181

172

17.

Technology and the reflective practitioner Tom Boyle Introduction 182; Schön and the reflective practitioner: teaching, action research and rigorous knowledge 183; The crisis in the teaching and learning of programming 184; Technology and reflective practice in computing 185; Developing rigorous action research: barriers and opportunities 186; References 187

182

Conclusion

189

18.

Future issues in computing Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander Introduction 191; Issues to be addressed 192; Technologies 197; Student support 200; Continuous professional development 201; Quality enhancement 202; Closing comments 203; References 204

191

Author index Subject index

205 208

8

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

About the editors and specialist contributors

Editors Alastair Irons is currently Associate Dean for Learning and Teaching in the School of Informatics at Northumbria University. He has worked in higher education at Northumbria since 1992. Previously he worked as a systems analyst with ICI at Billingham and Wilton. Teaching interests include professional, ethical and social issues in computing, object-oriented methodologies, user-centred methods, DSDM and HCI. Research interests include the use of ICTs in learning and teaching and the equivalence of the student experience when studying off-campus. He has recently become a fellow of SEDA. Sylvia Alexander is Lecturer in Computing at the University of Ulster. As manager of the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, she has a wide knowledge of current practice in teaching, learning and assessment within computing departments in the UK. Her main interests are in the area of computer science education research, particularly change management in response to national higher education policy and pedagogic and technological innovation.

Specialist contributors Ian Benest spent five years following graduation with the Science and Engineering Research Council at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, during which time he was a member of the Alvey MMI subcommittee representing the SERC as MMI Coordinator. He then took up a lecturing post at the University of York to teach digital circuit design and user-interface design. He is a Chartered Engineer and member of the IEE and IEEE.

ELAA01

9

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

x About the editors and specialist contributors

Stephen Bostock is Adviser for Technology and Learning at Keele University, currently based in the Staff Development and Training Centre after some years in the Computer Science Department. He is a member of the LTSN-ICS Steering Group, the Executive of the Staff and Educational Development Association, the Institute for Learning and Teaching in HE and the Association for Learning Technology. Stephen is a Fellow of the Staff and Educational Development Association. His research interests have included online education and assessment and he is on the editorial board of Educational Developments. Tom Boyle is the Director of the Learning Technology Research Institute at London Metropolitan University, and Assistant Director (Pedagogy) for the LTSN National Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. Professor Boyle holds degrees from three British universities, with higher degrees in Psychology and Computing. He has produced over 100 journal and conference papers on learning technology. Liz Burd has worked in the Computer Science Department at Durham University for over ten years. She teaches on a number of courses at Durham and has a special interest in the use of groupwork in assessment. Liz’s current research concentrates on a number of different aspects of software engineering all of which relate to improving the environment in which the developer operates with a view to improving the quality and quantity of his or her work. Lillian N. Cassel graduated from the University of Delaware and obtained her Ph.D. at the same institution. Lillian teaches in the Department of Computing Sciences at Villanova University, Pennsylvania, where her technical specialty area is computer networks. She is deeply involved in professional groups concerned with computer science education and is a Past Chair of the ACM Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education (SIGCSE). Currently she is a member of the ACM Education Board and a member of the IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) Technical Committee 3.2 on University Education. Fintan Culwin is a Reader in software engineering education at London South Bank University. He has teaching and research interests in initial software development education, software engineering, human computer interaction, usability engineering and student plagiarism. He is the author of six textbooks and a large collection of papers. He was joint program chair of ITiCSE 2001 and general chair of BHCI 2003. Hugh Davis is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS) at the University of Southampton, and a researcher in the IAM (Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia) group where he leads the IAM learning technologies theme. Hugh is Director of Learning and Teaching for the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science and Learning and Teaching Coordinator

ELAA01

10

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

About the editors and specialist contributors xi

for ECS. His research areas include the application of open hypermedia systems, particularly in training and education, open hypermedia systems design and innovation within learning and teaching. Peggy Gregory is a lecturer in the Department of Computing at the University of Central Lancashire. Her research interests are in the areas of information systems development methods and the teaching and learning of computing (with a particular focus on student motivation and teaching maths). Tony Jenkins is a Senior Teaching Fellow in the School of Computing at the University of Leeds. He has given many presentations and written many papers about the ways in which programming is taught. He has been teaching at the University of Leeds since 1993, and teaching introductory programming since 1995. In 2002 he was awarded an M.Sc. for research into the experience and motivation of students learning to program by the University of Kent at Canterbury. Mike Joy is a Senior Lecturer in Computer Science at the University of Warwick, where he teaches programming and software engineering. His research interests include educational technology in computer science, agent-based systems and functional languages. Mike is a Chartered Engineer, a member of the British Computer Society and the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, and is a Network Partner in the LTSN Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. Gillian Lovegrove was educated at Cambridge University and completed a Ph.D. at Southampton University. As a lecturer she worked at Portsmouth and Southampton and became Head of Information Systems then Associate Dean at Staffordshire University before moving to Northumbria University where she is now Dean of Informatics. She is responsible for the information strategy for the Council of Professors and Heads of Computing which includes researching into the perceived poor image of IT graduates within industry. Gerry McAllister is Head of the School of Computing and Mathematics at the University of Ulster. He is a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers. His current main research interests are in new methods of detection and correction for hearing acuity and the use of technology in teaching and assessment. He has over 55 publications in conferences and journals, within the remit of bio-medical engineering and teaching and assessment. He is the Director of the National LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Science. Patrick McAndrew is a lecturer and Head of the Centre for Information Technology in Education in the Institute of Educational Technology (IET) at The Open University. He has a degree in Mathematics from the University of Oxford and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh. Patrick

ELAA01

11

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

xii About the editors and specialist contributors

joined The Open University in 1999 from being Manager of the Institute for Computer Based Learning at Heriot-Watt University. His main research interests are in ways to structure material for reuse and approaches to enabling learning and sharing knowledge, using networks. Andrew McGettrick is Head of Department of Computer and Information Sciences at the University of Strathclyde. His research interests include software engineering, in particular formal methods in support of safety critical systems; use of computers in support of teaching and learning; and quality issues in higher education. Andrew is a reviewer for EPSRC, The Computer Journal, Research Councils in Australia and the Swedish Council for the Renewal of Undergraduate Education. Furthermore, Andrew recently chaired the QAA benchmarking group for computing. Nancy R. Mead is the team leader for the Survivable Systems Engineering (SSE) team as well as a senior member of the technical staff in the Networked Systems Survivability Program at the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). The CERT® Coordination Center is a part of this programme. Nancy is also a faculty member in the Master of Software Engineering and Master of Information Systems Management programmes at Carnegie Mellon University. Nancy has more than 70 publications and invited presentations, and has a biographical citation in Who’s Who in America. She is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) and the IEEE Computer Society, and is also a member of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Nancy serves as Steering Committee Chair for the International Requirements Engineering (RE) Conference and is a member of Steering Committee for the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET), and numerous advisory boards. David Sloan and Lorna Gibson run the Digital Media Access Group at the University of Dundee. Based in the university’s Division of Applied Computing, one of the largest groups in the world researching into information and communications technology for disabled and elderly people. David and Lorna are both Associates of the JISC funded Technology for Disabilities Information Service (TechDIS). Deborah Trayhurn joined Northumbria’s School of Informatics in September 2003 and is currently Associate Dean for Enterprise. This follows various roles undertaken at Leeds Metropolitan University. Her research focus is on gender, examining this in computing education and practice. She is closely involved with the Employability Project, working with the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. Su White is Learning and Teaching Coordinator for the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Southampton and project coordinator

ELAA01

12

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

About the editors and specialist contributors xiii

for the UK Electrical and Electronic Assessment Network. Her research interests include the interrelationship between organizational structures and change – with particular reference to learning technologies; better ways of using technologies in learning and teaching; effective assessment and student learning; and the relationship between research and teaching.

ELAA01

13

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

Series editor’s foreword

I am delighted to see in print this latest volume in the ‘Effective Learning and Teaching in Higher Education’ series. The editors are to be congratulated on the immense amount of energy and effort that they have invested in putting together this important contribution to the literature on learning and teaching in computing. Whilst the subject material is aimed primarily at those teaching in the computing subject area, others using ICT in their teaching will also find a great deal of material of interest. Readers will find much information and advice in this book as well as useful contact information and references to further reading. This book is the first to be published in conjunction with the Higher Education Academy, following the merger of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE), the Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) and the National Coordination Team (NCT). In the lead up to the merger, we have been collaborating actively to provide a ‘joined up’ approach to supporting staff working in teaching and the support of learning in higher education. Now we have come together within the Higher Education Academy, the potential for this synergy is further enhanced. This book has a part to play in the Higher Education Academy’s intentions to develop and support effective teaching and learning in higher education. Paul Ramsden, the Chief Executive designate says: ‘The Higher Education Academy is concerned with every aspect of the student experience. It will provide coherence, added value, inclusivity and a powerful emphasis on the needs of stakeholders’. I commend this book to you and welcome the contribution it makes to teaching and learning in higher education. Sally Brown Series Editor

ELAA01

14

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

Foreword

I am very grateful to have been given this opportunity to comment on the significance of this book in a broader context, although I think the editors themselves have done that well. Having read this book, I feel more inspired to reflect more on the discipline of computing, for this book clearly addresses some challenges of the discipline itself, while also amply demonstrating the value of computing to the economy and as a vital tool in improving access to and the quality of learning opportunities. The higher education sector has undergone massive change of late, and the introduction of ‘top-up fees’ provides new challenges for us all. As the editors note in their Introduction, there has in recent years been a number of significant changes that, directly and indirectly, affect higher education in the UK. The move away from a system largely for the elite to a mass higher education system has been long overdue. The sector, and the newer universities in particular (though not exclusively), has responded magnificently, notwithstanding a continued, steady decline in the unit of resource for teaching since 1981. In 2001–2, the income per student fell from around £7,200 in 1990/1 to about £5,000 in 1997/8, since which time it has stayed fairly constant (therefore a decline in real terms thanks to students’ contributions via fees. Notwithstanding this erosion of income, it is remarkable that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the Research Assessment Exercise have clearly shown that the quality of learning opportunities and research in higher education have improved continuously over the last decade-and-a-half. Where, in the private sector, have efficiency gains coupled with consistent significant improvements in quality been so remarkable? It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that the sector has not been put under enormous strain by the growth and constant striving to improve its performance. Throughout the 1990s, for many of us, it seemed that computing was absorbing the expansion of higher education single-handedly, such was the growth in numbers, fuelled by a buoyant employment market, which made it extremely difficult to recruit academic staff to teach the students crammed to the gunwales. For example, in 1994/5, 73,612 UK students were studying computing in higher education. In 2001/2, that figure was 118,345. Over the last three years, however, the number of applicants to computing programmes in the UK has fallen off significantly, year on year. That is not our only challenge.

ELAA01

15

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

xvi Foreword

Our problems are compounded by the fact that the discipline itself remains relatively young, and continues to evolve. When I left industry in 1971 to begin my academic career at the then Hatfield Polytechnic, UK, none of us in the Department had studied computing as an undergraduate – this would hardly have been possible. We were a bunch of engineers, mathematicians, philosophers, psychologists, physicists and artists. That computing draws upon all of these disciplines causes some to question whether computing is a discipline in its own right at all. While it would not be appropriate to be drawn into that argument now, it is worth noting in the context of this book, that the multidisciplinary nature of computing adds to the challenges of teaching it, but it also adds to the excitement that it has to offer our students (and, if we’re honest, all of us). There is, however, another side to this coin. While computing does have a multi-lineal ancestry, and there are strong family resemblances, all disciplines have adopted computing as an essential tool for research, for practice and, of course, for developing more flexible learning. One might be tempted to say that we have been victims of our own success. That we have been successful, there is no doubt. The chapters in this book, from beginning to end, bear strong witness to this – thank you to the editors and all contributors. Whether the topic is using the technology for distance learning and online lectures, widening access, embedding skills, or working with industry, it is all here. Little of the wisdom encapsulated here is, however, only apposite to computing, and I do hope academics from other disciplines discover it. But, being less altruistic, I see this book as contributing to inspiring another generation of computing students, who, I fervently hope, will in turn inspire others to study computing, which, whether a discipline or not, has contributed incalculably to UK plc and improved the quality of life of so many. Professor Paul A. Luker Chair, Council of Professors and Heads of Computing Pro-Vice-Chancellor Academic, Bournemouth University, UK

ELAA01

16

14/5/04, 2:16 PM

Introduction 1

Introduction

Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander

Setting the scene In recent years there have been significant changes in higher education (HE) as a result of the Dearing Report, the Roberts Report, the Lambert Report and more recently the White Paper on the future of HE (Df ES 2003). Many of the changes in HE have been reflected in the learning and teaching of computing. Indeed, the discipline of computing has often been in the vanguard, embracing, implementing and developing many of the changes. The aim of this book is to examine many of the issues currently facing the computing discipline and against this backdrop of change to share the experiences of the contributors in enhancing the student experience. One of the major changes in HE has been widening participation to include a much broader and more diverse student population within a mass HE system. The current government has a target of 50 per cent of the population having access to HE by 2010. Computing, along with other disciplines, must embrace the changes associated with this move from an elite to a mass HE system. Paradoxically, there has also been a decrease in student numbers across universities. Often it has been left to computing schools to generate student numbers in order to prop up less popular disciplines. Changes in student funding also have a major impact on the way potential students, employers and the general public perceive HE and its value to society. The breadth of the subject area in computing draws from and encapsulates principles from mathematics, engineering, business studies, project management, design, psychology, sociology, ethics and many other disciplines. While computing continues to be a subject in its own right, some aspects of information technology (IT) are taught within almost all other disciplines. Furthermore, computing is a relatively new subject and its overlap with other subjects continues to evolve, creating new interdisciplinary topics.

ELAA02

1

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

2 Introduction

Alongside curriculum evolution, there is also greater diversity in the pedagogies invoked in the delivery of computing. The prevalence of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has resulted in the widespread uptake of web-based, off-campus, distance and e-learning opportunities. Completion of a computing course in HE does not mark the end of the educational process. The rapidly changing world of technology requires practitioners to undertake significant continued professional development. As such there is considerable growth in lifelong learning, accredited prior learning (APL) and accredited work-based learning (AWBL). There is also significant growth in professional accreditation of programmes in the UK (in particular through the British Computer Society or the Institute of Electrical Engineers) and also in the certification of specialist modules in areas such as networking. Computing is a vocational discipline and many programmes encapsulate industrial experience, which is valued by students and employers alike. In recent years, the demand for computing graduates has continued to grow both in specialist disciplines and beyond the IT sector. The growth and development of computing is not restricted to western civilizations. The teaching and learning challenges facing the subject area need to encapsulate the global nature of the discipline. The Far East now operates within a high technology economy and the growth of ICT usage in Africa and South America is significant. The underlying principle in this book is that the purpose of teaching in HE is to facilitate student learning, and to make the experience of studying computing fun!

Identifying the audience This book is targeted at anyone involved in teaching computing. The primary audience is intended to be college and university teachers, both experienced and newly appointed. However, the text will also have relevance for those teaching IT within other disciplines, educational developers, guidance tutors, technical support staff, careers advisers and university managers. Students learn in a variety of ways. In seeking to provide a learning environment suitable for all students from increasingly diverse backgrounds, the various teaching and learning methods invoked must come together to provide a heuristic whole. Everyone involved in teaching, assessing, guidance tutoring, acting as point of contact during admissions or providing technological support form an integral part of the learning environment and can all have an impact on the way students learn. This book aims to enable all those involved in the learning experience to reflect on existing practices and prepare for change. The wide range of authors from a broad cross-section of the HE community present significant exemplars of best practice in teaching, learning and

ELAA02

2

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Introduction 3

assessment. All share a strong desire to develop and enhance learning and teaching in computing. The material presented in this book has an international flavour, and it is intended that it will be of benefit to those involved in HE irrespective of their geographic location or cultural background.

Outlining the aims The aim of the book is to inform and provide support for academic staff teaching computing in HE. To this end the material presents many of the professional activities required to ensure effective learning and teaching in computing. In the rush to apply ICT-based methods to address the problems of rapidly changing curricula and growing class size, many of the important issues associated with the learning and teaching of computing are forgotten. This book aims to address this imbalance by promoting good practice in learning and teaching, supported by the appropriate and effective use of ICT, and other innovative methods. It has been suggested by Laurillard (2002: 1) that ‘university teachers must take the main responsibility for what and how their students learn’. This book will help academic staff meet this challenge. Issues and opportunities facing those teaching computing are explored in order to create appropriate conditions and environments to enable and support student learning. The book aims to provide support for the principles and professional values that are expected from practitioners in HE, namely the: to scholarship in teaching, both generally and within their own • commitment subject area; for individual learners and for their development and empowerment; • respect to the development of learning communities, including students, • commitment teachers and those involved in learning support; to encouraging participation in HE and to equality of educational • commitment opportunity; to continued reflection and evaluation and consequent improve• commitment ment of their own practice. In particular, this book seeks to reinforce the commitment to disciplinary scholarship and encourage readers to reflect on existing practice in light of the examples illustrated. The professional values listed above are by their very nature generic to much of learning and teaching in HE. Nevertheless, the breadth of subjects that constitute the discipline of computing, the continued technological changes in the discipline and the ever-changing demands of employers mean that the principles have particular significance to those involved in the effective teaching of computing.

ELAA02

3

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

4 Introduction

Outlining the structure Chapter 1 introduces the current situation in learning and teaching computing in HE, in terms of curricula, techniques for teaching and learning and the challenges of teaching increasingly large numbers of students. In Part 1 the challenges and opportunities in teaching and supporting learning are examined. How to motivate computing students is the focus in Chapter 2, and a discussion of the role of practical development skills in a computing environment is provided in Chapter 3, in particular examining the UK computing benchmark statements of the skills and competencies expected of a computing graduate. Chapter 4 goes on to discuss how computers can be used to enhance learning and teaching. The very specific opportunities of using IT to embrace the challenges of accessibility and disability are presented in Chapter 5. Part 1 concludes in Chapter 6 with a presentation of learning and teaching issues in computing from the United States. Part 2 is an examination of the learning activities available to computing students. In Chapter 7, a series of issues pertaining to groupwork for computing students is considered. Chapter 8 examines the opportunities presented in automating the process of skills-based assessment and this subject is developed and expanded in Chapter 9 with a discussion of motivation and electronic assessment. Part 2 concludes with an examination of one of the problems in the growth of ICTs in education by looking at the issues associated with collusion and plagiarism. Part 3 explores the development of effective learning environments. In Chapter 11, distance learning and the opportunities of online learning are discussed while Chapters 12, 13 and 14 examine the relationship with industry and the development of effective learning environments. Part 4 goes on to explore opportunities for reflective practice and professional development (CPD) in academic staff, with Chapter 15 looking at continued professional development, Chapter 16 examining how the quality of teaching computing can be improved and Chapter 17 discussing how technology can be used to help the reflective practitioner. The book concludes with an attempt to bring together many of the strands discussed earlier and to look to the future uses of computing and IT and how they can facilitate effective learning and teaching in computing.

Meeting the challenge Gathering material for this book and making decisions as to what to include and exclude has been challenging and rewarding. The subject area is extremely diverse, the nature of the subject is constantly changing and the whole subject is still relatively new. The topics covered in this book attempt to bring together some of the issues facing staff involved in teaching computing, and hopefully provide food for thought and discussion. It is hoped that this book will help others develop their teaching

ELAA02

4

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Introduction 5

and learning opportunities in order to offer effective and efficient learning environments for students.

References DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2003) The Future of Higher Education. London: HMSO. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/highereducation/hestrategy Laurillard, D. (2001) Rethinking University Teaching, 2nd edn. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

ELAA02

5

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

6 Effective learning and teaching in computing

1

Current issues

Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander

Introduction This book aims to address many of the challenges and opportunities in the effective learning and teaching of computing in higher education (HE) in the twenty-first century. In the context of this book, ‘computing’ is used as a generic term to include subjects such as computer science, artificial intelligence, software engineering, information systems and multimedia. Computing education is a mainstream activity in the majority of HE providers, certainly in the UK, and as such contributes to fulfilling the purpose of HE – i.e. providing a service for society, developing and enhancing culture, improving the contribution of the subject area, taking the boundaries of the subject forward and providing professionals for the workforce. All of these require effective and efficient teaching. The use of the term ‘effective’ in the title of this book begs the question, effective for whom? Should teaching be effective for the learner, the teacher, in terms of cost for the HE institution, for government or for society? It could be argued that effectiveness in teaching covers all of these stakeholders, but the tenet of this book is to focus on what type of effective teaching will enable students to learn to the best of their abilities. Effective teaching in computing also raises questions about the subject area: does this mean the basic principles of computing, enhancing the body of knowledge, producing well-equipped employees for the future or producing educated computer professionals who will work for the benefit of society? The vehicle for delivery is also worthy of consideration. Many students still attend university as a campus-based activity; however, there is an increasing proportion of students choosing to study in a more flexible, non-traditional, non-campus-based mode of study. The traditional activities of lectures, seminars, tutorials, practicals and projects are still prevalent in HE, but teaching has expanded to include independent study, computer-aided learning, computer-aided assessment,

ELAC01

6

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Current issues 7

distance learning, e-learning, support through e-mail and use of virtual learning environments (VLEs). Another aspect of effectiveness is the impact on students in terms of motivating, enthusing and inspiring them to challenge the boundaries and principles of the subject area, encouraging them to develop to their full potential through research and further study, promoting reflective practice and encouraging personal and professional development. There is also a need to consider what students expect from HE and what their perception of effective teaching in HE actually is. Any examination of the effectiveness of teaching computing in HE needs to take into account the changing nature of HE, which at present is in a state of flux. HE is changing from an elite system, largely restricted within national boundaries, to a mass system operating on a global scale. This has resulted in a potentially continual but rapid expansion in both the number of institutions offering HE qualifications and the number of students availing themselves of these opportunities. Working within an environment of change has direct impact on the operation and management of all schools, including computing. While the overall number of students entering HE continues to grow, the competition for these students has also increased. Many computing schools and departments have been at the forefront of meeting increasing university targets through recruitment, and are starting to experience difficulties in meeting those targets. Funding for students is also having a major impact on HE. The likelihood seems to be that universities will need to look for an increasing percentage of their budget from non-government sources – i.e. beyond the allocation of monies from student numbers and research. As a discipline, computing is well placed to secure non-government monies through consultancy, collaboration with industry and entrepreneurial activities. In addition to the pressures of maintaining the student population and funding teaching in HE, further challenges come in the form of continuous quality assurance inspections, league table performances, and presenting an image of value for money to society. The chaotic nature of HE as a result of government policy (or lack of appropriate policies and funding) and the continuing environment of change is further exacerbated within the discipline of computing by continuous developments in technology, the evolution of new subject areas and the changing requirements of industry. Against this backdrop of technological change the process of teaching is also changing as a result of developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs). The computing discipline has been in the vanguard in developing courses and programmes to take advantage of advances in technology. Recent changes (over the last ten years) to the structure of computing in HE have seen inflexible (yet coherent) programmes replaced by modular systems of study. Interestingly, these structures now appear to be undergoing reversal and are being replaced by more heuristic programmes. Computing in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, however, has suffered a reduction in HEFCE funding as students on computing courses now attract band

ELAC01

7

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

8 Effective learning and teaching in computing

‘C’ as opposed to band ‘B’ funding. Computing schools will be forced to look beyond HEFCE funding in order to prosper. Teaching and learning is clearly the focus of this book. However, it must be emphasized that teaching cannot exist in isolation and represents only one function of HE alongside research, development, knowledge transfer, consultancy and links with the community. There need to be positive synergies between all functions, thus enabling each to inform the others. The ‘teaching/research nexus’ (Neumann 1994) is central to HE, and teaching in research-led institutions is often rated as high quality. However, recent arguments for research selectivity place under question the traditional view of the interdependence between research and student learning. The introduction of Foundation Degrees, the involvement of commercial organizations in the certification of modules and the development of government projects such as the New Technology Institutes (NTIs) potentially clouds the distinction between training and education. One of the main aims of this book is to emphasize the importance of education in the computing discipline and to promote the need to teach the fundamental principles and theoretical underpinnings of computing rather than provide training for commercial certification. It is not only the nature of teaching in any one institution or any one country that is changing. HE is moving towards a worldwide education system based on collaboration and franchising validated programmes. As a discipline, computing has been at the forefront of such activities. While creating new opportunities, such arrangements also present considerable challenges for those involved in the management and delivery of collaborative provision. The remainder of this chapter examines the issues faced by all disciplines in HE, while the implications for the computing discipline are examined throughout the book.

Pre-entry There are few subject-specific entry requirements to study computing and as a result students who are undecided about which subject to study at university are often encouraged by parents, teachers and peers to study computing, a discipline which can open doors to a variety of career options. However well-intentioned the advice is, it is often the case that students choose computing as a ‘meal ticket’ to well-paid jobs rather than from personal interest or motivation, and without a sound understanding of what the course entails. This can lead to academic and motivational problems. The problem of what constitutes the discipline of computing has already been alluded to. Student perception is often somewhat different. The experience students have of computers before they enter HE can influence their choice to study computing in the belief that they will develop advanced information technology (IT) and internet skills and quickly and easily be able to develop software similar in quality to that with which they are familiar from the world of entertainment. Potential students are often unaware that computing syllabi cover the under-

ELAC01

8

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Current issues 9

pinning principles of computing and require problem-solving skills, the need to be able to develop algorithms, a knowledge of mathematics and the academic skills required for report writing, research, giving presentations and designing systems. Feedback from students who have withdrawn from programmes would suggest that the mismatch between expectations and experience of the course is a major factor for those who leave the course early in the academic year. Students often seem to be unaware of the rationale behind the broad range of subjects studied and are unable to make links between them. There is clearly a need to demystify what a degree in computing entails and provide guidance on how the various topics come together to provide a cohesive and holistic approach to computing. In order to retain students and ensure they are motivated, it is incumbent on computing schools to match prospective students with programmes of study that best suit their expectations.

Workload – reading for a degree As with all students in HE, those studying computing have a serious work/life balancing act to manage. As well as a full curriculum, many students hold down part-time (or near permanent) jobs in order to finance their way through university. Many students also have family commitments which have a major impact on the amount of time they can devote to their studies. On top of this the number of personal problems students have to deal with in today’s HE environment mean that a smooth passage through their studies is increasingly unlikely. There has long been a tendency in HE for over-assessment. For many years the norm for assessment in HE has been the examination. Over a period of time, this has moved to a mix of course assessment and examination. As a result, the summative assessment load has continued to expand, with many modules now being assessed by both coursework and examination. As the assessment load has increased, students are driven not by learning or education, but by assessment. As students become more strategic in their approach, there is a need to move away from summative assessment and examine how students are motivated and what techniques can be used to improve formative feedback while at the same time getting students to take responsibility for their academic work. By reducing the volume of summative assessment, more engaging innovative and valued means of learning for students can be explored. There is a government expectation that personal development plans (PDPs) will come on stream in 2005. With the introduction of PDPs there is an opportunity to change the culture of HE and move from a restrictive culture of summative assessment to a more open, invigorating and motivating culture where formative and developmental feedback is provided to students, where students are responsible for their own learning and students use PDPs as evidence of that learning. Getting the work/life balance correct in HE will enable students to get the most from their learning experience and help academics provide effective teaching opportunities for those students.

ELAC01

9

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

10 Effective learning and teaching in computing

Curriculum issues Computing faces an exciting challenge in providing curricula that meet the demands of students, employers and society. Rapid changes and developments in technology demand that computing curricula and teaching methods undergo change frequently. As such, it is preferable that computing curricula be as independent as possible of specific technologies and instead focus on generic computing subject areas and skills required to enter the profession. Bearing in mind the demands of the rapidly changing subject area, computing will by necessity evolve continuously in order to keep pace with new technologies and the demands of business and industry. Nevertheless, there are a number of common curriculum threads (e.g. the teaching of programming, the underpinning requirements for mathematics, design issues for systems development, database design, and communication and networking requirements for industry-based hardware systems). An underlying theme is the growth in demand for professionalism, both in subject-specific skills and in interpersonal skills. Issues such as ethics, legal and social issues, licence to practice and the demand for high-standard, high-quality graduates continue to be at the forefront of discussions about the professionalism of computing graduates. Even though the computing benchmark statement focuses on the common aspects of the curriculum, it is important that HE continues to have a variety of different courses (both within and between institutions) in order to embrace the breadth, depth and diversity of the discipline. There are many challenges that arise from the complexity of the computing curriculum, most notably the demands of a balance between theory and practice. Students need to be able to ‘do things’ in a practical sense as well as understand the underpinning academic rigour of the subject. Teaching programming requires a fine balance between teaching the principles of algorithmic thinking, linking programming language to design methodology, mastering the syntactic detail of a particular language and developing the skills required to design, compile and debug programs while at the same time keeping students motivated. Many students find it frustrating that there is such a steep learning curve in programming before they are able to produce the programs that they expected with relative ease. This has an adverse effect on student motivation. Students pick up the fundamentals of programming at different rates, based on prior experience and inherent mathematical and problem-solving abilities. Classes with a mix of ‘experts’ and ‘novices’ pose a considerable challenge, as students need to learn and develop at their own pace. Keeping the former motivated and enthused while ensuring the latter are not intimidated and have the opportunity to develop their ability requires imagination and skill. Fundamental to the teaching of computing is the development of mathematical and problem-solving skills. Studying mathematics, in particular discrete mathematics, provides computing students with the opportunity to ‘develop the ability to reason and analyse formally defined abstract structures’ (Devlin 2003: 36). The mathematical techniques developed help greatly in the design, development and testing of information systems.

ELAC01

10

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Current issues 11

Employers expect students to be proficient in design, a topic which manifests itself in a number of computing subject areas – for example, hardware design, systems design, program design, database design and Human Computer Interface (HCI) design. In order to understand design techniques there is not only a need to appreciate a wide range of methods and techniques but also a need to be able to apply those techniques and, indeed, to be able to critically evaluate them. In industry the techniques are used to solve large and complex problems, however within HE smaller problems must be used to enable students to understand and manage design solutions within limited periods of time. It is therefore important to ensure that students understand the cumulative nature of the tools and techniques they are studying. Undergraduate programmes in HE normally include a group project which allows for many of the design techniques developed over a period of time to be brought together and shared by the group who collectively tackle a more complex problem. Group projects also provide the opportunity to integrate a number of transferable skills. Individual final-year projects also enable students to integrate and synthesize many of the design skills that have been introduced in earlier learning experiences. The individual project also includes an opportunity for students to undertake a significant piece of research, as well as product design and development, and provides a chance to introduce students to further research opportunities in HE. There is a professional and moral responsibility on teachers in HE to sensitize students to the professional and ethical dilemmas they will face. As such it is important to broaden students’ consideration of computing beyond computing fundamentals and problem solving and to consider the impact of computing on society. Studying professional and ethical issues will help students in the resolution of many problems they will find after they graduate. It is therefore no surprise that the teaching of professional and ethical issues is now a core component of most computing curricula as it is a requirement of professional bodies such as the British Computer Society (BCS) for accreditation and exemption in HE computing programmes. Professionalism in computing manifests itself at a number of different levels. However, students often do not see the immediate relevance of a topic, especially if it is introduced pre-placement. Furthermore, most academic staff have had little or no exposure to teaching professionalism. Fitting professional issues into an already crowded curriculum is also problematic. A further expectation of the computing graduate is to have a set of transferable skills that will be used in the professional computing environment.

Transferable skills The incorporation and development of key or transferable skills is an important and integral part of education in HE, as emphasized in the Dearing Report (Df EE 1997). A relatively high number of students enter computing programmes with

ELAC01

11

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

12 Effective learning and teaching in computing

vocational qualifications. Students from different backgrounds clearly have different study patterns and skills. Computing programmes must develop the skills required to become a computing professional and transferable skills are an important component of this skills set. However, it is less common to have key skills explicitly stated, taught or assessed in their own right. There are many issues involved in the teaching of transferable skills and these are often exacerbated as a result of modular academic structures. Transferable skills need to be applied across the whole curriculum, but with modularization there is a real danger that such skills are restricted to a few core modules or omitted completely. Students must be presented with the opportunity to practise and develop their transferable skills (i.e. problem solving, communication, literacy, groupwork, producing executive summaries, critical analysis and giving presentations). Students need guidance in appreciating the value of these skills. The challenge for academics is to ensure that such skills can be applied across the syllabus and that they develop in complexity as students progress between levels of study. The introduction of PDPs may well provide the impetus to encourage skills development and encourage students to take ownership of their learning. Using PDPs as a mechanism for learning in computing allows students to demonstrate deep learning through practice and reflection. However, it is important that PDP development should not be seen as an extra task but be integrated into the curriculum and linked to policies on guidance tutoring, which in turn have a positive impact on retention. Using PDPs as a focus for the guidance tutorial has a number of positive effects, both for the development of the PDP and for the value of the guidance tutorial – it encourages students to participate in creating their PDPs, adds value to the PDP and provides common text and evidence for the guidance tutorial.

Pedagogy The rapidly evolving nature of computing together with changing educational technologies encourages continuous review of the pedagogy for computing courses. As well as reviewing the curriculum to keep pace with technology, pedagogy also needs to be reviewed to incorporate the benefits of ICT and other developments. In responding to government priorities it is important to preserve academic values. When examining appropriate pedagogies it is important to consider the responsibilities of both HE institutions and academic staff. Although there is a widespread move towards student ownership of learning, the responsibility for providing the learning environment to facilitate this remains an academic one. It is widely accepted that both academic staff and students need to learn new skills to move from traditional to e-tutoring mode. Changing practices and changing thinking are inextricably linked: changes in either can yield unexpected consequences in the other. It is therefore important that any changes are well thought through

ELAC01

12

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Current issues 13

and their impact evaluated. Academics must keep abreast of current good practice which will inform local developments and ensure effective exploitation of existing resources.

Learning resources Student expectations dictate that resources in HE will be unlimited and include the most up-to-date technology. In reality, learning resources and technical facilities are often outdated, shabby or unreliable, and as a result some students may become disaffected or demotivated. Many students have their own computer, which are often of a higher specification than can be provided by universities. This has advantages in allowing them to choose their place of study but may raise other issues such as managing software copyright. Technology can be used to successfully change the nature of the traditional classroom in HE and provide new learning experiences for students. There are many opportunities including VLEs, mobile computing, facilities for students to plug in laptops in lecture theatres, the use of voice input (lecturer’s voice) to accompany student notes, electronic whiteboards to aid comprehension and student response systems to interactively check student understanding. Learning resources must enhance students’ learning experience, and therefore technology must not be considered in isolation without rethinking the appropriate pedagogy. This will require time and support for staff development.

Increasing participation Government policy has a target to increase participation in HE to 50 per cent of 18–30-year-olds by 2010. In recent years, computing has been at the forefront of the increasing participation agenda. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) statistics indicate a 61 per cent increase from 1996/7 to 2001/2 (www.hesa.ac.uk). The route to undergraduate study in computing is diverse. In most cases there are no subject-specific entry requirements for students enrolling on computing programmes; students are recruited on merit, from a diverse variety of academic backgrounds, thus resulting in large groups of mixed ability and diverse learning experiences. Teaching large numbers of mixed-ability students presents a significant problem in terms of assessment, feedback and groupwork activities.

Widening participation Despite the move from an elite to a mass HE, the student body remains both socially and culturally unrepresentative of the nation as a whole. In recent years, widening and not simply increasing participation has become a central concern for

ELAC01

13

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

14 Effective learning and teaching in computing

HE. In 1997, both the Kennedy (FEFC 1997) and Dearing (Df EE 1997) reports established the importance of widening participation. More recently, the White Paper The Future of Higher Education (Df ES 2003: 67) dedicated an entire chapter to this issue, stating that ‘education must be a force for opportunity and social justice’, indicating the need to address issues relating to both equality and diversity. The concept of widening participation embraces the recruitment of students from groups that HE has identified as underrepresented, subsequently ensuring their success. Such groups could be people from a particular cultural or socioeconomic background, or even a particular gender if they are underrepresented on a programme. It also includes students with disabilities. Performance indicators and benchmarks are used to appraise progress towards widening participation targets. HEFCE 2002/52: Performance Indicators in Higher Education indicate that, as a discipline, mathematical and computer sciences is well above the national average, recruiting 30 per cent of entrants from social classes IIIM, IV and V (although this is still underrepresentative of this sector of the population as a whole). In addressing the widening participation agenda, institutions and departments must provide appropriate opportunities for those who have not traditionally had the chance to develop their educational potential at third level. For some departments this is not new – it has been part of their mission, ethos and culture for many years. For others, taking students from wider socioeconomic backgrounds presents considerable challenges in respect of addressing new client groups while being required to remain resource efficient. In either case, new initiatives such as these usually require enthusiasts or ‘champions’ to persuade colleagues to adapt their strategies at departmental and institutional level. If widening participation is to be successfully achieved then institutional and departmental structures and practices must be revised. Jary and Jones (2003: 6–7) outline four issues arising from the widening participation agenda which are likely to have implications for all disciplines: recruitment and admission – need to review access and recruitment policies and • procedures in order to attract an increasingly diverse student population; content and delivery – changed modes of delivery with increased emphasis • course on flexible learning and careful consideration of assessment practices; and monitoring of students – track progress and identify ‘at risk’ students; • retention wider questions – e.g. Foundation Degrees and sub-degree qualifications are • difficult to sell to potential students. It could be argued that the variety of entry routes available at sub-degree, undergraduate and postgraduate levels together with a long tradition in accrediting prior experiential and work-based learning ensure that as a discipline, computing is already addressing the widening participation agenda. Nevertheless, widening participation is a key priority on the national HE policy agenda and one which the computing disciplines must address.

ELAC01

14

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Current issues 15

HE in FE The further education (FE) sector provides a route through which much of the HE expansion required to meet the government’s widening participation targets can be provided. The government wants to see expansion in two-year, work-focused foundation degrees and in mature students in the workforce developing their skills. In an attempt to include the many potential entrants, particularly those from lower socioeconomic groups, stronger links with FE, industry and regional communities have been encouraged. Much of the needed expansion in HE will be vocational in nature and will need to be flexible, giving non-traditional students a choice about modes of study, and should thus be provided locally. Increased collaboration and cooperation between HE and FE institutions has been particularly encouraged, with the widening participation action plan indicating the need for partnership initiatives and forms of provision with clear progression paths in order to facilitate greater participation in HE. Access courses already provide special routes for those without traditional entry qualifications to enter HE.

Accessibility/disability While increasing participation it is imperative that fair access is ensured for all. It is therefore increasingly likely that some of the students in HE will have a disability. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA 2001) indicates that meeting the needs of disabled students can no longer be seen as an optional extra but should now be a core activity for all HE and FE providers. The legislation requires all HE institutions to be proactive rather than reactive in addressing the needs of disabled students, and managers and staff are being tasked with providing inclusive facilities for learning. Departments must therefore see how curricula can be adapted to meet the needs of students with disabilities. The norm has been to respond to individual student needs as they present themselves, however, a more strategic view is now required in order to meet the requirements of recent legislation related to services for students with disabilities. The National Disability Team (http://www.techdis.ac.uk) is concerned with base level provision for teaching and learning and provides a useful point of reference.

Female entrants Statistics show that there are disproportionately small numbers of women in the computer industry and in academic computer science. Many researchers feel that women are uncomfortable with the computer culture, which emphasizes almost obsessive, highly focused behaviour as the key to success. Other studies note that the expectations and stereotypes of software designers are at the root of the male

ELAC01

15

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

16 Effective learning and teaching in computing

bias in software (Frenkel 1990) coupled with a ‘macho’ culture among students and some lecturers which discourages some women students. In the UK, organizations such as Women into Computing (WiC) and Women In Science, Engineering and Technology (WISET) are committed to raising the profile of women in the computing and IT fields. Such organizations are involved in a variety of initiatives designed to increase the representation and impact of women in all areas of computing and to support those already there. Nevertheless there is still much work to be done in this area, especially in the light of the fact that proportionately low female participation is not a worldwide phenomenon. The reasons why females are excluding themselves from this leading edge discipline remain unclear. Women’s underrepresentation is not due to direct discrimination but to subconscious behaviour that perpetuates the status quo. In addressing the widening participation agenda there is clearly a need to get to the root of why this section of the population remains underrepresented, uncover the origins of the problem and instigate action to rectify it.

Developing strategies Adjusting methods of learning, teaching and assessment to meet the needs of a very wide range of students (including non-traditional and disabled students) in practice benefits all students. These changes require a culture shift in many departments, and a strategic approach to improve services for students. To successfully recruit a diverse range of students and support their progression to degree level requires a coherent approach to learning, teaching and assessment with strategic planning at a school or departmental level. As already mentioned, two external factors are having a major influence on the supply and demand of HE applicants and students. The first is government policy, with targets to widen participation in HE to 50 per cent of 18–30-year-olds by 2010. The second is recent legislation to ensure equality of opportunities and provision for people with disabilities, and those from ethnic minorities. The HEFCE publication Successful Student Diversity identifies 23 case studies and provides guidance on good practice and common principles to inform decision making and planning at this level. The case studies illustrate how HE institutions are reviewing their access and recruitment policies and procedures to respond to these external drivers. They also highlight changes in the support that institutions must provide, not just at the beginning of a programme but throughout a student’s career, to encourage student retention. Examples include drop-in centres, extra academic and personal tutoring, PDPs and various kinds of e-learning.

Summary There are many issues covered in this book and in bringing them together it is hoped to encourage computing teachers in HE to reflect on their practice and

ELAC01

16

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Current issues 17

incorporate some of the suggestions in order to enhance their teaching. The tenet throughout the book is to look at ways of developing and improving learning and teaching in order to provide an effective and efficient learning environment for students.

References DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into the Future of Higher Education (the Dearing Report). London: HMSO. DfES (Department for Education and Skills) (2003) The Future of Higher Education. London: HMSO. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/highereducation/hestrategy Devlin, K. (2003) ‘Why Universities Require Computer Science Students to Take Math’, Communications of the ACM, 46(9): 36–9. FEFC (Further Education Funding Council) (1997) Learning Works: The Report of the Further Education Funding Council’s Committee on Widening Participation in Further Education (the Kennedy Report). London: HMSO. Frenkel, K. A. (1990) ‘Women and Computing’, Communications of the ACM, 33(11): 34–46. HEFCE 2002/48 Successful Student Diversity. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2002/ 02_48.htm HEFCE 2002/52 Performance Indicators in Higher Education. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/ Learning/perfind/2002/ Jary, D. and Jones, R. (2003) Widening Participation: Overview and Commentary, www. c-sap.bham.ac.uk/wpbriefing.pdf Neumann, R. (1994) ‘The Teaching-research Nexus: Applying a Framework to University Students’ Learning Experiences’, European Journal of Education, 29(3): 323–39.

ELAC01

17

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

ELAC01

18

14/5/04, 2:17 PM

Part 1

Teaching and the support of learning

ELAC02

19

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

ELAC02

20

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

2

Motivating computing students

Peggy Gregory and Tony Jenkins

Introduction Motivation is an important part of success in higher education (HE). For students it is vital to maintain personal motivation in order to make the effort of studying worthwhile. For lecturers it is important to take account of diverse student motivations in order to run successful courses. Factors that are increasingly having an impact on student motivation are: the large numbers of students studying computing; the diversity of intake; the changing requirements of employers in the computing industry; and students’ need to earn money to support themselves. All these factors have an impact on the way students approach their studies. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) there were 60,605 computing undergraduates in the academic year 1995/6. By the year 2000/1 that figure had risen to 89,070, an increase of nearly 47 per cent (www.hesa.ac.uk). The two major factors influencing this growth in numbers have been the general trend of widening participation in HE and the growth of the computing industry. One consequence of this dramatic growth in student numbers has been that the first-year undergraduates encountered in the classroom are an increasingly diverse group of individuals who have embarked on computing degrees with widely differing backgrounds, interests and motivations. Dealing with diversity affects almost every aspect of teaching, from designing syllabi to choosing assessments and running tutorials. Understanding and addressing student diversity is therefore a vital part of successfully managing the increasing numbers of students coming into the subject. Understanding student motivation is a key element of this process. Employment is often high on the list of reasons that students give for choosing computing as a subject to study, even though it may not be the sole motivator.

ELAC02

21

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

22 Teaching and the support of learning

Despite being a goal for the future, employment considerations can also be a strong motivating force for students while they are studying. Issues of commercial relevance are often of particular concern, with many students wanting to concentrate on learning skills that they believe (rightly or wrongly) will give them a better chance in the job market. A student’s view of ‘relevance’ may differ from a lecturer’s view and the resulting clash of interpretations can be frustrating. However, when the issue of relevance is addressed successfully the outcome of better engagement in the subject by a student group is worth the effort. Juggling priorities is hard for students in today’s climate. Many have to work parttime to fund their studies and nearly all end up with a large debt to pay off by the time they finish. Poor attendance can be a result of students having to work long or late hours, typically in fairly boring jobs such as shelf-stacking or in bars. This often results in students having to make pragmatic decisions about how to use their study time most effectively. Weaker students often do this less effectively than stronger ones and the result can be a loss of direction and a consequent loss of motivation. Another key issue for students is whether they are able to successfully make the transition from school or college into HE. This process takes time and needs support. As student numbers increase it is more difficult for those teaching them to find the time to deal with students individually. However, the path to academic maturity does not run smoothly for many students and finding solutions often requires individual support of some sort. If students cannot retain their motivation they will not be prepared to put in the work necessary to succeed. If students are not motivated they will not learn.

Understanding motivation Students of any subject will not learn effectively unless they are well motivated. In a practical subject such as computing, where hands-on work is such an essential part of learning, the essential role of motivation in learning cannot be overstated. Unfortunately, motivation is an inherently difficult concept to investigate, understand and address. It is an intangible concept; the motivation of an individual student is a very personal thing. It is, of course, possible to question students about their motivations, and it is possible to make what seem to be reasonable inferences from this questioning, but it is never possible to be completely sure why an individual is motivated to behave in a particular way or to learn a particular subject. Students may want to learn for a variety of reasons, and it is possible to identify various factors that seek to group these: motivation – where the student’s motivation derives from largely external • Extrinsic factors. The most common candidate is hoped-for eventual financial gain in a lucrative career.

Intrinsic motivation – the student’s motivation is based in a deep interest in the sub• ject being studied. Satisfaction is gained from learning more about the subject.

ELAC02

22

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

Motivating computing students 23

Competitive motivation – the motivation is to ‘do well’ in assessments and • (sometimes) to perform better than peers. In this case the subject being studied is almost tangential to the motivation.

motivation – the student’s aim is to succeed so as to please some other • Social person or group whose opinion is valued. The likely candidates for such groups are the student’s family or sponsor. These categories represent stereotypes, and it is unlikely that any one student would be motivated in only one of these ways. The more plausible situation is that each of these four forms of motivation is present to some extent in every student, and that each student is thus deriving their motivation from a range of factors. Students differ in the relative importance that they attach to each of the four factors. It is tempting to believe that many students approach a degree in computing with solely extrinsic motivation in mind – their aim is to secure a qualification that renders them eligible for a highly paid job in the information technology (IT) industry. Investigations have shown, however, that this is not quite the case. Many, if not most, students profess a keen desire to learn and an interest in the subject when they start computing degrees. It is important that those who teach them appreciate their motivation and learn to teach them in a way that maintains and even increases their level of motivation. If motivation is difficult to categorize, it is even harder to quantify. How is it possible to quantify an intangible personal concept? How is it possible to find that one student is in some sense more motivated than another? There is no easy answer and no convenient scale of motivation. There is, however, a model that attempts to explain the factors that influence the extent of a learner’s motivation – the expectancy-value model of motivation. The expectancy-value model sees the extent of motivation as the product of two related factors: extent to which the learner expects to succeed in the learning task; • the • the value that the learner attached to such a successful outcome. These two factors are said to multiply rather than add: motivation = expectancy × value. It follows that if either factors falls to zero the motivation will also be zero no matter what the value of the other factor. A student who attaches great value to success in a course but who also views such success as unattainable will not be motivated. A student who could pass easily but who attaches no value to such an outcome will not be motivated. The expectancy part of the equation is closely linked with assessment. The absolute measure of a student’s success or failure comes from the final assessment, and it is crucial (in terms of motivation) that a student expects to negotiate the final assessment successfully. What ‘success’ means here should always be interpreted in the student’s own terms; for some it might be to achieve a first-class mark,

ELAC02

23

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

24 Teaching and the support of learning

while for others a bare pass might be achievement enough. The teacher has a crucial role here is ensuring that the students always believe that success is attainable. Academic success should not be easy to achieve, but it should always be possible to achieve. The list of reasons why a student might be motivated has already provided an overview for the value element. It is possible to take this list and make some judgements about the desirability of these types of motivation; for example, it might be argued that intrinsic motivation is superior to extrinsic motivation (it evidences more noble ideals, perhaps). However, from a motivational perspective it does not matter why students value a learning opportunity or outcome, just as long as they do. The teacher’s role here is to ensure that the students all value the outcome at the start of the course (they should understand why the learning outcomes of a course are important to them), and to maintain this value throughout the course. An understanding of the factors that together influence the motivation of computing students is crucial if these students are to be taught effectively. A class of interested and motivated students is bound to learn better, and perform better in assessment, than a class of students who would rather be elsewhere and care not whether they pass or fail. A happy side-effect for the teacher who understands and addresses motivation is that the class of students will be much more satisfying to teach.

Practical ideas for motivating computing students Teaching strategies There are many things that a teacher can do in order to ensure that a diverse class of students is suitably motivated. The key underlying these ideas is the recognition that, although they are part of a large group, each student is an individual. Each student has a reason for learning, has a preferred way to learn, and has a unique reason for being on your course. The motivation of an individual student is, of course, impossible to ascertain with any certainty. This is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. The teacher must have confidence in the student, and must be prepared to pass some of the responsibility for learning on to the student. This involves passing on some of the control in the somewhat delicate relationship between student and teacher. Four practical steps can be easily identified: students some freedom to work at their own pace and level. Students are all • Allow different. They have different motivations and different abilities. It is senseless to believe that they can all be taught in the same way. When an assignment is set, think about what is important. What are the students supposed to get from

ELAC02

24

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

Motivating computing students 25



• •

the assignment? Is it more important that they do this, or that they do it by a particular time? Ensure that teaching materials cater for more than one preferred way of learning. Students prefer to learn, and learn best, in different ways. Having said that, it is possible that a particular learning task can be specified in a way that drives students to try and learn in a particular way. Teaching materials should allow students to engage with them in a variety of ways and must encourage students to engage in the way in which they prefer and which serves them best. The key is flexibility. Give opportunities for students to be active in the learning process. Students should be given the opportunity to be active participants in the learning process. This goes beyond simply asking them questions in lectures. They can be challenged to find things out on their own. They can be challenged to learn. Link material being taught to practice. Whatever their main motivation, most students will be keenly interested in what will happen after they have completed their course. They will want to be sure that they are learning skills that are of use to them. Where possible teaching sessions should be illustrated with examples from industry or some well-known applications.

Some teachers may be uncomfortable with the idea of passing control to students in this way. It is difficult, but it can be done. Control is crucial in a learning environment; a student who does not feel in control of the learning outcomes (as measured in the assessment) will not be motivated. Such a student will come to cease to expect success; if this happens the student will not be motivated, no matter how much they continue to value success. There is no point in valuing success in something that is unattainable.

Assessment strategies Students typically spend a lot of their study time working for assessment, especially coursework assessments. There are a number of ways in which interest and variation can be built into coursework assessments to make them more interesting for students. This can help to motivate students to put both more effort and more creative energy into their work. Here are some practical suggestions for making assessments in computing more interesting and varied. Allow students to take some control in the assessment process Using strategies such as flexible assessment can give students some element of control without altering or jeopardizing assessment objectives. For instance, it is possible to give students options about how they present the results of their work?

ELAC02

25

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

26 Teaching and the support of learning

As well as writing a traditional essay or report, they could be given the option of writing a journalistic-style report, producing a poster, producing a web page or giving a presentation. While care has to be taken to ensure that different options can be marked against the same learning outcomes, giving students some sort of control can encourage them to get more involved in their work. This is particularly important for first-year students. Students who are given choice will often choose options that fit with their preferred learning style. Therefore, as well as giving students an element of control over their assessment, such a strategy also gives them an opportunity to work in a way that suits them. Another idea is to give students an opportunity to choose when they take assessment, so that they can take more control of their workload. Encourage individuality and creativity Coursework specifications can be very detailed and prescriptive, leaving little room for students to use their creative skills. Tapping into students’ individual interests and creative abilities can be an effective way of motivating them and helping to maintain their engagement. Many students enjoy being creative, and find it difficult to express their natural flair and individuality in the academic environment. The trade-off for lecturers is that the marking of less prescriptive assignments can be timeconsuming. Therefore it may not be practical for modules with a large cohort or for all assignments, but is worth considering where appropriate. Watch out for over-assessment It is important to look at the overall pattern of assessment for students in each year group. Many students prefer coursework assessment because it gives them an opportunity to prove their abilities in the subject under normal working conditions rather than the false conditions of the examination room. However, a constant stream of coursework throughout the year can become overwhelming. Students faced with coursework overload will cease to find it challenging and shift into a more pragmatic survival mode. Resulting behaviour may be skipping classes in order to finish coursework, only aiming to do the bare minimum of work required for a pass or, worse still, a blind panic in which they do nothing at all. Try out innovative assessment ideas There are many innovative ways of approaching teaching, learning and assessment. Ideas such as problem-based learning, an approach that uses problems to reach specified learning goals, can help students to take control of their own learning and assessment, and to learn from experience. Also, the increased use of virtual learning environments provides many opportunities for teachers to develop new ways of interacting with their students and of managing assessments. An occasional review of assessment practices can help to keep teaching approaches fresh and engaging.

ELAC02

26

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

Motivating computing students 27

Links with industry Maintaining links with business and industry is a good way to help students bridge the gap between study and work. Another way in which it can be helpful to teachers is by providing a flow of interesting and creative problems for students to work on. While working on model problems is essential when starting out, students appreciate efforts made to work on more realistic problems once they have gained more experience. There are a variety of ways in which links between students and businesses can be initiated. Industrial placements are one option. However, while sandwich-year students greatly value their experience and claim that it helps their employability, it is not a suitable course of action for all students. A business or industrial link does not have to be a placement; it could be a series of talks, a contact for a final-year project, a competition, a case study or a mentoring project. One simple idea is to initiate a series of occasional talks with guest speakers from local businesses, linked in with a particular module so that all the students get an opportunity to attend.

The top ten tips The importance of motivation cannot be overstated. We end with some tips that should enable a teacher to ensure that all students are as motivated as possible. 1 Give students control. Don’t be afraid of letting the students take responsibility for their own learning. They understand their own motivations better than you ever can! 2 Have confidence in your students. Trust them to know how they learn best. Trust them to do it! 3 Encourage flexible working. Let students work in the way that they prefer and that serves them best. Make sure that assignments and assessments at least allow this, and if possible encourage it. 4 Encourage creativity. Students will be much keener to work on assignments that they have had some input in designing. Let them work on something that interests them, not something that interests you or something that is easy to mark. Reward innovation and creativity. 5 Remember learning styles. Remember that your teaching can drive students towards learning in a particular way. Are you encouraging them to do little more than memorize facts? Are you teaching so quickly that all they can do is copy your slides? 6 Encourage independence. University is about more than just getting a degree. Encourage students to work independently. Encourage them to learn how to learn. 7 Make realistic demands. Beware over-assessment! Do all your assessments need to be assessed summatively? It is far easier to be flexible with formative assessment. Keep summative assessment to the minimum needed for validity.

ELAC02

27

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

28 Teaching and the support of learning

8 Make commercial links. Talk to local or national businesses. Persuade them to come and talk to your students. Many will be happy to do so – these are future employees. Get them involved in setting a competition or in sponsoring a prize. 9 Give regular feedback. Make sure that the students know how they are doing. Make sure that they are expecting success. Remember to interpret this in their terms, not in yours. 10 Innovate! Above all, never be afraid to try something new. Good luck!

References Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. Brown, S., Armstrong, S. et al. (1998) Motivating Students. London: Kogan Page. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J. et al. (1991) ‘Motivation and Education: The Self Determination Perspective’, Educational Psychologist, 26(3 and 4): 325–46. Dweck, C. S. and Leggett, E. L. (1988) ‘A Social-cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality’, Psychological Review, 95: 256–73. Elton, L., (1996) ‘Strategies to Enhance Student Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis’, Studies in Higher Education, 21: 57–68. Jacons, P. A. and Newstead, S. E. (2000) ‘The Nature and Development of Student Motivation’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70: 243–54. Keller, J. M. (1983) ‘Motivational Design of Instruction’, in Charles M. Reigeluth (ed.) Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 383–434. Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zimmerman, B. J. (1990) ‘Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview’, Educational Psychologist, 25(1): 3–17.

ELAC02

28

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

3

The role of practical skills in computing education

Fintan Culwin

Introduction The UK benchmark statements for computing (QAA 2000) include: ‘produce work involving the identification, the analysis, the design and the development of a system with appropriate documentation . . . and demonstrate a requisite understanding of the need for quality’. The British Computer Society (BCS) guidelines on course accreditation (BCS 2001) include: ‘to develop an IT solution to a practical problem . . . include the production of a new piece of software . . .’. The Association of Computer Manufacturers (ACM) model curriculum (ACM/ IEEE 2001) is a little more complex but about 20 of the 60 core topics relate to programming or practical software development. In most computing, computer studies, computer science, internet computing, etc. courses the requirement for practical skills is satisfied by course themes identified as programming, software development, software design or software engineering. Moreover it is anticipated that for the vast majority of students these competencies will be demonstrated in the final-year project, where the design, development, demonstration and documentation of a software artefact is almost mandatory. In courses named Business Information Technology, Business Computing, ECommerce etc., which subscribe in varying degrees to the computing benchmark statements, the development of practical skills is not as central a course theme. However, these courses usually require students to develop and demonstrate competence in practical development skills, though not necessarily in the final year project.

ELAC03

29

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

30 Teaching and the support of learning

Despite the importance of practical skills as enshrined in the curriculum documents cited above, and reflected in the definitive course documents in thousands of institutions, in general students fail to develop their skills to the levels expected by their tutors. A multi-national working group at ITiCSE 2001 reported that first-year students scored an average of about 21 per cent on an agreed standard practical task (McCracken et al. 2001). Anecdotally, the situation does not improve in subsequent years and final-year students graduating from computing courses do not have the level of practical skills that tutors expect of them. Hence there is a paradox inherent in computing education, where students do not manage to attain the skill levels expected of them by tutors, yet manage to progress and graduate. Logically, either the expectations of tutors must be unrealistic and the overall assessment regime compensates for this, or students are genuinely failing a core learning objective en masse and the assessment regime is flawed and concealing this deficiency. In addition to the two kinds of courses described above, courses in practical software construction appear in a large number of other areas including science, engineering and business studies. A distinction to be made here is that learning practical programming skills in these courses is incidental to the main focus of the degree, whereas in courses within computing departments these practical skills are central to the degree. In considering the role of practical skills in computing education as a whole, some account should be taken of this activity. One further distinction within computing education with ramifications for the role of practical skills relates to the differences between computer science and applied computing. Programmes of study that describe themselves as computer science see computing as an outgrowth of mathematics and mathematical science. These programmes have a fundamental concern with the issue of computability and with the use of discrete mathematics and formal methods to prove the correctness of algorithms and their implementation. All other programmes can be broadly described as ‘applied computing’ where an ethos of developing and using computing and information technology (IT) for economic and social benefit underpins the curriculum. These programmes are explicitly or implicitly engineering-based in ethos and so are concerned with the production of systems and artefacts which are fit for their purpose and produced in a timely and cost-effective manner. This distinction in theory between applied and formal computing is much less of an issue in practice. Applied computing programmes will, in general, include consideration of proof and computability, and likewise computer science programmes will include much that is applied.

A taxonomy of programming courses Although programming has been promoted as being educative in its own right (Culwin and Hayes 1995), as it provides the learner with a new way of looking at

ELAC03

30

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

The role of practical skills in computing education 31

the world which was not previously accessible to them (Burton 1998), it is seen primarily by students as a way of developing a marketable asset. This is one of the dichotomies between students wanting to learn the current most commercially attractive language (soon to be c#?) and the teacher who thinks they should be learning programming and/or design principles. Stein (1996) proposes a revolution in programming education to meet the needs of current software technology. She notes that students are currently enthused to study computing as a result of experiences of commercial-quality software and games. These are highly engaging and interactive, featuring multimodal operation involving high-quality sound, graphics and animation. They are implemented as multi-threaded, distributed artefacts built using object-oriented design and development. Until very recently the modal experience of a first-year computing student in their programming classes would have been the construction of a singlethreaded monolithic artefact, using text-based Input–Output (I-O) and built using structured programming techniques. Few institutions have fully adopted Stein’s proposed revolution (Culwin 1999; Weber-Wulff 2000) but many have purported to have changed from text-I–O to Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) and from structured or modular programming to object orientation. The rapid adoption of Java as the preferred language for initial programming classes in the 1990s has also caused courses to adopt object orientation as the primary paradigm. Unfortunately, there is accumulating evidence that many of these courses are primarily still promulgating ideas rooted in structured and modular programming, with a few notions of objects appended as an apparent afterthought. There is an important debate within the object oriented (OO) educational community regarding the point in the curriculum where objects are first introduced: first, early or late. This debate presumes that a hybrid language such as Java, C++ or Ada 95 is being used; a pure OO language such as Smalltalk precludes the debate and ensures an ‘object first’ approach is employed. This is the favoured position of specialist OO teachers as expressed in the proceedings of the annual symposium at the Object-Oriented Programming, Systems Languages and Applications conference (OOPSLA 2001). Teachers coming to Java from a structured or modular background, who themselves learned about OO after they learned programming, seem to prefer a middle or a late approach. The empirical evidence relating to advantages or disadvantages of these positions is sparse and inconclusive. The issues concerning the merits of GUI early or late are less clear cut. The provision of a GUI that is effective, efficient and enjoyable requires engineering skills beyond those initially needed for the construction of non-GUI artefacts. The only design pattern for GUIs that has been repeatedly validated, predating the patterns design movement itself, is the three-layer ‘model, view, controller’ pattern. The engineering implementation of this pattern requires event-driven callback methods to be installed into the interactive components. Although this complexity can be hidden from neophyte developers, the artefacts produced and the designs inherent in them are totally non-scalable.

ELAC03

31

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

32 Teaching and the support of learning

This inherent non-scalability of initial exposure is at variance with almost all other intentions of initial programming education. For students whose programming education is incidental to the nature of their award this may not be a problem. They are being introduced to programming as a non-engineering discipline and the artefacts they produce are intended to be non-complex, used only by a small number of people and limited in their application and life cycle. For students to whom programming is central to their degrees the engineering requirement of scalability should be stressed from the outset. However, in many institutions a GUI early approach has been adopted, employing either a monolithic single-complement design or hiding the true complexity within a non-standard toolkit (Koffman and Wolz 2001). The advisability of this approach seems somewhat suspect and other institutions argue for a GUI late approach, insisting on due engineering underpinning (Culwin 1999). Returning to Stein’s suggestions, there is very little reported experience of attempts to explore multi-threaded or distributed early education. Some authors do advocate an early exposure to threads (Hartley 1998; Culwin 1999) in environments where this is not unduly complex. However, the general indication is that these issues are better left to advanced courses. These distinctions and considerations give a conceptual space, as shown in Figure 3.1, where the role of the development of practical skills can be placed. The example languages and suggested applications are largely illustrative and counter-examples to all of these allocations are not difficult to find. The most fundamental distinction is between courses where practical skills are central and those where they are incidental. Examples would include all engineering and science courses as well as business studies. The kinds of environment and languages used would include Pascal and Fortran for the scientists and engineers and Basic or Visual Basic for business studies. The application emphasis is on smallscale, lightweight artefacts intended to assist in the professional life of the end user developer. The next most fundamental distinction is between computing per se and IT courses. Examples would include business information technology (BIT) and informatics. The kinds of language would include Visual Basic, Delphi, Javascript and relational database structured query language (SQL). The application emphasis is on using high-level tools to provide small-scale systems to assist in business processes. The remaining distinction is within the computing domain and divides between applied computing and computer science. Computer science programmes will tend to use languages such as Haskell or Miranda within a formal methods approach such as Z. The application domain is limited with a focus upon algorithms rather than artefacts. The final division, applied computing, is probably the largest and most diverse. It would contain programmes which generally included the term ‘computing’ in their title. It would tend to use heavyweight application languages such as C++ or Java for initial instruction, but aim to give a much wider appreciation of different languages and paradigms thereafter. It is here that the outcome of the debate

ELAC03

32

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

The role of practical skills in computing education 33

Central

Incidental Engineering Science Business studies

Information technology Business information technology Informatics

Basic Visual Basic Pascal Fortran

E-commerce

Visual basic Delphi Javascript Office enabled SQL

Computing Computer science

Formal

Haskell Miranda Z

Computing

C C++ Java Eiffel SQL Php perl

Applied

Figure 3.1

A taxonomy of programming courses

regarding object/GUI early or late finds its clearest expression. Application domains are equally comprehensive but have a tendency to be concerned with both the development of tools and also their deployment.

The philosophy of skills learning The development of practical skills in computing, like the development of any skill, requires practice. The role of the programming tutor is to design and maintain an environment within which neophyte developers can most productively attain the required level. The relationship between the student and tutor should be akin to apprenticeship with the tutor providing the scaffolding within which the skills can be safely built. Unfortunately this model of education is incompatible with the industrialization of higher educational experiences that has been prevalent over the last decade (O’Callaghan 2003). The semeterizarion and unitization of experiences has create a pseudo-industrial environment where the student is seen as being processed by a unit to attain production qualities known as learning objectives. Inherent in this is the concept that a unit is standardized, as is the student’s experience of it. Hence the

ELAC03

33

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

34 Teaching and the support of learning

amount of time, effort and resources that are required to deliver a unit within the humanities is regarded as being exactly equivalent to that required in engineering. Jenkins (2001) comments that one of the differences between students studying computing 15 years ago and current cohorts is their practical skill level upon entering a programme and the decline in their willingness to develop skills within the programme. The effect of unitization upon a student is to create the expectation that the educational experience can be compartmentalized into a defined number of study hours. Moreover, students have an expectation that if they engage with the unit material for the required number of hours then they deserve a pass (Carter 1999). However, the successful development of skill, particularly the complex cognitive skills involved in software development, has a much greater variance and requires much greater commitment than is implicit in this model. The consequence, as noted in the introduction, is the disparity between the levels of skills that a tutor believes a student should have attained and the levels actually attained. The industrialized production pressure requires students to progress en masse and so tutors are willing to certify students have attained learning objectives while being deficient in practical skills. Notwithstanding the above, the literature on software development education reveals a number of issues and factors that explicitly or implicitly categorize courses. One distinction concerns the granularity of the learning experience. Some tutors and environments favour a small granularity as it allows a defined outcome to be specified and so assists in automated instruction and assessment. This focus on a defined outcome does not seem to respect the creative diversity of valid solutions to real-world programming problems. The proponents of this position argue that the development of low-level competencies is a prerequisite to the development of the higher-order skills in subsequent units. This position reflects the ‘objects last’ position in the ‘objects first/last’ debate and would seem to be promoting programmed learning. The small-scale examples used are necessarily divorced from realistic real-world examples and may be contributing to the disenchantment experienced by neophyte developers. The alternative position is much more within the constructivist educational philosophy, recognizing that experience of multiple, equally valid solutions to problems is fundamental to both the discipline and the student’s learning experience (Ben-Ari 1998; Boyle 2000). The larger-scale granularity of the learning experience leads to a greater real-world flavour to the examples and the emphasis upon multiple possible solutions leads more naturally to collective discussion and exploration of the solution space, without fear of accusations of plagiarism. Proponents of larger-scale, open-ended learning experiences are less concerned about teaching the lower-level competencies. Hence a student is expected to find a context within the development of a solution to a problem which requires a low-level competence (e.g. indefinite iteration, multiple selection etc.) and so have a more meaningful context within which to assimilate and accommodate these facilities.

ELAC03

34

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

The role of practical skills in computing education 35

There is a further distinction between an emphasis on programming per se and programming as part of the software development/engineering process. The programming per se philosophy teaches programming in isolation from design or production and even in some cases from testing. The alternative developmental approach is to regard coding as a simple matter of programming (SMOP), placing the pedagogic emphasis onto the design and production process. Programmes that include parallel, loosely coupled units on programming and on software design are clearly identified as programming per se. This isolationist approach is likely to be accompanied by small granularity and an instructivist underpinning philosophy. This constructivist philosophy is currently finding further expression in attempts to bring practices from extreme programming (XP) into the classroom (Williams and Upchurch 2001; McDowell et al. 2002). The philosophy of XP includes, among other things, collective code ownership, pair programming, an emphasis upon testing, simple design, continual small releases and a 40-hour week. Initially the educational emphasis has been on exploring pair programming, but many of the other principles also seem worthy of exploration. The social ownership of program code in student groups has been an issue for almost as long as programming has been taught. Notwithstanding the positive educational advantages of collaboration inherent in the reflective public discussion of design and code, it is also a requirement that students individually demonstrate their competencies. This requires each and every individual student to develop program code and in almost all circumstances this is in response to a common specification. The cost of producing completed program code, in terms of student hours, can be very high, particularly when the disparity between what tutors expect and what students are realistically capable of is taken into account. However, the costs of superficially disguising a program listing are very low and in circumstances where the perceived chance of being caught and/or the probable penalty if caught is light, the temptation to cheat can be overwhelming. There is evidence that plagiarism in programming is higher than in other areas (Culwin et al. 2001). The JISC sponsored study by Culwin et al. discusses this issue in depth.

Conclusion Practical skills are acknowledged to be a central part of computing education and there is a wide diversity of patterns of provision. There is an apparent paradox between the levels of skill that tutors believe students should have and the levels of skill that they can actually demonstrate. This disparity of perception and expectation may underpin some of the perennial problems that are associated with programming education. These problems seem endemic to the subject and show themselves in different kinds of programmes of study, and in different countries. The published literature on programming education shows a healthy debate on a number of issues, although empirical studies and the resulting pragmatic evidence

ELAC03

35

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

36 Teaching and the support of learning

are relatively rare. Although the majority of computing teachers would describe their implicit or explicit philosophy as constructivist, there is little practical consensus upon how best to implement its tenets.

References ACM/IEEE (2001) Computing Curricula 2001. http://www.computer.org/education/ cc2001/steelman/cc2001/ Steelman report BCS (2001) Guidelines on Course Exemption and Accreditation. http://www1.bcs.org.uk/ DocsRepository/01100/1137/docs/guide.pdf Ben-Ari, M. (1998) ‘Constructivism in Computer Science Education’, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(1): 257–61. Boyle, T. (2000) Constructivism: A Suitable Pedagogy for Information and Computing Sciences? http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/pub/conf2000/Papers/tboyle.htm Burton, P. (1998) Kinds of Languages, Kinds of Learning. http://www.ulst.ac.uk/cticomp/ monitor9.html Carter, J. (1999) ‘Collaboration or Plagiarism: What Happens when Students Work Together’, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 31(3): 52–5. Culwin, F. (1999) ‘Object Imperatives!’ ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 31(1): 31–6. Culwin, F. and Hayes, A. (1995) ‘Object Oriented Software Development Education: Evolution or Revolution?’, SEDA Paper 91, ISBN 0946815046. Culwin, F., Lancaster T. and McLeoud A. (2001) Source Code Plagiarism in UK HE Computing Schools: Issues, Attitudes and Tools (commissioned by JISC) http://www.jisc.ac.uk/ index.cfm?name=project_plag_southbank Hartley, S. J. (1998) ‘Alfonse, your Java is ready!’ ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(1): 247–51. Jenkins, T. (2001) ‘Teaching Programming – A Journey from Teacher to Motivator’ in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, pp. 65–71. London: LTSN-ICS. Koffman, E. and Wolz, U. (2001) ‘A Simple Java Package for GUI-like Interactivity’, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1): 11–15. McCracken, M., Alstrum, V., Diaz, D., Guzdial, M., Hagan, D., Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Laxer, C., Thomas, L., Utting, I. and Wilusz, T. (2001) ‘A Multi-national, Multiinstitutional Study of Assessment of Programming Skills of First Year CS Students’, ITiCSE 2001 Working Group Report, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(4): 125–80. McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. and Fernald, J. (2002) ‘The Effects of Pairprogramming on Performance in an Introductory Programming Course’, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(1): 38–42. O’Callaghan, A. (2003) Redesigning Computer Science. http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/pub/jicc6/ index.html OOPSLA (2001) Ed Symposium: The First Ten Years. http://www.oopsla.org/oopsla2001/ fp/6_edsymp.html QAA (2000) Computing Benchmark Statements. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/benchmark/ computing.pdf Stein, L. A. (1996) ‘Interactive Programming: Revolutionizing Introductory Computer Science’, ACM Computing Surveys, 28(4).

ELAC03

36

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

The role of practical skills in computing education 37

Weber-Wulff, D. (2000) ‘Combating the Code Warrior: A Different Sort of Programming Instruction’, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(3): 85–8. Williams, L. and Upchurch, R. (2001) ‘Extreme Programming for Software Engineering Education?’ Proceedings of the 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno: IEEE.

ELAC03

37

14/5/04, 2:18 PM

38 Teaching and the support of learning

4

Learning and teaching with computers

Ian Benest

Introduction This chapter argues the case for exploiting information technology (IT) by weaving it into traditional teaching and learning strategies instead of employing a ‘big bang’ change in which all learning takes place online. It adopts the familiar lecture paradigm as the means of conveying knowledge and advises on how the unique features of computers may be harnessed to create teaching material that is superior to paper-based alternatives. Attention is given to designing material that goes some way to helping disabled students learn as effectively as their able-bodied peers. Effective teachers have the skills that enable them to collect, organize and structure taught material to a level appropriate for their students, and then convey that material in a lucid way at a speed appropriate for them. This is the wellfounded, well-understood lecture paradigm which serves to facilitate the students’ knowledge acquisition, and makes their learning more efficient than if they were simply given a reading list and a detailed list of topics that they must cover. There is a worrying trend towards providing all learning resources on the computer. If what is placed there are simply electronic versions of paper documents, the computer serves only a duplicating role and the computer’s unique features (ability to animate, to simulate, to integrate disparate communication media and even to provide colour) remain unexploited. But more worrying is that if these unique features are exploited, there is a tendency to dispense with the live lecture, and once that becomes universally accepted within an institution, the need to welcome students to a campus becomes less necessary. Dismantling the campusbased experience and replacing it with a virtual university might be politically

ELAC04

38

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

Learning and teaching with computers 39

acceptable, but for the consumers (the students) the educational experience could potentially be diminished. Students would be isolated from their peers with only email, chat rooms and so on as poor substitutes. If computers are employed in support of teaching and learning, then each module needs to exploit the unique features of the computer and those features need to fit with the learning traditions that have proved themselves in the past, though they must be appropriate for the content of the module. The new approach must be welcomed and appreciated by the students and overall it must be seen to be an improvement in the learning experience. In order to ensure that improvement takes place, three problems need to be considered. First, lecturers do not instinctively hold the skills of good user-interface design and intelligent tutoring. They may know how to create a hot spot that takes the student to another fragment of information, but they are unlikely to know how to design the network of fragments in such a way that students never feel lost, or design it so that students know how much of the material they have covered. Interactivity using a mouse on a menu is not an automatic recipe for success and unnecessary interactive complexity places an unfair strain on the students’ learning. Of course, institutions can employ staff who have these specialist skills and who are able to develop the online material on behalf of the lecturing staff. But the financial implications ensure that there will be few such helpful staff and rarely will they have the understanding needed for creating good online teaching material. If it is expected that lecturers be taught these skills, institutions must realize that they cannot learn them properly in a few one-day courses. Even if a teacher has these skills, the second problem is the amount of time necessary to create the material. An institution whose strategic goal favours research does not encourage staff to spend that time on teaching. And even where the institution is primarily directed towards teaching, there is little extra time for staff to take advantage of the facilities that computers undoubtedly can provide. The third problem arises from the social interaction that conventional lectures provide. Students have to sit close to each other; delays allow them to make contact. The lecturer is there to be interrogated at the time when learning difficulties arise, not 24-hours later when the member of staff has responded to an email. Furthermore, the lecturer exudes a personality that becomes familiar however much the outward signs are of diffidence and remoteness. Contact with others, including the lecturer, is a social (and a very much required) need that is only partially supported by online chat rooms. Campus-based students do not appreciate being taught exclusively by computer; that is why they choose to attend a bricks-and-mortar university rather a virtual university. So, exploiting computers in teaching and learning requires a build methodology that is compatible with the natural skills of the lecturer (collecting, organizing and sequencing material) but does not require the specialist skills of interface design and intelligent tutoring. The material should be weaved within the familiar metaphors of lectures and problem classes for the bulk of the module’s content. In the past, multimedia presentations took the form of overhead projection foils, 35mm

ELAC04

39

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

40 Teaching and the support of learning

slides, videotapes and audiotapes, which together ensured a disjointed lecture theatre presentation. Today, computers offer a means of seamlessly integrating multiple media and enable students to access that same material during private study on their desktop machines. In future, it will be possible for students to access it on mobile devices as they are travelling, perhaps (though unlikely) in preparation for the live event.

Online lectures One model for online lectures consists of a set of electronic slides each with a spoken narrative that is synchronized with any animation, display of supplementary pictures, and the playing of augmenting audio and video fragments (Benest 1997, 2000; Benest et al. 2003). For private study, it may be played much like a video from beginning to end, or a specific slide may be selected causing that to be played through, or each slide may be single-stepped. Online lectures can be used in a lecture theatre. In such cases the spoken narrative is turned off and the whole lecture single-stepped in much the same way as happens during a television weather forecast. So, the same material that is used in the lecture theatre is also available for private study where the spoken narrative replaces the lecturer. The online lecture therefore provides the ultimate in lecture notes and may be used by students during private study to dip in to those slides for which an instant understanding failed to occur during the live presentation. Of course, if the students were to view the online lectures prior to them being given in the lecture theatre, then they would undoubtedly gain from the live presentation; a strong motivation for the provision of mobile devices. And of course, online lectures are stand-alone; they can be used for distance learning.

Structure of lectures A standard structure for lectures is: 1 To present an outline of what will be taught and what will be gained from the lecture; this initiates the story that runs through the lecture. 2 To revise briefly the relevant material that the students should know – perhaps from previous lectures – in order to bring them up to speed for the detail that is to come. 3 To present the detail in a manner suitable for the target audience, linking in when appropriate to the storyline. 4 To summarize what has been taught, to identify the importance of incorporating the knowledge in memory and to state the implications that arise from what was taught.

ELAC04

40

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

Learning and teaching with computers 41

Perhaps overarching this structure is a need to enthuse the students, in order to motivate them into researching the topic in more depth and for them to consolidate their knowledge; the enthusiasm with which the lecturer (hopefully) regards the topic must be transferred to the students. Bearing in mind that people suffer ‘microsleeps’ during lectures or simply forget information because something else came to mind at the wrong time, it is good practice to repeat and remind at frequent intervals. The creation of online lectures may be split into the following parts: the production of electronic slides; the capture of the audio narrative; the incorporation of animation; and the selection and inclusion of augmenting pictures, video and audio fragments. As all this is being created, it is important to have in mind those who have aural or visual difficulties or are dyslexic; these matters ought not to be added at the end as an afterthought, but should be factored into the design of the lecture.

Static display of content Salespeople might offer the guideline: ‘no more than six bullet points and no more than six words per bullet point’ in order to ensure that the slides remain uncluttered. But for an academic course, students appreciate a good set of notes. The slides need to have sufficient semantic content for them to be still understandable a day or more after the event. The six-plus-six guideline rarely achieves this. And using the slides as notes (instead of separate documents) means that any memory of the live event that still exists may be prised out by the student from the shape of the slide. It is in the nature of science and engineering that it is sometimes necessary to include much detail on one slide. For example, a complete circuit diagram is preferable to one only showing those components relevant to the subject being discussed. To do otherwise causes the student to concentrate on the missing material rather than listen to what is being said. The advantage of exploiting a computer in the presentation is that the clutter can be temporarily removed, having told the audience why that is a reasonable thing to do; then they can concentrate on the relevant material. Of course, authors should not use this technique as an excuse to make all slides cluttered. Giving slides titles helps to structure the material, but doing so may add to the slide’s clutter. Given that slides are in sequence and therefore in semantic context, there is a danger of adopting titles such as ‘Case 3’ or ‘Example’. These are unhelpful when seen out of context, such as might happen when a search engine extracts the title (with a link to the slide) from a corpus of slides. Of course, if a title is not included, a search engine is unable to prompt the user with a semantic hint as to the content of the link. The key point to remember is that the information on the slide must be as clear as possible so that students can concentrate on absorbing what is being taught; try not to design for artistic merit awards.

ELAC04

41

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

42 Teaching and the support of learning

Creating the aural fragments The narrative that is eventually synchronized with the slide’s animation or supplementary material provides the link between the visual presentation and its semantic significance. A bullet point (for example) is revealed, or highlighted, and the point is narrated. Each point, being a semantic whole, becomes an audio paragraph. In practice, such paragraphs might be one to four sentences long, but might also be only one word, where complex animation requires aural reinforcement. There may be several audio paragraphs for each bullet point. Reflecting on previous experience it is best to script the narrative as the lecture slides are constructed. It should be written in a style suitable for being spoken. Particular attention should be given to phrases that invoke human interest, such as ‘We do . . .’, or ‘I think . . .’, or ‘You should . . .’. The length of sentences should be varied. Posing questions that are then answered can offer further variation. There exist a number of measures of sentence complexity that will indicate how difficult it will be for the target audience to assimilate the knowledge being conveyed (Flesch 1948; Lemos 1985). For higher education purposes, sentences should on average be rated as equivalent to a serious but popular journal (not a technical journal). Once captured and stored on a disk file, it is necessary to ensure that each audio paragraph is only as long as its spoken utterance; there should be no blank periods at the start or end. This is to ensure good adherence to rules for association and dissociation by inserting appropriately timed pauses (Koumi 1991). The scripting encourages careful thought about precisely what should be said at each stage of the lecture. It makes it unlikely that anything important is left unsaid. Spontaneous off-the-cuff remarks need to be well rehearsed, and where there is hesitation it should be deliberately there for effect. The pace of the narrative is largely determined by that which is comfortable to the lecturer but with due regard to the audience and the complexity of the lecture. Remember that different cohorts of students will disagree as to the level of difficulty of a given lecture. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) recommends 140 to 160 real words per minute on its World Service, whose listeners’ first language is not English. For the home audience it recommends 180 real words per minute (Yorke 1987; Boyd 1988). So, for the introduction and the summary, a normal rate would be appropriate while for complex new material a slower rate would help the students to absorb the material. Most guidelines emphasize the need for, and widespread use of, pausing to allow for information absorption (Bligh 1998), though this must be commensurate with the difficulty of the material. Generally, a pause of one and a half seconds between audio paragraphs needs to be incorporated, though actually this should be varied according to the length of the utterance in the preceding audio paragraph.

ELAC04

42

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

Learning and teaching with computers 43

Constructing the lecture Humans can only attend to one sensory channel at a time and they quickly swap attention, giving the impression that they can hear and see in parallel. But if deeply concentrating on a complex visual movement, a short, soft sound will not be heard. The message is: only convey information to one perceptual channel at a time. So reveal something, then talk about it – and of course, the pause helps information absorption. Movement is perceived in the eye, but takes a different neural path from that of the image on which the eyes are fixating. It gets priority attention in the brain. This movement must be used either to convey information or to relocate the eyes to something that is fixed on the display. It should not be used to parachute a bullet point on to the slide or have it steam in from the side. Such movements grab the eyes (which then track the movement), seize the user’s attention and deny the user the opportunity to exploit what would otherwise be a pause for information consolidation. There is no information content in such movements, in contrast with showing the path of data through a system or current through a circuit. When the eyes are focusing on a moving object they can only see, in peripheral vision, the movement of another object; they cannot see the object in detail, they cannot see it in colour, and indeed it disappears when it stops (Gregory 1998). Of course, the viewer can move their eyes to and from both objects. When the objects move in a non-linear fashion, and unless they are very close, the position of both objects cannot be seen at the same time. If the linkage is the prime information being presented, it must be stepped such that at each step the person can move their eyes to and fro to absorb the consequences of the linkage. The audio narrative should help. The speed of this stepped animation must be the same on all computers, both now and in the future. If an object has to be blinked in order to draw attention to it, blink it only for a very short period of time; do not leave it blinking. Concentration is impaired when text that has to be read is close to the blinking object. It is even worse if the text itself is blinking. Animation should be used to provide a deeper understanding of a complex process; it should not be created simply to be ‘fun’; this is a distraction. A purpose of animation is to show in slow motion the steps that need to occur in order to give the illusion of continuous movement. For a designer the sequence is important for the given end result. For example, how does one compute a fade from one picture to another? If the learning of the sequence is important in the presentation, then again the run time (the slow motion) of that sequence must be the same on all computers both now and in the future. If full-speed animation is required in order to show what the sequence looks like in real time, it would be best shown through a video fragment, as this will guarantee the correct speed for all time. The narrative must be compatible with what is visually changing on the screen. If the narrative says ‘Here we see . . .’, then what is to be seen must already be on

ELAC04

43

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

44 Teaching and the support of learning

the screen and so the revelation must precede the narrative. Even if the narrative says: ‘. . . and here’, the subject must already be there, because network delays ensure that a screen update will not occur instantly. Of course, a narrative direction such as ‘Let’s see what this looks like’ can be followed by changes that enable the student to do just that, since the narration is not saying that the student is able to see it at that instant. Misdirecting with the narrative causes uncertainty as to what is being talked about. While the audio narrative is turned off during the live event and the lecturer single steps through, supplementary audio (for example the effect of electronic filtering on a piece of music) must still be played in the lecture theatre.

Disability considerations The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) place a requirement on higher education institutions to ensure that students with disabilities are treated with as much favour as those who are not disabled. Further details are available in Chapter 5 of this book. Retrofitting resources with external support (e.g. screen readers for blind students) relies on identifying and then supporting within the learning resource the capabilities of a variety of possible tools, some of which may make inappropriate demands. Support for disabled students should be considered as part of the lecture design, not a bolt-on addition at the end. An advantage of exploiting IT is that useful information can be conveyed only to those who need it.

Visually impaired Science and engineering lecturers rely almost exclusively on visual support for their material; most of it is text, but there are some topics where diagrams are essential for the support of explanatory material. Electronic circuits and program specification diagrams are just two examples; optical illusions are of course essentially visual in nature. Computer-based lectures can inherently help those who are visually impaired simply because they have an audio narrative. For students who were blind at birth, the diagram has little meaning, but for those blinded later in life or for those whose eyesight is gradually deteriorating, vocal support is useful. An initial explanation of what is on the slide and where items are located can be useful particularly when later in the lecture an instruction of the form ‘The circuit diagram at the top left’ is employed. The layout explanation should be covered quickly during private study and people with normal sight should not have to hear it. It is useful for both sighted and visually impaired people that the narrative repeats concepts, since this helps with knowledge absorption and consolidation. Magnification of displayed material is useful for those whose visual acuity is deteriorating – for example, with age. Magnifying at the pixel level does not

ELAC04

44

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

Learning and teaching with computers 45

improve visual acuity: the fonts and diagrams must be scalable and redrawn to ensure a crisper image. A small proportion of the population is colour deficient: about 8 per cent of the male population and 0.4 per cent of the female population (MacDonald 1990). They have a reduced sensitivity to one or more of the primary colours (red, green and blue). The most common deficiency causes confusion between red and green, the less common one causes confusion between green and blue (Gregory 1998). So, drawing attention to an object of a particular colour, simply by its colour, will cause difficulties. Similarly, green text on a red background might have a lower contrast for some in the audience.

Aural impaired In a similar way, computer-based lectures can help those with aural difficulties. For those whose deafness occurred after the acquisition of language skills, subtitling is useful and need only be provided for those who want it. The script of the narrative can be used to present one sentence at a time as it is being spoken. Unlike television, the script can be placed below the slide instead of on top of it.

Dyslexia The variety of abnormal characteristics attributed to dyslexics is large and no one dyslexic has exactly the same problems as another (Smith 2002). Their short-term memory, used for mental arithmetic, remembering sequences of actions to be carried out and for understanding and disambiguating spoken and written sentences, has a shorter span than for normal people (Beacham 2002). So, do not use long sentences with sub-clauses; keep them simple, use short words rather than long ones, do not rush the spoken narrative and be consistent with information-bearing visual cues. Navigation also needs to be consistent, particularly where the person is likely to retain the knowledge of previous locations (or recognize them when they get there) and expect, on return, to be at exactly the same position. Indeed, all these characteristics help those without dyslexia. Although images quickly help to orientate students, using multiple images (which may win aesthetic awards) tends to distract dyslexics; instead focus on one image at a time.

Navigation Online lectures should offer the same content and almost the same presentational experience in both the live lecture and during private study. Navigation needs to be such that it has minimal impact on the teaching or learning process. In essence, this means that while buttons on the screen can be provided, it is essential

ELAC04

45

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

46 Teaching and the support of learning

that easily discriminated keys on the keyboard are also available. Multiple simultaneous key presses (such as control, alt and delete) must not of course be used, for reasons of minimizing the possibility of aggravating any onset of repetitive strain injury.

Navigating during private study The reason for accessing an online lecture for private study may fall into one of two categories. Either the students did not attend a campus-based ‘live’ lecture, in which case they need to review the whole lecture, or they did not fully appreciate the content of one or two slides and need to look at them again. In the latter case, they need to access individual slides directly. For revision, either category might apply. For the whole lecture, it should play all the way through after only one button press; of course, it must be possible to stop it or pause it. For playing a slide, again only one button press should cause it to play all the way through and it should be possible to stop it or pause it. If the pause occurs mid-sentence in the narrative and the elapsed time before releasing the pause is substantial, the student will not easily remember the storyline. Thus, any pause should ensure that on release, an automatic rollback to the start of the sentence occurs. Pausing during a video fragment requires an automatic restart of the video on release of the pause. But if the video is more than a fragment and contains a number of substantial concepts, it needs to be rolled back to the start of the current concept once the pause is released. Lecturers like to encourage their students to acquire greater depth of knowledge, so are keen to exploit hyperlinks at each slide to provide further information. But each selection of a hyperlink often causes a new window to be displayed, which of course has eventually to be removed by the student. The information to which the hyperlinks point should be ‘leaf nodes’; that is, there should be no further links off them to other nodes. This should reduce the risk of any student becoming lost in hyperspace. If links are to be made to a web page, it is safer to copy (with permission) the material to a local site where changes and deletions can be controlled.

Summary Online lectures mimic the familiar live lecture paradigm, enabling the content to be used for both the live event and private study, and of course it can be adopted for distance learning courses. The approach allows for both lecture and class problems to be well explained. As such, online lectures should also be the ultimate in lecturer-distributed student notes. Computers offer the capability for integrating multiple media such as text, pictures, diagrams, audio, movies and animation in one single sequential presentation, and enable this to be designed for both the able and disabled student. This chapter has

ELAC04

46

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

Learning and teaching with computers 47

provided the rationale underpinning the guidelines for producing multimedia material that should also be useful outside the lecture paradigm. Like all design, a multimedia presentation will result from a set of compromises: what needs to be included and what can be left out, in terms of both academic content and presentational need. Try to maintain a clear exposition and avoid academic ostentation.

References Beacham, N. (2002) ‘Dyslexia-friendly Computer-based Learning Materials’, in L. Phipps, A. Sutherland and J. Seale (eds) Access All Areas: Disability, Technology and Learning. Oxford: J. JISC TechDis Service and ALT, pp. 73–7. Benest, I. D. (1997) ‘The Specification and Presentation of On-line Lectures’, Innovations in Education and Training International, 34(1): 32–43. Benest, I. D. (2000) ‘Towards the Seamless Provision of Multimedia Course Material’, Innovations in Education and Training International, 37(4): 323–34. Benest, I. D., Booth, T. G., Pack, R. and Ribeiro, N. M. (2003) ‘Technical Support for Teaching and Learning’, in W. Aung, M. H. W. Hoffman, N. W. Jern, R. W. King, L. M. Sanchez Ruiz (eds) Innovations 2003: World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research. Arlington, VA: iNEER/Begell House, pp. 49–59. Bligh, D. A. (1998) What’s the Use of Lectures? Exeter: Intellect. Boyd, A. (1988) Broadcast Journalism: Techniques of Radio and TV News. Oxford: Heinemann. Flesch, R. (1948) ‘A New Readability Yardstick’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3): 221– 33. Gregory, R. L. (1998) Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koumi, J. (1991) ‘Narrative Screenwriting for Education Television: A Framework’, Journal of Educational Television, 17(3): 131–48. MacDonald, L. W. (1990) ‘Using Colour Effectively in Displays for Computer-human Interface’, Displays Technology and Applications, 11(3): 129–41. Smith, S. (2002) ‘Dyslexia and Virtual Learning Environment Interfaces’, in L. Phipps, A. Sutherland and J. Seale (eds) Access all Areas: Disability, Technology and Learning. Oxford: J. JISC TechDis Service and ALT, pp. 50–3. Yorke, I. (1987) The Technique of Television News, 2nd edn. London: Focal Press.

ELAC04

47

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

48 Teaching and the support of learning

5

Accessibility, disability and computing

David Sloan and Lorna Gibson

Introduction There are compelling economic and moral arguments for insisting that the designers of technology try to ensure that their products can be used by everyone, regardless of age or disability. In an increasingly competitive market, and aware of effects of anti-discrimination legislation, more and more information technology (IT) companies are looking to better understand user needs. This means an increasing attraction to graduates who, in addition to the skills normally associated with computing, also have an operational awareness of effective user requirements and implementation techniques, and who take a holistic approach to design, in addition to their technical competence. In approaching teaching of accessibility in relation to software, it may be tempting to concentrate on rote-learning of guidelines, as opposed to a more human-centred approach. Yet direct involvement of disabled or older users during the design and evaluation process will help to ensure that many students will see first hand many of the problems such people face when trying to access technology. Through seeing for themselves the differences that the consideration of accessibility issues can make, students become engaged in their concern to ensure optimal accessibility. In addition to increasing awareness in industry of accessibility and inclusive design, there are in the UK and many other countries increasing legal imperatives on educational institutions not to unjustifiably discriminate against a current or potential student or staff member. Technology has the potential to improve accessibility of education and learning for many groups of disabled people; paradoxically, however, inappropriate implementation of technology has often resulted in increased exclusion. Computing teachers must therefore be aware of the benefits

ELAC05

48

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

Accessibility, disability and computing 49

of teaching accessibility and must also take steps to ensure the accessibility of their own physical and electronic learning environments. There are thus two issues: accessible design principles; and • teaching that the learning and teaching environment itself is as accessible as • ensuring possible.

Teaching students to think about accessibility The subject of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) is increasingly acknowledged as a core one in computing science, and should be given due prominence in teaching and assessment. Accessibility, however, is often perceived as being only a small subset of HCI – a specialist strain of usability that can be treated in only a few lectures and assignments, or even ignored altogether. The philosophy of accessibility as an ‘add-on’ module or stage in the development of software is dangerous, because the later accessibility is introduced into the development lifecycle, the more costly and lengthy it can be to provide it. To assume that an accessibility check can be carried out as part of, for example, beta testing, is to invite problems and incur often significant costs, as the work required to ‘retrofit’ the software to remove accessibility barriers may in some cases be difficult and time-consuming. This view may be inadvertently encouraged by the teaching of accessibility as a distinct subject, rather than in a pervasive fashion throughout course design. Teachers should thus be encouraged to integrate accessible design and awareness of situations where users may have specific access needs into the main curriculum. Basic accessible design principles need to be emphasized both in courses on software development and HCI.

Accessibility defined Accessibility can be defined as the degree to which IT can be accessed by a user regardless of disability, access environment or technology, although in some cases, such as when referring to accessibility in legislative terms, it may be limited to cover the relationship of disabled users to technology. The term ‘accessibility’ is also often extended to cover usability issues that affect users with specific access needs. In terms of user access needs, as a minimum, specific attention should be paid to design considerations for: who have difficulty using, or cannot use, a mouse; • users users who cannot access information presented in graphic format; •

ELAC05

49

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

50 Teaching and the support of learning

who have difficulty distinguishing, or are unable to distinguish, certain • users colour combinations, or are unable to access information presented through the use of colour;

who have difficulty with, or are unable to hear information presented in, • users audio form; who may have difficulty reading text of a particular size, font or colour; • users who have cognitive processing impairments, for example affecting short• users term memory capabilities and concentration; who have dyslexia, or limited literacy or a specific learning difficulty; • users users, who may have a combination of impairments that, in terms of • older accessibility, can manifest themselves in quite unpredictable ways.

Support for accessibility Accessibility mechanisms that support dialogue between software interfaces and assistive technologies should also be explored – examples include Microsoft’s Active Accessibility (MSAA) feature for Windows and the Java accessibility Application Programming Interface (API). Major players in technology have increasingly comprehensive resources to support accessible design using their products and technologies, including Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/enable/), IBM (http://www-3.ibm.com/able/), Sun (http://www.sun.com/access/), Apple (http:/ /www.apple.com/disability/) and Macromedia (http://www.macromedia.com/ macromedia/accessibility/). Even in the Open Source field, accessibility issues are gaining unprecedented prominence, through projects such as the Gnome Accessibility Project (http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gap/). There is also a growing volume of literature on the subject of accessible design, much of it web focused. Publications by Clark (2002), Paciello (2000), Slatin and Rush (2002) and Thatcher et al. (2002) extend in far more detail accessibilityrelated design issues than more traditional usability texts from authors such as Nielsen, Shneiderman and Norman. Research groups such as the TRACE Center at the University of Wisconsin (http://trace.wisc.edu) also provide valuable web-based reading material. In courses relating to web and multimedia design, accessible design should be considered at all levels. Reference should be made to the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative (http://www.w3.org./wai/) and in particular the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG, http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/). Examples of good practice in accessible design should form an integral part of the course: for example, when demonstrating how to insert an image into a web page the importance of providing an equivalent text alternative (using the HTML ‘alt’ attribute) should be stressed. While awareness of existing guidelines and recommended best practice is important, there is nevertheless a danger of presenting accessible design simply as a series of guidelines or checkpoints that must be met at all costs on every occasion.

ELAC05

50

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

Accessibility, disability and computing 51

This is inappropriate and can lead to hostility or apathy towards accessible design. In particular, designers can form the impression that accessibility leads to a stifling of creativity and a formulaic approach to design. Students should be encouraged to think of the role and aims of any piece of software, the environment in which it will be used and, of course, the characteristics of all anticipated end users. Again, introducing students to users with disabilities and formulating exercises where they have to work with these users is a very effective way to promote this message.

Disabled users as end users Research has shown (Newell and Cairns 1993; Newell and Gregor 2000) that designing with disabled users in mind frequently results in a product that is easier to use not just by so-called ‘normal’ users, but also by users who are not disabled in a conventional sense but due to the environment in which they are using the product. Such people effectively have the same access needs as someone who fits a more conventional definition of a disabled person. For example, the design requirements to meet the access needs of someone with little functional vision are precisely comparable with those of someone in an ‘eyes-busy’ situation, or who is using a device with no visual display capabilities, such as the emerging technology of in-car internet. The same design principles that allow an interface to be usable by someone whose manual dexterity is severely restricted, through arthritis for example, also apply to someone using an interface in a cold weather situation wearing gloves, and to someone using an interface where input is restricted by the lack of a mouse. Students should thus be made aware that designing for users with specific access needs is not an extension of standard procedure, but part of it. To encourage this mode of thought, students can be exposed to examples of assistive technologies – technologies that enable people with a variety of disabilities to access IT. Examples of screen readers and other text-to-speech devices, screen magnification software, Braille displays, and alternative or augmentative input devices should ideally be introduced, through demonstration or as networked software. While it may not be practicable to provide an extensive suite of assistive technology as a testing laboratory for software, awareness of the existence of such technology will help students to avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’ when considering accessibility issues, and experience of any such software will encourage them to be more sympathetic to the specific usability, as well as accessibility, issues that might be encountered by users of such technology. Individual and group projects that include disability-related development should be encouraged, and developing links with institutional disability support is recommended as a source of assistive technology or advice on user needs, and possibly contacts to disabled technology users. In addition, in the UK, local Access Centres (http://www.nfac.org.uk/) may be willing to advise on disability-related issues.

ELAC05

51

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

52 Teaching and the support of learning

Accessibility and the teaching and learning environment As well as moral and economic arguments for widening participation in education, there are legal imperatives relating to accessibility of the teaching and learning environment. The rights of disabled staff in UK educational institutions not to face unjustified discrimination on account of their disability have been enshrined in law by the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 (1995). These rights have been extended to students by amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act introduced by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001), whereby educational providers are now subject to the legislation.

The physical environment For a computing science environment, following standard procedure with regards to workstation ergonomics, such as ergonomic requirements relating to visual display terminals contained in ISO 9241, and health and safety requirements, becomes even more critical when considering people with specific access needs. Ideally, appropriate assistive technology to enable people with specific access requirements to access technology should be available on site. While disabled students of other disciplines may accept using computing equipment in limited areas of campus, such as an institutional disability support centre, the need for disabled computing students to be able to work in the same environment as their peers is fundamentally more pressing. In addition to providing a service for disabled students, the presence of assistive technologies and software in an environment in which computing science is taught will help to improve awareness among students and staff.

Accessible teaching practice In the UK, the Joint Information System Committee ( JISC) -funded TechDis service (http://www.techdis.ac.uk) provides general advice to teaching staff in the tertiary education sector relating to disability and technology, through a web resource, printed publications (e.g. Phipps et al. 2002) and educational events. Many other projects in the UK have specifically focused on improving accessibility of educational technology, whether through development of guidance and good practice on ensuring accessible curricula, such as the Teachability project (http://www.ispn.gcal.ac.uk/teachability/), raising awareness of staff in disability related issues, such as the DEMOS project (http://jarmin.com/demos/) or focusing attention on ensuring accessibility of multimedia e-learning objects, such as the Skills for Access project (http://www.shef.ac.uk/sfa/).

ELAC05

52

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

Accessibility, disability and computing 53

An accessible teaching strategy involves an approach to anticipating potential accessibility issues and installing a strategy to cope with them as and when they arise, rather than focusing extra time and resources on preparing alternative versions of course handouts, or providing for alternative modes of lecture delivery. An open-door approach to catering for specific access needs helps to overcome a frequent reluctance among individuals to admit a particular access need.

The digital learning environment Unfortunately, an increased reliance on technology in teaching and assessment may inadvertently present some disabled users from taking full advantage of learning opportunities. This can be equally true of a virtual learning environment or a computer-aided software engineering tool. The UK’s Disability Discrimination Act states that ‘reasonable adjustments’ should be made. This does not necessarily mean that all disabled people must be able to take all courses on offer – there may well be valid situations whereby discrimination can be justified, on grounds of safety, practicality, economy or another relevant factor, and in any case pedagogical value should not be compromised. Clearly, however, decisions have to be made in order to ensure that no unjustified discrimination would be encountered by a disabled student attempting to take a course. Difficulties may arise when a piece of software with access barriers is an integral part of a course. The critical issues that need to be addressed are the pedagogical aims of the course: that is, identifying the skills being assessed at the end of the course, rather than making a simple, but potentially discriminatory, assumption that the use of certain software is essential in order for a student to complete a specific module or course. For example, a visual programming environment may be used as an introduction to object-oriented programming, and its visual nature may make it very difficult for use by a blind student. The question that needs to be asked is whether an ability to use this specific software package is the key requirement of passing the course, or whether the important requirement is to grasp the fundamentals of object-oriented programming. In this example, the provision of a non-graphic programming environment may be an appropriate solution to ensure that a course teaches the basics of object-oriented programming in an inclusive, accessible manner. If the course is focused on students becoming proficient with a specific programming environment, however, the provision of an accessible alternative may be more of a challenge. These questions must be addressed even for courses with a specific media and/ or sensory focus, such as a course on graphics or sound. Provided that the ultimate pedagogic aim is to ensure learners grasp theoretical skills, then, for example, a visual impairment may not be seen as a valid reason in law for preventing a disabled person from taking – or even teaching – a graphics course.

ELAC05

53

14/5/04, 2:19 PM

54 Teaching and the support of learning

Case study: Division of Applied Computing, University of Dundee Introduction Applied Computing has introduced innovative teaching practice to ensure students are made fully aware of issues relating to the usability and accessibility by disabled people of IT. A unique philosophy of teaching that immerses students in a ‘culture of accessibility’ is driven by a belief that hands-on experience is essential to teach human-centred computing, and a desire to convince students that they need to design for people other than themselves and their peers. Applied Computing includes one of the world’s most prominent groups researching into communication systems for elderly and disabled people (Gregor et al. 1999), and direct involvement of the people behind this research adds a rich, real-world experience to the teaching programme. Through individual and team projects, students are provided with real-life examples of how technology can be developed that is usable by people with varying access needs. Interaction with disabled people is a central part of this design activity. Key activities involve: involvement of target users in teaching; • direct simulations of the problems faced by disabled people using IT systems; • practical problem-solving, encouraging students to question perceived knowledge; • creative • incorporation of accessible thinking in the learning environment.

Accessible design in the curriculum While first- and second-year degree programmes introduce usability and accessibility in varying course modules, students’ exposure to these subjects is reinforced and extended in the two honours years (Scottish honours degrees involve a fouryear programme). Activities in the third year include critiquing a piece of software in terms of appropriateness for older people, and prototyping an improved system based on acquired knowledge from lectures and through interaction and evaluation with older people. Another exercise places students in certain impaired access scenarios, and requires them to interact with software in order to experience firsthand the types of access barrier that may face someone who is disabled. Students are thus encouraged to reflect on their own preconceptions about computer systems and, through experience, realize that the requirements, expectations, abilities and knowledge of other user groups in most cases do not match their own. In the fourth year, the students are encouraged to challenge accepted thinking on accessible design by considering accessibility needs in situations whereby common guidelines and thinking may not necessarily apply. The class is given scenarios

ELAC05

54

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

Accessibility, disability and computing 55

and concepts where conventional analysis and problem-solving is not applicable, and is encouraged to suggest alternative solutions and novel approaches to meeting user needs, thus developing their critical abilities and encouraging them to challenge without fear accepted thinking, justifying alternatives that are acceptable and accessible. Innovations have been marked by a number of tangible outcomes – not only in terms of the high quality of student work, but in terms of a more in-depth understanding of analysis problems, as students have their own experiences to relate to. Feedback has been positive, from researchers and students, and from graduates, many of whom have indicated that it was because of their knowledge of the usability/ accessibility field that they were successful in being recruited or promoted – hence meeting industry needs.

Accessibility of the teaching and learning environment Applied Computing considers it essential that the environment itself is made as accessible as possible to all staff and students, regardless of disability. Alterations have been made to improve accessibility of the physical environment, including the installation of stairlifts to floors containing staff offices, laboratories and lecture rooms. The ‘virtual’ teaching and learning environment was also assessed for accessibility, whereby each module of the BSc in Applied Computing was assessed for potential accessibility barriers. The review concentrated on identifying the pedagogical aims of each course, and also identifying methods of teaching and assessment, including software used, and was fed back to teaching staff who were encouraged to explore alternative options for any accessibility barriers present. Supporting web content, such as the departmental website and course-specific web resources were also evaluated for accessibility. In this way, not only were potential accessibility barriers to fulfilling the requirements of the degree course highlighted, but the exercise also allowed staff to consider the true pedagogic aims of each course.

Conclusion The need to treat accessible design principles holistically throughout computing and IT-related courses is essential, and at the same time very rewarding. Treating design for users with specific access needs as a core part of good design helps to entrench accessible design as standard, not an optional add-on. Legislative and moral responsibilities also require careful strategic planning and design, to ensure that the learning environment itself does not contain unjustified barriers to access, and the implementation of such a strategy benefits the teaching and learning environment as a place where inclusion is actively promoted.

ELAC05

55

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

56 Teaching and the support of learning

The Applied Computing course at Dundee has taken advantage of existing research and teaching strengths to show the benefits of a holistic treatment of accessibility throughout an undergraduate programme, and this has been emphasized by the quality of student projects, success in graduate employment and formal commendation from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).

References Clark, J. (2002) Building Accessible Web Sites. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (with amendments) (2000) http://www.legislation. hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_1.htm (accessed 2 June 2003). Gregor, P., Alm, N., Arnott, J. L. and Newell, A. F. (1999) ‘The Applications of Computing Technology to Interpersonal Communication at the University of Dundee’s Department of Applied Computing’, Technology and Disability, 10: 107–13. Newell, A. F. and Cairns, A. Y. (1993) ‘Designing for Extra-ordinary Users’, Ergonomics in Design, October: 10–16. Newell, A. and Gregor, P. (2000) ‘User Sensitive Inclusive Design in Search of a New Paradigm’, in J. Scholtz and J. Thomas (eds) CUU 2000 – First ACM Conference on Universal Usability, Arlington, VA: ACM Press, pp. 39–44. Paciello, M. (2000) Web Accessibility for People with Disabilities. Lawrence, KA: CMP Books. Phipps, L., Sutherland, A. and Seale, J. (eds) (2002) Access All Areas: Disability, Technology and Learning. Oxford: JISC, TechDis Service and ALT. Slatin, J. M. and Rush, S. (2002) Maximum Accessibility. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/ acts/acts2001/20010010.htm (accessed 2 June 2003). Thatcher, J., Bohman, P., Burks, M. et al. (2002) Constructing Accessible Web Sites. Birmingham: Glasshaus.

ELAC05

56

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

6

Variations on a theme: divisions and union in a maturing discipline

Lillian N. Cassel

Introduction The field of computing has grown and is widely recognized as critical to economic and intellectual health. With this growth has come diversification and specialization. While these are good things, there is the possibility that healthy diversification could lead to fragmentation. This could leave the various parts of the computing discipline small and with limited influence. A new project is attempting to address the issues of supporting the development of the parts of computing while keeping the family of disciplines together. The thesis is that together these disciplines offer more to the world and have a greater strength for their own development. To promote both development of the parts and a strengthening of the whole, the project attempts to represent all of computing in all of its manifestations, and to do so in a supportive and constructive way.

Computing curricula developments Curriculum development in the computing disciplines has been an ongoing task in the United States. Work carried out by Atchison (1964, 1966) led to the publication of Curriculum 68. The new discipline of computer science was found to be so dynamic that the curriculum effort required major revision within a decade. As work progressed on the new recommendations, a survey of curriculum-related work reviewed more than 200 publications since the appearance of Curriculum 68,

ELAC06

57

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

58 Teaching and the support of learning

summarized in Austing et al. (1977). Curriculum 78 presented a very different view of computer science from that of its predecessor. The new recommendations were less tied to the parents of the new field and more focused on providing guidelines for courses that would prepare students for the new careers. As curriculum development progressed, many commentators expressed concern with a mismatch between academic preparation and the reality of the workplace. One example (see Conner and DeJong 1979), describes the evolution of systems programming instruction at the University of Pittsburgh with an eye to identifying the gap between academic and industry practices and perspectives. Tucker (1978) raised other issues concerned with the appropriateness of the role of mathematics in the latest curriculum guidelines. Curriculum ’78 had widespread impact on the nature of computing education. Courses were described with sufficient detail to allow authors and publishers to develop text books with confidence that a large number of instructors would adopt them. To this day, the introductory computing sequence is commonly referred to by its Curriculum ’78 names (CS1 and CS2) though the courses no longer resemble the original descriptions. Curriculum ’78 became so firmly embedded in the teaching environment of American universities, that inertia threatened to limit significant change. As accreditation became an issue in programmes seeking to distinguish themselves and to define quality in computing programmes, the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board defined computer science as: the body of knowledge concerned with computers and computation. It has theoretical, experimental, and design components . . . [concerning] . . . computing devices, programs, and systems; . . . development and testing of concepts . . . methodology, algorithms, and tools for practical realization . . . and methods of analysis for verifying that these realizations meet requirements. This was one of the definitions cited in what became popularly known as the Denning Report (Denning et al. 1989), which sought to update and enhance our understanding of the nature of the computing field. The resulting definition of ‘computing as a discipline’ identified nine sub-areas: algorithms and data structures, programming languages, architecture, numerical and symbolic computation, operating systems, software methodology and engineering, databases and information retrieval, artificial intelligence and robotics, and human-computer communication. Each sub-area was further refined by defining the theory, abstraction and design elements. The report referred to a ‘snapshot of a changing and dynamic field’, thus acknowledging from the beginning that a static definition of the computing discipline is not a viable goal. Even with its breadth and openendedness, the resulting Curriculum 91 required substantial revision after the now usual decade of age. As work began on Computing Curriculum 2001, the impracticality of starting over to do completely new curriculum development at any time increment became

ELAC06

58

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

Divisions and union in a maturing discipline 59

clear. This time there was no thought of defining a single curriculum that was to be the master definition of computing. The work was defined in terms of volumes, initially one each for computer science, computer engineering, information systems, software engineering and information technology. It was clear that additional volumes would be needed as new variations on the computing theme emerged. Of course, these separate disciplines did not arise purely as a result of Curriculum 2001. Curriculum 68 was still relatively new when articles began to appear with a focus on the use of computing to meet the needs of organizations, with an emphasis on the information requirements (see Teichroew 1971; Ashenhurst 1973; Couger 1973). Software engineering entered the dialogue as a course early in curriculum development (see Parnas 1972) and as an undergraduate programme early in the 1990s (Ford 1991). The Data Processing Management Association published a model curriculum for information systems programmes in 1981 and in 1986. Other specializations will surely emerge and continue to evolve. The task has been, and remains, to define the programmes of study that will most likely produce qualified practitioners, researchers and teachers in fields related directly to the use of computing devices. From the beginning, curriculum recommendations have been judged by their relationship to the needs of industry and government as well as advanced research (Conti et al. 1976). Early responses to curriculum recommendations also considered applicability in specific learning environments. In particular, the role of computing sciences in the liberal arts has attracted significant attention (see Beck et al. 1989; Walker and Schneider 1996). Because of the breadth of the computing field, special consideration was needed for programmes in small colleges, especially those with limited faculty resources (see Austing and Engel 1972; Beidler et al. 1985). The changing nature of computer science and the question of relevance of curricula designed within the context of a specific period of time have also been of concern (see Little et al. 1976; Shaw 1984; Walker and Schneider 1996).

Continuous curriculum and programme development While the development of computing curricula from these many perspectives is important and contributes to the health of the entire discipline, there are risks in increasing the focus on the sub-disciplines independent of the overall field. A current project of the ACM Education Board is developing a tool that will do several important things in the continuing evolution of computing-related curricula: support for all types and levels of computing-related programme criteria. • Provide Programme descriptions can be compared to published curriculum recommendations from many sources to see where they fall. A programme may well have characteristics of two or more distinct curriculum recommendations and may not exactly match any of them.

ELAC06

59

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

60 Teaching and the support of learning

programme validation. A programme can identify its objectives and show • Assist the topics and activities related to the accomplishment of those objectives.

• • • •

It will be clear what the programme is trying to accomplish and how it is pursuing its objectives. Innovation and creativity can be supported while realistic programmes can be distinguished from others. Support updates of programme recommendations. This tool will provide a dynamic and easily updateable representation of curriculum recommendations in all aspects of computing education. No longer will it be necessary to undertake a massive review and renewal of the curriculum on a periodic basis. Incremental updates will be integrated into the recommendations as needed. Illustrate relationships between and among sub-disciplines. What are the common threads in a computing-related discipline? Are there areas where pooled resources can be used effectively to prepare students who have different interests? Define relationships with related disciplines. The computing disciplines rely on related areas and must stay connected with advances in related fields such as electronics, physics, mathematics, psychology, management, biosciences, neurosciences, linguistics and others. The new tool will facilitate the connections with these disciplines and support a clear view of the connections. Develop interdisciplinary programmes. The integration of computing and various other disciplines is leading to a number of exciting new areas of study and research. This tool will provide a clear representation of all the computing disciplines, making it easy to see the available topics from computing that can be combined with suitable topics from other disciplines.

An important contribution of this project is a basic resource not previously available – a list of all the topics recommended for study in any computing curriculum. Until now, innovators who wish to base their new programme on a curriculum that has substantial backing are likely to select only one of the published recommendations. In so doing, they may miss topics and objectives that are relevant to their own goals. In the summer of 2002, an International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP) working conference addressed the issues inherent in the emerging computing disciplines and came to the following conclusion: The answer to the question ‘Will we be able to create a common understanding of excellence in our discipline?’ is crucial for the quality of our education. This can be achieved by developing a standard framework for looking at computing curricula, which could be used worldwide. For this purpose, a large-scale effort combining existing approaches is necessary. In order to promote the health and benefits of the application of computing, it is essential to harness the energies and experiences of leaders in computing education around the world to produce a systematic method for comparing

ELAC06

60

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

Divisions and union in a maturing discipline 61

and merging curricular efforts and for assessing the potential contributions of proposed programs of study. (Cassel et al. 2002) The project is ambitious and requires input from the whole community of computing curriculum developers. The product of this effort will be an interactive structure for representation and exploration of the unified body of knowledge of all of the computing and information-related disciplines. Further, this structure will provide linkages from topic areas and activities to outcomes. A user will specify an outcome and see the related topic areas and activities needed to accomplish that outcome. The system will identify elementary, intermediate and advanced topic areas. It will allow review of a proposed programme of study to determine if there is sufficient introductory material to prepare for study of advanced topics, for example. The system will support the development of new programmes of study by showing how the relevant topics are related and which existing curriculum models include which topics. While work on the project is developing, a preliminary design illustrates the goals. Project goals emphasize practical functionality. This is to be a useful device that captures a great deal of information and makes it available in a very useful form to a variety of audiences. The underlying structure is developed using a concept map tool that allows nodes to expand and contract. Figure 6.1 illustrates a small fraction of the structure, using only a few parts of the Curriculum 2001 body of knowledge. The figure shows a few of the links possible from a sample outcome: ‘Develop computer-based applications’. In this form, the map shows only high-level associations (and the list is not complete). More detail is visible if the nodes are expanded, as in Figure 6.2. Though the concept map tool is useful for organizing topics and relationships among topics, outcomes and objectives, these maps quickly become unwieldy for general user access to the information available. Exporting the map in an XML (Extended Markup Language) representation allows easy reformatting in more user-conscious ways. Expanding, hierarchical nodes are more appropriate for representing topics and sub-topics. Figure 6.3 shows the top level of the ACM Computing Classification System (CCS). Figures 6.4 and 6.5 show some additional detail by expanding nodes. Note that the current version of the CCS indicates relationships between topic areas by notations. The map version shows the connections explicitly by lines connecting related nodes. A new way of representing the CCS would not be sufficient motivation for this effort. There is much more to this project. First, it joins all available classification schemes, including the body of knowledge material from all sections of Curriculum 2001. In addition, it will relate the topic areas to educational objectives and outcomes. Further, it will clearly indicate the portions of the overall collection of

ELAC06

61

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

62 Teaching and the support of learning

Programming fundamentals

uses

Programming languages

uses

uses uses

uses

uses

uses

Networking may involve

Develop computer-based applications

may involve may involve

Figure 6.1 Concept map showing a few relationships between an outcome and related topics

topics that are found in the various curriculum documents. Thus, it will be easy to see what distinguishes a computer science, computer engineering, information systems or information technology programme. This will help potential students and employers to choose the type of programme that suits their expectations. It will also make it clear where there is overlap and where topics are not well covered by any existing standard programme description. That will help identify areas that need attention in specific programmes with relevant objectives. Figure 6.6 illustrates the general idea of the final product. Selecting an objective or outcome also causes related topics (not shown in this figure) to be highlighted. ‘Mouse over’ allows rapid exploration of relationships. Clicking on a particular outcome allows more complete exploration of the related topics. Topics might be displayed in the collapsible node style shown in other figures, but the display of details will be more carefully managed, opening detail views in a separate window if there is insufficient space in the parent node.

ELAC06

62

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

Divisions and union in a maturing discipline 63

ELAC06

Figure 6.2

Expanded nodes in the concept map

Figure 6.3

The ACM Computing Classification System (CCS)

63

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

64 Teaching and the support of learning

Figure 6.4

ACM CCS with software node expanded

A General Literature D.1 Programming Techniques

# B. Hardware # C. Computer Systems Organization includes

E. Data

D. 1.0 General

includes includes

D.1.1 Applicative (Functional) Programming

includes

includes includes includes includes

D. 1.3 Concurrent Programming

D. 1.5 Objectoriented Programming

includes

ANGUAGES

D. 1.7 Visual Programming

D.m MISCELLANEOUS

F. Theory of Compution D. 1.2 Automatic Programming (I. 2.2) # G. Mathematics of Computing

D. 1.4 Sequential Programming

D. 1.6 Logic Programming

D. 1.m Miscellaneous

NG SYSTEMS (C)

D.2 Software Engineering

# H. Information Systems

I. Computing Methodologies

J. Computer Applications

K Computing Milieux

Figure 6.5

ELAC06

Software sub-node programming languages expanded in CCS

64

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

Divisions and union in a maturing discipline 65

Mouse over an objective causes related outcomes to be highlighted. Click on an objective to have the highlights remain in place.

Mouse over an outcome to see the full text.

prepared for a career in computer application development

Dev App Objectives

Figure 6.6

Outcomes

Develop computer-based applications

A preliminary view of project results

Looking ahead This work is intended to serve the computing community for a long time. Funding from the US National Science Foundation is anticipated. Once the underlying structure is completed and the structure is populated with a large collection of information related to computing-related programme content, continued development will resemble the ongoing publication of a journal. New entries will be submitted as needed, reviewed (as are journal submissions) and added to the overall structure. Similarly, candidates for removal will be suggested, a case made and reviewed, and the corresponding revision completed. Long-term success will depend on rigorous review and continual revision. With widespread community involvement, this project will support developments in computing curricula without the need for massive restarts on a periodic basis. It will also allow classification schemes such as ACMs to evolve in an orderly fashion as needed. While supporting the continuing development of all the disciplines built on computing, this structure and process will keep the computing family together, allowing the field as a whole to prosper and to maintain its influence as a large and important discipline.

References Ashenhurst, R. L. E. (1973) ‘Implications for Computer Science Departments of the ACM Information Systems Curriculum’, paper presented at Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Columbus, Ohio.

ELAC06

65

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

66 Teaching and the support of learning

Atchison, W. F. (1964) ‘Status of Computer Sciences Curricula in Colleges and Universities’, Communications of the ACM, 7: 225–7. Atchison, W. F. (1966) ‘Recent Developments in Computer Science Curriculum’, Communications of the ACM, 9: 474. Austing, R. H. and Engel, G. (1972) ‘Computer Science Education in Small Colleges – A Report with Recommendations’, paper presented at ACM SIGUCCS Symposium on the Administration and Management of Small-college Computing Centers. Austing, R. H., Barnes, B. H. and Engel, G. (1977) ‘A Survey of the Literature in Compter Science Education Since Curriculum ’68’, Communications of the ACM, 20: 13–21. Beck, R. E., Cassel, L. E. and Austing, R. H. (1989) ‘Computer Science: A Core Discipline of Liberal Arts and Sciences’, paper presented at Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), Louisville, Kentucky, USA. Beidler, J., Austing, R. H. and Cassel, L. N. (1985) ‘Computing Programs in Small Colleges’, Communications of the ACM, 28: 605–11. Cassel, L. N., Davies, G. and Kumar, D. (2002) ‘The Shape of an Evolving Discipline’, in L. N. Cassel and R. Reis (eds) Informatics Curricula and Teaching Methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 131–8. Conner, W. M. and DeJong, K. A. (1979) ‘The Academic/industry Gap in Systems Programming and Operating Systems’, paper presented at Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dayton, Ohio. Conti, D., Armstrong, R., Oliver, P., Robert, O. and Shoosmith, J. (1976) ‘Relevance of Computer Science Education to Industry and Government Needs – A Critique of the Proposed Update to Curriculum ’68’, paper presented at the Sixth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Anaheim, California. Couger, J. D. (1973) ‘Curriculum Recommendations for Undergraduate Programs in Information Systems’, Communications of the ACM, 16: 727–49. Denning, P. J., Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, D. C., Tucker, A. B., Turner, A.J. and Young, P. R. (1989) ‘Computing as a Discipline’, Communications of the ACM, 32: 9–23. Ford, G. (1991) ‘The SEI Undergraduate Curriculum in Software Engineering’, paper presented at Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), San Antonio, Texas. Little, J. C., Smith, B., Austing, R. H., Whiteside, E. and Leidich, C. (1976) ‘A Report on the Curriculum Recommendations of the ACM Sub-committee for Community and Junior College Curriculum’, paper presented at Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Anaheim, California. Parnas, D. L. (1972) ‘A Course on Software Engineering Techniques’, paper presented at Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), St Louis, Missouri. Shaw, M. (1984) ‘Goals for Computer Science Education in the 1980s’, paper presented at Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 16–17 February. Teichroew, D. (1971) ‘Education Related to the use of Computers in Organizations’, Communications of the ACM, 14: 573–88. Tucker, A. B. (1978) ‘Computer Science Core Curriculum and Mathematics’, ACM CSCER Proceedings of the 1978 Annual Conference: 21–4. Walker, H. M. and Schneider, G. M. (1996) ‘A Revised Model Curriculum for a Liberal Arts Degree in Computer Science’, Communications of the ACM, 39: 85–95.

ELAC06

66

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

Part 2

Learning activities for computing students

ELAC07

67

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

ELAC07

68

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

7

Groupwork for computing students

Liz Burd

Within higher education (HE), groupwork is a learning technique that is increasing in popularity. This increase is, in part, due to the belief that groupwork activities offer an ideal learning environment and a realistic situation for employment preparation. Most agree that groupwork offers an excellent way to promote the key skill of communication and also many transferable skills that are today often included within subject benchmarks. Furthermore, the increasing importance of these skills within the curriculum has resulted in their forming specific learning outcomes for many modules and degree programmes. In summary, the benefits of groupwork activities for computing students are numerous but include: preparation for everyday work within the information technology • A(IT)realistic industry - the enormity and complexity of software applications means that

• • •

ELAC07

most of the duties which computing professionals are required to perform are in the form of team activities (Lejk et al. 1997). Development of key skills – traditional HE learning and assessment involves individual study with there being no necessity for students to communicate with one another. The setting of a groupwork project ensures that students practise these communication skills. Opportunities for specialization – groupwork activities mean that not all students have to participate in all activities and thus they can be encouraged to utilize their own skills and interests. Support mechanisms for students having difficulties – the traditional approach to individual study often means that individuals who are having difficulties feel unable to ask their fellow students for assistance. The issue of plagiarism further

69

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

70 Learning activities for computing students



exacerbates this problem (see Chapter 10). As students are working as a team they naturally, and without the worry of falling foul of plagiarism rules, assist those who are having difficulties. Reduced marking loads – fewer documents are required for assessment with group activities in comparison with the total number of scripts that would need to be marked if the activities were completed by individuals (Parsons and Drew 1996).

However, such an elevation of the importance of groupwork activities has resulted in the necessity to demonstrate the satisfaction of the skills in the form of summative assessment. This inclusion presents a number of problems for those involved in ensuring the quality of the assessment process within HE as well as maximizing the benefit for all students. Thus, in order to ensure that the learning environment for groupwork activities maximizes the benefits for the students, these challenges must be met: a learning environment that allows all students to achieve their • ensuring educational goals; quality teamwork where all members make adequate contributions • enabling and achieve a sense of work ownership; an assessment process that is fair and informative to the students and • providing staff. To provide content to discussions of these main issues within group work, a brief overview of the approach adopted within the University of Durham is now given. Within Durham, the groupwork exercise is set within a core software engineering (SE) module at Level 2. This is a double module worth 40 credits where students take 120 credits each year. This module is compulsory for all students studying for single honours programmes within the department and optional for combined honours students. The teaching content includes topics such as project management, requirements engineering, human-computer interaction, design, software quality assurance and testing, and software life cycles. Taught material and the groupwork project are assessed parts of the module. Within the groupwork a number of deliverables are assessed, including a requirements specification, design and implementation. In addition, the communication skills of the students are examined by means of presentations and posters. The successful addressing of the issues raised above to enable the maximization of the benefits of group work will form the main focus of this chapter.

Achievement of educational goals One of the challenges of groupwork activities in computing is the creation of an environment that ensures not only the achievement of educational objectives but

ELAC07

70

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

Groupwork for computing students 71

doing so in a form that provides a realistic approximation of an industrial setting. Achieving both of these goals, and especially the latter, helps to provide a focus for the group, as the members can see a direct benefit in terms of their future employment. Unfortunately, these goals often appear to oppose one another. Experience at Durham has identified that the more the students are able to identify with the groupwork task, the more likely they are to maximize the effort they put into the work. Students seem to identify with tasks that are fun but that also seem to have a relevance to the computing industry. Computing is fortunate in that groupwork projects can be easily made relevant to industry through the setting of traditional software development tasks. This self-generated enthusiasm from students minimizes the problems of non-contribution and improves the overall focus of the group on the task in hand. However, where the problem lies is in providing a real-world project while achieving the educational objectives. A strong educational influence of the software development industry, and an important educational goal, is a careful focus on the software development process. The software development process is a clear risk within such group projects; it is both hard to control and likewise hard to assess. In order to make the development process as realistic as possible, competing influences must be set on the group’s time. Thus, students are set a problem that is not fully achievable within the time allowed and must use their judgement to identify the optimal use of their time. This is an important aspect of the learning process where students learn to plan and prioritize their time. The risk is, however, that students fail to reach this realization and seek to achieve more than is possible in the time allowed. This attempt unfortunately results in the abandonment of a controlled development process – one of the most important learning aspects of the groupwork experience. The solution adopted at Durham has involved students being more involved in the evaluation of their achievement of learning outcomes through the use of peer and self-assessment. Students are actively involved in the setting of their own educational goals on the basis of those set for the module. This has been found to enhance the focus of the group and to encourage critical evaluation of their achievements. Where this is currently less successful has been in getting students to see the bigger picture. Students still want to see the largest proportion of the marks to be given to the implementation, the activity that many see as the only important activity within the IT industry. At Durham, the groupwork project is taught as part of an SE module where the main emphasis is concerned with the other aspects of the software development process and less with the programming aspects which are covered within other modules. Thus, within the SE groupwork, the emphasis of the learning outcomes is more heavily weighted towards these other activities, but the relative lack of emphasis on programming is something that the students find hard to accept. This issue is a result of the university’s modular system. In the future, it is intended to correct this problem through the use of achievement portfolios, where the students are encouraged to investigate/demonstrate their achievements across their whole degree programme, rather than simply on the basis of individual modules.

ELAC07

71

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

72 Learning activities for computing students

Fostering quality teamwork The foremost issue for enabling a good groupwork experience is largely that of achieving a cohesive and balanced working unit. Research at Durham has investigated what effects the construction of the group has on the final outcome. Issues considered include ability mix, size, course registration and gender. Traditionally at Durham, groups have been preselected to form groups of mixed abilities based on their previous year’s grades. In general, this works well and has been found to advantage specifically the poorer students who seem to thrive in an environment where support is always available from their peers. Those that seem to be least advantaged from the experience are those students within the top 10 per cent. The assessment process finds it hard to reward adequately the guidance and leadership skills offered by these students. Interestingly, groups which contain a larger proportion of these top students have not been successful in achieving their educational goals as power struggles seem to dominate each group’s agenda. The SE module is also open to students on combined honours programmes and it has been found that, despite the timetable issues, a group benefits from the inclusion of students with different areas of expertise. Experiences at Durham have identified that the academic setting of students seems not to be a successful approach and the use of mixed ability groups is a better reflection of everyday life. The approach adopted is for assessors to apply guided effort modifications. This involves the allocation of a group grade which is then distributed among the individual students using carefully constructed assessment criteria based on the effective contributions of individual students to the group. Size issues are also crucial to success. Too small a group (four or fewer students) leaves the group exposed to potential problems of illness or non-contribution. A group constructed of a larger number of students (seven or more) tends to lead to fragmentation. This has the potential for problems of friction across the group fragments. Within Durham, it has been found that the ideal group size is between five and six, but this optimal number may vary based on the duration of the group activity. Similar divergence has been shown with regard to the gender composition. In the past, all-female groups have outperformed all-male groups. Most years, mixed groups have been formed, which results in the unfortunate problem of grouping a maximum of two females with up to five males. However, no evidence has been gathered to show that this disadvantages the females; on the contrary, their advanced communication skills are often utilized very successfully within the group to deal with management issues and resolve conflict. Dealing with non-contribution, gaining collective ownership and job specialization versus ensuring that all students learn the required skills are all issues that need to be resolved to ensure that the learning outcomes of the groupwork are achieved. Groupwork should allow students to allocate tasks on the basis of who is

ELAC07

72

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

Groupwork for computing students 73

best able to achieve the goals, but such specialization should not be done to the extent that some students fail to achieve the educational goals of the module. It must be made explicit to the students which of the activities require equal participation and which are optional. One way of reviewing this is to ask for a contribution list for each group deliverable. This contribution list is also a way in which the early signs of non-contribution can be detected. In general it has been found that students are honest about their group’s involvement in these lists.

Fair assessment for all There are a number of issues involving the assessment of groupwork which include: with the high volume of marking; • dealing consistency across different markers; • ensuring with subjectivity for some exercises; • coping • providing an accurate estimation of individuals’ contribution to the group. The first three of these issues relate to assessment of individuals as well as of groups, whereas the final issue is specific to groupwork activities. Thus it is on the final issue that the discussion will concentrate. Providing accurate estimates of individuals’ contributions to the group is an issue that was raised above. It has long been realized that some students will put more effort into groupwork activities than others. While some assessment strategies result in a single mark for the group, this can be a demotivating factor for members. As indicated above, the approach adopted is to allow the individual’s group grade to be modified, based on their contribution to the group. Thus the group’s grade is set but the proportion of the marks which each individual gets may vary. The issue is, of course, how to allocate fairly the group mark to individuals on the basis of their contribution. Research at Durham has identified that the only realistic way in which a true assessment can be made is to use a number of approaches to obtain this data. Self-, peer, tutor and coordinator assessments are used. Of these different assessments, self-assessment has been found to be the most unreliable but, when students are required to include justifications of their assessments, their assessments are improved. Coordinator assessors who have no specific contact with individual groups (as opposed to a tutor) have been found to be accurate at identifying those contributing most, and least, to the group. Overall it is the group assessments that are the most revealing. In this case each member of the group is asked to place the contribution of members on a scale. Providing that the returns are offered anonymously (although this is often only necessary where there are problems within the group) the overall results seem to satisfy the students most. Again, justifications of the criteria should be sought and it may be necessary, in a

ELAC07

73

14/5/04, 2:20 PM

74 Learning activities for computing students

minority of cases, to follow up the results with interviews if large discrepancies are found. The effects of the remaining three issues can be minimized through the use of clear and detailed marking criteria. When there are high volumes of marking, often the work is spread between different markers. Unless detailed marking criteria are used, consensus will be hard to achieve. Experience at Durham has shown that consensus can be reached by discussion, but that sometimes marks are too emotive and can prolong discussion. Instead, satisfaction scales are used for all the marking criteria (i.e. poor, adequate, excellent). Thus it is often possible to see interpretation differences in the marking criteria, but staff seem far happier to make modifications (for instance during the moderation process) if they are using satisfaction scales as opposed to absolute marks.

Final conclusions Groupwork activities are an increasing part of the computing curriculum. The reasoning behind this is clear, in that groupwork is an ideal way to promote many key skills within the curriculum. Thus there is increasingly a move towards including groupwork as a specific activity within programme specifications, and hence there is a greater need to assess these activities. All assessment is hard, but groupwork assessment is more complex than most due to the potentially different extents to which individuals may contribute within the set activities. A number of strategies have been discussed in this chapter to help to minimize these issues and to ensure that assessment is both fair and educational to all students involved. One of the most important mechanisms for achieving a successful groupwork activity is ensuring that students find the activity both fun and relevant to industry. The fun aspect of the work deals with motivational issues and encourages students to perform to the best of their ability. In addition, the students are more inclined to put in extra work to achieve their educational goals. Setting activities that are relevant to the student population is an ideal way of ensuring that students buy into the project. In the past, projects have been set that include bar-crawl planners and cocktail party planners. Such projects seem to capture the students’ imagination and enhance their enjoyment of the work. Finally, the other major way to enhance the learning experience of the students is to demonstrate to them the relevance to industry of the work that they are performing. Fortunately, within computing this is not a difficult task as any implementation task will clearly have relevance to the IT profession. However, there are other ways in which this relevance can be improved. These include the involvement of companies in the setting of the requirements for the project and possibly in awarding prizes for excellence. Each of these approaches has been found to enhance further the learning experience of the groupwork students.

ELAC07

74

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

Groupwork for computing students 75

References Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. and Farrow, S. (1997) ‘Group Learning and Group Assessment on Undergraduate Computing Courses in Higher Education in the UK: Results of a Survey’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(1): 81–91. Parsons, D. E. and Drew, S. K. (1996) ‘Designing Group Work Projects to Enhance Learning: Key Elements’, Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1): 65–79.

ELAC07

75

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

76 Learning activities for computing students

8

Automating the process of skills-based assessment

Mike Joy

Introduction Computing and computer science students must acquire a variety of skills early on in their undergraduate career, including the ability to write computer programs, and to construct and reason about simple algorithms used in programs. Not only are these fundamental to their academic progression, but they are also practical skills which cannot be mastered by reading books or viewing web pages: students must practise programming. There are many excellent books and web-based resources which facilitate the learning process, but the assessment of programming skills has been an activity requiring substantial human resources. It should be possible, however, to automate the assessment process, either completely or in part, since program code is in a form suitable for automatic processing. In this chapter the pedagogical, technical and practical issues which have affected the deployment of automatic assessment of computer programming skills will be examined. The tools and packages currently (2003) available to assist in the automation of assessment will be discussed.

Computer-assisted assessment (CAA) Before discussing programming-related CAA issues, it is helpful for us to stand aside and consider what is actually meant by ‘assessment’, and how automation of assessment is important in a more general context. Bloom’s taxonomy (Benjamin et al. 1956) provides a framework to start thinking about the purpose and depth of assessment. The taxonomy classifies six levels of learning objectives:

ELAC08

76

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

Automating the process of skills-based assessment 77

• knowledge; • comprehension; • application; • analysis; • synthesis; • evaluation. Levels 1–3 are sometimes described as relating to ‘shallow’ or ‘surface’ learning, and Levels 4–6 as relating to ‘deep’ learning. Assessment of Level 1 is relatively simple, and can frequently be accomplished by multiple choice questions (MCQs), or questions requiring simple responses. It becomes progressively more difficult to measure a student’s competence as the higher-level objectives are addressed. In the UK higher education (HE) context, there is a loose mapping between the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) six-level qualification descriptors (QAA 2000) and the levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Each NQF level requires a mixture of competencies, abilities and skills which include all the Bloom levels of cognitive ability. At the lowest level, HE1 (Certificate of Higher Education), the emphasis is on knowledge of a subject and the ability to apply that knowledge, whereas the description of level HE6 (Ph.D.) concentrates on the creative and evaluative attributes of a higher degree. The types of simple question which are often used in CAA tools to test surface learning include: with a single choice of response; • MCQs, response questions (MRQs), similar to MCQs but with multiple • Multiple selections of responses; questions; • true/false questions, where a point or area on an image is selected; • hot-spot questions, requiring a response which is the input of text; • text questions, requiring a numerical response; • numerical questions, where items in two lists are paired off; • matching • ranking questions, placing items in an order according to certain criteria. There are variations on these themes, such as questions requiring a mathematical expression as the response, or perhaps a fragment of program code. Where simple knowledge or comprehension is being measured, a combination of these types of question can be very effective. However, creating effective questions is not necessarily a straightforward task. For example, when writing MCQs, it is necessary to ensure that clues to the correct answer are not accidentally included either in the question or in the choice of potential answers. There is now substantial literature defining best practice when composing such questions, and this is summarized in the CAA Centre’s Blueprint (Bull and McKenna 2001). It has been argued (Entwistle 2001) that such simple question types cannot be used to measure deep learning, and that the higher levels of cognitive ability are

ELAC08

77

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

78 Learning activities for computing students

best measured by techniques such as essays and problem-based questions. Automatic marking of complex solutions, such as essays, is difficult. Assessment can be either summative or formative. Summative assessment is simply used to measure students’ performance, and is typically an examination under controlled conditions. Formative assessment is additionally used to provide constructive feedback to students and therefore also has a role in the learning process (Black and Wiliam 1998). Specifically, Wiliam and Black specify that ‘in order to serve a formative function, an assessment must yield evidence that, with appropriate construct-referenced interpretations, indicates the existence of a gap between actual and desired levels of performance, and suggests actions that are in fact successful in closing the gap’ (Wiliam and Black 1996: 543). A key application of CAA is in formative assessment, and CAA may assist the monitoring of students’ progress through frequent testing.

Assessment of programming skills When measuring students’ programming skills it needs to be clear exactly what is being assessed. The following are (some) attributes of the process of writing a computer program which may be measured, in an approximate ascending order of level of cognitive ability required by the student: in code; • comments style (layout, choice of identifiers); • code of code; • correctness structure (use of language artefacts); • code testing; • code of external libraries; • use documentation; • design documentation; • user documentation; • system of code; • efficiency of algorithm; • choice • efficiency of algorithm used. Of course, not all of these skills will be acquired at the same time, and a student’s programming skills will continually be developed during a computing degree course. Some of these attributes can potentially be measured (such as correctness of code), whereas assessing documentation is not dissimilar to assessing an essay, albeit a short and formalized one. There is an element of subjectivity, especially regarding style and documentation, and programming is often regarded as an art. How can Bloom’s taxonomy be applied to these skills? The knowledge base required for a programmer is relatively small. Basic programming is synthetic – it

ELAC08

78

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

Automating the process of skills-based assessment 79

is a creative skill – and with only a surface understanding of computer language concepts it is not possible to be a competent programmer. Most of the attributes listed above require at least the application of a student’s knowledge of a programming language, and are at the middle to upper levels of the taxonomy. Programming is a skill which requires deep learning and, as remarked above, the simple dialogues available in generic CAA tools are arguably not appropriate for measuring such a skill.

Issues Before using any CAA package, there are a number of factors which an academic should be aware of. Many of these are security-related, and of a technical nature, but all of them impact on the use or choice of a CAA tool. Some are potentially crucial if a tool is used for summative assessment, but may be unimportant for a minor formative exercise or for student self-testing. Authentication of the student user of a CAA tool may be weak. It is usually necessary for the teacher to ensure that the student attempting a piece of work is the student they claim to be. It is easy for students to tell each other user codes and passwords, and for a student to impersonate another student, and this is problematic when an assessment is not held under controlled examination conditions. Does the tool interface with the institution’s student record software? Access to accurate student data potentially improves the ease with which a module can be managed. Are local passwords/IDs used? Allocation and management of passwords must be performed safely – for example, preventing the use of guessable passwords (Frisch 1995). How is sensitive information (such as passwords) stored? It must be practically impossible for another user of the system to access that information, which should be stored encrypted. Is a student disconnected after a period of inactivity? Students can accidentally leave themselves logged on and another person could then continue the session. Most CAA tools are client-server software, and this raises network-related problems. If a specific platform is required for a client, do all students have access to suitable equipment? Although some vendors assume all PCs run Windows, in university environments both Linux and Macintoshes are increasingly popular. Is the connection between client and server encrypted to prevent passwords and other sensitive data being intercepted? ‘Packet sniffing’ and other hacking software can be simple to use, and if the connection passes through an insecure network, unencrypted data can be read (McClure et al. 2001). What happens to a session when the client-server connection is unexpectedly broken? If a student is part-way through an assessment, it is probably undesirable for any data entered by that student to be lost.

ELAC08

79

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

80 Learning activities for computing students

Has the tool ensured that documents presented to the browser do not contain data which, when the source is examined, suggest the answers to the questions? Some tools, for example, encode the answers to questions in the URL presented to the browser. Can a student use the client’s features to navigate through the displayed dialogue in an unexpected way? For example, does pressing the ‘back’ button of a browser allow a student to attempt a question multiple times? Will a browser client work with all up-to-date web browsers? Some websites are coded so that they are readable with only one browser (typically, Internet Explorer), and when viewed with a different browser do not display correctly. In the UK, the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (HMSO 1998) must be observed. Students have a right of access to data held on them, and any such data must be stored securely. Since the Act enacts a European Union directive, any CAA tool used within the European Union must comply with the corresponding law in the country of use. This is a particular concern if a tool originates from outside Europe, and especially if its origin is the United States, where the emphasis on data protection legislation is different. Do students have access to data stored on them if requested (subject to the provisions of the Act)? Are student data stored securely? Data must not accidentally be divulged to unauthorized persons. Is access to student data restricted to authorised persons? If CAA is used, and is not under controlled conditions (such as exercises to be performed ‘at home’), then there is the possibility that plagiarism will take place, and it is important that this is recognized when designing the course. This is dealt with in detail elsewhere in this book, but two issues are appropriate to mention here. Are students made aware of institution policy about plagiarism when using the software, and does the tool contain software to detect plagiarism? If it does not, it may be difficult to know if plagiarism has occurred.

Generic products A variety of CAA packages are available for purchase, and each is sold as software which performs a wider course management function. Some of these, such as WebCT (2002: www.webct.com), form a virtual learning environment (VLE) and have been adopted by some institutions as a major vehicle for course delivery. Few are focused on assessment, the major exception being Question Mark Perception (2002: www.questionmark.com), which is currently an industry standard. All offer a choice of simple question types discussed earlier, together with suitable authoring tools. Most offer a web-based student interface, although the authoring interfaces may require a WindowsTM platform. Most are sold as application programs, but some such as WebMCQ (2002: www.webmcq.com) are packaged as services with the servers located in company offices. None has any specialized

ELAC08

80

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

Automating the process of skills-based assessment 81

support for assessment of programming skills. Costs vary, but may exceed £10,000 for a site licence. Some products, including Question Mark Perception, offer interoperability with academic student record systems. Some packages have been developed by universities and by individual academics. These are generally free, or the cost is nominal, but support is seldom offered. Some are part of ongoing research, such as the Netquest project (ILRT 2002), exploring the creation of searchable question banks for online delivery of tutorials and assessment. A danger with non-commercial products is that their development may unexpectedly be halted, such as the TACO project (Sasse et al. 1998). Funding for products such as Leicester University’s CASTLE Toolkit (ULCC 2002) should ensure their continued availability. As new technologies emerge, software is often not updated to take advantage of them. Some products require the use of third-party software, such as the TRIADS project (Mackenzie 1999). A common problem with academic software is that it is not completely packaged, requiring time and expertise to install and maintain. Security is a concern with all these products. None appears to be entirely secure and not all vendors were prepared to discuss security issues which were raised with them. For products which were intended for purposes of self-testing only, this is not a problem, but most products do claim they can be used for diagnostic or summative purposes. An interesting approach by Question Mark Perception is the provision of a secure browser which it claims overcomes most security problems. A major issue is interoperability between products. It may be inadvisable to commit to a specific product which cannot share data with other similar products. Software written for other purposes (such as student record software, graphical design tools or plagiarism detection software) should ideally work seamlessly with any chosen CAA product. Unfortunately, this does not always happen, but specifications for data storage and representation are being developed. The IMS Consortium (IMS 2002) is developing XML-based standards for the storage of CAA questions, and there are academic initiatives such as the Coresoft project (University of Warwick 2002) defining a database schema and APIs for interoperation with student record systems, and the TML markup (ILRT 2002) used by Netquest. Having identified a CAA product, questions and answers must be written before it is deployed. This is a time-consuming task. Is it possible to reuse previously written questions from available question banks? Some of the products reviewed offer learning materials, either as part of the package or as extras, however their content and/or presentation may not easily integrate with established courses. It is interesting when speaking to academics how many are enthusiastic about question banks, and encourage their development, but are reluctant to contribute material themselves. The issue of intellectual property rights is one which constrains the development of question banks. There are currently only two products which are aimed at the assessment of programming skills, and which have been deployed outside of a single institution. The remainder of this chapter will examine each in detail.

ELAC08

81

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

82 Learning activities for computing students

Case study 1: CourseMarker CourseMarker (LTRG 2002), formerly known as Ceilidh and as CourseMaster, has been developed at the University of Nottingham, and is a client-server based system for delivering courses based around programming or diagramming exercises. It allows students to develop and submit programs online, and for those programs to be marked automatically. It is available for purchase, although the cost is relatively low compared with the commercial products discussed earlier. Security is well addressed, traffic being encrypted, and cross-checking of session keys employed as a further protection against packet sniffing. CourseMarker contains plagiarism detection software which will compare students’ submissions pairwise and indicate instances of significant similarity. The software is straightforward to use, both for teacher and student, although installation requires technical expertise. CourseMarker marks programs via three subsystems. A typographic tool uses predefined typographic properties (metrics such as proportion of comments, indentation, brace style), and assigns marks dependent on the metrics being within certain bounds. A feature tool assigns credit if a submission contains a given feature (such as use of a specified language construct). A dynamic testing tool captures the output of the program (considered as one or more strings) and compares against expected output. The main client and server software which form the majority of CourseMarker are Java applications using RMI. The three marking subsystems also contain scripts in other languages and can be configured as required (although this may require specific skills, such as competence with regular expressions). The process of writing and submitting a program allows a student to run the marking tools themselves prior to submission, and to view the marks which would be awarded. Students are thus encouraged to conform to a particular coding convention.

Case study 2: BOSS The BOSS Online Submission System (Luck and Joy 1999; UWDCS 2002a) has been developed at the University of Warwick. It shares some features with CourseMarker, being a client-server based system, coded in Java and using RMI. Unlike CourseMarker, no supplementary scripts are used – the code is 100 per cent Java, and is platform-independent, having been tested on Sun Solaris, Linux and Windows 95/98/NT/2000/XP. A small bootstrap program is installed on the client machine, which downloads the client software from a central server, thus simplifying the process of upgrading the software. Security has been a high priority in the software development, and communication between client and server can be SSL-armoured. Access to the software is password protected, and users have access to data on a need to know basis. The server stores information in a database which may be populated with student record

ELAC08

82

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

Automating the process of skills-based assessment 83

data in a simple (and institution-independent) way; thus accurate mark sheets can be constructed. BOSS is distributed with plagiarism detection software ( Joy and Luck 1999; UWDCS 2002b) BOSS automatically marks programs via a single subsystem, similar to the dynamic testing subsystem of CourseMarker. This allows a submitted program to be run, and for a given input its output is compared against expected output. The input and output can either be specified as strings (as CourseMarker) or as instances of Java classes. Submitted programs can either be automatically marked (in which case only dynamic testing is used), or manually marked (where staff use online forms), or a mixture of both. Feedback is provided to students through the email return of marks, (optionally) broken down by category, and (if appropriate) messages written by staff during the manual marking phase. Thus if there is dynamic testing, students can see which tests failed and the program output can be generated, providing information which will help them understand how to correct the program. An interface to student record information is provided through the use of the Coresoft database (University of Warwick 2002). There is currently no typographic tool in BOSS. Staff can make available to students some or all of the dynamic tests, so that students can receive instant feedback on whether their programs are working prior to submitting them for assessment. The philosophy underlying BOSS is that it should be targeted at a single functionality, and as such concentrates on the processes of submission, dynamic testing and marking. As such, some of the features of CourseMarker are absent, and may remain so. A major pedagogical concern is that automatic testing of programs may be unsound, and good programs may fail tests for trivial reasons. BOSS is designed to aid the marking process, not to replace it, and even if the only marks for a given assignment are awarded automatically, the marks must be moderated so that programs which fail tests are all marked fairly. In practice, this is not an onerous burden on the teacher, since a well-specified assignment yields few if any such cases.

Conclusion Programming is a skill which requires higher levels of cognitive ability (as defined by Bloom) to master. Generic CAA tools are available which are effective in measuring a student’s competency in skills requiring lower levels of cognitive ability, but do not easily target the assessment of a student’s programming ability. They are at varying stages of development, with varying functionality, quality and price, and most lack features specific to the needs of education in computer science. There are currently two available tools which have been written to assist in measuring programming skills, which have been described above.

ELAC08

83

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

84 Learning activities for computing students

Further information An ongoing exercise for the LTSN Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (2002) involves the review of major CAA tools, and a website is maintained. Detailed reviews and comparisons of the individual products are available on the site, together with further CAA resources.

Acknowledgements This chapter summarizes work funded by the LTSN Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, and has been assisted by Simon Rawles, Michael Evans and Steven Kumarappan.

References Black, P. and Wiliam D. (1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College London. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ depsta/education/publications/blackbox.html Benjamin, S., Bloom, B. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. London: Longman. Bull, J. and McKenna, C. (2001) Blueprint for Computer-Assisted Assessment. Loughborough: CAA Centre, University of Loughborough. http://www.caacentre.ac.uk. Entwistle, N. (2001) Promoting Deep Learning through Assessment and Teaching. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Frisch, A. (1995) Essential System Administration. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly. HMSO (1998) Data Protection Act 1998. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ 19980029.htm ILRT (Institute for Learning and Research Technology) (2002) Netquest. http:// www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/netquest IMS (2002) Question and Test Interoperability Specification. http://www.imsproject.org LTRG (Learning Technology Research Group) (2002) CourseMarker. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/CourseMarker LTSN Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences (2002) Computer-Assisted Assessment. http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/ltsn-ics/resources/caa Joy, M. and Luck, M. (1999) ‘Plagiarism in Programming Assignments’, IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(2): 129–33. Luck, M. and Joy, M. (1999) ‘A Secure On-line Submission System’, Software – Practice and Experience, 29(8): 721–40. McClure, S., Scambray, J. and Kurtz, G. (2001) Hacking Exposed, 3rd edn. Emeryville, CA: Osborne/McGraw-Hill. Mackenzie, D. (1999) Recent Developments in the Tripartite Interactive Assessment Delivery System (TRIADS). http://www.derby.ac.uk/ciad/lough99pr.html QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2000) The National Qualifications Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: a Position Paper. http:// www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/nqf/pospaper/contents.htm

ELAC08

84

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

Automating the process of skills-based assessment 85

Sasse, M. A., Harris, C., Ismail, I. and Monthienvichienchai, P. (1998) ‘Support for Authoring and Managing Web-based Coursework: The TACO Project’, in R. Hezami, S. Hailes and S. Wilbur (eds) The Digital University: Reinventing the Academy. SpringerVerlag. ULCC (University of Leicester Computer Centre) (2002) CASTLE Toolkit. http://www.le.ac.uk/castle University of Warwick (2002) Coresoft. http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/coresoft UWDCS (University of Warwick Department of Computer Science) (2002a) The BOSS Online Submission System. http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/boss UWDCS (University of Warwick Department of Computer Science) (2002b) The Sherlock Plagiarism Detection Software. http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/sherlock Wiliam, D. and Black, P. (1996) ‘Meanings and Consequences: A Basis for Distinguishing Formative and Summative Functions of Assessment?’ British Educational Research Journal, 22(5): 537–48.

ELAC08

85

14/5/04, 2:21 PM

86 Learning activities for computing students

9

Motivation and electronic assessment

Stephen Bostock

Introduction Innovative assessment methods in information and computer sciences (ICS) are often electronic. The motivational impact of the assessment is less to do with its electronic nature than with its pedagogical design, but electronic support often makes such assessment feasible with limited resources. Objective tests, peer, group and self-assessment often motivate students better than traditional examinations and coursework but they also carry risks to motivation and learning, so careful design is needed. This chapter discusses these methods and their motivational impact with reference to the generic and ICS literature. Due to lack of space I have omitted other electronic assessments such as assessed online discussion.

Assessment, motivation and learning Assessment is the single most powerful influence on learning in formal courses. (Boud et al. 2001: 67) A naive view of assessment is that it logically follows teaching and learning and tests their outcomes. This is inadequate because students see it coming. ‘Assessment backwash’ (Biggs 1999) means that student learning is largely determined by the assessment and not by the teaching or the official syllabus. Secondly, assessment has a wholly or partially formative function: the feedback on student performance that it provides is part of the learning experience. Assessment is thus integral to the learning experience and central to curriculum design.

ELAC09

86

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Motivation and electronic assessment 87

Students and staff have different perceptions of an assessment. For example, while staff may declare that assessments serve formative purposes, the feedback provided may not have the intended positive impact on learning (MacLellan 2001). Students act according to the situation as they see it, not as teachers would like them to see it (McDowell 2002). Student evaluations of assessments are needed to give us their view. Assessment drives learning through motivation. Motivation concerns forming goals and making an effort to achieve them; ‘wanting to learn’ (Race 1995: 61). Assessment informs students about the real goals of a course. The effort they make towards achieving them is affected by feelings about the goals and the likelihood of reaching them. Student feelings might include self-esteem, anger, gratitude, guilt or resignation (Weiner 1984). Positive motivation can be caused by the perception that an assessment is relevant to a student’s broader goals, such as employment (Seale et al. 2000). Students’ motivations vary and may change through the course. The distinction is often made between intrinsic motivation (to understand the subject) and extrinsic motivation (for the reward of a certificate or employment) (e.g. Ashcroft and Palacio 1996: 29). Many students may arrive more with the hope of gaining a degree than with a thirst for knowledge of computer science (Carter and Boyle 2002). This may be a particular problem with a degree title that implies employability. In a study of university computer science students, Jenkins (2001) found that half the students had extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic interest in programming. Ng and Ng (1997: 65) found that a surface approach to learning (memorizing for assessment) was the commonest approach of students on a computer engineering course. Clearly, the motivations of many students are extrinsic and their approaches to learning are instrumental. We should not be surprised by this. External motivators are legitimate – we do, after all, award degrees and we increasingly stress employability. We need to design assessments that harness extrinsic motivation towards real understanding and prevent any advantage in surface approaches to learning. We also owe it to students with some intrinsic motivation that our assessments reward their understanding. Whenever assessments are summative (contributing to grades) they will be extrinsically motivating. Students like assessments to be intrinsically motivating, too (Ashcroft and Palacio 1996: 31). Our task is to create intrinsically motivating assessments that are nonetheless valid and reliable tests of learning outcomes; assessments that will harness existing motivation, add to it, and cause and measure real understanding. To take an important example, programming is a core skill in computer science and the learning of programming is a recognized problem. Jenkins (2001) reviewed the motivation of students learning programming. Motivation involves both the value a person puts on the outcome of their effort and their expectation of achieving it. While many students believe in, or can be persuaded of the value of, gaining programming skills, they may lose the expectation of success: they may come to believe that they ‘just can’t do it’, a state referred to as ‘learned helplessness’ ( Jenkins 2001: 19). ‘Assessment has a powerful effect on motivation’ ( Jenkins 2001: 189)

ELAC09

87

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

88 Learning activities for computing students

and most valuable are well designed formative assessments. Assessment should play a positive role in motivating students to strive towards the explicit learning outcomes, guide learning, and be sympathetic to how students learn. Traditional closed examinations are demotivating for most students. Race (1995: 61) compared traditional closed examinations and continuous assessment. Among the problems with exams was their encouraging surface learning and their not being positively motivating. Exams predominantly generated negative emotions such as fear, panic and anxiety. Fisher (1994: 48) reviewed the stress caused by, and the effectiveness of, examinations: it is clear that the traditional timed examination is likely to measure a great deal more than just the ability to acquire and utilize knowledge. It measures confidence differences, which may be age or gender based, test anxiety levels, degree of belief in superstitious practice, because this affects confidence; and ability on the day to lower anxiety sufficiently to interpret questions and set out well argued answers. She concluded: ‘perhaps the timed examination survives more because of its processing efficiency than its efficiency in tapping of knowledge levels and expertise.’ For many students, the stress of examinations makes them ineffective tests, and hence they are unlikely to provide a positive motivation. We can contrast this with a non-traditional form of summative assessment. Sambell et al. (1999:183) discovered that most students found computer-based tests less stressful than examinations: ‘I knew it was a test, and you had to revise and that, but it didn’t seem as much pressure’. In a review of Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) benchmarking statements, Johnson (2002) found that some, including computing, suggested that students should feel ownership of their assessment. This is only possible if assessment is consistent with student goals and if they are involved in the assessment process and not just subjected to it – for example, peer and self-assessments in contrast to closed examinations.

Innovative assessment For the sake of argument, we can contrast traditional examinations and coursework with ‘innovative assessment’ such as self-assessment, peer assessment, portfolios, computer-based assessment and negotiated assessments. Much innovative assessment is electronic, especially within ICS. Obviously, the pedagogical issues are important rather than the technical ones, although technology often makes feasible new pedagogical designs. Students often get more involved in innovative assessment. McDowell (2002) reviewed research on how students respond to innovative assessment in practice and concluded that students often think innovative assessments are interesting and help them to learn, but their views vary and are

ELAC09

88

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Motivation and electronic assessment 89

affected by factors such as their reasons for being on the course. When assessment promotes some worthwhile and meaningful activity, students appreciate it, but if they find that it means more work they may resent it. For example, Bostock (2002) found that while students appreciated both giving and receiving peer reviews of coursework, some complained about the time taken to write the reviews. Students frequently criticize conventional assessment, especially traditional exams, seeing them as artificial and unfair but, at the same time, may prefer them because they are familiar and less time-consuming. Some students have always been good at exams: ‘from their point of view – why rock the boat?’ (McDowell 2002). MacDonald (2002) reported that three quarters of students on an Open University information technology (IT) course were in favour of retaining an end of course, closed examination. The commonest reason given was that of motivation: ‘the challenge, the need to put in more effort’ (p. 333). MacDonald thought this view reflected the students’ conservative nature, their limited experience of other forms of assessment and their extrinsic motivation. She recommended that any alternative assessment should retain the motivation for synoptic revision. Novelty can be an advantage but unfamiliar summative assessment can also cause anxiety, especially if it seems the tutor is experimenting. Students need a process of familiarization with any new assessment method before it is used in earnest (Bull and Stevens 1999).

Computer-assisted assessment (CAA) Assessment by objective tests is increasingly done on computers (see also Chapter 8 in this book). Charman (1999) reviewed the use of CAA for formative assessment. He claimed that its interactivity could engage students even if there was no summative element of grading involved, and that there is mounting evidence for its pedagogic advantages. For example, Grebenik and Rust (2002) gave formative tests to first-year chemistry students learning simple calculations and concluded that they had ‘motivated and enabled students to structure work in their own time, and have permitted them to make repeated efforts to get work right in an anonymous risk-free environment’ (p. 23). Bull and Stevens (1999) reviewed the use of formative and summative CAA across two institutions. While students were just as anxious about CAA as about traditional exams before taking the assessments, they were very positive about summative CAA afterwards: ‘many students enjoy the experience more than traditional examinations’ (p. 131). The advantages of CAA were reported to include time-saving and getting immediate feedback. King (1995) used CAA with computing students. Three summative tests were given through a one-semester course, with open access but with the questions randomly selected from a question bank. Students’ evaluations were very positive. Although Brosnan (1999) discussed computer anxiety as a major drawback of CAA, Bull and Stevens (1999) found that very few students were fearful of having

ELAC09

89

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

90 Learning activities for computing students

to use computers to perform an assessment and this number can be expected to be negligible in computing students. However, some anxiety was due to unfamiliarity with the type of tests, so students need to practise these. Catterall and Ibbotson (1995) described a less positive experience using tutorial and testing software with marketing students. Students complained of boredom and eye-strain as use progressed, presumably due to the excessive periods of instruction. The main benefits to students were not in self-assessment of learning but in preparation for learning and building confidence, especially at the start of the course. They concluded that improvements would include a greater variety of types of test and a progression of test difficulty through the course. Discussions of the advantages of CAA often consider student motivation at least indirectly, especially the advantages of more frequent and timely feedback on performance. Bull and McKenna (2001) and Charman and Elmes (1998), for example, described the use of CAA for frequent assessment during a course, or on demand. The motivational impact of CAA was therefore due to its timing, the feedback given and the fact that the tests were objectively marked against explicit criteria. In a case study of CAA in programming, Oliver (1998a) highlighted the benefits of increased motivation of a system of computer-marked programming assignments at Hertfordshire University. In fact, some students became ‘over-motivated’ – obsessed with completing the exercises. Oliver (1998b) concluded that automatic assessment of student programming exercises on the basis of output, layout and source code was highly motivating for most students. The BOSS system at the University of Warwick ( Joy and Luck 1995, 1998) runs student programs with test data but does not itself mark the work. It allows students to run their programs in advance of submission, for formative feedback. Their evaluation does not explicitly concern motivation but it was reported that the facility to test programs formatively was valued by students. Ceilidh (now CourseMarker) has also been used for many years and is a comprehensive system for the automatic assessment of student work (mainly programming) and the administration of the resulting marks and solutions. Foxley et al. (1996) summarized student evaluations of the system as helpful and supportive. Benford et al. (1993: 65) described three years of using Ceilidh: ‘the system acted as a confidence builder for novice programmers who benefit greatly from the positive early feedback’ on programming exercises. It identified particularly weak students early, for special help. As with all innovative assessment, it made assessment criteria more explicit and open to discussion with students. Among the few problems were a small group of students who were ‘over-motivated’ – perfectionists who worked too long in order to get very high marks. Stephens and Curtis (2001) surveyed the use of CAA in information science and library studies. Their conclusion on student motivation was that such objective tests can assess the whole course content more easily than traditional assessments. This deters students from question-spotting and other surface learning approaches.

ELAC09

90

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Motivation and electronic assessment 91

Wong et al. (2001) developed a CAA system and evaluated its impact on students learning ‘computer literacy’. Half of them had had no prior computer training. About 80 per cent of their students agreed that the assessment system aroused their interest in doing assignments, and that the feedback it gave on their performance was useful. Turton (1996), in the School of Engineering at Cardiff, obtained student evaluations on a system of computerized continuous assessment. Students preferred this type of assessment despite finding it difficult, and regarded it as a better teaching tool than an assessment tool – it forced them to study their books carefully. One area of student concern was the negative marking of wrong answers (in my view, a fair procedure). Sambell et al. (1999) reported the introduction of CAA into electronic engineering programmes. Formative ‘practice tests’ were used to help students monitor their own progress and take responsibility for improving their learning strategies. In other words, it helped the self-evaluation of their learning.

Group assessment A survey of UK undergraduate computing courses (Lejk et al. 1997) found that group learning and group assessment occurred to varying extents in the majority of institutions responding (see also the material on group assessment in Chapter 7 of this book). There is general agreement that learning in groups can have a range of benefits (Lejk et al. 1999: 11) but there are concerns among staff and students about students sharing a grade for group work. Deeks (1995: 55) describes benefits to tutors and students in group working but cautions ‘it should be the individual who is assessed, for it is the individual who in the end gains the qualification’. Lejk et al. (1999: 13) noted ‘a degree of unease and uncertainty about the integrity of marks gained from group assessments’ and that methods in which students work collaboratively and are then assessed individually may solve these problems. Clearly, any student anxieties about the fairness of shared grades will undermine the benefits of group learning. Brown et al. (1995) are more positive about group assessment and the problem of fairness. They stress the need for a mechanism that addresses the problem being made clear to students. There are a number of methods for using peer assessments of the individual contributions to a group product (Lejk et al. 1996; Hartley and Bostock 2003), some of which can produce large differences between individual grades. Any system must be transparent and appear fair.

Peer assessment As teachers, how often do we really understand the assessment criteria of a new course until we have applied them once? Students are usually in this position. Only by applying the criteria in an assessment activity can they engage with them

ELAC09

91

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

92 Learning activities for computing students

and understand them operationally, in terms of their own performance. Race (2001), argues that these ways of involving students in their own assessment will deepen learning. Two of the reasons given for this are intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. On intrinsic motivation Race states that: Students can be considerably enthused by being involved in self-assessment, peer-assessment, or the assessment of group learning . . . In particular, the act of applying assessment criteria to their own work, and each others’ work, can help students to want to achieve fully . . . the associated learning outcomes. (Race 2001: 19) Forms of assessment where the students are assessors give close encounters with assessment criteria. This helps them relate their progress to their long-term goals. A third benefit for learning is receiving a greater amount of feedback from peers. Boud et al. (2001) summarize the advantages of peer assessment. One is the valuing of peer learning: for students the currency is assessment. They also list the possible difficulties with peer assessment, including the fact that ‘assessment can easily inhibit the processes it is designed to enhance if it is not implemented sensitively . . . Peer learning is particularly vulnerable to being affected by inappropriate forms of assessment’ (p. 69). This is because both staff and students are probably less familiar with it, and it breaks the traditional alignment of teacher assessment and control of the learning situation. Some students may not welcome the responsibility of assessing, or value the assessments of peers. In addition, some peer assessment may assess outcomes that are new or intrinsically difficult to assess, such as team skills. Peer assessment needs careful planning and transparency of the process. Habershaw et al. (1993: 161) give advice on introducing peer assessment into courses, as do various authors in Brown (1998). Self- and peer assessment raise wider issues of academic values and control. Core values underlying academic practice include critical evaluation, scepticism of authority and questioning over-acceptance (Boud 1990). We cannot inculcate such values if we retain full control of learning through assessment. Peer assessment puts into practice our academic principles – for example, encouraging critical evaluation without it becoming an issue of authority. Of course, the accreditation function of assessment means there are quality audit constraints, but within these ‘the challenge is to find a place for significant student responsibility’ (Boud 1990: 106). Within ICS, Bostock (2001a, 2001b, 2002), at Keele University, developed a web-based system supporting anonymous peer assessment, called PROMT. This was used for both formative and summative assessments of student coursework assignments (websites) on an M.Sc. in IT over three years (and is still in use). Each student anonymously reviewed four or five pieces of coursework by peers, as prototypes for formative purposes, and then as final submissions for summative purposes, giving marks and text feedback for each of the six assessment criteria. Each year a majority of students recommended the system be used again – for example, 79 per cent of students in 2001–2. They saw assessor anonymity as essential to allow ‘ruthlessly honest’ feedback. Leijk and Wyvill (2001) also found

ELAC09

92

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Motivation and electronic assessment 93

that students thought anonymous assessments would be more honest and accurate. The benefits of peer assessment, as perceived by students, were receiving useful constructive criticism. About 60 per cent of students were content to allow averaged final student assessments to be used summatively, but only if these were moderated by the teacher. Others were unhappy about summative peer assessment. Davies (2000), at the University of Glamorgan, also developed a system for anonymous many-to-many peer assessment called CAP, and used it with computer science undergraduates. Student response has been overwhelmingly positive. Davies stresses the educational purpose: Peer assessment must not be used as a means of purely reducing the tutor’s marking load. There must be a positive educational benefit for the students, and they must be made aware of what that benefit is prior to the use of the system. This will reduce any negative preconceived ideas they may have concerning a method of assessment, and also act as a motivational factor for the use of a new system. (Davies 2000: 354) A later version (Davies 2002a) supports a further cycle of discussion of peer assessments, all performed anonymously. Bhalero and Ward (2001), at Warwick University, developed a system called OASYS for teaching undergraduate programming that combines a computerized multiple-choice testing system with support for anonymous peer assessment of scripts that could not be marked automatically. The main aim was to provide timely, individualized and discursive feedback on class work for large cohorts. As with the systems described above, this system provided student anonymity, realtime response, a web interface and facilities for teacher administration. Tsai et al. (2001) developed an electronic peer review system for iterative formative assessments of coursework by science students, who were ‘generally positive’. Students may be anxious about summative use of peer assessment. In a third-year undergraduate programming course, Chandler and Hand (1995: 116) found that ‘over 50 per cent of students did not like the peer assessment and/or considered it unfair, despite resulting in similar marks to those of the tutors’. Bostock (2001a, 2002) compared marks awarded by students with his own marks and found a high correlation of 0.59. But the student marks were variable (on average, a standard deviation of 6 per cent) so all student marks were moderated before use. Summative use of student marks was the main anxiety. The balance of advantage was against summative peer assessment and it was later dropped. On the other hand, formative peer assessment had the advantages of providing feedback and of student engagement with assessment criteria without the disadvantages of student anxieties about the accuracy of marking. Another potential problem with peer assessment is the quality of the feedback. Is this the blind leading the blind? Students need clear and detailed criteria, and practice in using them. Even then, the success of a peer assessment exercise depends upon all the students in a cohort performing the assessments conscientiously. Bostock

ELAC09

93

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

94 Learning activities for computing students

(2002) added assessment by the teacher of the peer assessments and feedback as a way of policing quality and valuing the effort that went into them.

Self-assessment The capability for self-assessment is a part of the autonomy we wish students to develop, and of the generic skills sometimes labelled ‘learning to learn’. Many of the arguments above in favour of peer assessment also apply to self-assessment. Lejk and Wyvill (2001) compared peer assessments and self-assessment of contributions made to a group project in an undergraduate computer science course. There was a tendency for more able students to under-assess themselves and for less able students to over-assess themselves, especially if the assessments were done in secret. They concluded that self-assessments should not be used summatively. However, here students were assessing their own contribution to a group project rather than assessing a specific piece of their own work against criteria. Chandler and Hand (1995) used an element of self-assessment of programming coursework, with a small sample being moderated by tutors. Most students thought the assessment was fair. Here, self- and peer assessments considered an objective piece of work against clear criteria. Chen (2001) described the use of self-assessment in electronic portfolios by computer science students, most of whom were positive about the support it had given. Also in Taiwan, Chang (2001) described a web-based system supporting electronic portfolio development for trainee teachers in computer instruction. Students submitted portfolio materials electronically and wrote a reflection and self-assessment on a number of assignments. The great majority of student evaluations were positive about the support for learning the system had provided. Davies (2002b) modified his CAP electronic system (described above) to support self- and peer summative assessment of essays written by third-year computing undergraduates. Students self-assess and receive peer assessment on their essays and then reflectively self-assess the work again in the light of peer assessments. The teacher assesses student assessments (as in Bostock 2002). Student evaluations of the system were positive: over 80 per cent felt that it had been of great benefit. But the self-assessment element was found to be very difficult. Marking was not accurate enough and had to be teacher moderated. An appeal system allowed students to ask for a re-mark. The teacher assessment of student assessments, however, worked well.

Students setting assessments Another way of sharing control in assessment is by giving students some responsibility in setting assessments. In these days of programme specifications, it seems inescapable that learning outcomes are set by the university. However, the exact

ELAC09

94

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Motivation and electronic assessment 95

assignment titles can be negotiated with students, as cohorts or individuals (Habeshaw et al. 1993: 155). For example, in an information skills course for first-year undergraduates, Bostock (1998) allowed students to propose individual assignment titles with which to demonstrate in a structured way their information searching, evaluation and synthesis skills. Lee (1995), at Huddersfield University, described innovations in studentcentred learning in computer science. Once learning objectives had been set, students were given some responsibility in deciding how to achieve them and then had to evidence their achievements in a portfolio. The method included producing a personal action plan, a work diary and a personal profile that was the basis for a work placement. The evaluation of the innovations after three years was generally positive but included the need to reassure students (and staff ) that the process was relevant. Deeks (1995) got groups of computing students to set their own revision exercises, and answers, and then the class selected the best exercises for use and further improvement. The exercise was carefully designed to make the task of creating, judging and refining an assessment a valuable activity for learning. Even if the outcomes and assignments have been set by the teacher, there is still room for students to discuss and negotiate the exact criteria for assessment. For example, in a peer assessment exercise on an M.Sc. in IT, following lectures on usability and evaluation, Bostock (2002) negotiated the criteria to be used for the peer and teacher assessment of student coursework. Even where assessment criteria cannot be negotiated, they can still be discussed and clarified with students. For example, Sambell et al. (2002: 137) describe how judicious integration of assessment issues into teaching sessions can alleviate students’ anxieties about producing assignments early in their courses.

Conclusion We have seen examples of the positive motivation generated by objective testing, peer, group and self-assessments. There are also risks with innovative assessment, so it needs careful design and evaluation to understand its impact on students. The following conclusions seem important: assessment can provide additional timely feedback to support learning. • Innovative will probably be unfamiliar with making assessments; they will need • Students guidelines, clarification, instruction and practice beforehand. is needed for group and peer assessments if students are to make • Anonymity honest assessments (indeed, anonymous marking by staff is becoming the rule). of outcomes and criteria are always desirable but they are essential for • Clarity innovative assessments (e.g. Roach 1999). in assessment will suit, and be fair to, the widening diversity of students • Diversity we expect to teach ( Johnson 2002). Not all students prefer innovative assessment.

ELAC09

95

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

96 Learning activities for computing students

• • •

If novelty is introduced in small amounts it will reduce student anxiety and the risks to success. Nonetheless, the mix of assessments must not be too complex, and the total amount of assessment activity must not be too great. That in itself would be demotivating and encourage surface approaches to learning or poor practice in using sources. Students should be given choice or control over some aspects of assessment. Students are motivated when they can customize their learning activities and/ or be involved in the criteria for success. Setting assessments and their answers is a valuable learning activity.

Assessment largely controls motivation for learning and whether students achieve their goals. We want students to become independent, lifelong learners so they must learn to take responsibility for their own learning. Innovative assessment should involve them as partners in assessment, albeit junior partners. This is consistent with our academic values and practices. While assessments must primarily be designed to be effective in encouraging and supporting students in achieving the planned learning outcomes, they can be compatible with wider aspirations.

References Ashcroft, K. and Palacio, D. (1996) Researching into Assessment and Evaluation. London: Kogan Page. Benford, S., Burke, W., Foxley, E., Gutteridge, N. and Zin, A. M. (1993) ‘Early Experiences of Computer-aided Assessment and Administration when Teaching Computer Programming’, ALT-J, 1(2): 55–70. Bhalero, A. and Ward, A. (2001) ‘Towards Electronically Assisted Peer Assessment: A Case Study’, ALT-J, 9(1): 26–37. Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bostock, S. J. (1998) ‘Constructivism in Mass Higher Education: A Case Study’, British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3): 225–40. Bostock, S. J. (2001a) ‘Peer Assessment: Principles, a Case, and Computer Support’, paper presented at the LTSN-ICS Conference on Computer Assisted Assessment, Warwick University, 5– 6 April (handout at http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/cs/Stephen_Bostock/ docs/ltsnicsapril2001.pdf ). Bostock, S. J. (2001b) Student Peer Assessment (members resource area of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education website, https://www.ilt.ac.uk/portal/; see also http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/cs/Stephen_Bostock/docs/bostock_peer_assessment.htm Bostock, S. J. (2002) Web Support for Student Peer Review: Report of an Innovation Project Grant, July. http://www.keele.ac.uk/depts/cs/Stephen_Bostock/docs/peerreviewprojectreport 2002.pdf Boud, D. (1990) ‘Assessment and the Promotion of Academic Values’, Studies in Higher Education, 15(1): 101–11.

ELAC09

96

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Motivation and electronic assessment 97

Boud, D., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J. (2001) ‘Peer Learning and Assessment’, in D. Boud, R. Cohen, and J. Sampson (eds) Peer Learning in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, pp. 67–84. Brosnan, M. (1999) ‘Computer Anxiety in Students: Should Computer-based Assessment be Used at All?’ in S. Brown, P. Race and J. Bull (eds) Computer-Assisted Assessment in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, pp. 47–54. Brown, S. (1998) Peer Assessment in Practice (SEDA Paper 102). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association. Brown, S., Race, P. and Rust, C. (1995) ‘Using and Experiencing Assessment’, in P. Knight (ed.) Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, pp. 75–86. Bull, J. and Stevens, D. (1999) ‘The Use of QuestionMark Software for Formative and Summative Assessment at Two Universities’, IETI, 36(2): 128–36. Bull, J. and McKenna, D. (2001) Blueprint for Computer-assisted Assessment. Luton: CAA Centre, Luton University. Catterall, M. and Ibbotson, P. (1995) ‘The Use of Computers as Substitute Tutors for Marketing Students’, ALT-J, 3(1): 86–91. Chandler, J. and Hand, S. (1995) ‘Introducing Student-centred Methods in Teaching Computing: Assessment Based Methods’, Innovations in Computing Teaching: 111–20 (SEDA Paper 88). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association. Chang, C. (2001) ‘Construction and Evaluation of a Web Based Learning Portfolio System: An Electronic Assessment Tool’, IETI, 38(2): 144–55. Charman, D. (1999) ‘Issues and Impacts of Using Computer Based Assessments (CBAs) for Formative Assessment’, in S. Brown, P. Race and J. Bull (eds) Computer-Assisted Assessment in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, pp. 85–94. Charman, D. and Elmes, A. (1998) ‘Computer Based Assessment’, vol. 1, in A Guide to Good Practice. SEED (Science Education, Enhancement and Development), Plymouth: University of Plymouth. Chen, G. (2001) ‘Web Learning Portfolios: A Tool for Supporting Performance Awareness’, IETI, 38(1): 19–30. Davies, P. (2000) ‘Computerized Peer Assessment’, IETI, 37(4): 346–55. Davies, P. (2002a) ‘Closing the Communications Loop Within the Computerized Peerassessment of Essays’, paper presented at ALT-C 2002 Conference, Sunderland University, September. Davies, P. (2002b) ‘Using Student Reflective Self-assessment for Awarding Degree Classifications’, IETI, 39(4): 307–19. Deeks, D. (1995) ‘Some Practical Ideas for Learning, Groupwork and Assessment’, in Innovations in Computing Teaching: 49–56 (SEDA Paper 88). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association. Fisher, S. (1994) Stress in Academic Life: The Mental Assembly Line. Buckingham: Open University Press. Foxley, E., Higgins, C. and Gibbon, C. (1996) The Ceilidh System – A General Overview. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. http://www.dmi.ubi.pt/~crocker/prog3/ ceilidhinfo/papers/Overview96.html Grebenik, P. and Rust, C. (2002) ‘IT to the Rescue’, in P. Schwartz and G. Webb (eds) Assessment: Case Studies, Experience and Practice from Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, pp. 18–24. Habershaw, S., Gibbs. G. and Habershaw, T. (1993) 53 Interesting Ways to Assess your Students, Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Ltd.

ELAC09

97

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

98 Learning activities for computing students

Hartley, J. and Bostock, S. J. (2003) ‘Achieving More by Doing Less: Integrating Peer Assessment and Collaborative Written Work’, Educational Developments, 4(1): 26–8. Jenkins, T. (2001) ‘The Motivation of Students of Programming’, M.Sc. thesis, submitted to the University of Kent. Johnson, R. (2002) Digest of Online Resources Relating to Assessment (Members resource area of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education). https://www.ilt.ac.uk/ portal/ Joy, M. and Luck, M. (1995) ‘On-line Submission and Testing of Programming Assignments’, in Innovations in Computing Teaching: 95–104 (SEDA Paper 88). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association. Joy, M. and Luck, M. (1998) ‘The BOSS System for On-line Submission and Assessment of Computing Assignments’, in D. Charman and A. Elmes (eds) Computer Based Assessment, vol. 2. Plymouth: SEED Publications, University of Plymouth, pp. 39–44. King, T. (1995) ‘Using Computer-aided Assessment (CAA) for Objective Testing in Higher Education: A Case Study at the University of Plymouth’ in J. Hart (ed.) Innovations in Computing Teaching (SEDA Paper 88). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association, pp. 121–8. Lee, B. (1995) ‘Encouraging Computing Students to Become Reflective and Autonomous Learners through Self-assessment’, in J. Hart and M. Smith (eds) Innovations in Computing Teaching 2: Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning (SEDA Paper 91). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association, pp. 53–9. Lejk, M. and Wyvill, M. (2001) ‘The Effect of the Inclusion of Self-assessment with Peer Assessment of Contributions to a Group Project: A Quantitative Study of Secret and Agreed Assessments’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6): 551–61. Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. and Farrow, S. (1996) ‘A Survey of Methods of Deriving Individual Grades from Group Assessments’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3): 267–80. Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. and Farrow, S. (1997) ‘Group Learning and Group Assessment on Undergraduate Computing Courses in Higher Education in the UK: Results of a Survey’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(1): 81–91. Lejk, M., Wyvill, M. and Farrow, S. (1999) ‘Group Assessment in Systems Analysis and Design: A Comparison of the Performance of Streamed and Mixed-ability Groups’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(1): 5–14. MacDonald, J. (2002) ‘Getting it Together and Being Put on the Spot: Synopsis, Motivation and Examination’, Studies in Higher Education, 27(3): 329–38. McDowell, L. (2002) Students and Innovative Assessment (members resource area of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education). https://www.ilt.ac.uk/portal/ MacLellan, E. (2001) ‘Assessment for Learning: The Differing Perceptions of Tutors and Students’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4): 307–18. Ng, G. S. and Ng, E. Y. K. (1997) ‘Undergraduate Students in a Computer Engineering Course: A Perspective of their Learning Approaches and Motivational Factors’, IETI, 34(1): 65–9. Oliver, R. (1998a) ‘Experiences of Assessing Programming Assignments by Computer’, in D. Charman and A. Elmes (eds) Computer Based Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice, vol. 2. Plymouth: SEED Publications, University of Plymouth, pp. 45–50. Oliver, R. (1998b) Reflections on Three Years of Computer-Aided Assessment. http:// www.ulst.ac.uk/cticomp/oliver.html

ELAC09

98

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Motivation and electronic assessment 99

Race, P. (1995) ‘What has Assessment Done for Us – and to Us?’ in P. Knight (ed.) Assessment for Learning. London: Kogan Page, pp. 61–74. Race, P. (2001) A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment (Assessment Series Guides number 9). York: Generic LTSN. Roach, P. (1999) ‘Using Peer-assessment and Self-assessment for the First Time’, in S. Brown and A. Glasner (eds) Assessment Matters in Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 191–201. Sambell, K., Sambell, A. and Sexton, G. (1999) ‘Student Perceptions of the Learning Benefits of Computer-assisted Assessment: A Case Study in Electronic Engineering’, in S. Brown, P. Race and J. Bull, (eds) Computer-Assisted Assessment in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page, pp. 179–92. Sambell, K., Miller, S. and Hodgeson, S. (2002) ‘Let’s get the Assessment to Drive the Learning’, in P. Schwartz and G. Webb (eds) Assessment. London: Kogan Page, pp. 137–43. Seale, J. K., Chapman, J. and Davey, C. (2000) ‘The Influence of Assessments on Students’ Motivation to Learn in a Therapy Degree Course’, Medical Education, 34: 616–21. Stephens, D. and Curtis, A. (2001) Use of Computer Assisted Assessment by Staff in the Teaching of Information Science and Library Studies Subjects. http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/pub/italics/ issue1/dstephens/001.html Tsai, C., Liu, E., Lin, S. and Yuan, S. (2001) ‘A Networked Peer Assessment System Based on the Vee Heuristic’, IETI, 38(3): 220–30. Turton, B. C. H. (1996) ‘A Computer Aided Continuous Assessment System’, ALT-J, 4(2): 48–60. Weiner, B. (1984) ‘Principles for a Theory of Student Motivation and their Application Within an Attributional Framework’, in R. E. Ames and C. Ames (eds) Research on Motivation in Education, vol. 1. London: Academic Press, pp. 15–38. Wong, C. K., Wong, W. and Yeung, C. H. (2001) ‘Student Behaviour and Performance in Using a Web-based Assessment System’, IETI, 38(4): 339–46.

ELAC09

99

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

100 Learning activities for computing students

10

Reducing plagiarism in computing

Alastair Irons

Introduction ‘Plagiarism is not a new phenomenon and has always been an issue in academia’ (Slater 2000: 1). In support of this premise, Phillips and Horton (2000: 1) suggest that ‘studies examining issues of academic integrity have been of interest to teachers since the 1940s’. Slater goes on to argue that as a result of developments in technology, ‘the opportunities for plagiarism have increased’. The past few years have seen an increase in ‘electronic’ collusion and/or plagiarism cases in universities coming to light. The changing nature of the problem is posed in the assertion that ‘issues of plagiarism are complex, and made all the more complex by students’ increasing use of the World Wide Web as a research space’ (DeVoss and Rosati 2002: 1). The nature of the issue is summarized in Brown and Howell (2001: 103) ‘there are new concerns that the ready availability of material in electronic form on the World Wide Web means that to plagiarise involves less effort, and at the same time, the possibility of detection is reduced’. Although the availability of electronic detection tools contradicts the last part of this statement. While the issue of plagiarism is not unique to computing, some of the principles and skills taught to computing students may inadvertently lead to an increase in the instances of plagiarism. Computing students are exposed to a number of examples which can lead to confusing messages about plagiarism, such as: developmental culture that encourages groupwork; • athesupportive of freeware and open-source software; • the concepts software engineering principle that promotes the reuse of code; • the provision of technology that facilitates easy copying of large and complex files. •

ELAC10

100

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Reducing plagiarism in computing 101

The situation for computing students is further confused by the perception that the culture of computing and the ethos of the discipline is one that is slightly against the grain, close to the edge, slightly anachronistic, tolerating mild larceny and where hacking is an accepted practice. The fact that computer crime is not always dealt with seriously may give students the impression that they can adopt such practices when dealing with their assessed work. Many of the opportunities for plagiarism involve the use of, and require skills in, information and communications technologies (ICTs). To that end, computing students have a potentially greater opportunity to make use of ICTs for plagiarism than other students do. Part of the professional responsibility in teaching computing is to instil in students the need for good academic practice and the application of accepted academic principles. Plagiarism is in contravention of good academic practice and goes against accepted academic principles. In recent years there have been significant developments in the sophistication of plagiarism detection software. It is suggested in this chapter that software tools with the purpose of detecting plagiarism can be used as a deterrent to academic misconduct and may be used to aid academic judgement, but great care needs to be taken with the use of such tools. In particular, there is a need to ensure that the plagiarism detection tools are used ethically and that any academic judgements about plagiarism or other types of academic misconduct are not made solely on the basis of information from plagiarism tools. The large amount of recent literature on plagiarism indicates the level of seriousness that the academic community gives to the issue. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss plagiarism issues in computing, and to discuss ways in which the validity and veracity of assessment in computing can be assured and enhanced. In particular the chapter will focus on assessment design, negotiating learning opportunities, student ownership of assessment, the use of portfolios in assessment, formative feedback and personal development plans as a means of decreasing the incidence of plagiarism.

What is plagiarism? It seems to be generally accepted that plagiarism is a form of academic misconduct, is therefore wrong, and that the amount of plagiarism in higher education (HE) is large. However, there is no consensus as to an exact definition of plagiarism and whether the level of intent should be taken into account. Stefani and Carol (2001) discuss plagiarism in the context of using other people’s material as their own, and go on to examine the level of intent. They also explore the difference between poor academic practice and cheating, suggesting that both are unacceptable. The British Computer Society (BCS) is concerned about veracity of assessment in higher education institutions (HEIs). In the accreditation of courses it is expected that institutions are able to ‘provide assurance that appropriate processes are in

ELAC10

101

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

102 Learning activities for computing students

place to guard against plagiarism’ (BCS 2001: 1). The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) also expect HEIs to ‘ensure that assessment is conducted with rigour and fairness and with due regard to security’ (QAA 2000: 7). The plagiarism discussed in this chapter focuses on situations where a student submits for assessment someone else’s work, without clearly and completely referencing and crediting sources, with the intent of passing it off as entirely their own work. There is a range of academic misconduct related to plagiarism. The following list offers some examples from computing: copying, where a student submits work that is completely derived. The • Total use of ICTs increases the opportunities for students to do this. Some copying – a potentially grey area. There is a question of how much • copying constitutes plagiarism. Should one copied line of program code be considered in the same way as a whole program that has been copied?

– taking the work and thoughts of others and rewording or • Paraphrasing rearranging the text without adding any original contribution, comments or thoughts.

referencing – not citing at the point in the assessment where • Incomplete material from another source is included. – more than one student submitting the same or similar piece of • Collusion work for assessment, where the expectation is that the assessed work should be the student’s own work.

(or personation), where someone carries out the work for a student; • Ghosting the student then submits the work as their own. of plagiarism sites on the internet. A number of sites have been established • Use that will customize assessments for students; other sites have been developed to offer solutions to assessment questions.

or falsification of data and/or references. • Invention – the use of ICTs in university gives a further opportunity for academic • Theft misconduct. For example, the theft of computer disks or taking printouts from communal printers. The situation could then occur where the original author is faced with an accusation of plagiarism or collusion. As the ICT environment in HE changes and develops there are more examples of potentially insecure facilities where ‘hacking’ might take place, such as central servers where students have space to store their work, or as a result of the increased use of e-mail to communicate with students. Virtual learning environments (VLEs) allow for facilities such as digital drop boxes, discussion forums and facilities for providing formative feedback, all of which are also potentially at risk from hacking and security breaches. In HE in the UK, plagiarism is a particular concern in summative assessment. There is debate as to the appropriateness of summative assessment, and the positive argument is summarized in Pelligrino et al. (2001: 41) as serving as ‘an estimate,

ELAC10

102

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Reducing plagiarism in computing 103

based on the samples of knowledge and performance from the much larger universe of everything a person knows and can do’. Conversely, Black and Wiliam (1998a) suggest that summative assessment is not a particularly good means of finding out what it is that students know. Irrespective of the suitability of summative assessment, it continues to be a major part of learning and teaching and plagiarism affects its integrity and veracity. If it is assumed that academic judgements are based on summative assessment, then plagiarism has an adverse impact on those judgements. If it is the case that academic judgements are made incorrectly, then academic awards themselves are devalued. In many non-western cultures there is a different type of respect for seniority and established authority. This leads some students to believe that it is good academic practice to quote verbatim, without reference, from accepted experts and academic sources, and that it is bad academic practice (and indeed bad manners) to change material to reflect their own point of view. Students from a diverse range of cultures study computing. The number of students from different cultural backgrounds is increasing with the growth in overseas students coming to the UK to study, the growth in franchised and validated courses and the growth of distance and e-learning opportunities. Within western educational cultures there is a shift away from understanding what constitutes acceptable academic practice. In a survey of people under the age of 24 carried out for the BBC ( June 2000), 85 per cent of those surveyed had no distinct definition of the concepts associated with right and wrong when asked about plagiarizing the work of others.

Why is plagiarism an issue? Plagiarism is cheating. It is a form of academic misconduct. It undermines the basis of academic principles and values, and questions the credibility of standards in HE. It is an issue because there is an expectation that rigour and robustness are assured in academic awards. Plagiarism goes against the academic regulations of all UK universities. In order for the seriousness of plagiarism to be accepted by both academics and students, there is a need to have appropriate regulations in place that detail the procedures for detection of plagiarism, its investigation and the penalties. There is a need to take plagiarism seriously in order to be fair to those students who have undertaken their assessments according to the principles of good academic conduct. A different perspective is offered by Snapper (1999) who considers the issues of author copyright being infringed by plagiarism. He also suggests that not citing sources appropriately denies other scholars access to resources. It is conceivable that there is a counter argument that suggests that plagiarism is not an issue. In this argument, students would be given credit for finding sources, or getting people to do the work for them (developing the skill of delegation).

ELAC10

103

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

104 Learning activities for computing students

However, this argument misses the point of assessment in HE. Plagiarism bypasses the assessment of student understanding. Further, if plagiarism is accepted, it denies students the opportunity to develop the skills of critical analysis, innovation and creativity.

Why do students plagiarize? Poor time management is often given as the main reason for students resorting to plagiarism. Carroll and Appleton (2001: 1) suggest that ‘last minute panic may make plagiarism seem the only option’. Part of the reason for poor time management is that students are over-assessed. One way out of the problem is to resort to copying from the internet. The fact that ICTs allow for a huge range of material to be copied, the simplicity of accessing that material and the ease of cutting and pasting that material all give rise to the opportunity to plagiarize. Many students inadvertently plagiarize because they don’t understand what plagiarism means. Similarly, students often fail to appreciate the seriousness of the breach of academic conduct that plagiarism constitutes. This would suggest that academics have a responsibility to educate students in acceptable academic practices. A further factor is the changing nature of the student population in HE. Many more students are participating in HE and do not have the academic skills to be able to cope. Some students come into HE by different academic paths, where the emphasis on the seriousness of plagiarism may be different: different cultural expectations and perceptions may thus lead to plagiarism. The changing educational environment also means that many students have to undertake part-time and non-academic work in order to survive. This potentially has an impact on their ability to spend the requisite amount of time on assessments. Paradoxically, alongside the extra pressure to finance themselves, there is the pressure to succeed, both from parents, and pragmatically in order to get an academic award so that they can get a job to pay off their student debts. A more cynical reason, but perhaps one frequently closer to the truth, is that students plagiarize because they can – and they know that it is difficult and timeconsuming to detect and prove that their work is not their own.

How big an issue is it? There is a consensus in computing schools in the UK that plagiarism is a problem. Recent surveys (e.g. Bull et al. 2001: 28) found that plagiarism has increased in recent years. In computing, the seriousness of the issue really entered into mainstream concern in 1999 as a result of cases of plagiarism at Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities. These cases have emphasized the potential problems and the resultant consequences, but also brought the issue to the attention of the general public.

ELAC10

104

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Reducing plagiarism in computing 105

There is difficulty in getting an accurate measurement of the extent of the problem because many cases go undetected, and many are dealt with in such a way that they are not recorded as plagiarism. Further, many academics do not have the time to deal with plagiarism because of the resource implications associated with plagiarism cases. It has been suggested by Newstead et al. (1996) that substantial numbers of students admit to some form of plagiarism and that tutors underestimate the extent of cheating behaviour. A survey undertaken at MIT (Parmley 2000) indicated that over 80 per cent of students on a programming course had cheated in a single academic year. Many of those students had bought answers over the internet. Much of the work on plagiarism in computing has concentrated on source code detection. It has been suggested (Culwin et al. 2001a) that plagiarism in the production of source codes in programming assessments is common.

How to tackle plagiarism There is a need to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the seriousness and extent of plagiarism. It is generally accepted that prevention rather then detection and punishment is the most appropriate way to tackle plagiarism: ‘the best correction for plagiarism is not punishment, but prevention’ (Evans 2000: 5). However, in some cases a method for detection may still be required, and in order to do this efficiently and effectively it may be appropriate to use detection tools and techniques.

Education ‘Schools and departments need to develop good academic guidance; concentrating on policing bad practice by students will not suffice’ (Carroll 2000: 2). This quote elegantly summarizes the need for a proactive approach to educating students about plagiarism. Students should be taught about academic expectations and the principles of good academic practice. Teachers in HE need to work to resolve students’ confusion as to what constitutes plagiarism, as studies conducted by Ashworth et al. (1997) indicate that students are not clear what is meant by the term. Helping students to understand plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct is part of the teaching responsibility in HE. The circular nature of the argument is presented in Gardner (2003), who suggests that one of the elements in good academic practice is to avoid plagiarism. It is recognized (Stefani and Carroll 2001) that the message about plagiarism needs to be repeated many times. It is not sufficient to briefly mention plagiarism in induction week and refer students to their handbook of regulations. It is important to continuously emphasize the principles of good academic practice. Experience suggests that getting students to work through test cases can help their understanding of what constitutes plagiarism. By studying ten examples of work

ELAC10

105

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

106 Learning activities for computing students

on an increasing scale of the amount of plagiarism, ranging from no issues to fully derived, students develop an appreciation of what is accepted practice. Problems do arise in the ‘grey’ area in the middle ground, but using this as a basis for discussion about plagiarism has proved productive in helping students appreciate what is and what is not acceptable academic practice. One way of raising awareness and reiterating the message about plagiarism and academic conduct is to restate it on each piece of assessed work, including a statement about what constitutes plagiarism and academic misconduct, and how seriously it is taken. Much can also be done in the design of computing assessments to avoid plagiarism.

Assessment design A great deal can be done to counter plagiarism through assessment design. It is not suggested in this chapter that there should be a return to closed-book examinations as the sole means of assessing modules. However, every effort should be made to develop a culture of learning that discourages plagiarism through student value and ownership, and also by designing assessments that do not encourage plagiarism, and that make full use of students’ learning styles and abilities. It is suggested that assessments should be designed in such a way as to be valued and owned by the student. The design of assessments in this way could take in the concept of authentic assessment (Laurillard 2001: 204) which will ‘reflect the complex performances that are central to the field of study’. At the same time, if assessments build on the authentic aspects and allow for individual reflection, then plagiarism can be reduced. This approach can be applied to all subject areas in computing. If one takes, for example, programming: rather than assess the development of code, students take a piece of code and comment on its correctness, effectiveness and completeness, and then reflect on what they have learned from the process. This potentially has added value and meaning for the student, individualizes the assessment, allows for different student experience and incorporates reflective learning. One of the common reasons given for student plagiarism is excessive summative assessment, and hence a reduction in the amount of summative assessment may help reduce the amount of plagiarism. Students derive greater benefit from receiving formative feedback, especially when the feedback is linked closely to student learning and learning outcomes (Black and Wiliam 1998b). So perhaps reducing summative assessment and increasing formative feedback could reduce plagiarism. However, if formative feedback is then used as the basis for discussion with tutors and peers where students are expected to justify and explain their work, then the opportunities for plagiarism are further reduced. It is argued that this type of approach to student development and learning will focus on student learning, provide a process that is valued and owned by students, and will help make learning more constructive and more fun.

ELAC10

106

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Reducing plagiarism in computing 107

At Northumbria University, portfolios have been used in assessment as a means of reducing the opportunity for plagiarism. A portfolio in computing is a collection of evidence of student work that is used as the basis for students to meet a series of learning outcomes through critical reflection, analysis and discussion of work they have undertaken. Portfolios allow the concepts of student ownership, individuality and reflective learning to become an integral part of assessment in computing (Baume 2001; Irons 2002). Portfolios can help in the management of plagiarism. The individual nature of the material that is presented in the portfolio, and the drawing on individual experiences, negates many of the opportunities for plagiarism. Portfolios help with student ownership and motivation, which have in turn been found to help reduce plagiarism. Students are also expected to talk about their portfolio and provide a rationale for the work they have produced, and again this process helps to reduce plagiarism. Portfolios can be used as an input to personal development plans which can act as a further mechanism for reflective and authentic learning. All students in HE are expected to develop personal development plans by 2005, and there is the opportunity for academics to use these as a means of moving the ownership of learning to students. It is argued that student ownership of learning will help reduce plagiarism. The development of personal development plans, is discussed generically by Ward (1999) and specifically for computing in Irons (2003). It is suggested here that the plans can form the basis for tutorials (academic and guidance), and can provide a common text and evidence base for tutorial discussions. In this way, the plans can be seen to add value to tutor sessions, and also to act as a means of reducing plagiarism, because students are expected to own their work and are required to discuss it openly. An alternative means of reducing plagiarism through assessment design can be through the inclusion of a viva. A number of strategies could be used, for example, giving all students vivas as well as undertaking summative marking, giving a sample of students a viva as well as marking all students, or giving vivas instead of marking. The viva can act in the same way as portfolios or personal development plans in that students are expected to understand their work in depth (and the decisions they made in developing the work) in order to answer questions and pass the viva. The assessment techniques discussed in this section can be used to reduce plagiarism, but also have the benefit of preparing students for a career which incorporates responsibility for their learning and encouraging professional development and reflective practice.

Plagiarism detection tools If the use of ICTs makes plagiarism easier to undertake it can also make detection easier. It is unlikely, given the vast number of resources afforded by the internet, that academics will be able to ‘know’ all the material that a student is likely

ELAC10

107

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

108 Learning activities for computing students

to plagiarize. However, technology allows electronically submitted summative assessments to be compared to every piece of work ever uploaded to the internet. There is also an increase in the number of ‘e-journals’ and ‘e-books’ which can also be used for comparison against student work. A JISC funded plagiarism detection service is currently available at Northumbria University. The service works by checking student work against internet material and other student work held on the service database. There have been a number of initial teething problems, particularly in relation to the Data Protection Act (1998), but it is hoped that in time the service will help with detection, prevention and education. There is a need to take great care in using the information from services such as the one described above. They should not be used as a means of proving misconduct, but as an aid to academics in detecting potential misconduct. Appropriate procedures should then be followed to discuss any problem with the students concerned. It is further suggested (Stefani and Carroll 2001) that there is a danger that the use of such tools can create an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion. There is also a potential ethical question in using monitoring software to carry out ‘data-veillance’ on students. A variety of well-established tools exist to help in the detection of plagiarism in source code, such as MOSS, JPlag, YAP3, Plague and Sherlock. A number of HEIs have developed their own source code detection systems, and a review of source code plagiarism detection systems is available in the JISC report on source code plagiarism (Culwin et al. 2001b).

Summary Plagiarism is a serious issue for computing schools. Increased pressure on students (workload and financial), too much summative assessment and a perceived lack of value in summative assessments all contribute to students resorting to plagiarism. The use of technology and the internet make it much easier for students to access material to plagiarize. However, technology also provides the opportunity to increase the detection of plagiarized material. It is argued in this chapter that although detection is appropriate, and publicity about detection tools may act as a deterrent, it is important to prevent misconduct in the first place. Prevention can be achieved through reduction in the assessment load, student education and the design of individual assessments that will engage students and motivate them to undertake assessed work on their own. It is suggested that computing can make use of portfolios and personal development plans to develop a culture of learning of which assessment is a part. Portfolios and plans allow students to manage and own their learning and as a result value that learning and assessment process: a necessary culture shift that may help to reduce plagiarism.

ELAC10

108

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

Reducing plagiarism in computing 109

References Ashworth, P., Bannister, P. and Thorne, P. with students on the Qualitative Research Methods course unit (1997) ‘Guilty in whose eyes? University Students’ Perceptions of Cheating and Plagiarism in Academic Work and Assessment’, Studies in Higher Education, 22(2): 187–203. Baume, D. (2001) Portfolios for Learning and Assessment. http://www.ilt.ac.uk/ (accessed April 2002). BCS (British Computer Society) (2001) Guidelines on Course Exemption and Accreditation. Swindon, UK: BCS Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998a) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. London: King’s College. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998b) ‘Assessment and Classroom Learning’, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1): 7–73. Brown, V. and Howell, M. (2001) ‘The Efficacy of Policy Statements on Plagiarism: Do they Change Students’ Views’, Research in Higher Education, 42(1): 103–8. Bull, J., Collins, C., Coughlin, E. and Sharp, D. (2001) Technical Review of Plagiarism Detection Software Report. Bristol: JISC ( Joint Information Systems Committee). Carroll, J. (2000) ‘Telling them “don’t do it” won’t work’, paper presented at Plagiarism Conference, Northumbria University, July. Carroll, J. and Appleton, J. (2001) Plagiarism: A Good Practice Guide. ( Joint Information Systems Committee) http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/brookes.pdf (accessed March 2003). Culwin, F., MacLeod, A. and Lancaster, T. (2001a) ‘Source Code Plagiarism in HE Computing Schools’, in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences. Belfast: University of Ulster. Culwin, F., MacLeod, A. and Lancaster, T. (2001b) Source Code Plagiarism in UK HE Computing Schools: Issues, Attitudes and Tools. JISC Technical Report SBU-CISM-01-02. Belfast: University of Ulster. DeVoss, D. and Rosati, A. C. (2002) ‘ “It wasn’t me, was it?” Plagiarism and the Web’, Computers and Composition, 19(2): 191–203. Evans, J. (2000) ‘The New Plagiarism in Higher Education: From Selection to Reflection’, Interactions, 4(2), available from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/ETS/interactions/vol4no2/ evans.htm (accessed April 2003). Irons, A.D. (2002) ‘Using Portfolios to Assess Learning Outcomes in Computing’ in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual LTSN Conference on the Teaching of Computing. Belfast: University of Ulster. Irons, A.D. (2003) ‘Using Personal Development Plans (PDPs) to Facilitate Learning for Computer Students’ in Proceedings of 4th Annual LTSN Conference on the Teaching of Computing. Belfast: University of Ulster. Laurillard, D. (2001) Rethinking University Teaching, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Jones, A. and Armstead, P. (1996) ‘Individual Differences in Student Cheating’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2): 229–41. Parmley, W. W. (2000) ‘Plagiarism, How Serious Is It?’, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 36(3): 953–4. Pelligrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N. and Glaser, R., (eds) (2001) Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

ELAC10

109

14/5/04, 2:22 PM

110 Learning activities for computing students

Philips, M. R. and Horton, V. (2000) ‘Cybercheating: Has Morality Evaporated in Business Education?’, The International Journal of Business Management, 14(4): 150–5. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2000) QAA Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education. Gloucester: QAA. Slater, J. (2000) ‘Using Technology to Improve the Student Experience’, paper presented at Supporting the Use of Information Systems and Information Technology in Higher and Further Education Conference. London, January. Snapper, J. W. (1999) ‘On the Web, Plagiarism Matters more than Copyright Piracy’, Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1): 127–36. Stefani, L. and Carroll, J. (2001) A Briefing on Plagiarism: Assessment Series No.10. York: LTSN Generic Centre. Ward, R. (1999) ‘Record of Achievement to Progress File’, Appendix 1 to joint QAACVCP-ScoP Discussion Paper, Developing a Progress File for Higher Education. http:// www.qaa.ac.uk/crntwork/progfileHE/contents.htm (accessed April 2002).

ELAC10

110

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

Part 3

Developing effective learning environments

ELAC11

111

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

ELAC11

112

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

11

Evaluating what works in distance learning

Patrick McAndrew

Introduction Distance learning for any subject brings its own challenges in supplying learners with the information they need in a form they can use. The separation of the learner from the designers of the course means that extra effort should be applied to find out what is working well. The Open University (OU) has an approach to producing its own ‘classic’ course which is to plan for an eight-year life, invest in quality materials, carry out developmental testing or piloting of those materials and then monitor the students at the end of each year in the early stages of presenting the course. This has proved a robust process, but as the university and its students change, the model for the courses and how we evaluate them also has to change. In the computing department this was recognized and a new approach to courses has been advocated. Computing courses are designed in the expectation that they will evolve with changes occurring at each annual presentation. For those changes to be effective, the course team needs feedback at the right time; it is no longer sufficient to know what students think at the end of a course – rather, information is needed as the course is presented to look for problems and work on their solution.

Distance learning The OU has an adopted model for learning called Supported Open Learning. This model, established since the university started in the 1970s, sees course material

ELAC11

113

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

114 Developing effective learning environments

Figure 11.1 Evolving approaches to distance learning

supplied to learners through a variety of media such as printed guides, published books, audio- and videotapes, broadcast programmes and computer software. The student is then supported as they work through the course by an associate lecturer who will typically act as tutor for around 20 students, running tutorials, contacting them by telephone and marking their coursework. Over the last few years, computer mediated communication has had an increasing effect on this model. The OU ran its first conference-based course in 1989 and now has over 200,000 learners online. The online aspect can vary from resources and optional conferences to courses with their core activities online (some of these have over 10,000 students registered in one presentation). The introduction of online learning into distance learning has not changed the model used – rather it has evolved it (see Figure 11.1). The supported open learning approach is in many ways strengthened by electronic contact between the tutor and the student. However, it has changed the balance between the different media and also the opportunities for different models of working between the students. Online learning also brings different expectations of responsiveness; an online module can be changed as a course progresses, so both the course team and the students then start to expect to use this ‘just in time’ aspect as the course is delivered. The online approach has many advantages and offers new opportunities for activities and applying pedagogic approaches that take advantage of the online learning community, but it also brings new strains to supporting an active course and can make it harder for the students to understand what is expected of them.

ELAC11

114

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

Evaluating what works in distance learning 115

Evaluation approaches Introducing distance learning courses needs to be accompanied by careful study of how effective the course is for the student. Part of this information can come from testing material in advance (developmental testing) and from the performance of the students in terms of completion and examination success. An essential further component is to find out what the students themselves think. This has been achieved at the OU by the Courses Survey – a text-based questionnaire sent to around 30,000 students each year, targeting those on new or changing courses in particular. The Survey is produced by the Student Statistics Team within the Institute of Educational Technology and consists of common questions for each course plus, where appropriate, further questions customized to each course. The approach of the Courses Survey is clearly valuable but it does not allow course teams to get early answers about how a course is progressing and does not allow time to make changes to the current presentation or even make significant plans for the next presentation. The model for an evolving course adopted in the computing department called for a new source for information. The online aspect of these courses also gave the opportunity to use online questionnaires. Two major courses were being introduced with complex patterns of interaction. In 1998, a new second-level course was launched and online questionnaires were applied to consider its approach to the mix of media. The results from that evaluation are reported in Taylor et al. (2000). This course subsequently won an award from the British Computer Society (BCS) and was considered to be highly successful, but resource intensive. A follow-on third-level course was developed for launch in 2000 with the evolutionary idea to the fore. It would use a less complex structure than the second-level course and it was essential to find out as soon as possible the effectiveness of its mix of externally produced books, purpose written course material, commercial software, electronic tutorials and online web support and discussions. The method and questionnaire structure from the earlier study was adopted but refocused on the questions that were interesting to the course team.

The computing course The new course was launched in 2000 and designed as a third-level course that could build on the work of the preceding second-level course but also be taken by students entering from other routes. The course uses textbooks with wrap-around materials as both a way of extending the student’s study skills and potentially acting as a low-resource course. It draws on many elements proven in the second-level course in that it uses the web for material that changes, such as assignments, and printed texts for more static material. It aims to use rolling updates to provide students with a state-of-the-art course – an increasing requirement for computing courses. It is a 60 CATS (Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme) point course and at introduction the course materials consisted of:

ELAC11

115

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

116 Developing effective learning environments

textbooks; • three industrial strength CASE tools (for Java and UML), distributed on CD; • two 50 software programs for the student to read, run and modify, • approximately also on CD; distributed, concurrent case study system; • aa large including a web page for each unit, calendar, news, the case study • andwebsite assignments; of course text containing wrap-around material guiding the reading of • 30theunits textbooks, together with the course team’s own written material; handbooks for the CASE tools written by the course team; • two course guide, a guide to electronic tuition, an 80-page glossary, a 16-page • aindex; OU support material, including conferencing software and online • standard applications on CD. All in all there are close on 1400 pages of material that the course team has written in support of the course: the books, a total of four supplied CDs, the case study and the website. There are six tutor-marked assignments (TMAs) that are submitted, marked and returned using the electronic TMAs system (Carswell et al. 1999). Students also take a final three-hour exam. A conferencing system (First Class) is used by the course team to support the tutors, and by tutors to support the students.

Evaluation The evaluation approach adopted was consistent with the framework described in Jones et al. (1996), considering context, interactivity and outcomes. The context was provided by a small evaluation team in the Institute of Educational Technology interviewing the course team. Interactivity was addressed through sampling across time, and outcomes were addressed, as suggested in Jones, using a wide definition that includes the students’ own perceptions. As software itself was not the focus, observation methods were not appropriate and the primary tool was a series of online questionnaires. As the results were to feed back into the development process, rapid reports were produced from each questionnaire and the evaluators kept in close contact with the course team and attended their regular meetings. The questions identified in the initial meetings were: 1 How well does the case study integrate into the course? 2 How well do electronic tutorials work? 3 Do tutors find the national conference useful? (Note this question was not addressed as the tutors were a different audience and could feed back in other ways.) 4 Is it stimulating to the students to use a tool to do things? 5 Are books useful to the students?

ELAC11

116

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

Evaluating what works in distance learning 117

6 What is the workload pattern? 7 What are the areas of difficulty? 8 Market questions – e.g. what attracts you to the course; what is its career contribution; what would you like more of? For each of these questions the course team had an initial view of what the answer might be – for example, there was a feeling that the workload was too high and that the start of the course was particularly challenging. However, there was a general feeling that it was hard to know what would happen in practice and what actions would need priority. An initial questionnaire was used for the market questions in question 8. Other questions would be addressed through block-by-block questionnaires for each of the six blocks making up the course. These questionnaires were divided into three sections. In the first section, questions were asked about each unit within the block, repeating the same questions for each of the (typically) five units. The second section asked questions that were specific to the content or focus of that block, while the last section dealt with general issues concerning materials, tutoring and the TMAs. Each questionnaire was announced through the student website and by email circulation at the submission date for the assignment for the block. This meant that students would be reflecting on their recently completed experience. To encourage completion of the questionnaires, each time a student completed a block questionnaire they were entered into a draw for an online book token, with a further draw for another token available to those who had completed all block questionnaires. The initial questionnaire provided a good image of the typical student for the course: the qualification was important; the course needed to support career development; and there was an interest in Java as a tool. Results from the first block questionnaires were also provided to the course team within a week of launching the questionnaires. These revealed concerns among the students about the way the course website handled the announcement of errata; that the workload was high; and that developing language skills in Java alongside their application was causing tensions. The course team were able to act immediately to address aspects of communication and the method in which they handled errata (which included changes and announcements as well as correcting mistakes). The main change was to make less frequent announcements – the aim to deliver information as fast as possible had been leading to some confusion and an impression of a greater number of faults. The improvement to the website was validated by comparing late returns for the first questionnaire to the early returns and by monitoring this factor across all the questionnaires.

Lessons learnt By the end of the first course the course team had a good image of the perceived workload for the course, a list of particular problem areas and an indication of the

ELAC11

117

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

118 Developing effective learning environments

overall satisfaction of the students with the course. This was then used in combination with their own views to give a forward plan for changes to the course. In particular the data supported general views across the course that: case study should be more consistently integrated across the course; • the tutorials needed addressing as they were not working as well as • electronic expected; was too high, especially in the first three blocks; • workload one of the set books was difficult for students to interpret and may need reposi• tioning in the course.

Examples of evaluation data The questionnaire data provided information about each block that helped inform decisions made by the course team as they made changes to the case study and to the structure of the first three blocks in the second year of presentation, with further changes planned for the third year. By repeating the questionnaire in those subsequent years the course team gained validation of their actions and further insight into student aspects not normally available in distance education. The case study was altered in pattern and the general improvement in the student view can be seen by comparing the results for the two years (see Figure 11.2). A further example is the student workload for the first three blocks in 2000 which can be compared to 2001. It can be seen (Figure 11.3) that workload (measured as the percentage of those claiming they need more or much more time than expected to complete a unit of work) has only changed by a fairly small amount but in most cases is perceived as slightly lower in Year 2 (as planned). The gentler start is evident and there is a slower build up before difficult units.

% very/fairly satisfied

80 70 60 50 40

Year 2 Year 1

30 20 10 0 1

2

3

4 Block no.

5

6

Figure 11.2 Comparison of student satisfaction with the case study in Years 1 and 2

ELAC11

118

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

70 60 50 40

Year 2 Year 1

30 20 10 5

4

4.

3

4.

2

4.

1

4.

5

4.

4

3.

3

3.

2

3.

1

3.

5

3.

4

2.

3

2.

2

2.

1

2.

5

2.

4

1.

3

1.

2

1.

1.

1

0 1.

% more/much more time

Evaluating what works in distance learning 119

Unit no.

Figure 11.3 Comparison of student view of time to complete units in Years 1 and 2

Use of online questionnaires In using online questionnaires, one concern is low response rate. In these studies response for the questionnaires showed a return that fell from an initial level of around 20 per cent (of a population of 2000+ students) to around 5 per cent. Clearly it is not possible to be sure if such small numbers actually reflect the whole student body. Prior experience (Taylor et al. 2000) indicates that the results are likely to be valid. Statistical arguments from usability testing imply that many causes for concern will be identified even from relatively low numbers (Nielsen and Landaur 1993). To address the issue directly we sought to validate our data through the Courses Survey. This uses a random sample across the course and has a return rate of over 60 per cent. In the final online questionnaire the overall satisfaction of students was questioned using identical wording to a question from the Courses Survey. The two sets of results were then compared and found to be very similar. (see Figure 11.4). This question allowed us some validation of the online approach. In addition, both the online and Courses Survey figures for this satisfaction level gave cause for concern. The course was seen by the student body as one of the least satisfactory in the computing department. By other objective measures it was successful, with high retention of students and good pass marks being received. The students’ own view showed they felt overloaded and confused by some of the books. Monitoring the results over the next year showed that in each area addressed by the course team there had been improvement. The case study appears more integrated. Books are being used in a way that is seen to suit the course and students better. Electronic tutorials and the workload pattern are also showing signs of improvement but remain causes for concern. Workload improvements are small but discernible, and these improvements are reflected in the students’ overall satisfaction, which

ELAC11

119

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

120 Developing effective learning environments

40% 35% 30% 25% Online Survey

20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Very

Fairly

Not very

Not at all

Figure 11.4 Online and printed survey results compared remained high across the first three blocks. It was also noted that satisfaction levels with the website and handling and quantity of errata was not an issue in the second year. Further improvements could also be suggested from the Year 2 data. For example, in some of the later blocks individual elements (books, guide, case study) received higher ratings than the block overall. This can be addressed by looking at the coherence and consistency of the block – for example, where the course text has a clear explanation of something covered in less detail in the supporting textbook, the student should not be pointed to both explanations. A continuing problem remained the tutorial framework and its relationship with the assignments, with problems of determining timings for the two-week long electronic tutorials. The experience with computing courses leads to the view that it is possible to design for evolution but each step must be carefully considered. Aspects that had worked successfully on the second-level course that many students had taken prior to this course did not always work as effectively on the new course. One example is the online conferencing, consistently highly rated for the second-level course in comparison with other OU courses (notably, conferencing is not usually as highly rated by students as other forms of media and interaction). A similar structure, with some practical changes, in the third-level course was rated significantly lower. The difference remained when the same practical changes were made to the second-level course, aligning the conferencing structures. The reasons for the lower rating are not, then, the structure of the conferencing but may well be the different level of the work itself and the integration of conferencing in that work. The suggestion is that third-level work is more individual in nature than secondlevel. The need to discuss with peers may work better at the lower level, while third-level computing issues were more often solved with tutor intervention. This validates the use of more feasible structures but also means that the identification of good structures for conferencing cannot be achieved in isolation.

ELAC11

120

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

Evaluating what works in distance learning 121

Conclusions Distance learning methods are being applied increasingly in higher education. This work shows that great care is needed in planning a course and that even when a course is successful in terms of measures such as professional review, completion, pass and retention of students, it might not be a satisfying course for the learner. The chapter has outlined the process for finding information from the students on an online distance course and the way in which that can feed back through the course team to evolve the course over time. The experience so far is that the low sample rate and self-selection of students giving voluntary online feedback does not reduce the value of the information to the course team. Matching that information to the actions that can be taken is not an exact science, however it is clear from our study over three years of the same course that improvements can be made by addressing the way things work together and the workload that is being imposed on the student. Generalizing advice from particular courses is difficult, as is shown by considering the conferencing on two apparently similar courses. However, the lessons we have learnt on these courses would suggest a few rules of thumb for developing online distance learning: not overload the course – do not cover the same material in different ways • Do and remove content rather than add it. information in a professional, measured way, even if it slows down the • Provide flow to the students. conferencing is not likely to be seen as the most valuable tool by the • Online students, but in fact can transform the way students work with material. Judging the value of such activities needs to be done in a more complete way. There were also observations to be made on the process of gathering feedback. As in the earlier study (Taylor et al. 2000) the value of the online response could be seen, though it acted in a complex way. Presenting feedback direct to the course team frequently led to a focus on individual negative comments – the team would glance through and notice particular phrases from students even if they were not typical of the group. Independent summary reports helped limit this demoralizing tendency and concentrate attention on aspects that could be judged across all returns or had particular resonance – while raw comments remained available, summarized comments were more practical for the team to consider. The process has contributed to an improved course for the students, and a large part of this has been through working with a course team that cared about how the course evolved and who were eager to consider alternatives.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank his colleagues involved in the online evaluation, in particular Simon Rae and Linda Price (formerly Carswell) from the Programme for Learner

ELAC11

121

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

122 Developing effective learning environments

Use of Media, with technical support from Dave Perry and Helen Cottrell, and the course team from the Mathematics and Computing Faculty, especially Linda Landsberg, Ray Weedon, Pete Thomas and Steve Armstrong.

References Carswell, L., Thomas, P., Petre, M., Price, B. and Richards, M. (1999) ‘Understanding the “Electronic” Student: Analysis of Functional Requirements for Distributed Education’, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(1): 7–18. Jones, A., Scanlon, E., Tosunoglu, C., Ross, S., Butcher, P., Murphy, P. and Greenberg, J. (1996) ‘Evaluating CAL at the Open University: 15 Years On’, Computers and Education, 26(1–3): 5–15. Nielsen, J. and Landauer, T. K. (1993) ‘A Mathematical Model of the Finding of Usability Problems’. Proceedings of the ACM INTERCHI ’93 Conference, Amsterdam, 24–29 April, pp. 206–13. New York: ACM. Taylor, J., Woodman, M., Sumner, T., Tosunoglu Blake, C. (2000) ‘Peering Through a Glass Darkly: Integrative Evaluation of an On-line Course’, Educational Technology and Society, 3(4), http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_4_2000/taylor.html

ELAC11

122

14/5/04, 2:23 PM

12

Industrial input to the computing curriculum

Nancy R. Mead

Some industry beliefs about software engineering graduates A recent article in IEEE Software discussed myths about software engineering education (Saiedian et al. 2002). Some of the common myths that circulate in industry seem relevant as background to this chapter.

Software engineering graduates will not need further training to perform like experienced software engineers The typical new software engineering graduate will find him or herself working on a team where they are expected to perform alongside experienced software engineers with little or no additional training. It is assumed that new recruits are able to internalize corporate culture and standards on their own. In some cases it is assumed that they can acquire domain expertise on the job. The new recruits will often find themselves on the critical path of a software project. One reason for this is that the typical corporate manager thinks that such recruits know the most current methods and are able to handle more challenging assignments than staff who have been around for a while. Another reason is that the new recruit is often expected to put in a lot of extra hours and not to have outside family obligations. A third reason is that many software projects start out with difficult schedules and it is just not feasible to give new staff members the

ELAC12

123

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

124 Developing effective learning environments

time to gradually ramp up the learning curve. Yourdon (1997: 2) suggests that there are ‘To many grizzled veterans . . . every project is a death march project’, while DeMarco (2001: 3) argues that it is ‘a dangerous corporate delusion: the idea that organizations are effective only to the extent that all their workers are totally and eternally busy’. Consider the following example: a new recruit joins a project in progress, replacing another employee who has been transferred to a different project. After a brief orientation, he or she inherits the other employee’s work, and is expected to pick up the work and perform to the existing schedule. After all, if the schedule for this particular software product is not met, the whole project will fall behind. Furthermore, the other team members are all busy with their own work. Although they will answer an occasional question, they are quick to refer the new staff member to documentation or web resources to try to find answers. New employees on new projects don’t fare much better. Faced with a ‘death march’ type plan, the new employee is given the same workload as the experienced employees. Furthermore, the salaries of the new recruits are sufficiently high that the experienced employees are not all that sympathetic to their new colleagues’ plight, thinking to themselves, ‘When I started out I got a fifth of the salary that these new people are getting, so they should pull their own weight’. Whatever the reason, the fact is that new graduates are expected to perform on a level with their experienced counterparts. Everyone up the line is under schedule pressure, and the idea of an apprenticeship period is a foreign concept in software development. The best that the new employee can hope for is a sympathetic and experienced mentor to coach them along. Employees must look for those enlightened companies that are able to provide appropriate education and mentoring for their staff, and companies must recognize the need for apprenticeship and continuing education. The fact that books such as Death March and Slack exist and have a large audience suggests that this will not be an easy task.

Software engineering programmes will correspond to specific corporate requirements All you have to do is to look at current job postings to see a list of specific languages and tools, such as C, C++, Ada, UML, Visual Studio, XML and ASP, along with the disclaimer that no experience is required. To quote from some recent newspaper classified ads, ‘Must know C/C++’, ‘Must be familiar with Accelerated SAP’, and ‘Must have experience with object-oriented programming in Java or C++’. In a web search at www.monster.com, only one job description was found that talked about developing software requirements, design, code and test, along with using best engineering practices. We seem to be stuck in a time

ELAC12

124

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Industrial input to the computing curriculum 125

warp that emphasizes form over substance. There is no point in requiring experience in specific languages and tools when a software engineer is able to learn new languages and tools fairly readily, and they will be different in five years’ time anyway. On the other hand, the education received on best engineering practices and techniques to support various software life cycle activities will benefit a job candidate for a lifetime. It would seem that many employers are in fact still looking for programmers with the ability to produce code in specific languages using specific tools in the short term, rather than software engineers who are able to develop software using best engineering practices with a long-term view. There are many reasons why this occurs. People in industry typically are looking for someone to start development work immediately, as they do not have the time or the interest to invest in providing training for their employees. In a similar vein, they expect their employees to leave in a year or two, so that the companies will not benefit from the longer-term software engineering knowledge that the employee may have. The events of recent years have supported this attitude. Software staff expect to change jobs regularly, in some cases at a healthy salary increase. So, we have a vicious circle: software staff change jobs regularly, because companies make little investment in employee retention; on the other hand, companies make little investment in employee retention, because software staff change their jobs regularly. In fact, the company that invests in employee training may find that the employee adds the newly-acquired skill to their résumé in order to find a job. Another contributing factor is that industry managers typically started as programmers, with no software engineering background, so that is their frame of reference. They want someone like themselves when they were starting out. It is easy to stick to a familiar paradigm. Companies also expect universities to use particular programming languages and tools in their curriculum, regardless of whether these languages and tools are the best vehicle to support the universities’ education goals. If you query a software executive on their needs and how universities can help to meet them, their first reaction is to list languages and tools. Only after some discussion does the executive move beyond this low-level litany to focus on the real education needed by software engineers. In the next section we will discuss ways in which industry/university collaboration can help to overcome these attitudes.

Studies of industry/university collaboration In this section we discuss a study of collaborations between industry and universities aimed at the re-education of software engineers. This study gives insight into the ways in which industry and universities interact successfully.

ELAC12

125

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

126 Developing effective learning environments

The working group on software engineering education and training The Industry/University (I/U) subgroup is a subset of the Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training (WGSEET) (http:// www.sei.cmu.edu/community/ed/workgroup-ed.html). The focus of the subgroup is to explore and foster collaborations between academic institutions and industry (Mead et al. 1999). Recently, the I/U group investigated collaborations in which non-software professionals and practitioners without formal software education are re-educated to become software engineers (Ellis et al. 2002b). By studying successful collaborations, it is hoped to identify the characteristics of a successful joint venture for retraining the future software workforce. The group also hopes to foster further collaborations and provide guidelines to both universities and companies interested in constructing a collaborative programme for re-educating employees to become software engineers. Another goal is to provide feedback on which areas of software engineering knowledge and skills are most easily transferred to the student practitioners and applied in the workplace, in order to understand how well the student practitioners are able to internalize the material and apply it on the job.

Investigation into re-education collaborations The motivation for the investigation of I/U re-education collaborations was a talk given to the WGSEET by Dennis Frailey (Frailey and Moore 1998) in which he described a collaborative software engineering re-education programme between Raytheon Co. and several Dallas area universities. Using Beckman’s (1999: 1) definition of a collaboration as ‘a formal, joint effort by a university (or universities) and a business or government organization(s), where each party provides specified products and services to achieve common goals’, it was decided to focus on cooperative programmes between academic institutions and industry partners to retrain non-software professionals to become software engineers. As the level of skills and knowledge necessary for an individual to be a proficient software engineer requires a significant effort to obtain, it was decided to centre the investigation on education programmes that had a wider effect than several dayor week-long just-in-time training sessions. When the work was started in March 2000, nine collaborative programmes were identified between industry and academic institutions. By February 2001, the investigation centred on five ongoing collaborations whose durations ranged from eight months to two years and resulted in students who obtained credit towards undergraduate courses as well as students who received masters degrees. In the following sections the approach to investigating I/U re-education collaborations is described.

ELAC12

126

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Industrial input to the computing curriculum 127

2 CONDUCT INITIAL SURVEY

Potential I/U programmes

1 Determine collaboration selection criteria

3 FILTER RESPONDENT INFORMATION 6 CREATE INDUSTRY OPINION SURVEY

4 ADMINISTER QUESTIONNAIRE 5 CONDUCT INTERVIEWS

7 EVALUATE QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

Successful collaborations

8 INCORPORATE INDUSTRY OPINION RESULTS

9 CONDUCT ALUMNI SURVEY

10 INTERPRET ALUMNI SURVEY RESULTS

Lessons learned

Figure 12.1

Process used to study I/U re-education collaborations

The approach The major steps taken in the investigation and their organization are shown in Figure 12.1. The approach was crafted as a result of several meetings of the I/U subgroup and included input from many I/U subgroup members. The investigation process has ten steps, as follows. Step 1: determine collaboration selection criteria. WGSEET efforts began in March 2000 by identifying a set of criteria which were used to select candidate collaborations. Four main selection criteria were defined, including collaborations in which students have no formal software engineering background, collaborations that have been in existence for at least a year, collaborations that are currently in the reeducation process and collaborations in which ongoing interaction occurs between the university and the industry. Step 2: conduct initial survey. Based on the selection criteria, a short survey was developed and used to identify candidate collaborations. The survey contained nine questions intended to highlight the collaboration selection criteria and to elicit

ELAC12

127

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

128 Developing effective learning environments

some general information about respondent background, number of students in the programme and future plans for the programme. Between April and June 2000, this survey was distributed to a variety of software engineering forums, including the Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE). Step 3: filter respondent information. The next step in the process was to apply the selection criteria to the results of the initial survey to determine collaborations. This was carried out in December 2000 and resulted in a small pool of nine successful collaborations, six located in the United States and three located in Europe. Of these collaborative programmes, seven resulted in students obtaining a masters degree, one resulted in students obtaining a bachelor’s degree and in one collaboration students received a certificate. Details of the results are described by Ellis (2001). Step 4: administer questionnaire. In order to elicit more detailed information about the collaborations, an in-depth questionnaire was constructed in November 2000. Questions focused on the organizational and participation factors that may have contributed to the success of the collaboration, rather than the content of the programmes themselves. The following major areas were covered: background information; • general inputs, such as admission criteria; • programme outcomes, such as participant success; • programme content; • programme format, such as delivery methods; • programme budget and management; • programme • overall benefits. Step 5: conduct interviews. The next step, carried out during January and February 2001, was to administer the questionnaire to the respondents of the initial surveys involved in the identified collaborations. The questionnaire was completed through a two-part process. It was first e-mailed to the collaboration contact person identified in the initial survey, and they filled out the simple portions of the form (e.g. checkboxes). A phone interview was then set up, in which one member of the I/U group interviewed the contact person to elicit answers to the more detailed questions (e.g. benefits and lessons learned). Step 6: create industry opinion survey. Upon receiving responses from the questionnaires and interviews, it was realized that most of the responses were coming from the academic partner in the collaboration, providing a somewhat academically biased viewpoint. In order to elicit industry views, a short survey was constructed during February 2001. The first question in the industry opinion survey asked respondents to rate their satisfaction with 14 aspects of the programme, including development process, pace, format and content, on a three-level scale (dissatisfied, satisfied, very satisfied). The remaining five questions elicited information about the benefits received, lessons learned and any improvements that could be made to the programme.

ELAC12

128

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Industrial input to the computing curriculum 129

Step 7: evaluate questionnaire results. During February 2001 the results of both the questionnaire and the industry opinion survey were tabulated to determine characteristics of successful industry/university collaborations. Ellis et al. (2001) provide the initial results of the questionnaire. Step 8: incorporate industry opinion results. The industry opinion survey was administered to the industry partners participating in the collaborations in April 2001, and during May 2001 the results were tabulated. Industry opinions on successful collaboration development are discussed later in this chapter; details are provided by Ellis et al. (2002a). Step 9: conduct alumni survey. During October 2001, the I/U subgroup decided to complete the study on I/U re-education collaborations by investigating how effective the re-education collaborations are in transferring technology and skills to people with non-software engineering backgrounds. As part of this effort, it was decided to elicit information from participants in the collaborations, as well as from managers responsible for overseeing graduates of the collaborations. Two surveys were constructed. An alumni survey asked alumni opinions of the breadth of software engineering knowledge gained from the collaborations and the usefulness of that knowledge. A management survey was constructed that asked similar questions of the managers of the alumni; however, only two responses to this survey were received and these were very neutral in nature. Therefore, no conclusions about management opinions were drawn from these two surveys. Step 10: interpret alumni survey results. In February 2002, the I/U subgroup evaluated the results of the alumni survey. While there were insufficient responses to obtain statistically significant results, the group was able to draw some broad inferences. In general, students received a wide exposure to a range of software engineering technologies, students were satisfied with the knowledge and skills that they obtained, and students would recommend the collaborative programmes to others.

Successful collaboration construction and execution Based on the observations of the ongoing collaborations over the course of two years, characteristics of successful collaborative efforts to re-educate software engineers were identified. While all of the identified features may not be required for the creation of a successful collaboration, it was felt that most of these factors are required. In addition, several benefits to the university and industry partners participating in the collaborations were identified. In this section, the characteristics that successful collaborative efforts share are discussed and dissimilar characteristics are identified. The benefits accrued by the partners in the collaborations are described and provide insight into the industry opinions on the success of the collaborative efforts. The analysis presented in this section is based on the evaluation of the results of the detailed questionnaires and industry opinion surveys.

ELAC12

129

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

130 Developing effective learning environments

Common characteristics Based on these observations, it appears that successful collaborations share factors related to industry participation. One possible conclusion that could be drawn from industry impact is that significant industry participation and input is required for collaborations to succeed. Common characteristics of the collaborations studied include the following. Industrial initiative. Most of the collaborations resulted from the industry partner(s) recognizing the need for more highly qualified software engineers and contacting the university partner, an institution with which they typically had a prior relationship. This relationship appears to be more important than the universities’ experience with collaborative programmes, as the industry partners selected their university partners with little regard to whether the academic institution had any previous software engineering re-education programmes. The implications of this disregard for experience with collaborative programmes is twofold: (1) industry realizes the potential of the academic institution for conveying valuable software engineering; and (2) there is a considerable incentive for universities considering running such training programmes. Strong industrial partners. The industry partners in the collaborations are either sizeable companies or collections of companies that have significant financial resources. In all cases, the company partner pays, either directly or indirectly, for student enrolment. One common feature of the industry partners is that almost all of them are either government agencies or private companies that handle a large number of government contracts. Practically-oriented programmes. One main characteristic related to the content of the collaborative programmes is that they are all practically oriented, focusing on the application of knowledge and skills. In fact, several programmes orient assignments and case studies to the specific domain in which the industry partners operate to maximize application of student knowledge. Background of software practitioners. All of the students who participated in the collaborative programmes are employed in some aspect of the software field. Student experience in software development varies from two to over ten years. Many students took part-time courses while working full time. This student background of software practitioners impacts the educational experience in two ways. First, industry partners must be conscious of the effort expended by their employees in the collaborative programme. Similarly, the academic partner must also factor in student workload when defining the volume of homework assigned to students. Limited number of students. The successful collaborations that were examined all had between 10 and 25 students per session. In some cases the university partner established the number of students per offering of the programme. The decision was typically based on pedagogical reasons, such as the desire to have a group small enough for substantial interaction yet large enough to motivate interaction. In other collaborations, the industry partner defined class size limits typically based on financial and resource considerations.

ELAC12

130

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Industrial input to the computing curriculum 131

Dissimilar characteristics In addition to the commonalities described above, several differences between the programmes were also identified. These were mainly related to programme content, admission procedure and financial models, and did not appear to adversely affect the success of the collaborations. The three main differences are described below. Content of the programme. While there was no explicit study of the content of the collaborative programmes, the process of topic definition differed between collaborations. In some cases, the industry partners specified the content to be covered in the courses. In other cases, either the university partners were responsible for this task or a mixed group, formed by university and industry representatives, specified the content. Admission procedure. The admission procedure used by the various collaborations also differed. In some the industry partner selected students, while in others students were required to fulfil the academic institution’s programme entrance requirements. There were also differences in how students elected to join the programme. In some collaborations the industry partner dictated that certain employees must enter the programme, whereas in other programmes the course was offered to all the employees of certain departments and enrolment was voluntary for the employees who had a personal interest in taking the course. Financial models. The final main difference between the collaborations was the financial model used to support the programme. In some collaborations the industry partner paid on a per student basis, while in others the industry partner provided the academic partner with a specific amount of funding, irrespective of the number of students. In still other cases, the academic institution offered courses with open enrolment, which were taken by students from the industry partner(s). In addition to these three dissimilarities, other minor differences between the programmes included location, timing of class offerings and content. It appears from the study that these dissimilar characteristics have no significant impact on the success or failure of a collaboration.

Benefits In the process of evaluating the collaborations, four benefits were identified that resulted from the collaborative re-education efforts. Knowledge enrichment of university teachers. The faculty that participated in the collaborative programme appeared to gain increased exposure to software development practices in the real world. This exposure allows practical knowledge to migrate into the curriculum and provides faculty with a utilitarian view of software development. Self-supporting programmes. The industry/university re-education collaborations that were studied were entirely self-supporting and, in some cases, financially profitable

ELAC12

131

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

132 Developing effective learning environments

for the academic partner. It appears that, while the university partner may have to make some up-front investments for things like course and curriculum development, the income from industry provides sufficient funding to support the programme. It should also be noted that collaborations provide some indirect economic benefits to the academic partners in the form of increased visibility of the university and its programmes. Knowledge enrichment of industry employees. The expanded knowledge and skill set of employees is the primary benefit identified by industry partners in the collaborations that were studied. This enhanced skill set benefits the industry partner as the company is able to produce better quality software in a more efficient manner, while also benefiting the employees through the advancement of their professional careers. More competitive software industries. Lastly, industry/university re-education collaborations result in a benefit to the software industry as a whole. Some companies reported that their clients looked upon their participation in the collaboration very favourably, resulting in increased prestige in the software community. This benefit appears to result from the improved technical expertise gained by the employees. In the evaluation of the detailed questionnaires and industry opinion surveys, other indirect benefits obtained from the collaborative programme were also identified. Industry feedback indicates employees are less likely to leave the company when they are participating in a collaborative re-education programme, and the opportunity to participate in a collaborative programme motivates others to continue working at the partner company.

Industry viewpoint Since the industry partner in the industry/university re-education programme could be considered a main customer of the collaboration, it was decided to survey those industry partners to ascertain their opinions on the success of the collaborations. This section discusses the industry opinions expressed in the industry opinion survey. In general, the industry partners appeared to be very satisfied with the collaborations and their outcome. All of the industry partners indicated that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the programme development and participant selection. All industry partners thought that the programme management and oversight, student enrolment procedure and format, content, and pace of the programme was acceptable. When asked about the classroom environment, the majority of the respondents rated both the instructors’ knowledge and the facilities as outstanding, while most respondents rated the instructors’ teaching skills as sufficient. All of the respondents indicated that they felt that the number of participants in the programme was the correct size. When queried about their opinions of the programme results, all of the industry partners indicated that

ELAC12

132

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Industrial input to the computing curriculum 133

they felt that the programme was successful and that they gained knowledgeable, competent employees. When asked about areas of improvement, some industry partners stated that incorporating more domain knowledge into the programme could strengthen its content. However, a few companies also indicated that they needed to provide employees with more flexibility in incorporating the programme into their work environment. This finding appears to indicate that industry desires more relevant software engineering education. One interesting feature that was noted in the evaluation of the industry opinion surveys was that only three of the industry partners track their employees who have completed the programme. The tracking ranges from monitoring the employees’ progress to a follow-up with the employee after programme completion. Progress is monitored in terms of job promotions and to determine if employees are using the skill set acquired in the collaborative programme. Lastly, industry partners were asked about the important lessons learned from participating in the collaboration. The need for preplanning before implementing a collaborative programme was identified as a significant lesson by most industry partners. The need to clearly discuss and define requirements and expectations was identified as another important lesson learned. In addition to the common and dissimilar characteristics of collaborations, it was also noticed that the main reason why collaborations appear to cease to exist is management turnover and the corresponding change of priorities.

Other sources of industrial input In a now famous survey, Lethbridge (2000) provided the results of a survey of software professionals. In this study, he asked software professionals to identify those academic topics that turned out to be most and least useful to them in their careers. He also asked them to assess those topics for which they would like to see more or less academic coverage, and he asked them to assess their own skill level for each topic. The 25 most important topics required of such individuals include computer science areas such as (learning) specific programming languages, data structures, object-oriented concepts, design of algorithms, operating systems, systems programming, databases, file management and networks. However, other topics that are routinely taught, such as artificial intelligence, were deemed to be less useful. Topics for which additional coverage was desired included project management, cost estimation and other software engineering career skills. Some universities use industrial liaisons to gather input for their computing curricula (Mead et al. 1997). For example, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University has a large industrial advisory board that includes former graduates and industry executives. In their advisory board meetings, these industry liaisons have provided substantial input on the specific topics for which coverage is desired. While the discussions start with specific skills, such as specific programming languages, they

ELAC12

133

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

134 Developing effective learning environments

quickly escalate to consideration of such skills as knowledge of data abstraction, project management and software process. Florida Atlantic University has a similar method for gathering information from industry contacts, so it appears that a well-constructed industry advisory board can be a valuable source of input to computing curricula. There are many mechanisms for obtaining thoughtful industry input into computing education programmes. However, it will take effort on the part of both the university and industry partners, and there must be real benefits to both in order for this to be successful.

Acknowledgements The author acknowledges the WGSEET, the I/U subgroup, and especially the leadership of Kathy Beckman and Heidi Ellis. The leadership of Don Bagert and Hossein Saiedian in software engineering education and their many ideas and written contributions are also acknowledged. Finally, we recognize those universities and industry partners who have taken the time to listen to and work with one another.

References Beckman, K. (1999) Directory of Industry and University Collaborations with a Focus on Software Engineering Education and Training, Version 7, (technical report CMU/SEI-99-SR-0001). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute. Beckman, K., Coulter, N., Khajenoori, S. and Mead, N. (1997) ‘Collaborations: Closing the Industry–Academia Gap’, IEEE Software, 14(6): 49–57 DeMarco, T. (2001) Slack. New York: Broadway Books. Ellis, H. J. C. (2001) ‘Summary of the Initial Results of the University/Industry Survey Performed by the Industry/University Subgroup of the Working Group on Software Engineering Education and Training’, Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education, 11(1). Ellis, H. J. C., Mead, N. R., Moreno, A. and MacNeil, P. (2001) ‘Can Industry and Academia Collaborate to Meet the Need for Software Engineers?’ Cutter IT Journal, 14(6): 32–9. Ellis, H.J.C., Mead, N. R., Moreno, A., Tanner, C. D. and Ramsey, D. (2002a) ‘Characteristics of Successful Collaborations to Produce Educated Software Engineering Professionals’, Computer Science Education Journal, 12(1–2): 119–40. Ellis, H. J. C., Moreno, A. and Seidman, S. (2002b) Reeducation to Expand the Software Engineering Workforce: Successful Industry/University Collaborations (CMU/SEI-2002-SR001). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute. Frailey, D. and Moore, F. (1998) ‘Maintaining a Capable Software Engineering Pool’. Proceedings of the 1998 Software Technology Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, 19–23 April. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah State University. Lethbridge, T. (2000) ‘What Knowledge is Important to a Software Professional?’ IEEE Computer, 33(5): 44–50.

ELAC12

134

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Industrial input to the computing curriculum 135

Mead, N., Beckman, K., Coulter, N. and Khajenoori, S. (1997) ‘Industry/University Collaboration: Closing the Gap Between Industry and Academia’, IEEE Software, 14(6): 49–57. Mead, N., Beckman, K., Lawrence, J., O’Mary, G., Parish, C., Unpingco, P. and Walker, H. (1999) ‘Industry/University Collaborations: Different Perspectives Heighten Mutual Opportunities’, Journal of Systems and Software, 49(2–3): 155–62. Saiedian, H., Bagert, D. and Mead, N. (2002) ‘Software Engineering Programs: Dispelling the Myths and Misconceptions’, IEEE Software, 19(5): 35–41. Yourdon, E. (1997) Death March. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

ELAC12

135

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

136 Developing effective learning environments

13

Computing education and entrepreneurial spirit

Sylvia Alexander, Gerry McAllister and Deborah Trayhurn

Background The importance of work-related learning and the role of ‘employability’ in higher education (HE) has long been recognized (Knight and Yorke 2002) and is currently high on the government agenda. Employability is concerned with developing the skills and competencies required to compete in a changing labour market. Since the Robbins Report (Robbins 1963), there has been an acknowledgement of the importance of UK HE to the national and regional economy. In recent years the connection has become increasingly prominent, being voiced by both government and employers. More recently, the Department for Education and Skills (Df ES) White Paper, The Future of Higher Education (Df ES 2003) focused specifically on the need for greater collaboration between universities and industry. It highlighted the role universities have in fostering the establishment and growth of new companies. Funding to support expansion of these relationships has followed through ‘Higher Education Reach-out to Business in the Community’ (HEROBIC) and similar initiatives. Considerable success has already been reported in recent years, with sharp increases in the number of ‘spinout’ companies created, patents filed and the proportion of universities employing specialized staff to support commercial work. In order to promote entrepreneurship further, the government is making the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) a permanent third stream of funding for HE institutions alongside funds for teaching and research. The concept of entrepreneurship has been in widespread use for a long time, but its resurgent popularity implies a ‘sudden discovery’ (Holt 1992). However,

ELAC13

136

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Computing education and entrepreneurial spirit 137

there is still a lack of clarity and differentiation in the way HE institutions use the terms ‘enterprise’, ‘employability’ and ‘entrepreneurship’. Whichever term is used, McVie (1998) argues that ‘entrepreneurship is not simply about business start up; increasingly employability and entrepreneurship have become an indivisible pair’.

The changing business environment There has been considerable change in the workplace in recent years, most notably the growing recognition of the small business sector as a contributor to the national economy. The last two decades of the twentieth century saw a substantial and worldwide growth of interest in entrepreneurship and small business development. The majority of contemporary UK businesses are small organizations, contributing to approximately 40 per cent of UK employment. On current estimations, seven out of ten people working in the private sector will at some time during their working life work in a small business (Gibb 1997). Globalization has created new diversity of opportunity, changing the way in which businesses operate. Increasing emphasis is being placed on enabling organizations to compete. The focus of attention is shifting from excellence in various functional management activities, and their integration, towards looking at how companies manage their ideas from the creative process of idea generation through to screening and adoption of these ideas, and the resulting output of new products, services and processes: in short, innovation. Modern industry is fast-paced, global in scale, knowledge-based, driven by innovation and spawned by entrepreneurs. The changing environment of business means that more than ever there is a need for entrepreneurial spirit supported by increased capability for innovation. A clear link is often expressed between business growth and cutting-edge technology. Yet the exploitation of these is dependent upon creativity and innovation practice. These are of importance across all areas of employment. Hence, capabilities are anticipated in all graduates regardless of their university course. Employers have articulated their requirement for graduates whose intellectual abilities are supplemented with personal attributes such as adaptability, flexibility, motivation and the ability to work independently and collectively (Harvey and Knight 1996). Adding to this, individuals need to develop enterprising skills and competencies. An improved understanding of business innovation in practice is needed for students to be able to apply this knowledge within their chosen domain. The computing industry in industrial terms is still relatively new. Business and employment opportunities are increasing and the nature of these is evolving rapidly with technological development. The use of computing technology has progressed from purely processing capabilities through development of packages for commercial application to web and internet technology developments. Hence the computing profession has always been characterized by rapid change, uncertainty and thus pressure of work and diversity of practice. New business approaches therefore take advantage of telematic services including mobile computing,

ELAC13

137

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

138 Developing effective learning environments

e-commerce, online training etc. E-business and the knowledge-based economy require new approaches to business processes, structures and relationships (Gerbic and McConchie 2001). Information technology (IT) professional roles suggest a clear need for training and development in the science and art of creativity and innovation as part of university experience. To succeed, learners require technical competence, problem framing, solving and decision making skills, and the ability to reflect upon or evaluate developments in the light of their business.

What is entrepreneurship? The definition of entrepreneurship we shall use describes it as the undertaking the organization and management of an enterprise where there is an opportunity for profit, involving independence and risk. The terms ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ are often used to mean the same thing, but each has a unique connotation with ‘innovation’ being the transformation of creative ideas into useful applications. This makes ‘creativity’ a prerequisite for innovation. Innovation implies action beyond the conceiving of new ideas, and this seldom materializes accidentally. Ideas usually evolve through a creative process of germination: people nurture them and develop some of them successfully. Creative individuals – inspired people who instigate progress – and risk-takers – who seize opportunities to harness and use resources in unusual ways – are the founders of entrepreneurial ventures. The entrepreneur must embrace rapid change as it signals opportunities to be exploited. In the mid-1990s, the UK government funded the Enterprise in Higher Education initiative specifically to help students to develop ‘enterprise competencies’ through project-based work. These competencies were identified as: skills; • interaction skills; • communication analysis and solving; • problem • initiative and efficiency. Gibb (1993: 12) further defined enterprising skills as ‘self-awareness, selfconfidence, creativity, perseverance, persuasiveness, resourcefulness, negotiating skills and motivation and commitment to achieve’. These enterprise skills, once learned, were to be developed in an academic context with a view to application in a future commercial or enterprising context. They were further developed when Lumpkin and Dess (1996) identified five dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation:

• innovativeness; • autonomy; • risk-taking; • proactiveness; • competing intensively.

ELAC13

138

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Computing education and entrepreneurial spirit 139

The tensions between competing notions of employability and entrepreneurship are reflected in current academic thinking. Van der Heijden (2001) makes a distinction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ employability and the skill sets required to compete within an increasingly flexible labour market. The ‘new’ skills set revolves around a motivational currency of job enrichment and competency development. Arguably, these ‘new’ employability skills resonate with ‘enterprise’ or ‘entrepreneurial’ skills. All skills, however, need a contextual focus. The skills can be developed within a particular setting (including an educational setting) but need to be transferred to other contexts for effective enactment (Hartshorn and Sear 2002). Arguably, all businesses need employees to have the skills of creative and flexible application of a deep and specific knowledge base.

Entrepreneurship and HE The government’s lifelong learning agenda, set out in The Learning Age (Df EE 1997a), and the Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into the Future of Higher Education (Df EE 1997b) stressed the need to reshape the relationship between HE and the world of work. The latter report was clearly in favour of expanding entrepreneurship education provision. Recommendation 40 proposed that HE institutions ‘consider the scope for encouraging entrepreneurship through innovative approaches to programme design and through specialist postgraduate programmes’ (see Ch. 12 and Annex A). It further suggested that starting a new venture ‘requires a range of skills and a student is more likely to succeed if aware of the likely pitfalls and the strategies for dealing with them’. Students are increasingly keen to follow courses that have practical elements relevant to their future careers. They are aware of the benefits of understanding how the commercial world operates, even if they themselves do not plan to enter a commercial working environment. It is the responsibility of HE educators to help students develop important career-enhancing personal and business skills that will be valuable on completion of their university course of study. The strong vocational element in many information and computer science courses, together with an emphasis on personal and transferable skills development, has ensured the production of employable graduates with skills appropriate to industry and commerce. Many schools have initiated a programme of professional skills training as an integral part of taught courses. Furthermore, personal development planning (and the scheduled introduction of progress files) will require students to track and record skills and competencies gained throughout their academic career. However, the growing competitive importance of new business formation and high technology innovation to the national and global economies means we must expand our programmes further to provide students with a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of technology enterprise so that entrepreneurship can be considered an attractive career option.

ELAC13

139

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

140 Developing effective learning environments

There is clearly a need for skilled entrepreneurial thinkers. The dot.com market is heavily laden with recent graduates whose probability of success when embarking on entrepreneurial ventures is greatly enhanced by some underpinning university-based study of entrepreneurship. Through the Science Enterprise Challenge, 12 Science Enterprise Centres have been established in universities around the UK. These centres focus on the incorporation of entrepreneurial skills into programmes of study in science and engineering. They aim to embed enterprise and exploitation in teaching and research by raising awareness, changing attitudes and enhancing skills and competencies. The aim is to enable them to increase the added value to the existing UK investment in HE. The centres aim to combine a focus on developing a culture of entrepreneurship with the development of critical personal and team skills. HE has a responsibility for developing and sustaining an enterprise culture on which competitive advantage depends. Furthermore, the growth of the digital economy opens considerable opportunities for entrepreneurs. In order to develop capable and confident graduates, HE educators must design curricula to equip students with the skills and knowledge necessary to launch fast-growth, highpotential enterprises and a greater awareness of the processes involved in new business creation. The goal in HE should not primarily be to encourage students to pursue entrepreneurial careers, nor to provide them with a step-by-step process for starting a new business. Rather, we must strive to demystify entrepreneurship by exposing students to the issues and providing a set of tools for addressing those challenges. Regardless of their career path, all students undertaking an education in computing should understand the issues facing commercial organizations, particularly start-up ventures and growing companies. Many students, at some time in the future, may pursue opportunities leading to partial or full ownership and control of a business. We therefore need to raise awareness of the difficulties involved in launching innovative start-ups and the need for strong personal values to face these difficulties in a proactive way. There is considerable interest at present in helping students to develop their knowledge of enterprise and innovation and the related business and management skills. The challenge is to help learners unlock their entrepreneurial potential and become entrepreneurially adept for career development. In so doing, HE needs to anticipate and respond positively to change.

Teaching entrepreneurship Although there has been some ambivalence over the degree to which entrepreneurial behaviour can be taught, in recent years there has been a shift in emphasis from ‘Why should we teach entrepreneurship?’ to ‘How can we teach entrepreneurship most effectively?’ Most computing schools now agree that teaching entrepreneurship to computing graduates is essential, recognizing that HE-based

ELAC13

140

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Computing education and entrepreneurial spirit 141

study of entrepreneurship provides an objective means to develop greater understanding of current and future entrepreneurial companies. Employers are seeking graduates who, as well as being academically wellqualified, have the necessary skills to cope with contemporary workplace demands. The personal and professional attributes identified as critical by employers are seen to be in need of development in new graduates (Association of Graduate Recruiters 2002). These attributes include: skills in communication and persuasion; • strong ability to lead and work effectively as a member of a team; • the sound understanding of non-technical forces that affect • adecisions; awareness of global markets and competition; and • andemonstrable management skills and a strong business sense. •

commercial

Many of these skills are not easily taught within a traditional classroom setting, but instead are best developed in practice, providing students with opportunities to test their skills. This requires an approach to education that addresses industry’s need for employees who have not only a technical background but a working understanding of business and societal issues. Capabilities in innovation and entrepreneurship may be advanced learning outcomes but there is no reason why they cannot be developed at an early stage of study. The development of an entrepreneurial culture among students is underpinned by work experience. The 1997 UK Inquiry into Higher Education recommended that institutions should ‘identify opportunities to increase the extent to which programmes help students to become familiar with work, and help them to reflect on such experience’ (Df EE 1997b, see Ch. 9 and Annex A). Workbased learning helps students to develop towards professional maturity and gain a broad understanding of industrial requirements. Furthermore, students returning from industrial placements often bring knowledge and expertise that enhances the teaching and learning experience of the whole class. Many computing schools have programmes with a strong vocational element including a significant work-based learning (placement) component, and as such have excellent industrial links. Industrial placements are intended to provide experience of, and the skills needed for, commercial practice. Both students and employers regard such schemes as beneficial. Students on placement are able to experience the reality of the pressures of competing in a fast-changing, global, commercial setting while developing the necessary skills for work in such an environment. Further, they reflect on their skills and development within the working context. They prepare reports covering not only their technical role but also details relating to the management and market position of the employing organization. Learners with work experience are more likely to be receptive to the demands of entrepreneurship education than those without such experience (Gerbic and McConchie 2001).

ELAC13

141

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

142 Developing effective learning environments

Entrepreneurship training must be student-centred, enabling students to develop reflexive practice and integrate learning with their own experiences, aspirations and interests. Students should develop responsibility for their own learning and mobilize knowledge through problem solving and critical thinking, developing practices which are key to supporting entrepreneurship. There has been considerable expansion of entrepreneurship education and a proliferation of curricula for entrepreneurship education are being developed. Many of these are referenced in the online database for the Centre for Entrepreneurial Leadership Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurship Education at http:// www.celcee.edu. A number of definitions for entrepreneurial education exist including those proposed by Noll (1993), Kourilsky (1995), Gottleib and Ross (1997) and Bechard and Toulouse (1998). In broad terms, entrepreneurship education is about the development in students of contemporary skills for employment. It focuses on the skills that can be taught and the characteristics that can be engendered in students to help them develop new and innovative plans. As such, most curricula are structured to introduce the concept of entrepreneurship and provide hands-on experience for students to develop the fundamental skills of starting a business – generating an idea, analysing the market, finding the capital, and management and accounting procedures for running a business. Emphasis is usually placed on pre start-up activities including opportunity identification and market research. For many computing academics, entrepreneurship is a new discipline with which they are unfamiliar and many teachers can feel somewhat isolated in their own institutions. Entrepreneurship is easier to teach if one has direct experience in running (and especially setting up) a business. This provides a number of challenges for the tutor who must be creative in responding to them. To energize, inspire and intellectually stimulate learners, academics need to adopt an approach to entrepreneurship education which is innovative in its delivery. This requires an enterprising approach to supporting learning using teams and acting as consultant in the development and delivery of knowledge. A wide variety of curricular approaches exist, although there are many common elements. Entrepreneurship education requires an authentic real-world approach involving group project work and making extensive use of audio-visual media, case studies, business simulations, role-play, guest speakers and other means to reinforce practical application and cultivate entrepreneurial potential. The programme should be structured around presentations, exercises and student projects, with candid insights and opinions on entrepreneurial topics provided through contributions from notable entrepreneurs, industry analysts, venture capitalists and business academics who are prepared to engage with and be interviewed by students. Case studies should deal with how significant business opportunities are identified, planned and built into real companies, how resources are matched with opportunity and how to seek capital and other assistance. Ideally, these should involve a local role model that students can closely identify with. This also increases the chance that the subject of the case will be able to attend class, comment

ELAC13

142

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Computing education and entrepreneurial spirit 143

on student analyses and answer questions, creating a much richer learning environment (Levie 1999). In addition, students should have the opportunity to study the successful management of innovation and creativity through best-practice visits to selected organizations.

Team approach Unless the student intends to be a sole trader, he or she will need to form a team. An innovative start-up needs three ingredients to become a successful business: ideas, talent and funds. Entrepreneurship and new idea generation is the art of reaching a business goal with talented people who possess the requisite knowledge and experience in technology, business, marketing and finance. It is no surprise that promising ideas are found most often at the crossing of a number of disciplines. The medium-term success of organizations does not rely on discrete roles and departments but on an ability to operate as a cohesive whole. Furthermore, entrepreneurship is dependent upon the social qualities and motivation of everyone in the team. No individual has all the competencies to face the competitive barriers and spectrum of decisions to be made. Entrepreneurship requires good ideas, sound financing, good organizational structure, perceptive market analysis, a vibrant marketing strategy and attention to operational details including cost, premises and people (Gerbic and McConchie 2001). As such there are significant linkages with other discipline areas. The interdisciplinary nature of enterprise education and the challenge of teaching entrepreneurship provide a unique opportunity for the creation of a new learning environment where students integrate with peers from other schools within an institution. Such dispersed interactions and networking between peers must be managed, and the role of the tutor becomes one of facilitating and encouraging interaction in collaborative interdisciplinary activities. We should therefore aim to develop business enterprise skills in students through project work on a problemfocused and interdisciplinary entrepreneurial topic that explicitly integrates the knowledge and understanding of the discipline with business and management skills. Exploiting such linkages provides a curricular platform for a broad and crossfunctional understanding of business that a fragmented, subject-oriented curriculum cannot provide. Many undergraduates’ view of business is as a static entity. Interlinking with other faculties in collective learning activities helps raise awareness of the dynamism, complexity and interconnectedness inherent in business activity. Furthermore, the team-based approach enables greater depth to be achieved in new product development through the resolution of more complex problems. Such a team-based approach to learning encourages collegiality based on mutual understanding of disciplinary contributions. Creation of an interdisciplinary learning environment enables students to experience the differing norms, beliefs and values of different groupings. Learning and teaching activities must focus on both disciplinary and interdisciplinary issues, thus enabling learners to embrace a new

ELAC13

143

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

144 Developing effective learning environments

culture where they become aware of the importance of the respective disciplinary components and gain a holistic view of new business start-up activities. While such interdisciplinary venture teams, where entrepreneurship is infused throughout the curriculum, are favoured (particularly in the USA), fitting such accredited units into modular programmes at undergraduate or postgraduate level in the UK is problematic. Typically, interdisciplinary programmes are only offered as non-accredited extracurricular activity through graduate enterprise or entrepreneurs’ clubs run by the careers service, the student union or academics. Students from a range of disciplines learn about teamwork, time management, product design, marketing and financial management through the setting up and running of their own business. There is little doubt that enterprise education is best delivered as an accredited activity embedded in a study pathway. When introduced on an extracurricular basis such activities provide a good learning experience for students who are typically very motivated because of the effort required by them to participate. However, voluntary activity is ineffective as students are reluctant to participate if it is not part of their degree. There are significant advantages from working in groups rather than as individuals – learning is a social and collaborative process providing opportunities for interaction and conversation to assist with new learning (Bruffee 1993) (see also Chapter 7 for an example of groupwork in computing). In addition to significantly enhancing the motivation and stimulation of entrepreneurship, such an approach enhances both management and personal skills. Entrepreneurship education also enables students to develop higher-level skills of critical thinking, problem solving and reflection.

Deliverables and assessment It is contended that entrepreneurship education is not well suited to traditional teacher-led instruction and examination, which can lead to lack of motivation and interest. A real-world approach is crucial in order to add credibility to the process and provide a learning experience that engages the student. Applied teaching approaches are also more effective in developing analysis and synthesis skills, enabling learners to become engaged in framing problems of interest and solving them through the application of self-generated knowledge. Simulating the start-up and building of a company in the high-technology area provides opportunities for students to develop entrepreneurial and innovative skills. Students need practical experience of investigating a business idea and persuading funders and venture capitalists of its feasibility. Development of an integrative, product-based business plan for a new company in the technology arena should therefore form an integral part of the course and can act as a catalyst for transformational learning. Emphasis should be on the explicit commercialization of a technological idea with the implicit development of enterprising skills in the students.

ELAC13

144

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Computing education and entrepreneurial spirit 145

The curriculum (delivered via regular structured classes) might include topics such as industry analysis, evaluation of business opportunities and preparation of a business plan, and include learning activities that arise from the approaches used to solve authentic problems. Complex problem-solving techniques are the essence of the undergraduate enterprise curriculum. Identifying a business opportunity to pursue, investigating it in some depth and developing a comprehensive and detailed proposal helps to sharpen students’ skills in opportunity evaluation. The process develops the knowledge required to turn an idea into a sound business opportunity. Where the learner personally identifies with the idea (and where this is closely connected to their interests and aspirations), the sense of ownership is greatly enhanced. It is desirable to assess entrepreneurship courses in a variety of ways, including both individual and groupwork, and both verbal and written elements (Mason 2000). Assessment should match learning activities and be sequentially arranged to provide manageable learning progression through the various business development stages. Each should provide a valuable learning opportunity in its own right and collectively form a framework to support independent learning. However, assessing students on the basis of their preparation and participation in the classroom is problematic, both for practical reasons and because it may be precluded by university regulations, but may be necessary to ensure class attendance and involvement (Mason 2000). The value of assessing entrepreneurship courses by means of examination is questionable. The final deliverable will normally take the form of a technically competent business plan to test the feasibility of the new business idea. This can be supported by an oral presentation (which can also act as a forum for assessment), where the student gets an opportunity to promote/ demonstrate the business plan and develop persuasive communication skills. Alongside tutors, the audience could include venture capitalists and government agencies. Feedback should be formative in nature and include feedback from peers. Learners benefit both individually and collectively from being required to give each other detailed feedback and suggestions for improvement (Brown and Knight 1994). This process enriches the dialogue between facilitators and learners, generates new ideas to deal with possible shortcomings and provides moral support and encouragement. Another model might be to encourage participation in student innovation contests, where candidate entrepreneurs get involved in the strategic development and management of technology-based innovation and have an opportunity to experiment with the entire business creation and management process including: businesses evolve and adapt when changes occur in the market and in • how their own internal capabilities; of the strengths and weaknesses of different organizational forms and • analysis discussion of managerial challenges; identification of the legal and regulatory challenges inherent in entrepreneurial • activities.

ELAC13

145

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

146 Developing effective learning environments

Incubation The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into the Future of Higher Education (Df EE 1997b), in recommendation 39, suggested that the government provide ‘funding to institutions to support members of staff or students in taking forward business ideas developed in the institution and to support the creation of incubator units’ and that HE institutions ‘establish more technology incubator units within or close to the institution, within which start-up companies can be fostered for a limited period until they are able to stand alone’, thus acknowledging the need to increase the commercialization of research and knowledge. Entrepreneurship education has the potential to create a powerful feeder route between university research and the local business support network. Many enterprising skills are being incubated in HE, thus promoting networking between entrepreneurs and experts on the critical issues of start-up. Such infrastructures provide a highly supportive environment for start-up companies and new entrepreneurs can find advice rapidly and at reasonable cost. Many technology-based enterprises grow out of academia and develop into world-class organizations with technology transfer a clear contemporary government focus.

Lifelong learning The world of work is changing rapidly and many who are entering the job market for the first time are finding that they face a broad range of challenges as they seek to develop their career plan. Organizations expect faster responses to the problems and challenges that they face. Individuals therefore need to be able to create realistic options and make viable recommendations based on the information that they can gather, often at short notice. Employers are keen to ensure that each individual member of staff makes a significant contribution and gets up to speed within 18 months of taking up a new graduate post. As a result, jobs are evaluated by the outcomes and results that they achieve. The contribution which individuals make to the achievement of the organization’s objectives is becoming increasingly important – organizations want people who add real value. Individuals will therefore have to decide how they can make unique contributions to the organization. As a result, individuals need to become entrepreneurially adept for career development. Training continues throughout the entire career of entrepreneurs and the increasing complexity of the business world requires new techniques to maintain efficiency and effectiveness. Being able to understand, reflect upon and plan for personal development are important life skills that help students to develop and to equip themselves with the skills to survive and thrive in the ever-changing world of employment.

ELAC13

146

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

Computing education and entrepreneurial spirit 147

References Association of Graduate Recruiters (2002) Graduates in the Eyes of Employers 2002. adinfoguardian.co.uk/recruitment/pdf/ research-pdfs/giee-brochure-2002.pdf (accessed September 2003). Bechard, J.-P. and Toulouse, J.-M. (1998) ‘Validation of a Didactic Model for the Analysis of Training Objectives in Entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Venturing, 13: 317–32. Brown, S. and Knight P. (1994) Assessing Learners in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page. Bruffee, K. (1993) Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence and the Authority of Knowledge. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Df EE (Department for Education and Employment) (1997a) The Learning Age. London: HMSO. http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaper/ Df EE (Department for Education and Employment) (1997b) Higher Education in the Learning Society: The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into the Future of Higher Education (the Dearing Report). London: HMSO. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ncihe/index.htm Df ES (Department for Education and Skills) (2003) The Future of Higher Education. London: HMSO. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/highereducation/hestrategy Gerbic, P. and McConchie, A. (2001) Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Effective Learning and Teaching in Business and Management. London: Kogan Page. Gibb, A. A. (1993) ‘The Enterprise Culture and Education’, International Small Business Journal, 11(3): 11–34. Gibb, A. A. (1997) ‘Small Firms, Training and Competitiveness: Building on the Small Business as a Learning Organisation’, International Small Business Journal, 15(1): 13–29. Gottleib, E. and Ross, J. A. (1997) ‘Made not Born: HBS Courses and Entrepreneurial Management’, Harvard Business School Bulletin, 73 (February): 41–5. Hartshorn, C. and Sear, L. (2002) ‘Employability and Enterprise: Evidence from the North East’. Paper presented at the RSA Employability and Labour Market Policy Seminar Series, Edinburgh, November. Harvey, L. and Knight, P. (1996) Transforming Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Holt, D. H. (1992) Entrepreneurship: New Venture Creation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Knight, P. T. and Yorke, M. (2002) ‘Defining and Addressing Employability: A Fresh Approach’, Exchange, 2: 15–18. Kourilsky, M. L. (1995) Entrepreneurship Education: Opportunity in Search of Curriculum. Kansas City, MO: Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Levie, L. (1999) Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education in England – A Survey. London Business School: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/dfee/heqe/lbs.htm (accessed September 2003). Lumpkin, G. T. and Dess, G. G. (1996) ‘Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance’, Academy of Management Review, 21(1): 135–72. McVie, G. (1998) Scotland’s Good for Enterprise. National Centre of Education for Work and Enterprise. http://www.strath.ac.uk/enterprisingcareers/p1topic.html Mason, C. (2000) Teaching Entrepreneurship to Undergraduates: Lessons from Leading Centres of Entrepreneurship Education. Southampton: Department of Geography, University of Southampton. Noll, C. L. (1993) ‘Planning Curriculum for Entrepreneurship Education’, Business Education Forum, 47(3): 3–6. Robbins, Lord (1963) Higher Education: Report of the Committee Appointed by the Prime Minister under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins, 1961–1963. London: HMSO. Van der Heijden, B. (2001) ‘Pre-requisites to Guarantee Life-Long Employability’, Personnel Review, 31(2): 44–61.

ELAC13

147

14/5/04, 2:24 PM

148 Developing effective learning environments

14

Higher education, IT and industry

Gillian Lovegrove

Introduction Many people have strong views about higher education (HE) courses, the graduates they produce and their suitability for industry. Currently, HE produces around 14,300 first-degree graduates in computer science each year, according to the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA 2003), most of whom find jobs without difficulty. But is the real picture so rosy? One publicized claim is that these graduates, and their skill levels, are crucial in the so-called ‘skills gap’. This phrase describes two situations: ‘skills shortages . . . an employer is unable to recruit new suitably skilled people to fill a business need [and] skills gaps . . . skills which existing employees do not possess and which consequently hamper business productivity and growth’ (itnto/AISS 1999: 25). It is assumed that following a new technology surge, universities should be able to respond to meet the resultant gap. Companies often accompany this claim with the assertion that universities are failing industry: ‘In a well publicised survey last year, 70 per cent of employers “claimed computer science degrees do not provide the skills needed to succeed in the workplace” (silicon.com)’ (Caine et al. 2001: 45). However, the potential for improvement through the expansion of HE is treated with scepticism: ‘Many employers remain sceptical about whether the increase in participation in higher education . . . really meets their needs’ (Learning and Skills Council/Df ES 2003: 10). The Council of Professors and Heads of Computing (CPHC) has recently attempted to identify the real problems and how these might be addressed. In their turn, they find that some graduates do not wish to enter information technology (IT) jobs immediately after graduating because the jobs are boring. Others wish to change jobs soon after taking them up because no effort is made towards

ELAC14

148

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Higher education, IT and industry 149

career progression within the company. The NCC Salary and Staff Issues survey found that 15–20 per cent of ICT staff left their jobs in 1997–9, and the 1998 CEL Staff Salary Survey found staff turnover to be between 12.9 and 16.7 per cent (itnto/AISS 1999: 25). More research into these issues is clearly needed. In this chapter the current position is described, with an examination of what has been tried and an identification of what still needs to be done.

Historical view Until around 1965, there were no single-subject computing courses, but courses could be combined with computing. As single honours computing courses emerged, a division arose, broadly speaking, between old and new universities. Old universities tended to specialize in programming and problem solving, and to have more mathematical and theoretical backgrounds or underpinnings to their courses. New universities usually designed their courses to be closer to jobs in industry (Stevens 1999: 32). These courses gave greater weight to business analysis and design methods, and included more database design. One interpretation was that the average old university graduate was a problem-solving programmer whereas the new university graduate was a analyst/designer/database specialist. Many new universities, and some old ones, help students to obtain an industrial placement, usually lasting a year, during their course. Placements are usually voluntary, but may be required as part of a ‘sandwich course’. Graduates with this experience are more desirable to companies because they can ‘hit the ground running’ (AISS/itnto 1999: 2; Roberts 2002: 96). Where does this leave the milk round interviewer? Clearly it depends on what skills and abilities she or he is looking for; someone familiar with the latest database technologies who can slot straight into a job, or someone who can be independent and pragmatic and face new problems. Some employers expect their new graduate recruits to ‘hit the ground running’, but find they need to send them on training courses. This is sometimes ‘standard practice’ (Caine et al. 2001: 49), and similar training may be deemed necessary for IT and non-IT graduates (AISS/ itnto 1999: 18).

Masters conversion courses Masters conversion courses initially sprang up when there were no single-subject computing courses. These are a year long and admit graduates from other disciplines with little or no computing knowledge. After a year, their knowledge tends to be slightly narrower than that of graduates from a full-time undergraduate course. Their specialized knowledge is as strong, but it is spread across fewer subjects. Nevertheless, they have usually completed a research project and thus shown themselves to be capable of independent work.

ELAC14

149

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

150 Developing effective learning environments

These graduates often win out in their transferable skills (e-skills NTO 2000; Attwell and Kamarainen 2001: 16). Frequently they have humanities degrees, which foster excellent communication and team-working abilities. Such postgraduates can be very attractive to employers (Stevens 1999: 15) although they may lack industrial experience. Sadly, scholarships for conversion courses are no longer funded.

Employment The speed with which new graduates obtain employment varies with the economy. Crucially, there are different types of job. Big firms, like IBM or HP, often need top-rate graduates with strong interpersonal skills, and often recruit non-IT graduates and then retrain them for jobs in marketing or sales (Caine et al. 2001: 34). At the other end of the scale are smaller firms who tend to go for all-rounders willing to accept a lower salary in order to obtain a job close to home. Career prospects and development may be limited (Docherty 2000: 8, 23). In the middle are companies who only employ a few graduates each year and expect to have to train them for a short period. Such companies will often also employ placement students. Figures 14.1 and 14.2 show graduate destination data for the UK for IT, and for Northumbria University IT graduates. It can be seen that employment in IT jobs is high.

45

Percentage of IT graduates

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Employment Employment in IT in other sectors

Employed overseas

Further study Not available Believed or training for unemployed employment

Seeking work/study, not unemployed

Figure 14.1 First destinations for IT graduates from UK HE institutions, 2000–1 (Prospects 2003)

ELAC14

150

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Percentage of computer science graduates

Higher education, IT and industry 151

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Employment in IT

Employment in other sectors

Further study or training

Not available Seeking work for employment or further study

Figure 14.2 First destinations of computer science graduates from Northumbria University, 2000–1 (Careers Service, Northumbria University)

Gender There is an extensive literature on the question of why relatively few 18-year-old women are recruited onto university computing courses (e.g. Leveson 1989; Pearl et al. 1990; Spertus 1991; Strok 1992; Millar and Jagger 2001; Peters et al. 2002; Rosser 2002). Many attempts have been made to redress the balance, but the proportion of females remains well below what might be expected, despite the fact that ‘Girls are continuing to gain a higher level of scientific literacy at GCSE and A-level than ever in terms of both percentage and number’ (Peters et al. 2002: 49). The underlying problems appear to be essentially societal, and therefore difficult to change. To the average teenage female, it would be unwise to choose a subject which lacks ‘street cred’ (Stevens 1999; Millar and Jagger 2001; Roberts 2002). Similarly, parents and friends may be dubious about her pursuing a career in IT, even if she enjoys computer work at school (Millar and Jagger 2001: 36). The images of employers and their environments are less than attractive, as are young male computer buffs. Many young women prefer to play safe, choosing subjects with a greater human element (business or the humanities). However, when these students reach their mid-twenties and other work prospects are disappointing, the proportion of young women joining Masters conversion courses in computing increases (Millar and Jagger 2001). It appears that their opinions as to the attractiveness of a career in IT change after graduation.

ELAC14

151

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

152 Developing effective learning environments

Answering our critics During the 1990s there was a common perception among industrialists that the skills gap could be solved easily if only the universities would respond properly. One report blamed both course content and student expectations: ‘those providing education and training and the individuals taking their courses need to take more note of what employers are looking for . . . More emphasis needs to be placed on vocational preparation and providing the requisite generic skills, while maintaining academic standards’ (Hogarth and Wilson 2001: 10). Stevens is also critical, arguing, for example, that ‘HE institutions should consider how the use of proprietary software for illustrative and other learning purposes can be aligned with and support businesses’ short term needs, without compromising course objectives’ (Stevens 1999: 27). The Alliance for Information Systems Skills (AISS), together with the itnto, produced Skills 99 for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Department for Education and Employment (Df EE) (itnto/AISS 1999). This report focuses on IT supplier and user organizations, citing 58 data and research sources. Thirty-three of these are surveys or reports from business organizations, based on returns from commercial and industrial employers. Only five items appear, from the summaries provided in Skills 99, to have consulted with education or training institutions. A later initiative resulted in the Stevens Report. Sir Alan Stevens was Chair of the Information Technology, Communications and Electronics Skills Strategy Group, which had 16 members. Nine of these (including Stevens himself ) were senior officers of major companies, three had an educational or training institution as their listed affiliation and the remaining four represented professional associations. Stevens lists eight documents as his principal sources (Stevens 1999: 37), seven of which are government-commissioned research reports and one of which is Skills 99. He also uses one report commissioned by the US Department of Commerce, and cites no separate consultation with either business or universities. In general, the initiatives behind such reports were funded from government sources and their findings went back to government. They were chaired by industrialists and involved little real investigation into the universities’ viewpoints; prejudice was rife. However, some chairmen were more open to the inclusion of university people in their discussions. For example, the consultation process for the AISS 1999 University-Industry Interface Project (AISS/itnto 1999) included members of academic organizations such as the CPHC and the UKAIS (UK Academy for Information Systems). Similarly, in the last year or so, e-skills UK has become more open to listening to and working with universities. Their recent publications highlight employers’ responsibilities (e-skills UK 2003: 18), and acknowledge the difficulties facing HE institutions (e-skills UK 2003: 21). For the most part, though, universities were criticized for failing to supply graduates ready for industry with sufficient practical experience, subject depth and

ELAC14

152

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Higher education, IT and industry 153

transferable skills such as team working, communication (Caine et al. 2001: 32) and business awareness (AISS/itnto 1999: 3). Research indicates that things are not quite so simple. Roberts notes that businesses may not be providing accurate or adequate information to HE institutions and that their requirements may be unrealistically specific (Roberts 2002: 35). Baillie, describing the background to an innovative vocational B.Sc. course, points out that ‘it is important to draw the line between employers’ needs and an employers’ responsibility to provide training’ (2001: 4), and asks ‘if an employer cannot articulate at what level they desire certain skills other than basing them on an intuitive form of assessment, how can HEIs [higher education institutions] adequately ensure any work done with students is of a required level?’. A survey of job advertisements, reported in Computer Weekly (London), 10 October 2002, suggested that many employers are not only unclear but highly unrealistic about what they expect from computing graduates. Young and Morris emphasize in their study that employers must appreciate that a graduate is an individual and ‘not a generic product’ (2000: 22). Dearing found that ‘only 10 per cent of [employers] are dissatisfied with the level of practical/vocational skills of their employees with higher education qualifications’ (Df EE 1997: 32). Hesketh’s examination of research into employer perceptions and requirements across all sectors, including IT, found that satisfaction with the performance of graduate employees is reasonably high. He cautions that ‘if radical changes are to be made to the curricula of higher education . . . such changes should be made against the background of continued evaluation as well as industrial and technical evolution. The context of this evaluation need not necessarily be dominated by the demands of business’ (2000: 268). Many employers seem to miss the point that British industry and its needs are very varied. Universities have often asked for a common viewpoint to be expressed, in order to illustrate this diversity of requirements. However, one frequent call is for greater skills in teamwork and communication (Caine et al. 2001: 32). Universities do their best to achieve these outcomes in their courses, with varying success. A great deal depends on the individual student, as Baillie notes: ‘Students can often fail to make the connection between skills that they learn at University and Business skills they will need in the workplace if these links are not made manifestly clear . . . perhaps it is as much as we can do to encourage students to see their academic learning from a different perspective’ (2001: 4).

Graduates’ views Considerably more research is needed on the graduates themselves and their satisfaction with the companies they work for; much of the current evidence is anecdotal. Some graduates find that their employers look after them well and provide a career path and appropriate staff development (AISS/itnto 1999: 18).

ELAC14

153

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

154 Developing effective learning environments

Some graduates in smaller companies enjoy the work for a time but find little in the way of a career path (Docherty 2000: 6, 26; e-skills UK 2002: 24; EITO 2003). Others are expected to sign the European agreement ‘disassociation’, meaning they can work hours which are longer than those set under the European legal limit. Graduates may have to work additional hours over long periods of time (as opposed to working intensively for short periods, as might be expected when there is a deadline). Sometimes salaries are poor and graduates are tempted by jobs in Europe.

Inside our universities Following the relatively swift decline in the unit of resource to universities over the last decade, computing departments are often ‘top sliced’ by their universities so that other departments can continue to survive. Even with the best financial systems it has sometimes been difficult for vice-chancellors to identify problems and institute measures which will channel funding towards areas which earn more income. This has assisted declining departments at the expense of expanding ones. A large majority of computing departments are top sliced to some degree (Metra Martech 2001). In under-resourced departments, there is less time available for research, scholarship and contact with students. Thus, it is harder to be innovative with new courses and to foster relationships with industry (e.g. arranging guest lectures from industrialists). This causes low morale and damages the recruitment and retention of academic staff (Office of Manpower Economics 2000: 55; Metra Martech 2001: 5, 34). During a recession this is not a severe problem, but during a boom, lecturers in their thirties, who are the new blood of departments, can be tempted away.

Support to lobby for The publication of the recent Department for Education and Skills (Df ES) White Paper, The Future of Higher Education (2003) has caused considerable unease. For departments which depend on research income this is a very difficult time, whatever their research record. Uncertainty and loss of morale are widespread. There is cynicism over the announcements of new monies going into universities for widening participation. Hidden beneath these are cuts in funding. The government is trying to change the position of UK HE at little or no cost to itself. It is forcing a closer collaboration with industry, through New Technology Institutes (NTIs), Foundation Degrees and technology transfers (Df ES 2003: 41, 43, 64), plus proposed changes in management (Df ES 2003: 34), while supporting research in only a few specialist universities (Df ES 2003: 25, 28, 30). How does this affect computing in HE? At present it is hard to say. For those with well-established industrial collaborations and relatively little dependence on

ELAC14

154

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Higher education, IT and industry 155

research income, life is not so different apart from the general decline in the unit of resource. However, in middle-tier old universities, or new universities which have emulated old universities by investing in research, very hard decisions need to be made. Heads of department need to think like business experts and watch markets. With regard to a future strategy for lobbying in the best interests of computing departments, there is no single clear message and no single clear recipe for improvement. The central issue is that of funding inside the universities themselves. Unfortunately, this is extremely difficult to influence. Vice-chancellors have a degree of independence about the allocation of money, although clearly they are accountable to governors for their overall financial policy. Sadly, opportunities for income generation and working with industry in the regions are being missed because they require investment of time, which is not available, from university staff. This in turn damages the reputation of universities among industrialists.

Possible action Efforts are needed to break down the barriers of ignorance. These initiatives should probably, on the whole, be university-centred, while organizations like e-skills UK can help bridge the gap between HE and industry. It is of concern that, perhaps inevitably, their voice is mainly that of larger companies rather than smaller ones. However, if communications between universities and e-skills UK improve and increase, there may be fewer articles in newspapers alleging that universities give a poor service. Universities can improve their image in their regions by providing an active industrial advisory board whose members (from different-sized companies) can comment on matters such as curricula and degree titles. With a better knowledge of what goes on in universities, members of these bodies can also benefit by sharing expertise and/or by continued professional development through degrees. Websites can invite comment and participation, and encourage placements. Departments need to answer queries from industrialists in a proactive and helpful way. Some managing directors of smaller firms may never have set foot inside a university and could be fearful of making an approach (Docherty 2000: 24; Learning and Skills Council/DfES 2003: 25). One recent government initiative which may well make a difference is the formation of NTIs. These are composed of groups of universities, further education colleges and companies, and aim to foster relationships with industry in the provision of programmes for people who are already at work. Sadly the government does not see the benefits in giving scholarships to students for IT conversion courses, despite the fact that this would encourage more men and women into IT careers (the proportion of women on such courses is around 35 per cent).

ELAC14

155

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

156 Developing effective learning environments

Summary The situation inside many computing departments is healthy. Their graduates receive a well-formed education and are capable of independent work and original thought. Their skills on leaving will in general be only six months to one year behind most leading-edge technologies. They may need some internal training from their employers, which will vary from company to company (Hesketh 2000: 264). A spectrum of graduates is available and universities need to think how collectively to display their varying strengths for the benefit of companies. Vice-chancellors must encourage regional strategy and participation in their departments through appropriate investments. Heads of department need to juggle priorities, weighing up educational standards against time spent encouraging collaboration and participation with industry. Government needs to be realistic and to find out more about what really goes on in universities. Both government and industry are actually getting a very good deal.

References AISS/itnto (1999) University – Industry Interface, Final Report on Project. London: AISS. Attwell, G. and Kamarainen, P. (2001) ‘Towards a New European Agenda for Promoting ICT-related Competences – What Role for Educational Research?, paper presented at ECER Conference, Lille, 5–8 September 2001. http://www.b.shuttle.de/wifo/abstract/ !ecer01a.htm Baillie, L. (2001) IT Employers’ Skill Demands: Do They Know What They Want? London: City University of London Professional Liaison Centre. Caine, D., Price, K. and Sanderson, M. (2001) An Assessment of Skill Needs in Information and Communication Technology, ‘Skills Dialogues: Listening to Employers’ No.5, NTOs. Df EE (Department for Education and Employment) (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into the Future of Higher Education (the Dearing Report). Appendix 4: Consultation with Employers. London: HMSO. Df ES (Department for Education and Skills) (2003) The Future of Higher Education. London: HMSO. Docherty, T. (2000) Case Studies: Graduates in North-West SMEs (LMI report). London: Df EE/HEQE. EITO (2003) Press release, February. http://www.eito.com/tables.html e-skills NTO (2000) Have You Got What IT Takes? Project Gemini: Improving the Availability of Graduates to the IT Services Industry. London: Df ES. e-skills UK (2003) IT Professionals . . . Workforce Development Plan. London: e-skills UK. HESA (2003) All HE Students by Subject of Study, Domicile and Gender 2001/02. http:// www.hesa.ac.uk/holisdocs/pubinfo/student/quals0102.htm (accessed 6 June 2003). Hesketh, A. J. (2000) ‘Recruiting an Elite: Employers’ Perceptions of Graduate Education and Training’, Journal of Education and Work, 13(3): 245–71. Hogarth, T. and Wilson, R. (2001) Skills Matter: A Synthesis of Research on the Extent, Causes and Implications of Skill Deficiencies. London: National Skills Task Force, Df ES. itnto/AISS (1999) Skills 99: IT Skills Summary. London: itnto/AISS.

ELAC14

156

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Higher education, IT and industry 157

Learning and Skills Council/DfES (2003) Key Messages from ‘Skills in England 2002’. London: Df ES. Leveson, N. G. (1989) ‘Educational Pipeline Issues for Women’, paper presented at the CRA Snowbird Meeting on Educational Pipeline Issues for Women, Snowbird, Utal, July 1990. http://www.mills.edu/ACAD_INFO/MCS/SPERTUS/Gender/pipeline.html Metra Martech (2001) Staffing University Computing Faculties, vol 1. BCS. http:// www.bcs.org/research/reportdoc.pdf Millar, J. and Jagger, N. (2001) Women in ITEC Courses and Careers. London: Df ES. Office of Manpower Economics (2000) Recruitment and Retention in Employment in UK Higher Education: A Sector-wide Survey. London: CVCP. Pearl, A., Pollack, M. E., Riskin, E., Thomas, B., Wolf, E. and Wu, A. (1990) ‘Becoming a Computer Scientist: A Report by the ACM Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Science’, Communications of the ACM, 33(11): 47–58. Peters, J., Lane, N., Rees, T. and Samuels, G. (2002) SET Fair: The Greenfield Report on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. London: HMSO. Prospects (2003) Information Technology [2001 graduates]. http://www.prospects.ac.uk Roberts, Sir G. (2002) SET for Success: The Supply of People with Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Skills (the report of Sir Gareth Roberts’ Review). London: HMSO. Rosser, S. V. (2002) ‘A Shift in Focus from Individual to Institutional Solutions to Attract and Retain Women in Science and Engineering’, AWIS Magazine, Winter. Spertus, E. (1991) Why are there so few female computer scientists?, MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report 1315. http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/ellens/Gender/pap/ pap.html Stevens, A. (1999) Skills for the Information Age: Final Report from the Information Technology, Communications and Electronics Skills Strategy Group. London: DfEE. Young, Z. and Morris, H. (2000) An Holistic Approach to the Use of Labour Market Intelligence (LMI) in HE Strategic Planning, Df EE/HEQE Labour Market Intelligence Project Report. London: Df EE/HEQE.

ELAC14

157

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

ELAC14

158

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Part 4

Reflective practice and personal development

ELAC15

159

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

ELAC15

160

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

15

Continuing professional development for the computing academic: wheeling in the Trojan Horse

Su White and Hugh Davis Education is the process of casting false pearls before real swine. Irsin Edman

Introduction The refrain ‘That’s a really good idea, but I really don’t have enough time’ sometimes seems to be the near universal response of academics in any discussion focusing on the review, innovation or enhancement of methods employed in teaching and the support of learning. The result of the day-to-day experiences of onerous teaching loads in a time of expanding student numbers and widening participation is increasing workload. This is only increased further by tasks such as running tutorials; setting and marking a range of assessments and examinations; supporting ever more complex quality regimes; supervising project and postgraduate students; attending a plethora of departmental, school, faculty or institutional meetings; researching, writing and reviewing academic papers; and undertaking whatever additional effort is necessary to establish a personal academic career – be it in teaching, administration, research or any combination of the three. Those of us with a claim to a previous life, perhaps in an industrial or commercial context, may reminisce wistfully to a time when courses to update our professional skills were scheduled into our working plan, and where the tempo of our daily lives

ELAC15

161

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

162 Reflective practice and personal development

seemed to be manageable rather than frantic, although perhaps the reality has been softened by the passage of time. So what to do? The reality is that finding time for continuing professional development (CPD) is an absolute priority, not only for the benefit of our students, but also for ourselves. If teaching academics are to cope with the competing pressures which we face in our lives, we need to have some element of control. Refining our approaches to teaching and the support of learning offers us the opportunity to achieve some of that control. This understanding is of equal value to the individual academic, to an academic with responsibility for enhancing teaching in their department, to a head of department or dean tasked with leading colleagues to use more innovative approaches, or to staff with responsibility for institutional staff and educational development. In the rest of this chapter, ways in which we can better understand possible motivations for promoting, following or supporting CPD are examined. We then go on to examine different roles or functions: CPD for awareness, for understanding, for use or for change. Having laid out the motivations and methods of undertaking and promoting CPD, we offer a selection of advice tips and further references gained from personal experience of working with academics across computing and the wider academic field. We base our explanations on extensive experience at the University of Southampton. The authors are both based in the Department of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS), and have worked together extensively developing a range of CPD activities within ECS and the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Southampton. In addition, Su White has undertaken a range of educational development initiatives across the UK. A key aspect of our observations is that there is a coherence in the approaches to CPD most appropriate for academics in numerate disciplines. However, the computing subject area is in some ways a special case. Our particular experience of working in a fast-moving discipline is that professional development for our academic specialism is a constant and ongoing activity. That same experience serves to undermine our perception of the need for educational CPD. For that reason, the methods we choose must be highly focused and effective. We realize that the particular perspective with which the reader may be approaching this chapter will vary, but we encourage you to read and understand its significance across the whole range of perspectives, because in that way we hope that you will gain a greater understanding and insight into the various factors which are important if CPD is to be successful and widespread.

Motivations Possible motivations for promoting or engaging in CPD can come from a number of perspectives which fall into the two basic categories of institutional or personal.

ELAC15

162

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Continuing professional development 163

Understanding the source of the motivation can be important in determining which approach is taken to establish and promote CPD.

Institutional perspectives The institutional perspective incorporates those of institutional managers such as the pro vice-chancellor, the dean, the head of school, the head of department, quality and institutional staff and educational developers. Motivations from these perspectives can be prompted by measures of performance of institutional achievements against national benchmarks or in league tables, or by declared institutional ambitions. These may be related to such measures or may be a function of broader strategic objectives such as roll-out of a new learning environment, targeting new student profiles or promoting specific approaches to teaching and the support of student learning. While the ultimate objective of these motivations is to achieve changes in practice, they will require initially widespread increases of awareness and understanding, and will place great value on evaluations of the impact of their initiatives. A further aspect of institutional motivation is the more local institutional standpoint of people such as heads of schools or departments (who also have the more global institutional perspective just discussed), and academics with specific responsibilities such as course leaders, departmental learning and teaching coordinators, or teaching quality coordinators. Motivations for this local perspective can be diverse. They can include the demands of accreditation, analysis of student evaluations or course reviews, overviews of staff appraisals, performance against benchmarks, local targets or the need to achieve particular economies. Since their perspective is necessarily closer to the actual teaching and the student experience, their approach to CPD will place a stronger emphasis on achieving widespread understanding of the necessary changes in practice, with a strong push to achieve and implement those changes. Once more, the evaluation of the impact of the CPD can be of great importance.

Personal perspectives Personal perspectives and motivations for CPD can be classed as coming from three main directions: the individual academic, the innovator and the student. For the individual academic, reflection, understanding of student evaluations and the desire to enhance personal professional skills can all be personal motivations for embarking upon CPD. It may be that the appraisal process will act as a motivational spur by prompting clarification of personal goals, or result in specific objectives being suggested as necessary or appropriate. Similarly, a mentor’s input or departmental initiatives can be influential in motivating individuals. While innovators

ELAC15

163

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

164 Reflective practice and personal development

will share all these motivations they will, in all probability, be looking for opportunities to introduce change. As highly motivated individuals they can play a key role in championing CPD programmes.

Student experience The student experience of the learning process can provide a strong motive for staff to engage in CPD. Student feedback through staff-student liaison meetings, module and programme evaluations, and informal discussions with academics can provide a powerful insight which can enable us to identify key targets for development. The student perspective can be coupled with a structured analysis of the processes we use to teach and support student learning. This will give us a potential target for CPD which might include objectives such as the improvement of lectures, tutorials, assessment, labs, skills or progression and retention. To this we might add initiative areas such as problem-based learning, e-learning and computer aided assessment (CAA).

Barriers Given that there are so many important reasons why academics should engage in CPD in relation to their teaching, why is it so often ignored, particularly within disciplines such as computing? We can identify a number of barriers, some of which we have mentioned earlier. No academic has enough time, and usually it will be the urgent rather than the important that will be attended to. What time we do have may well be spent on keeping up with the latest developments in our fast-moving discipline. Furthermore, physical scientists and engineers (including computer scientists) tend to be suspicious of the discipline of education, regarding the literature tedious, the science imprecise and the teaching methods embarrassing. In such a context it is hard to persuade a computing academic to spend time, for example, attending a course or seminar addressing the changes that have happened in education and the student experience. It is not part of the experience of many academics to attend courses; some may even see this as demeaning. The situation may be even worse in research-intensive universities where pressures to improve or consolidate Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) scores may have persuaded staff that so long as teaching is carried out competently, research must always be prioritized. In our experience the take-up of CPD courses and seminars related to teaching by academics within engineering and applied science is almost negligible unless stipulated as part of the probationary requirement. In order to change this situation we have had to devise events and experiences designed to persuade colleagues (especially the most influential senior staff ) to spend time considering the issues

ELAC15

164

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Continuing professional development 165

and agendas of modern education. We called this our ‘Trojan Horse’; a Trojan Horse is some event or process with which an academic will engage, since they perceive it as being relevant to their job. At the same time they will necessarily contribute, reflect and analyse, and thereby they will learn and potentially change. One of our most effective examples of a Trojan Horse emerged in the context of introducing a new quality monitoring and enhancement framework at Southampton. This required us, at departmental/school level, to develop learning and teaching strategies. Subsequently, departments and schools had to engage in an annual reporting cycle where they reflected on the evidence they had collected and the changes they had made. This regime was not initially popular, being seen by senior management as a bureaucratic interference in local matters. The considerable time and effort necessary to produce the documentation was considered unlikely to result in any improvement. However, the process of producing the documentation became an ideal Trojan Horse: senior staff needed to answer questions explaining how changes in education were affecting their departments, how they planned to respond to these changes and how they would know whether they had been successful. In order to meet these requirements, meetings were organized where senior staff sat down and talked with learning and teaching champions to understand the issues. Suddenly we were addressing matters such as whether we might do something useful about the gender balance in our subject, whether progression figures matched those of comparable institutions (and if not, why not?), whether the skills our students learned matched industry’s needs and even whether our teaching and assessment methods were appropriate to the intended learning outcomes! The success of the Trojan Horse is that it overcomes the barriers to CPD outlined above. The academic does not see the activity as a poor use of their time, but rather sees it as an appropriate use of their judgement and experience; the fact that their understanding increases as they engage with the process is of course quite normal, just as understanding is likely to increase as they undertake some research or consultancy work. In the remainder of this chapter we have attempted to give other similar examples of successful interventions.

Objectives Before you embark on any of the activities outlined below we would like to offer a few words of practical advice. Avoid overload: whether you are organizing events or engaging in activities yourself, think about the amount of work you are planning to undertake. Does the activity map well to your existing interests? Are you being over-ambitious? Is it something which you will enjoy? Can you negotiate some extra help? Are there departmental, university or external funds which could provide cash for clerical or research assistance? Could your potential project be undertaken by one or more project students? Can you identify colleagues with whom to share practice or form allegiances? Finally, it is also important to understand

ELAC15

165

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

166 Reflective practice and personal development

that if we regard the three stages of development as part of a progression, from awareness through understanding to use, then methods suited to achieving a later objective may also, for some participants, only achieve its preceding objectives. Additionally, there can be significant CPD benefit for an individual or a team who is tasked with organizing, facilitating, hosting or participating in any of the development activities outlined below.

Awareness The most basic objective in CPD is to increase awareness of an issue or objective. Methods include tailored seminars, use of publications and activities such as ‘show and tell’ and posters.

Seminars The classic academic approach to raising awareness is via a seminar. Seminars serve a useful function in terms of identifying a community with a common interest. A programme of seminars can be especially useful in raising the general level of awareness across a group of academics. They can be a means of identifying local or national expertise. Seminar topics can be chosen to relate to issues which are high on current agendas or map well onto personal specialisms. A particularly useful aspect of seminars is their potential to seed ‘coffee time’ discussions and in that way extend the time period during which information is disseminated and awareness raised, far beyond the original scheduled session. However, organizing a programme of seminars can be time-consuming. Expertise may be difficult to find and there may be a feeling that topics have already been covered and a perception that they are not worth valuable time which could be used on other more pressing tasks. It is also possible for seminars to fall very flat if presenters are judged as being poorly qualified, topics are badly chosen or objectives muddled. Our experience across engineering at the University of Southampton would suggest that seminars organized close to a teaching department may be far more effective than general sessions organized by a central unit. The highest attendance came from engineers when events were staged and advertised in their home departments – best of all if a free lunch was provided. Similarly, learning and teaching seminars work best if their focus is well matched to the current tempo and demands of the academic year. There are times which are too busy for any seminars, and times when a seminar on a particular topic is just right – for example, something on assessing groupwork at the time when lecturers are actually about to do just that. Timing also has to fit with people’s timetables – are there staff already teaching over the lunch hour who will be even more disgruntled if you schedule a seminar with a free lunch at that time?

ELAC15

166

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Continuing professional development 167

Publications A classic means of raising awareness is through the dissemination of information in printed form. E-mails, web pages, reference libraries, newsletters and academic publications all provide access in different ways to a variety of types of printed information. E-mails can be used to raise the profile of particular topics and are useful in serving as pointers to further information, perhaps held on a learning and teaching website. An understanding of the potential interconnections between quality assurance requirements and the introduction of quality enhancement activities can be useful in determining the content of e-mails, web pages and newsletters. Posters to advertise events such as seminars, conferences and awaydays have a role to play. Production of paper-based materials such as newsletters can be time-consuming and it may be more effective to produce short, frequent e-mails. Remember that many academics routinely file paper newsletters in the bin and ignore e-mails from familiar yet often low-priority sources, so variety may be the key to success in this matter. Incorporating learning and teaching information in other information sources such as departmental and institutional newsletters may be a more effective approach. Producing academic papers to document teaching innovations and the evaluation of their impact may be time-consuming but can have various benefits. Co-authoring of papers and internal peer review can raise the profile of innovations, and in its turn lead to reward and recognition of good practice. Libraries of publications, reference books and materials such as resource packs can be useful. Although some university libraries and many staff, educational development or teaching support centres maintain these types of libraries and related web pages, books and papers kept near to home will be more accessible and thus more likely to be read.

Show and tell A useful way of identifying current good practice and providing a focus of discussion is through a ‘show and tell’ where colleagues explain their current activities. It can be helpful to new colleagues undertaking official training programmes to use this type of event to showcase the contents of their portfolio, or relate the outcome of an innovation. A show and tell event may provide the stimulus to create an academic publication, read a further reference or submit a proposal for project funding or a conference paper. Show and tell can form the basis for a learning and teaching seminar, or be part of an internal conference or a learning and teaching awayday. Posters can be created for a show and tell, but have persistence beyond the immediate time frame of the show and tell event. Posters in a department can continue to present information about a particular innovation, and like the show and tell process can lead in to further activities as outlined above.

ELAC15

167

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

168 Reflective practice and personal development

Understanding Typically, activities which enhance understanding are more demanding and timeconsuming that those which raise awareness, although there is inevitably some drift in their outcomes. Examples outlined below include conferences and a range of day-long events, task-based activities and visits or sabbaticals.

Conferences, events and awaydays Conferences and one-day events are equally well known to academics as a means of increasing levels of awareness and understanding. An individual wanting a fast track to identify and understand current issues in a particular area can benefit from attending such an event. Organizing a group of individuals to travel to and participate in an event together can be particularly useful if a department wishes to focus on a particular topic area, since the opportunities for informal discussions during and around the time of the event can contribute to the refining of collective understanding and the identification of plans for future actions and perhaps related local initiatives. Many institutions have instigated internal one-day learning and teaching conferences designed to identify and disseminate good practice across the institution. Participating in such events may be a means of preparing academics to take work forward to another forum, and therefore fulfil a CPD function for participants as well as attendees.

Task-based activities One of the paradoxes of providing or encouraging CPD in an academic context lies in the observation that standard processes of training are anathema to the values and practice of academic research. The classic academic is a self-reliant learner. Computer scientists expect to critique new software developments and to tell software companies the direction of their future developments. They do not go on training courses! An academic’s teaching skills and their understanding of educational processes will develop with experience, but it is perhaps reasonable to expect new academics to participate in some form of training to establish their initial skills and understanding of teaching and supervising research students. For the established academic a more fruitful path to making explicit the skills and understandings which have accumulated over years of experience is to involve them in team-based tasks which draw upon and consolidate the collective experience of a group of academic colleagues. In the e3an project (http://www.e3an.ac.uk) we used the activity of creating test banks of peer reviewed questions as a focus for addressing development related to assessment; another Trojan Horse. We were able to draw upon existing teaching expertise and using the authoring task provided a context for sharing and

ELAC15

168

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Continuing professional development 169

disseminating good practice. Assigning metadata to questions was a means of refining our understanding of the nature and scope of commonly-used assessments. This type of approach was equally effective with academics from disparate institutions as with pools of teachers working in a single institution. Responses to new curriculum demands, accreditation requirements or feedback from students typically require consideration, planning and action. Academics can derive CPD from involvement in planning groups, being part of a team which drafts a learning, teaching and assessment strategy, preparing self-evaluation documents, planning a set of new modules or reviewing and revising the teaching approaches on a module or programme which students have found difficult or unusually demanding. Academics who act as mentors to new colleagues undertaking programmes in teaching in higher education may learn from their mentoring and supervision role. We coached large numbers of academics in applying for membership of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILTHE). Again we were provided with a Trojan Horse. The time for reflection demanded when completing the application, and the need to relate experiences of teaching in a narrative format, acted as a tool for CPD in a highly effective manner. Teaching tasks such as peer course development, co-teaching and peer observation of teaching can all have roles in terms of CPD. In terms of peer observation of teaching, greatest value is obtained from activities designed to be developmental rather that judgemental. Some departments gain additional value by operating reviews within a quality circle which reflects on the overall perception of teaching and the student experience as an additional activity after the individual peer observations have been undertaken. One aspect of this type of informal teammotivated development is that it is sometimes not immediately obvious that it also constitutes a CPD activity. There is therefore an additional task for the individual or their manager or mentor to identify that CPD contribution for their CV and appraisal.

Visits and sabbaticals An individual or group visit to meet with practitioners at another institution and perhaps observe some teaching innovation in practice is a special instance of a task-based activity. The most intensive form of this would be some form of teaching sabbatical visit. The focus achieved by this type of activity provides an alternative means of achieving an intensive increase in understanding and awareness.

Use Activities which achieve implementation or use of new approaches and methods are typically highly task-focused, but also may require long-term commitment

ELAC15

169

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

170 Reflective practice and personal development

and encompass a range of different activities. Typical activities include workshops, project activities, introduction of new practice and intensive evaluation.

Workshops Workshop events are generally practical, hands-on introductions to some kind of new method. A component of the workshop is often used to introduce some form of technology (e.g. setting up a virtual learning environment or creating some computer-based assessment questions). Workshops can also be used to explicitly instruct participants in how to implement a new procedure or teaching approach. The expected outcome of a workshop is that the participant will go on to make direct use of the techniques which they have studied. As was noted above, for cultural reasons workshops are not necessarily successful in the academic context. Workshop activities need to be carefully designed and located in some wider context. Providing workshops in response to immediate need or demand is likely to be far more effective than offering a generic programme of training workshops. The e3an example of task-based activity incorporated an element of workshop training.

Projects Either fostering projects (from an institutional perspective) or gaining projects (from the individual’s perspective) can be a highly effective means of increasing all three levels of CPD. Institutions can use project funding as a means of recognizing and rewarding good practice and of providing a stimulus to developing further activities. Project outcomes may be limited to increasing understanding or awareness, although generally they will incorporate some aspect of use and evaluation. The very process of bidding for project funding can in itself serve to increase awareness and understanding of learning and teaching issues, whether or not the projects are ultimately funded. Awarding teaching fellowships or providing a research assistant are other means of recognizing and rewarding good practice, with the potential to catalyse increases in awareness, understanding and use, and perhaps most importantly to provide the time and resources to undertake proper evaluation.

Practice Some task-based activities can lead on to application and use. The outcome of involvement in a review can motivate or lead to innovation. For example, a student skills audit, or a module or programme assessment method audit may motivate change in approaches based on the analysis of current practice.

ELAC15

170

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

Continuing professional development 171

Evaluation Formal evaluations of teaching processes can lead to action learning and action research, which is a valuable and highly effective form of academic development. The desire to justify an instinctive conclusion can motivate an individual to learn about new evaluation methods, and to wish to publish and disseminate the conclusions. It may be effective for an individual to seek funding to support the information processing aspects of evaluation, or for managers to find funds to provide administrative support for the process. The outcomes of an evaluation can range from personal communications (valuable stuff for ‘coffee time’ development) through to more formal channels such as publication as a report, case study, poster, web page or academic paper, or presentation at a conference or awayday. The important dimension of this form of work is to ensure that whatever the means of communication, the content reaches the widest possible audience in the shortest possible time.

Conclusion We have attempted to build on our experience of working with computing academics to identify a clear structure of the types of CPD approaches, accompanied by practical advice and analysis on how such approaches might be applied. In identifying this structure we hope to have reiterated the value of CPD to the computing academic for learning and teaching and clarified ways in which CPD can be integrated into the fabric of our everyday activities. We place especially strong store on subtle approaches (the Trojan Horse) designed to engage the academic in a way which integrates well into their existing academic practice and work priorities.

Thanks and acknowledgements We owe our thanks in no small part to the generous contribution of experiences provided by colleagues in Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Southampton, especially those in electronics and computer science, and to participants in the Electrical and Electronic Engineering Assessment Network (e3an, http://www.e3an.ac.uk).

Further reading Nichols, G. (2001) Professional Development in HE: New Dimensions and Directions. London: Kogan Page.

ELAC15

171

14/5/04, 2:28 PM

172 Reflective practice and personal development

16

Improving the quality of teaching in computing

Andrew McGettrick

Introduction The title of this chapter immediately raises some very fundamental questions such as improvement for whom, is this undergraduate level or postgraduate level, and what is the definition of quality? Over the last ten years, a period coinciding with the expansion of the higher education (HE) system from a relatively elite one to one of mass HE, there has been increasing attention given to quality considerations. A great deal of that activity has tended to focus on the evidence that ought to support quality activity rather than quality itself. In an attempt to redress the balance, the focus in this chapter will be quality. Thus, for example, although they are important, issues of quality control will receive reduced attention. To respond to the initial questions raised at the start of this chapter, every attempt will be made to ensure that the discussion is generic and relevant to computing in all institutions of HE.

What is quality? There are many definitions of the term ‘quality’. In the early days of quality assurance within the UK, the term was interpreted as (something like) aims and curricula, curriculum design and review, the teaching and learning environment, staff resources, learning resources, course organization, teaching and learning practice, student support, assessment and monitoring, student work and, finally, output, outcomes and quality control. This list proved too daunting for assessors as well as for institutions.

ELAC16

172

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Improving the quality of teaching in computing 173

In the more recent document outlining the principles of subject review in the UK (QAA 2000a), only seven aspects are highlighted: and outcomes: what are the intended learning outcomes, how are these • Aims obtained (e.g. benchmarking standards, professional body requirements, local

• • • • • •

needs), how do these relate to the overall aims of the provision, are staff and students familiar with these? Curricula: does the design and content of the curriculum encourage achievement of the full range of learning outcomes? Is it influenced by modern approaches to learning and teaching, by current developments and scholarship in the discipline? Assessment: does the assessment process enable students to demonstrate acquisition of the full range of intended learning outcomes? Are there criteria defining different levels of achievement? Is there full security and integrity associated with the assessment processes? Is there formative as well as summative assessment? Are the benchmarking standards met? Enhancement: is there an activity that regularly seeks to improve standards, (e.g. via internal or external reviews, via appropriate communication with the external examiner(s), via accreditation activity) and how deep and thorough is that activity? Is data analysed regularly and are appropriate actions taken? Learning and teaching: is the breadth, depth and challenge of the teaching of the full range of skills, as well as the pace of it, appropriate? Is there a suitable variety of appropriate methods and do these truly engage and motivate the students? Are the learning materials of high quality? Are the students participating in learning? Student progression: is there an appropriate strategy for academic support? Is admissions information clear and does it faithfully reflect the course? Are supervision arrangements in place? Do students receive appropriate induction throughout their course? Learning resources: are the staff appropriately qualified and do they have the opportunity to keep teaching materials up to date? Is there effective support in laboratories and for practical activity? How are resources used for the purposes of learning? Is student accommodation attractive and effective?

Many of the issues listed above have a very direct bearing on quality issues. In the context of this chapter, the focus of quality is taken as the student experience.

Published quality documents There are many documents that purport to address issues of quality in computing. However, three stand out as being of major significance. This is in part because they are recent and reflect modern thinking, but also because institutions in the UK have to see these as important points of reference for their course provision.

ELAC16

173

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

174 Reflective practice and personal development

UK computing benchmark This document, entitled Academic Standards, has been published by the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA 2000b). It contains requirements that have to be met by all honours degrees in computing offered by UK institutions of HE. It defines minimal criteria for the award of an honours degree, but addresses also the criteria expected from an average honours student. It further indicates that criteria ought to exist to challenge the better students and indicates the nature of this. It addresses knowledge and understanding, cognitive skills as well as practical and transferable skills; professional, legal and ethical issues are seen as important. It sees these various aspects as being delicately but intimately interrelated. A number of features of the approach adopted within the document merit comment: degrees programmes should include some theory which acts as underpinning, • All and institutions are required to be able to defend their position on this matter.

• •

The theory need not be mathematical but it will effectively identify the fundamentals on which the programme of study is based and this should have the effect of ensuring that education has some considerable level of permanence. All degree programmes must take students to the forefront of the subject in some sense. In furtherance of this, institutions are required to identify themes which capture the progression along certain lines from the basics through to the frontiers of knowledge. All students should undertake an activity that involves demonstrating an ability to tackle a challenging problem and to solve it using the disciplines of the subject area; typically this is interpreted to mean a project.

UK qualification frameworks Within the UK, the different funding councils have evolved ‘qualification frameworks’ which exhibit slight differences (QAA 2001). Central to these, and common among the frameworks, are a set of levels which provide stages to increased levels of achievements and awards. Associated with each level is a descriptor, which aims to capture the characteristics of students who achieve this particular level. The QAA document, National Qualification Frameworks (2001), indicates that their purpose is: employers, schools, parents, prospective students and others to under• tostandenable the achievements and attributes represented by the main qualification titles; maintain international comparability of standards, especially in the European • tocontext, to ensure international competitiveness and to facilitate student and graduate mobility;

learners to identify potential progression routes, particularly in the context • toof assist lifelong learning;

ELAC16

174

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Improving the quality of teaching in computing 175

HE institutions, their external examiners and the Agency’s reviewers, • toby assist providing important points of reference for setting and assessing standards. For the purposes of this chapter, the descriptor of major importance is that associated with the UK honours degree. It reads: Honours degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated: i)

a systematic understanding of key aspects of their field of study, including acquisition of coherent and detailed knowledge, at least some of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of defined aspects of a discipline; ii) an ability to deploy accurately established techniques of analysis and enquiry within a discipline; iii) conceptual understanding that enables the student and sustain arguments, and/or to solve problems, using ideas • toanddevise techniques, some of which are at the forefront of a discipline; and and comment upon particular aspects of current research, • toor describe equivalent advanced scholarship, in the discipline; iv) an application of the uncertainty, ambiguity and limits of knowledge; v) the ability to manage their own learning, and to make use of scholarly reviews and primary sources (e.g. refereed research articles and/or original materials appropriate to the discipline). Following on from this the framework makes comments about the perceived competency of graduates. Thus: Typically holders of the qualification will be able to: a) apply the methods and techniques that they have learned to review, consolidate, extend and apply their knowledge and understanding, and to initiate and carry out projects; b) critically evaluate arguments, assumptions, abstract concepts and data (that may be incomplete), to make judgements, and to frame appropriate questions to achieve a solution – or identify a range of solutions – to a problem; c) communicate information, ideas, problems, and solutions to both specialist and non-specialist audiences; and will have d) qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring: exercise of initiative and personal responsibility; • the • decision-making in complex and unpredictable contexts; and

ELAC16

175

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

176 Reflective practice and personal development

learning ability needed to undertake appropriate further training of • the a professional or equivalent nature.

Computing Curricula 2001 Within the USA the approach to quality matters is quite different (see Chapter 6). For a number of years (in fact since 1968) the computing community has been provided with guidance in the form of detailed curriculum recommendations. Typically, this guidance has been provided by experts from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and the IEEE Computer Society (IEEE-CS). It has been updated regularly, at approximately ten-yearly intervals. The most recent such guidance is referred to as Computing Curricula 2001 (or CC 2001 for short) (Roberts and Engel 2001). The expansion in the field of computing has resulted in an ambitious attempt to produce four volumes covering computer science, information systems, computer engineering and software engineering; there is also expected to be a fifth volume on information technology as well as an overview volume. The intention is that these should provide up-to-date guidance on curriculum development and that this should extend to detailed outlines for particular programmes of study and classes within these programmes. The teams working on these recent developments include international representatives, the aim being to distil best practice and to seek to be as influential as possible. To date two volumes have been published – see Roberts and Engel (2001) and Gorgone et al. (2002) – and the others are at an advanced stage of preparation.

Nature of learning and teaching Modern approaches to learning and teaching suggest that learning outcomes should play a hugely significant role. They are used to capture characteristics of graduates and to describe the intended impact of a particular class. Behind this, at least in part, lies the belief that education should place an emphasis on learning. With the rapid changes in knowledge and technology, it is important that students become effective and efficient learners. These observations are particularly true in the context of computing, where technology changes at ever-increasing rates with the expectation that this phenomenon will continue during the coming years. For the technologist, this provides challenge but also opportunity.

Keeping up to date Especially for the computing professional, keeping up to date is essentially an attitude of mind. It involves regular update of technical developments, which ensures

ELAC16

176

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Improving the quality of teaching in computing 177

that knowledge as well as skill levels are maintained at the forefront of developments. Doing so requires discipline and support. Where changes in attitude and/or changes of a fundamental kind are required, a period of intense study is called for. Technological change can herald opportunities for creativity and innovation. This can lead to advances resulting in greater efficiency, greater functionality, greater reliability etc. with enhanced products or even new products emerging as a result. But novel devices and new ways of thinking are especially to be cherished. HE needs to prepare students for the challenges and opportunities ahead. This can be achieved through imaginative approaches to teaching as well as imaginative assignments and projects. Promoting innovation and creativity is important in computing courses. The concept of a final-year project – similar to a ‘Capstone project’ in US parlance – is an important vehicle from this perspective. More generally, it provides the opportunity for students to demonstrate their ability to apply the disciplines and techniques of a programme of study in solving a substantial problem. Such exercises should open up opportunities for the demonstration of novelty. Yet there are factors that act as an impediment here. Certain approaches to the teaching of professional, legal and ethical issues can create a climate of concern and anxiety about innovation. Certain steps need to be taken to counter such anxiety – a very important matter. In general it is easy to make comments about skills etc. In reality, if learning is so important then teaching students to learn in an effective and efficient manner is also important.

Towards the independent learner A key requirement of undergraduate education is to equip students with the mechanisms for remaining up to date with their discipline. A number of basic strategies can be identified. In the first place the curriculum itself must be up to date, the equipment has to be up to date and faculty need to be engaged in relevant scholarship. Relevant references (textbooks, software, websites, case studies, illustrations etc.) can be highlighted with the aim of identifying sources of up-to-date and interesting information. But in addition there are more fundamental considerations. It has already been mentioned that keeping up to date is essentially an attitude of mind. This can be fostered by approaches to teaching and learning that continually question and challenge, highlighting opportunities for advances. Students can be challenged by assessments and exercises that seek to explore new avenues. It is also essential to see learning as an aspect that merits attention throughout the curriculum. For instance, the stages shown in Table 16.1 have been identified by Fellows et al. (2002).

ELAC16

177

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

178 Reflective practice and personal development

Table 16.1 Stages of learning (Fellows et al. 2002) Stage

Student

Instructor

Instructional example

1

Dependent

Authority/coach

Lecture, coaching

2

Interested

Motivator/guide

Inspirational lecture, discussion group

3

Involved

Facilitator

Discussion led by instructor who participates as equal

4

Self-directed

Consultant

Internships, dissertation, self-directed study group

Assessment issues Assessment and learning In educational circles there is a maxim that assessment guides learning. Behind this is the belief that when students carry out assessments they focus on the required activity and generally gain much benefit from well-conceived assessments. There is usually much merit in this and it can be used to the importance and relevance of practical skills; • heighten • allow a variety of skills to be addressed through one assessment. These aspects tend to apply to summative assessment when students gain credit that counts towards their final assessment. Formative assessment, on the other hand, allows the student to receive feedback on work and, if helpful, can guide, encourage and motivate students in their work. High-quality feedback provided in a helpful and supportive manner can inspire and heighten quality.

Basic requirements of assessment There are certain basic requirements of assessment. It needs to be fair and reliable, of course, and it should address the true learning outcomes of classes. But in addition, appropriate assessment should be enjoyable and rewarding but all too often is not seen in this light. Overall there are likely to be numerous different skills that have to be assessed – transferable skills, technical skills, cognitive skills etc. An overemphasis on assessment can create an avalanche of assessment and the normal trade-off is that fun is sacrificed:

ELAC16

178

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Improving the quality of teaching in computing 179

highly undesirable. Imaginative ways of assessing are desirable and should be the subject of continual change and exploration, whereby staff can find better and more enjoyable approaches to this task. Of course, self-assessment should be encouraged. This can take (at least) one of two forms, depending on whether the student supplies the questions. But where students formulate their own assessments, these tend to be useful at one level but tend not to usefully challenge or extend the horizons of individuals.

Assessment and confidence building One of the important goals of HE is to extend the horizons and the capabilities of students and to build up their confidence. That confidence ought to be well founded, based on what students have managed to accomplish throughout their course. Accordingly, finding imaginative ways of assessing is important. Assessment must: to address a range of issues in terms of skills; • seek on the work of the class in a reasonable and meaningful manner; • build genuinely challenge students whose confidence is enhanced by successful com• pletion of the work; the horizons of individuals; • extend • encourage excellence through appropriate guidance. As part of the preparation for such activity, students should receive induction to guide them in terms of what is expected of them and in terms of how they can achieve the higher grades.

Some important observations Confidence-building is a truly fundamental role of HE. The successful graduate then has a role to play as an agent of technology transfer. But this has some consequences.

Programmes of study Where several programmes of study exist, these ought to be of similar standing and repute in the eyes of students and staff. Where there are courses which are perceived to be of lesser standing, that quickly transmits itself to the student body, raising feelings of superiority on the one hand and feelings of inferiority and reduced confidence on the other.

ELAC16

179

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

180 Reflective practice and personal development

Engaging with application areas In certain programmes of study (e.g. software engineering) there is often a requirement for graduates to become involved deeply with some application area; this is required so that software of genuine effectiveness and value is produced for the sector. Becoming engaged with application areas can be non-trivial and the elements of this ought to form part of undergraduate study and development.

The international dimension In view of the global nature of software and computing, graduates must be internationally competitive in terms of their skills and education. Failure in this regard can have dire consequences. This implies having a curriculum that reflects best practice internationally, but in addition implies being attuned to international issues and acquiring a perspective about events, developments and issues on an international level. The intention is the creation of graduates who can confidently move and work in any country.

Nature of improvement The concept of improvement in the context of quality is important. Fundamentally seeking improvement tends to reflect a healthy attitude to learning and teaching. At one level, improvement is about seeking appropriate opportunities to do better. In part this can be self-imposed though recognition of inadequacies at some level. More commonly, it is about seeking opportunities for improvement, seeking views from appropriate parties (students, examiners, accreditation teams etc.), and then being receptive and thoughtful about the views expressed and decisive about appropriate implementation. There is also the improvement that each individual can undertake as part of continuing professional development – this should include a technical dimension as well as a pedagogical dimension. Within the community there is a never-ending supply of new materials; these include textbooks, equipment, CD-ROM material, websites and so on. Improving the material for students does not necessarily mean adding volume, but does mean being more selective and more targeted in the advice given to students. This role for the academic is becoming ever more important. In theory, such facilities as the digital libraries and the hundreds of online courses available will change the role of academics. The amount of available material is now considerable and an important task for the academic is to focus the students on high-quality, relevant and motivating material. A final comment here draws attention to the fact that within computing much attention is given to the software process, to process improvements and to capability

ELAC16

180

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Improving the quality of teaching in computing 181

maturity models (see for instance Humphrey 1997). These can be used to improve student or staff performance and can be included in course design. But many of the ideas from software engineering can be applied with equal vigour to the education process. The parallels are interesting.

Concluding comments Fundamentally, quality of education is about: who are: interested in students; interested in teaching well and motivating • Staff their students so that they can be proud of their achievements; interested

• • •

in their subject and its applications. This often means adapting to particular audiences without compromising on important standards. Students who feel: welcomed and integrated into the ways of their department; who enjoy learning and whose ability to learn is developing so that the process is more efficient and effective; who find their studies stimulating and interesting; who find the material of the programme of study relevant and meeting their needs; who feel themselves developing and whose confidence is increasing. The provision of induction to provide guidance on course provision as well as guidance on what is expected in terms of achieving the highest standards in particular areas. An environment which is supportive, with good levels of up-to-date equipment and resources, with case studies and lecture material all being readily available to inform and motivate.

This chapter has sought to capture these thoughts.

References Fellows, S., Culver, R., Ruggieri, P. and Benson, W. (2002) ‘Instructional Tools for Promoting Self-directed Skills in Freshmen’. Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, November 2002. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. http://www.fie.engrng.pitt.edu Gorgone, J. T., Davis, G. B., Valacich, J. S., Topi, H., Feinstein, D. L. and Longenecker, H. E. Jr. (2002) ‘IS 2002: Model Curriculum for Undergraduate Degree Programs’ in Information Systems. Arlington, VA: ACM Press. Humphrey, W. S. (1997) Introduction to the Personal Software Process, SEI Series in Software Engineering. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman Inc. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2000a) Handbook for Academic Review. Gloucester: QAA. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2000b) Academic Standards – Computing. Gloucester: QAA. QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2001) National Qualification Frameworks. Gloucester: QAA. Roberts, E. and Engel, G. (eds) (2001) Computing Curricula 2001: Computer Science. The Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, NJ: IEEE Computer Society Press.

ELAC16

181

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

182 Reflective practice and personal development

17

Technology and the reflective practitioner

Tom Boyle We should think about practice as a setting not only for the application of knowledge but also for its generation. (Schön 1995: 19)

Introduction The basic practice of teaching in higher education (HE) has been passed on from generation to generation. Those deeply involved in practice may find great difficulty in standing back to critically examine what is happening. It is immanent; it is the framework within which they work; it is not visible from some idealized outside vantage point. However, this situation can also be taken as a productive starting point. The ideas of Donald Schön have been very influential in this respect. For Schön, the detailed, rich knowing-in-action embedded in everyday practice can be the source of powerful, transformative knowledge. We can change inherited education structures, or at least those parts that affect our daily practice, from within. So, do we remain trapped within the inherited structures of HE teaching, or do we allow them to provide a starting point for the generation of new knowledge, leading to more effective action? This chapter explores the challenges and options in developing the second alternative.

ELAC17

182

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Technology and the reflective practitioner 183

Schön and the reflective practitioner: teaching, action research and rigorous knowledge Schön argues that the ‘scholarship of application’ should be valued, but his proposals go beyond this point. He argues that we should think about practice as a setting not only for the application of knowledge but also for its generation. The generation of new knowledge starts with a focus on the kinds of knowing, the ‘intuitive artistry’, that is already embedded in good practice. This ‘knowledge in action’ is often implicit and unarticulated. A major role for the reflective practitioner is to reflect on this embedded knowledge and articulate it in a way that is generalizable to other situations. Schön argues that ‘reflection in action’ is often triggered by surprise. Something does not go as expected. The performer reflects during the ongoing process, restructures the way of doing something and observes the effects of the restructured action. The practitioner can build further reflection, outside of the immediate need to act. This second reflective spiral, ‘reflection after the event’, helps make explicit in language the nature of the problem, its relation to a class of problems, and the action strategy adopted. This theory of action may then explicitly guide how the practitioner deals with this type of situation in the future. The teacher can then observe and evaluate the impact of the changes made to their action repertoire. The argument so far points to how a reflective practitioner may improve his or her own practice. However, Schön’s primary argument is that this reflection in and on action should form the basis of a new sharable body of knowledge. This body of knowledge should be rigorous, generalizable and open to critical evaluation according to suitable criteria. If teaching is to be seen as a form of scholarship then it must give rise to new forms of knowledge. This in turn raises the question of how these new forms should be expressed and evaluated. Schön argues that this needs to take the form of ‘action research’. The basis for generalizability should not be covering ‘laws’ as in the mature sciences: it consists rather in framing the problem and the action strategy in such a way that it can be carried over to new situations. The relevance and effectiveness of the knowledge must still be tested in the new situation. The idea of a ‘summative’ test that allows one to state the final, static value of a given pedagogic technique is inappropriate and irrelevant. We have rather valuable, tested, knowledge and techniques that guide critical application in new situations. The criteria applied to generalizability should be rigorous. We should not expect physical science-type laws, but we should expect evaluated knowledge and techniques that provide informed guidance on how to solve everyday problems of professional practice. How this ‘professional’ knowledge is produced, generalized and evaluated may be different from the core discipline view of ‘legitimate’ academic knowledge.

ELAC17

183

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

184 Reflective practice and personal development

This difference may produce problems in acceptance of the status and rigour of the techniques and results of action research. This point is returned to later in the chapter. It is useful first to examine a practical problem in the teaching of computing, and critically examine the relevance of Schön’s idea of the reflective practitioner.

The crisis in the teaching and learning of programming Schön states that reflection in and on action is triggered by surprise: professional practice, which should provide the solution to a problem, does not work or does not work as intended. The scale of the reaction, however, is sometimes closer to shock than simply surprise. The ‘surprising’ problem is that we don’t know how to teach programming. Programming is fairly fundamental in computing. We have been teaching programming for a long time (as long as the discipline has been around); yet there are fundamental and deep problems. These problems have been extensively reported in the conferences and workshops run by the LTSN Subject Centre for the Information and Computer Sciences. Take this quote: ‘Anyone who has presented an introductory programming module will be all too familiar with students who appear to be totally unable to grasp the basic concepts. Others who come to supervise final year dissertations will have been faced with students who insist that they want to avoid programming at all costs’ ( Jenkins and Davy 2001: 1). There are strong, well-established models for how to teach programming. These models are strongly influenced by the discipline base of computing – ideas of structured programming, object-oriented programming etc. It should generate some surprise that they do not apparently work very well. How do lecturers react when faced with this problem? These are both quotes from computing lecturers at e-learning events: ‘Our students can’t abstract’ and ‘Our students are unteachable’. The first exclamation I have heard many times over the years; the second is a bit more extreme. These lecturers were really interested in teaching and learning in computing. The fact that they should come up with such remarks is rather disturbing. Rather than trigger reflection on ‘failing’ practice, the failed practice is explained away because it is the fault of the students Let’s rephrase the quotes: ‘We don’t know how to help our students learn about the abstractions that are so important in computing’, and ‘We don’t know how to teach our students’. The first stage is to recognize the nature of the problem – it is a problem with our practice. To blame the students, before we have fully investigated our own practice, is a cop-out. If there are problems in the teaching of computing, the key questions are: what are the sources of these problems, and what can we do about it? Can we reflect on our practice and produce an improved understanding? Can this in turn lead to improved practice and more effective outcomes for the students? When faced with significant problems like this, can the technology we as a discipline

ELAC17

184

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Technology and the reflective practitioner 185

develop help us to solve this type of problem? Has technology any particular role in helping us to deal with significant problems like this?

Technology and reflective practice in computing Schön paid particular attention to the role of information technology (IT) in facilitating reflective practice. His ideas had been shaped by his participation in Project Athena at MIT. For many disciplines, IT acted to create a challenge - this strange new technology had implications for teaching that had to be responded to. In computing, however, the technology was familiar. It was used in everyday teaching. The ‘surprise’ value it had for many other disciplines did not apply. This often led to complacency in reacting to the impact of IT on the teaching of computing as a subject. It is well beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a comprehensive review of technology-enhanced reflective practice in computing. Despite the barriers mentioned earlier there has still been considerable action research in computing that uses IT as a catalyst for change. The teaching of programming has been a particularly rich area of study. The brief review will concentrate on exemplar studies in this area. The rich base from which these exemplars are generated (across the whole curriculum, as well as in programming) is reported especially in the annual conferences and workshops of the LTSN Subject Centre for the Information and Computer Sciences (LTSC-ICS 2003), and in the publications of SIGCSE of the ACM (SIGCSE 2003). Boyle et al. (1994) used a combination of an emerging technology (hypertext) and constructivist pedagogical ideas to produce a novel learning environment for programming. The CLEM system implemented a ‘guided discovery’ pedagogy for learning Modula-2 that led to marked improvements in module pass rates (Boyle et al. 1994). At a broader level, Ben Ari (2001) has argued for the widespread adoption of constructivist ideas in the teaching and learning of computing. Hohmann et al. (1992) focused on the higher order patterns, or schemas, typical of expert behaviour rather than program syntax. They described their SODA system as a tool for the doing and learning of software design. Marshall (1995) exploited the technological affordances of the then emerging worldwide web to build a series of tools for learning aspects of computing, including the language C++. Again the work revolved around a linking of pedagogical ideas with the opportunities offered by the technology. Not all proposed developments are closely tied to the technology. Jenkins (2002) suggests a number of techniques for motivating and supporting students that are often focused more on the social-educational environment. Davis (2001) also points to organizational changes to deal with issues such as the diversity in student knowledge and abilities. A ‘blended’ approach to improving the learning of introductory programming was adopted in a major project at London Metropolitan University

ELAC17

185

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

186 Reflective practice and personal development

and Bolton Institute. The blended approach involves significant changes in both the offline and online aspects of the learning environment. In this case changes were made to the curriculum for learning Java (including an emphasis on a sequence of programs producing visible and engaging graphical output), to the social organization of the course, and to the development of extensive e-learning support. The most novel feature of the e-learning was the provision of a series of ‘learning objects’ in both text and multimedia form. These were based on a combination of software engineering and constructivist pedagogical principles (Boyle 2003). Access to the learning objects was provided through a conventional VLE (WebCT). These learning objects were specifically developed to be ‘reusable’ across different institutions. A comprehensive evaluation of this project was carried out. Marked improvements in pass rates were found across all four modules in the two institutions. These ranged from 12 to 23 percentage point improvements (Chalk et al. 2003). This brief review of exemplars has focused on programming, but the impact of technology-assisted learning in exploring and extending pedagogical practice has been felt from studies of software system behaviour (e.g. Milne and Rowe 2002) all the way through to information systems development (e.g. Ward 2000).

Developing rigorous action research: barriers and opportunities Universities have to learn to accommodate forms of scholarship based on reflective practice. One major impediment is the power of disciplinary in-groups. Criteria for high-quality research tend to exclude pedagogical research based on reflective practice. The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), despite the lip-service paid to pedagogy, has a very traditional focus on what counts as good research. Schön (1995), however, points to a second major impediment – the struggle of those interested in teaching and learning to turn their practice into appropriately rigorous research. At this point it seems relevant to critique Schön’s position. Schön speaks of competent practice and the generation of transferable knowledge from reflection on that practice. But what happens when the practice is not ‘competent’? What happens when there is a crisis in the use of traditional techniques of teaching and learning? One source of knowledge is reflective practice. However, if this remains within the bounds of the discipline then the core aspect of the problems may not be tackled. Certain problems may require more dramatic solutions than can be generated by subject-based reflection. They require input from the wider field of pedagogical scholarship. The ‘new’ pedagogical ideas need to be synthesized with deep subject-based knowledge. When this combination is achieved, significant progress can be made. Two recurring problems in learning computing, for example, are dealing with complexity and abstraction. The particular combination of complexity and abstraction

ELAC17

186

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Technology and the reflective practitioner 187

encountered often leads to significant problems. There is, however, an extensive literature on research dealing with these problems that may be highly relevant to solving problems within computing (Boyle 1997). The discipline of reflective practice requires not only reflection on our own practice, but wider scholarship that will ground the attempted solutions in deeper pedagogical knowledge. A further barrier for the impact of valid new ideas is ‘opinion-based’ practice. It is still the norm in HE that each lecturer can make his or her individual decisions about pedagogy. We need to move towards ‘evidence-based practice’ where we actively examine our assumptions, seek evidence as to their effectiveness and are prepared to change when the evidence indicates this need. Extended reflective practice, where we critically examine our assumptions and practices from a pedagogical as well as a subject base, is very demanding. Tutors who engage in this activity require support and recognition. They also require a forum for the exploration, exchange and evaluation of these ideas. The LTSN Subject Centres have worked hard to create these support structures. The LTSN Subject Centre for the Information and Computer Sciences has run an extensive series of workshops and an annual conference to provide for the critical exchange of ideas and innovations. The new Higher Education Academy should provide a continuation of this subject-based support within an overarching organization dealing with generic as well as subject-based issues. From a very poor base a decade ago, explicit support and recognition for good teaching is increasing. This is very welcome. Major challenges remain in understanding, acting on, and transforming the teaching and learning of computing. The challenge for the reflective practitioner is great. As a community we need to fight for the widespread recognition of this rigorous form of scholarship.

References Ben-Ari, M. (2001) ‘Constructivism in Computer Science Education’, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20(1): 45–73. Boyle, T. (1997) Design for Multimedia Learning. London: Prentice Hall. Boyle, T. (2003) ‘Design Principles for Authoring Dynamic, Reusable Learning Objects’, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1): 46–58. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ ajet/ajet19/res/boyle.html. Boyle, T., Gray, J., Wendl, B. and Davies, M. (1994) ‘Taking the Plunge with CLEM: The Design and Evaluation of a Large Scale CAL System’, Computers and Education, 22(1/2): 19–26. Chalk, P., Boyle, T., Pickard, P., Bradley, C., Jones, R. and Fisher, K. (2003) ‘Improving Pass Rates in Introductory Programming’, paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference of the LTSN-ICS, August. Davis, H. (2001) ‘Managing Diversity: Experiences of Teaching Programming Principles’, in Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for the Information and Computer Sciences, pp. 53–9. Belfast: University of Ulster.

ELAC17

187

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

188 Reflective practice and personal development

Hohmann, L., Guzdial, M. and Soloway, E. (1992) ‘SODA: A Computer-aided Design Environment for the Doing and Learning of Software Design’, in Proceedings of the Computer Assisted Learning 4th International Conference, ICCAL ’92. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 307–19. Jenkins, A. (2002) ‘On the Difficulty of Learning to Program’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for the Information and Computer Sciences, pp. 53–8. Belfast, University of Ulster. Jenkins, T. and Davy, J. (2001) ‘Diversity and Motivation in Introductory Programming’, Italics, 1(1): http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/pub/italics/issue1/tjenkins/003.html LTSN-ICS (2003) The LTSC-ICS. http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/ Marshall, A. D. (1995) ‘Developing Hypertext Courseware for the World Wide Web’, in H. Maurer (ed.) Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia: Proceedings of Ed-Media 95. Norfolk, VA: AACE, pp. 418–23. Milne, I. and Rowe, G. (2002) ‘OGRE - 3D Program Visualization for C++’, in Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for the Information and Computer Sciences, p. 102. Belfast: University of Ulster. Schön, D. A. (1995) ‘Knowing-in-action: The New Scholarship Requires a New Epistemology’, Change, November/December: 27–34. SIGCSE (2003) The SIGCSE. http://www.acm.org/sigcse Ward, R. (2000) ‘Pedagogy and Technology in Computer-Based Learning: Achieving the Right Balance’, in Proceedings of the Pedagogy versus Technology LTSN-ICS Workshop. http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/pub/pedagogy/WOLVER/index.htm

ELAC17

188

14/5/04, 2:29 PM

Conclusion

ELAC18

189

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

ELAC18

190

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

18

Future issues in computing

Alastair Irons and Sylvia Alexander

Introduction The material presented in this book has illustrated that teaching computing in higher education (HE) is in a constant state of review, development and change and is likely to remain in a state of flux for the foreseeable future. A book of this kind, examining the challenges in teaching computing, would not be complete without an attempt to identify the components and drivers of change. In this closing chapter the challenges and opportunities that are likely to be as a result of such change are explored. It may be foolhardy to try and predict the future, but it is almost certain that the future of teaching computing in HE will be different from current teaching practices. Teaching computing will continue to involve higher student numbers with a greater diversity of background and experience. There will be increased demand for flexible learning methods and a variety of programme pathways and exit points. Furthermore, as student expectations of HE are raised, different funding models may be required. Approaches to learning and teaching will move away from traditional practices towards a model that has student-centred learning at its core, and will emphasize learning as a collaborative and interactive partnership between students and academics. The learning environment for students will evolve to include many opportunities other than simply campus-based learning, which will remain, but will be supplemented by other learning opportunities such as work-based learning, distance learning, accreditation of prior learning and e-learning. Academic staff face the daunting challenge of putting into practice the HE policies emanating from government and funding councils, complying with the requirements of quality assurance agencies and adhering to both legislation and professional standards. The context is constantly changing as institutions undergo

ELAC18

191

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

192 Conclusion

reorganization, expansion, mergers and shifting priorities. At the same time, computing is itself a fast-moving discipline and programme materials have a limited shelf-life. This presents a considerable challenge for computing academics who must change both their practice and their thinking. Teachers in HE, and the institutions themselves, need to adapt in order to meet the changing environment. Effective learning and teaching in computing requires commitment from teachers and support staff alike in order to embrace the opportunities afforded by change and respond to them in a positive and considered manner. Many of the issues addressed in this chapter are generic to all schools and departments in HE. However, the intention is to raise awareness of the issues as far as they will affect the computing discipline.

Issues to be addressed Recruitment Computing education is currently experiencing important and far-reaching changes, not the least of which is the decline in students in taking up the discipline. The spiral nature of the information technology (IT) economy which resulted in massive interest in computing towards the end of the twentieth century has equally witnessed a sharp decrease in applications more recently as a direct result of the downturn in the sector. Most schools are concerned about dwindling applications and the need to lower entry grades to achieve the targets required to address the increasing participation agenda. Comparisons can be drawn from the engineering disciplines which experienced a sharp rise in entrants in the late 1980s and early 1990s, followed by steep decline in the period immediately following. There are a number of factors influencing student demand, including reduction in the demands of industry (with many multinationals reducing and removing their UK presence), perceptions of career opportunities and reward, inadequate career advice by teachers unfamiliar with the profession, the introduction of student fees, perceived difficulties due to inadequate foundations in mathematics and poor marketing by HE institutions. Computing makes a major contribution to the UK economy, offers a wide range of exciting and rewarding careers and plays a major role in helping industry to maintain its competitive edge. There is therefore an onus on HE to deliver computing excellence and provide positive role models which can help address the computing skills shortage at all levels.

Industrial links and employability Computing education places a strong emphasis on vocational education and work-based learning. As such, issues relating to employability are always high on

ELAC18

192

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

Future issues 193

the agenda. Today’s employers have expressed a need for graduates to improve their problem solving, group working, communication and presentation skills. The strong vocational element in many computing programmes, together with an emphasis on personal and transferable skills has ensured the production of employable graduates with skills appropriate to industry and commerce. Many computing schools have initiated a programme of professional skills training as an integral part of taught programmes. When constructing the case for the introduction of a new programme, academic staff are confident in defining the proposed curriculum but must also keep abreast of the employment market demands and changes in the workplace in order to balance vocational training needs with educational goals. The computing discipline places considerable emphasis on ‘skills for the workforce’, liaising with panels of practitioners and industrialists in programme planning, design, review and accreditation to ensure that the necessary skills are embedded in the curriculum. The subject content and skills that the programme is designed to develop must match the requirements of the employer while at the same time ensuring that students are supported in a way which maximizes their employability. In recent years the employment record of computing graduates has been excellent. However, the recent downturn in the IT sector has resulted in reduced employment opportunities with an increasing number of graduates finding difficulty in securing appropriate employment. Experiences gained through industrial panels indicate that those students who have undertaken work-based placement are more desirable than those who have not. Therefore there is a need to ensure that all students gain a perception of the business, industrial and societal context in which they will work. The fact that many computing programmes have a significant work-related and work-based learning component has been applauded by employers and as such many schools have excellent industrial links. Industrial placement has played an integral role in computing programmes for many years, helping students to develop towards professional maturity and gain a broad understanding of industrial requirements and how the computing industry is developing. Furthermore, a number of schools are now introducing frameworks within which the work-based learning of professionally employed graduates can be both facilitated and formally accredited at postgraduate and doctorate level. By following such programmes, young professionals can be encouraged to develop the skills of academic research and independent thought and analysis, resulting in an attitude of self-critical evaluation, continuous professional development and lifelong learning. While the demand for computing places in HE remains high, there is a need to avoid complacency and to continue to review and develop the computing curricula so that computing retains its attractiveness for potential students, existing students, employers and society. Feedback from employers often suggests that they would prefer graduates to enter industry with knowledge about specific technologies, packages or applications. There is a real danger that education is superseded by training; teaching is compromised to meet public perceptions

ELAC18

193

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

194 Conclusion

and industrial requirements push HE institutions towards becoming training institutions. Graduating from university with a degree in computing no longer marks the end of the education process but a starting point for ongoing lifelong learning. It is therefore up to the teachers in HE to ensure that students are equipped with the skills to allow them to continue to develop in a professional manner. Students entering the workforce face a broad range of challenges as they seek to develop a career plan. Personal development planning (and the scheduled introduction of progress files) provide opportunities to track and record skills and competencies gained in a work-based environment. Computing schools, employers and the relevant professional bodies must work together to develop frameworks for recording such achievements. Furthermore, the development of personal development plans as a means of reflective practice throughout HE can act as a basis for continued professional development and link into professional body development.

Bologna The Bologna Declaration of June 1999 calls for the ‘establishment by 2010 of a coherent, compatible and competitive European Higher Education Area, attractive for European students and for students and scholars from other continents’ (ECHE 1999). This pan-European agreement aims to create a single European educational space, with three-year, industry-based bachelor degrees, two-year, add-on masters programmes and a further three years for a Ph.D., commonly referred to as the 3 + 2 + 3 cycle. It will not be possible for computing schools to ignore the potential impact of the Bologna Declaration on the programmes offered, in terms of academic structure, curriculum and flexibility for students. The Declaration presents a significant opportunity for students from across Europe to move between universities, using the European Credit Transfer System. The increased flexibility may also make it easier for students to move between institutions globally. The Bologna Declaration requires a change of curricula and academic structures if a harmonized European university system is to evolve. The evolution towards the 3 + 2 + 3 cycle proposed in the Declaration, while being embraced across Europe, is facing major resistance from the UK and Germany. There is a real challenge facing UK universities in mapping existing programmes to the Bologna structure, taking into account the work that has been done in incorporating the Computing Benchmark, the principles of the National Qualification Framework, professional body requirements and the needs of employers. The proposed credit transfer system is likely to be difficult to push forward quickly because of the complexities associated with harmonizing education systems between countries. This is further exacerbated by the complexity of payment for education, as different methods of financing education currently exist. Financial

ELAC18

194

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

Future issues 195

considerations need to be resolved before the Credit Transfer System can be adopted. There also needs to be consistency in approach to quality assurance and existing processes for quality assurance and enhancement need to be harmonized if a European-wide education system is to be implemented and accepted. Furthermore, there is a need for detailed market research to establish the likelihood of students taking the opportunity to move freely between institutions. There is a real danger that existing systems are replaced to cater for a minority of students. Students who wish to study abroad might be equally well served by existing opportunities for exchange. If the Bologna proposals are accepted then a major change in the way computing schools operate and the programmes they offer will be required.

Accreditation The main professional bodies associated with computing in the United Kingdom are the British Computer Society (BCS) and the Institution of Electrical Engineering (IEE), but other bodies such as the Software Engineering Association and the UK Academy of Information Systems (UKAIS) also have an interest in the professional nature of programmes. Many programmes (but not all) have some form of professional body accreditation or exemption. This can be at different levels but, depending on the level, leads wholly or partly to exemption from the academic qualification for membership of the institution. Furthermore, this can lead to the status of Chartered Engineer (CEng) with the UK Engineering Council and the European (Eur Ing) grade. Computing schools face increased pressure to meet with the requirements of accreditation as the demand for the professionalism of graduates increases. Suggestions from industry that computing professionals require a licence to practise present a significant challenge. Professional bodies already play a key role through accreditation of computing programmes. Furthermore, there is a growing demand from students and employers alike that computing programmes incorporate vendor accredited modules into academic programmes, for example from Microsoft or CISCO.

Evolving curriculum As an outcome of the 1989 Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) Task Force on the Core of Computer Science, Peter Denning produced a report titled ‘Computing as a Discipline’ (Denning et al. 1989). Denning presented ‘a new intellectual framework for the discipline of computing and a new basis for computing curricula’ (p. 9). Throughout the 1990s the discipline has undergone many changes and universities are expected to produce graduates for a computing profession which includes computer science, software engineering, artificial intelligence

ELAC18

195

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

196 Conclusion

and information systems. Unlike most other subject disciplines, computing curricula issues addressed in 1989 are now practically obsolete. New technologies, tools and methods demand a much more dynamic curricula and thus infrastructures which can respond to the rapidly changing nature of the discipline. In recognition of the need to demonstrate professionalism in the workplace, the BCS no longer accredits programmes which do not undertake a substantial study of legal, social and professional issues. Furthermore, through the Science Enterprise Challenge (SEC), 16 national Centres of Excellence have been established to investigate models for the incorporation of entrepreneurial skills into undergraduate education within the science and technology disciplines. Traditionally, such topics have not been covered in the computing undergraduate curriculum. Colleagues who lack both the practical skills and academic grounding in these areas are faced with a considerable challenge in meeting these new curriculum requirements. In recent years the rapid expansion of the IT industry has seen a growth in the number of M.Sc. students wishing to convert to computing from another discipline. The condensed nature of such programmes (typically a year) presents academics with a considerable challenge to ensure that students have both the necessary skills base and the breadth and depth of knowledge required to equip them for a future career in the industry. Despite the wealth of educational opportunity which such programmes present, they appear to contravene the regulations for ‘masterlyness’ defined in the national qualifications framework, and suggested in the Bologna Declaration. Nevertheless, such ‘conversion’ courses serve a perceived need and provide a valuable revenue stream for many institutions. Conceived in the late 1980s, such programmes provided a quick solution to employment needs, with the underlying concept being that graduates from a wide variety of backgrounds would return to their primary discipline and apply their computing expertise there. Typically this has not been the case, with many graduates entering the mainstream computing profession. In the future, it is anticipated that the term ‘conversion masters’ will be retired. Instead, institutions offering such programmes will be encouraged to review and redevelop such programmes so that they meet the requirements of the Benchmark statements. Masters programmes must continue to be characterized by an ethos of advanced work and scholarship. In future, such programmes must develop and refine existing skills and abilities, adding value to existing undergraduate qualifications while presenting a change in direction for students in order to progress to employment.

Emerging interdisciplinary topics The computing community covers a wide spectrum of programmes, enveloping all aspects of software engineering, computer science and information systems. Furthermore, the evolving nature of computing has produced a host of new

ELAC18

196

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

Future issues 197

programmes that overlap with other disciplines – examples include multimedia, virtual reality and knowledge engineering. The problems arising from the volatile and expanding nature of the discipline are considerable. These specialist areas tend to be offered at postgraduate level and further expansion of the discipline is expected in the future. The ubiquitous technologies and services covered by computing schools are also of interest to the entire HE sector. As such, staff are involved with colleagues in engineering, business, science and design disciplines in offering tailored service programmes.

Technologies E-learning/distance learning The context of educational technology and its use in campus-based, e-learning and distance learning programmes continues to evolve. The speed of technological development, which is much faster than the speed of educational development, means that constant pressure is placed on HE institutions to continuously update and develop existing learning materials and create new materials and programmes which exploit the technology. In order to give students the best possible educational opportunity through e-learning there is a need to create the correct environment that will make best use of the technology for students and staff, both academic and administrative. It is not simply a case of using the internet or a virtual learning environment ( VLE) as a repository for teaching materials: the challenge for teaching using e-learning is to understand the environment and then enable students to take advantage of the e-learning opportunity. If e-learning is adopted as a model, great care needs to be taken to understand and appreciate the learning needs of students in the environment and to be able to react to those needs quickly. In order to achieve effective teaching using e-learning it is important that academic staff have the requisite technical and pedagogic support. There is considerable opportunity for the teaching of computing in HE if the potential of e-learning is fully embraced. Students can be brought together in exciting global learning environments, where they have much greater freedom and flexibility in their studies and potentially a wider variety of resources available to them. Through the appropriate deployment of educational technology, teachers may be more responsive to learners’ needs and have the opportunity to provide and update information more quickly. Educational technology also provides the opportunity for teachers to quickly provide formative feedback on student work and development. Educational technology can also provide environments for students that give them the opportunity to have more time to consider responses to questions and input to discussions. Furthermore, students have the opportunity to learn from teacher feedback and other students’ responses. As such, e-learning can break down

ELAC18

197

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

198 Conclusion

some of the barriers that arise in ‘traditional’ teaching. It is possible to increase access to tutors (as many of the time constraints can be removed), reduce formality of interactions between students and teachers, and provide a friendly environment which helps remove social stereotyping barriers. The challenge facing HE with respect to the use of e-learning should focus on opportunities for improved student choice and provision of learning material. Linked to this is the challenge of coping with the changes in technology and the associated raised expectations (of students, academics and university management). It is worrying that universities go into distance learning and e-learning thinking of it as an easy way to make money without thinking about the existing expertise in the market. Harvey (2002) acknowledges experts such as the Open University (with well defined pedagogy and technological infrastructure) in Britain and the University of Phoenix in the USA, who have experience and good quality assurance processes in place which most other institutions cannot match. He further suggests that the involvement in the e-learning market by non-specialist institutions is financially motivated rather than a real commitment to non-traditional learners. On the other hand, universities may invest substantial amounts of money in the provision of e-learning without taking stock of the educational benefits such investment may deliver. Equally, academics may be committed to the use of IT in teaching and learning because it is expected of them (Df EE 1997), but do not necessarily give appropriate consideration to the impact which the effective use of IT may have on student learning. In order for IT to be used effectively and efficiently there is a need to consider pedagogical, technical (including training and support) and management issues (including the rationale for investment and the management of change). Any decision to adopt learning technologies as the main mode of teaching needs to consider and resolve the following: of feasible opportunities for adopting learning technology; • identification for development of material (e.g. buying existing products, producing • strategy in-house material or contracting the work out); strategy for ensuring that learning technology is embedded in • implementation its situation of use in the most effective way possible (including staff development



and training, educational support and technical support for developers, deliverers and students); whether e-learning is to be used to support, complement or replace traditional learning opportunities.

E-learning is not an easy or cheap panacea to all the computing teaching problems facing HE. To create suitably robust e-learning materials there is a need to provide adequate time for development of materials and staff training. There is a need for academics and students to understand and be able to use educational technologies, and for a fully tested infrastructure (technical and human) to be in place before the educational technology ‘product’ goes into a live teaching environment. It

ELAC18

198

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

Future issues 199

remains to be seen whether appropriate learning environments can be established that will take HE provision into the twenty-first century.

Future technologies The current quest to use the internet to support learning and teaching and exploit its benefit to the full has seen a dramatic increase in the uptake of VLEs and e-learning. While the potential benefits such as flexible access and new ways of communicating and assessing for students and lecturers are to be welcomed, it is nonetheless incumbent on the discipline to plan for the integration of emergent and future technologies which can further enhance the learning process. Recent rapid growth in the availability and uptake of new broadband technologies potentially remove access barriers to e-learning, providing faster, more reliable data transmission rates and unlimited access to the internet for teaching and learning off campus. The introduction of wireless Local Area Networks (LANs) also presents a number of interesting new teaching possibilities, as staff and students can use their own equipment wherever it is most suitable, whether this be the classroom, laboratory, seminar room or even outdoors, in addition to the economic savings in terms of both space and laboratory equipment. Streamed media is now widely available and can be embedded into existing online materials to create substantially new and different learning experiences. As increased bandwidth becomes available, streamed media offers the potential to break down still further the distinction between on- and off-campus learning, providing live audiences of students who are geographically dispersed with a shared learning experience that they can analyse and discuss. Videoconferencing has been around for quite a while and has been viewed with some scepticism. However, decreasing costs, wider availability and increased functionality of the underpinning technology to fully support real-time applications such as video streaming is causing educational institutions to consider it afresh. In particular, videoconferencing supports inter-institutional collaboration (whether outreach centre, associate institutions or industry-based partners) and as such has the potential to increase the overseas market share. Interactive whiteboards, whether the ‘virtual’ electronic version or the large physical display panel, are also increasing in popularity. Embedded in e-learning environments, interactive whiteboards demonstrate the potential of alternative modes of delivery and enhance presentation content. Lecturers can customize existing content to meet the needs of the class in real time, while at the same time enabling learners to work collaboratively on a shared task. While universities are, by nature, information-rich, the classroom is one area where immediate feedback on the effectiveness of teaching can be difficult to obtain. Academics often find themselves looking out at a sea of student faces and asking themselves: are the students grasping the content, are they mastering what is important, are they learning anything at all? Technology can now be used to

ELAC18

199

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

200 Conclusion

gather this information in a timely and efficient way. The student response system can act as a study aid providing interactive quizzes and exercises in the classroom and instantaneous feedback to tutors on understanding. Two types of system exist: one is hardwired into a classroom, while the Personal Response System (PRS) is more flexible, being comprised of small student transmitters, a receiver and software that can be installed on any laptop. The Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) is another important device that can be used to enhance the learning and teaching environment, providing a lightweight and reliable alternative to the laptop and a useful means of creating and accessing reference materials. Current costs mean that this technology is still prohibitive for most students, except those studying for professions where PDAs are used in practice (e.g. medicine and law). However, it is to be anticipated that all undergraduates will be equipped with PDAs in the future, so their use in education may well become commonplace. In the meantime, an alternative exists in the form of the mobile phone. There is no doubt that students enjoy using their mobile phones. If incorporated appropriately into the learning environment (for managing calendars, task lists and contacts, and providing assignment feedback and revision tips) the personal mobile phone can enhance motivation. Furthermore, as mobile phone usage continues to migrate to smart phones which can also receive graphics, the mobile phone is likely to emerge as a powerful educational tool in a blended learning environment.

Student support Students often require guidance, support and pastoral care in order to navigate their way through university. Initiatives to increase the opportunity for people to go to university and policies on widening access increase the size of the student population and contribute to its diversity. Such initiatives clearly impact on student support. Many students opt to study on a part-time basis and there is a growing number of international students. Full-time students increasingly take part-time jobs in order to finance their studies. Supporting the first-year student is a key factor in retaining students in HE, a performance indicator for assessing the success of the student and by implication the institution. Non-completion rates are most marked in those institutions that admit the highest proportion of ‘non-traditional’ students and this presents a considerable challenge. Policies need to be established which have student satisfaction and success as a central theme, providing conditions for individuals to develop to their full potential. This requires a multifaceted approach. As outlined in the previous section, e-learning and other emergent technologies clearly provide opportunities for both the monitoring of student engagement and flexible learning. Other approaches to flexible learning include work-based learning, accreditation of prior learning, mixed-mode learning, part-time studies,

ELAC18

200

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

Future issues 201

extended periods of study and gap years. Providing flexible learning opportunities encourages students to take responsibility for their studies, and helps overcome some of the financial and personal difficulties students face in completing studies in HE. However, the provision of flexible learning is only one approach to supporting students through their university studies. A properly designed induction programme is critical to success, as the first few weeks on campus are the most important in determining whether a student will stay. The quality of teaching provided is also an issue. Noel et al. (1985: 13) promote the concept of ‘front loading’ – i.e. putting the ‘strongest, most student centred people, programmes and services during the first year’. However, for many, teaching on the first year of a programme lacks status, particularly as research interests correlate more with the teaching of postgraduate students. Teaching and learning is only one aspect of the student learning experience. Factors such as the quality of learning resources, quality of accommodation (living accommodation and learning and teaching accommodation), facilities (such as refectory, sports facilities and students’ union), timetables, access and opening hours, financial management and pastoral support all contribute to the welfare of students. As well as considering the effectiveness of teaching it is important to give consideration to the pastoral and non-academic aspects of student life that can have an impact on students’ ability and motivation to learn. It is incumbent on academics to provide a level of pastoral care for students, and this is an integral part of the teaching responsibilities of academic staff. As long ago as the early 1980s Head and Lindsay (1983: 176) argued that ‘lecturers are dealing with a range of difficulties which require not only problem-solving skills, but an ability to deal with complex and emotional issues’. There is however a significant difference between being able to provide pastoral care and academic guidance, and handling the complex, emotional issues that many students face. While academics may provide the first line of contact for students it is imperative that they realize their limitations and where appropriate help students to make use of specialist support services such as student counselling, student finance officers or careers officers. There is often considerable mismatch of students’ expectations of HE and their actual experiences. Students’ perception of HE, established at the time of selection, can change rapidly when reality does not meet expectations. Appropriate guidance can ensure that students are placed on programmes which match their interests and abilities. Peer mentoring is increasingly being used not only to help ease feelings of isolation but also for explaining and demonstrating difficult concepts (e.g. programming).

Continuous professional development Modularization leads to fragmentation of the learning experience and students find difficulty in connecting learning across modules, resulting in segmentation not synergy. On the other hand, with guidance, a modular structure can encourage

ELAC18

201

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

202 Conclusion

students to build their own intellectual connections based on experience and reflective practice, thus laying the cornerstone for future professional development activities. Peer assessment, mentoring, reflective practice, teamwork, multidisciplinary teaching, enquiry- or problem-based learning, personal development plans, gaming, simulations and work-related skills have all been mentioned throughout this book as methods to encourage the professional development of the student. But what of the academic? The Dearing Report (NICHE 1997) stated that only with a strong investment in professional development can effective learning, teaching and assessment truly be enhanced. The new UK Higher Education Academy (http://www.heacademy.ac.uk) has been set up to support the enhancement of quality in learning and teaching. The Academy will advise on policies and practices that impact on the student experience, support curriculum and pedagogic development and facilitate development and increase the professional standing of all staff in HE. The new Academy, which will commence operations in 2004, will conduct, stimulate and commission research into learning, teaching and assessment and will provide the HE sector with a centre of excellence on good practice in these areas, based on research, development and evaluation.

Quality enhancement In recent years there has been a move from ‘quality assurance’ policy, which focused strongly on accountability and regulation, to the notion of ‘quality enhancement’. The recent consultation paper on Quality Assurance in Higher Education (HEFCE 01/45) outlines a vision for a new regulatory framework for UK HE. The primary concern of this publication is at the institution level, with sparse information on how enhancement might be measured at subject level, although it is clear that this will be based on subject benchmarks. The creation of national policy around the idea of subject benchmarking stemmed from recommendation 25 of the NCIHE report which directed the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to ‘work with institutions to establish small, expert teams to provide benchmark information on standards, in particular threshold standards’ (Df EE 1997). Through working with discipline communities, valid frames of reference have been established which define the concept of ‘graduateness’ within which an honours degree in the discipline should be awarded, thus creating conditions for threshold standards in terms of academic and employment-related attributes. These provide authoritative reference points to be taken into account when programmes are designed, reviewed and reflected as appropriate in programme specifications. However, there has been concern that benchmark statements could be used to enforce a culture of compliance and applied in a punitive way by external subject reviewers. Furthermore, the information contained in the statements has not been tested or evaluated by practitioners. Academics are therefore being tasked with understanding the nature of the information in the statements

ELAC18

202

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

Future issues 203

and using this in their curriculum design and assessment processes without examples or clear guidance as to how the statements might be applied in different contexts and circumstances. On a more positive note, as suggested by Jackson (2002: 130), ‘the recent radical review of the QAA process creates conditions that are more favourable to the use of subject benchmark statements as an aid to development and ultimately the enhancement of student learning’. Conditions are now in place which supersede a compliance model and encourage the use of the information as an aid to professional judgement. The new institutional review process includes discipline audit trails within which reviewers will consider how subject benchmarks have been used when programmes are designed and reviewed. HE computing curricula are diverse in nature and there is considerable resistance to any suggestion of convergence around a common curricula. Nevertheless, while there is no single notion of ‘graduateness’ that can apply to all computing graduates, there is considerable consistency in subject-specific and generic attributes within clusters of related programmes. Clearly, the discipline culture influences the nature of the learning opportunity provided. Computing is a vocationallyoriented discipline with a strong commitment to the development of transferable and employability skills. Furthermore, the way in which the curriculum is organized and administered is to some extent dependent on the way in which the provision is regulated by the accrediting bodies. Professional bodies and statutory regulatory bodies, with responsibility for protecting the standards of the profession, have used the idea of benchmarking to regulate standards for some time. HE schools must submit periodically to a formal accreditation process which requires them to meet input, process and output standards set by the accrediting body.

Closing comments The issues highlighted in this chapter will vary in importance between different institutions and have different levels of concern in different countries. However, to a greater or lesser extent, they will need to be embraced and managed by all computing schools and departments. The traditional teaching skills of teachers in HE will require development and enhancement in order to tackle the challenges and extract the best from new opportunities. The skills of the HE teacher will need to map onto the needs and expectations of learners and stakeholders in HE. Professional and personal development will become an increasingly important priority. This chapter has identified the development needs and challenges to be faced from the perspective of the computing teacher in HE. There are many opportunities to reflect on teaching practice and embrace the principles and strategies outlined throughout this book. Adapting to the changing needs of HE will help provide appropriate learning opportunities for learners in the twenty-first century.

ELAC18

203

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

204 Conclusion

References Denning, P. J., Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, M. C., Tucker, A. B., Turner, A. J. and Young, P. R. (1989) ‘Computing as a Discipline’, Communications of the ACM, 32: 9–23. Df EE (Department for Education and Employment) (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: The Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into the Future of Higher Education (the Dearing Report). London: HMSO. Harvey, L. (2002) ‘The end of quality?’ Quality in Higher Education, 8(1): 5–22. HEFCE 01/45 Quality Assurance in Higher Education. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/ hefce/2001/01_45.htm Head, L. Q. and Lindsay, J. (1983) ‘Anxiety and the University Student: A Brief Review of Professional Literature’, College Student Journal, 17: 176–82. Jackson, N. (2002) ‘Growing Knowledge about QAA Subject Benchmarking’, Quality Assurance in Education, 10(3): 130–3. Noel, L., Levitz, R. and Saluri, D. (1985) Increasing Student Retention: Effective Programs and Practices for Reducing the Dropout Rates. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

ELAC18

204

14/5/04, 2:30 PM

Author index

Ashcroft, K. 87 Ashenhurst, R. L. E. 59 Ashworth, P. 105 Atchison, W. F. 57 Attwell, G. 150 Austing, R. H. 58, 59

Clark, J. 50 Conner, W. M. 58 Conti, D. 59 Couger, J. D. 59 Culwin, F. 30, 31, 32, 105, 108

Baillie, L. 153 Baume, D. 107 Beacham, N. 45 Bechard, J.-P. 126 Beck, R. E. 59 Beckman, K. 126 Beidler, J. 59 Ben-Ari, M. 34, 185 Benest, I. D. 40 Benford, S. 90 Benjamin, S. 76 Bhalero, A. 93 Biggs, J. 86 Black, P. 78, 106 Bligh, D. A. 42 Bostock, S. 89, 92, 93, 94, 95 Boud, D. 92 Boyd, A. 42 Boyle, T. 34, 185, 186, 187 Brosnan, M. 89 Brown, S. 91, 100, 145 Bruffee, K. 144 Bull, J. 77, 89, 90, 104 Burton, P. 31 Caine, D. 148, 149, 153 Carroll, J. 104, 105 Carswell, L. 116 Carter, J. 34 Cassel, L. N. 61 Catterall, M. 90 Chalk, P. 186 Chandler, J. 93, 94 Chang, C. 94 Charman, D. 89, 90 Chen, G. 94

ELAD01(9/9.5)

205

Davies, P. 93, 94 Davis, H. 185 Dearing, Lord 1, 11, 14, 202 Deeks, D. 91, 95 DeMarco, T. 124 Denning, P. J. 1, 58, 195 Devlin, K. 10 deVoss, D. 100 Docherty, T. 150, 154, 155 Ellis, H. J. C. 126, 129 Entwistle, N. 77 Evans, J. 105 Fellows, S. 177–8 Fisher, S. 88 Flesch, R. 42 Ford, G. 59 Foxley, E. 90 Frailey, D. 126 Frenkel, K. A. 16 Frisch, A. 79 Gardner, D. 105 Gerbic, P. 138, 141, 143 Gibb, A. A. 137, 138 Gorgone, J. T. 176 Gottleib, E. 142 Grebenik, P. 89 Gregor, P. 54 Gregory, R. L. 43, 45 Habershaw, S. 92, 95 Hartley, J. 91 Hartley, S. J. 32 Hartshorn, C. 139 Harvey, L. 137, 198

14/5/04, 2:31 PM

206 Author index

Head, L. Q. 201 Hesketh, A. J. 153, 156 Hogarth, T. 152 Hohmann, L. 185 Holt, D. H. 136 Humphrey, W. S. 181

O’Callaghan, A. 33 Oliver, R. 90 Paciello 50 Parmley, W. W. 105 Parnas, D. L. 59 Parsons, D. E. 70 Pearl, A. 151 Pelligrino, J. W. 102 Peters, J. 151 Philips, M. R. 100 Phipps, L. 52

Irons, A. D. 107 Jackson, N. 203 Jary, D. 14 Jenkins, A. 185 Jenkins, T. 34, 87, 184 Johnson, R. 88, 95 Jones, A. 116 Joy, M. 83, 90

Race, P. 87, 88, 92 Roach, P. 95 Robbins 130 Roberts, E. 176 Roberts, Sir G. 1, 149, 151 Rosser, S. V. 151

King, T. 89 Knight, P. 136 Koffman, E. 32 Kourilsky, M. L. 142

Saiedian, H. 123 Sambell, K. 88, 91, 95 Sasse, M. A. 81 Schön, D. A. 182–7 Seale, J. K. 87 Shaw, M. 59 Slater, J. 100 Smith, S. 45 Snapper, J. W. 103 Spertus, E. 151 Stefani, L. 101, 105, 108 Stein, L. A. 31 Stephens, D. 90 Stevens, A. 149, 150, 152 Strok, D. 151

Lambert 1 Laurillard, D. 3, 106 Lee, B. 95 Lejk, M. 69, 91, 92, 94 Lemos, R. S. 42 Lethbridge, T. 133 Leveson, N. 151 Levie, L. 143 Little, J. C. 59 Luck, M. 82 Lumpkin, G. T. 138 McClure, S. 79 McCracken, M. 30 MacDonald, J. 89 MacDonald, L. W. 45 McDowell, C. 35 McDowell, L. 88, 89 Mackenzie, D. 81 MacLellan, E. 87 McVie, G. 137 Marshall, A. D. 185 Mason, C. 145 Mead, N. R. 126, 133 Millar, J. 151 Milne, I. 186

Taylor, J. 115, 119, 121 Teichroew, D. 59 Thatcher, J. 50 Toulouse 142 Tsai, C. 92 Turton, B. C. H. 58, 91 Van der Heijden, B. 139 Walker, H. M. 59 Ward, R. 107, 186 Weber-Wulff, D. 31 Weiner, B. 87 Wiliam, D. 78 Williams, L. 35 Wong, C. K. 91

Neumann, R. 8 Newell, A. 51 Newstead, S. E. 105 Ng, G. S. 87 Nichols, G. 171 Nielsen, J. 119 Noel, L. 209 Noll, C. 142

ELAD01(9/9.5)

Yorke, I. 42 Young, Z. 153 Yourdon, E. 124

206

14/5/04, 2:31 PM

Subject index

academic misconduct 100–106 accessibility 15, 48–56 accreditation 11, 29, 58, 92, 101, 163, 168, 173, 180, 195 action research 171, 182–6 admissions 173 Alliance for Information Skills 152 assessment 6, 9, 13, 14, 16, 21–7, 49, 55, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 86–96, 101–107, 144, 153, 161, 168, 170, 172, 173, 178–9, 202 Association of Computing Machinery 29, 59, 63–6, 195 aural fragments 44 benchmark statement 10, 14, 29, 69, 88, 163, 173, 174, 198, 202, 203 Bologna 194–5 BOSS 82–3, 90 British Computer Society 11, 29, 101, 102, 115, 195, 196 collaboration 7, 8, 15, 125–34, 136, 154, 156, 199 competency 83, 139, 175 computability 30 computer aided assessment 6, 76–84, 90–1, 164 computer mediated communication 114 confidence 24, 27, 58, 88, 90, 138, 179–81 consultancy 7, 8, 165 continued professional development (CPD) 155, 161–71, 194 conversion courses 149–51, 155, 196 Council of Professors and Heads of Computing (CPHC) 148, 152 course design (see also curriculum) 49, 181 CourseMarker (formerly Ceilidh and CourseMaster) 82, 83, 90 creativity 26, 27, 51, 60, 104, 137, 138, 143, 177 critical thinking 142, 144

ELAD02(9/9.5)

207

curriculum (curricula) 9, 10, 12, 15, 29, 30, 31, 49, 52, 54, 60–9, 86, 123–33 Data Processing Management Association 59 Data Protection Act (1998) 80, 108 databases 10, 11, 58, 81, 82, 83, 108, 133, 142, 149 design (assessment), see assessment design (curriculum), see curriculum design (pedagogic), see pedagogy design (system/software) 11, 29, 31, 35, 39, 44, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 61, 70, 125, 133, 149, 185, 197 digital learning environment 53 disability 15, 44, 48–55 distance learning 7, 40, 46, 113–21, 197, 199 diversity 10, 14, 16, 34, 35, 95, 137, 153, 185, 191, 200 e-learning 7, 16, 52, 103, 184, 186, 191, 197–200 employer 10, 11, 21, 62, 125, 136, 137, 141, 146, 148–56, 174, 193–5 entrepreneurship 136–46 entry requirements 8, 13 e-skills 150, 152, 155 ethics (ethical issues) 10, 174, 177 e-tutoring 12 evaluation 48, 54, 71, 77, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 115, 116, 118, 121, 129, 132, 133, 145, 153, 163, 164, 167, 169, 170, 171, 183, 186, 187, 193, 202 examiner 173, 175, 180 expectancy-value model 23 fairness (in assessment) 73, 102 feedback (from students) 9, 55, 113, 121, 164, 169, 200 feedback (to students) 9, 13, 28, 78, 83, 86, 89–95, 101, 102, 106, 145, 178, 197 final year project 11, 27, 29, 177

14/5/04, 2:31 PM

208 Subject index

flexible learning 14 Foundation Degree 8, 14, 15, 154 funding 7, 63, 81–2, 131, 132, 136, 146, 154, 155, 167, 170, 171, 191 further education 15, 155 Gender 14, 72, 88, 151, 165 globalisation 137 graduates 10, 48, 55, 123, 124, 129, 133, 137, 139, 140, 141, 151–6, 175, 176, 180, 193, 195, 196, 203 HE Academy 202 HEFCE 14, 16, 202 HESA 13, 148 incubation 146 independent learning 145 independent learner 177 induction 105, 173, 179, 181, 201 information and communication technology (ICT) 7, 101, 102, 104, 107, 149 Institute for Learning and Teaching in HE (ILTHE) 169 intelligent tutoring 39 Internet 8, 29, 51, 80, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 137, 197, 199

quality assurance 7, 167, 172, 202 Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) 56, 88, 102, 174, 202 reflective practice 7, 107, 185, 186, 187, 202 retention 12, 14, 16, 119, 125, 154, 164, 200

JISC 35, 52, 108 key skills (see also transferable skills) 12, 69, 74 knowledge enrichment 131, 132 large groups 13 learning objects 186 learning outcomes 24, 25, 26, 69, 71, 72, 87, 88, 92, 94, 96, 106, 107, 141, 173, 176, 178 learning resources 13, 38, 172, 179, 201 learning styles 27, 106 life long learning 139, 146, 193, 194 motivation 8, 10, 21–7, 40, 61, 86–95, 107, 126, 137, 138, 143, 144, 162–4, 200, 201 multidisciplinary 202 multimedia 6, 39, 46, 47, 186, 197 multiple choice questions 77, 93 National Qualifications Framework 196 New Technology Institute 8 on-line lectures 40–1, 45, 46 participation 13–15, 16, 52, 148, 154, 155, 156, 161, 185, 192

ELAD02(9/9.5)

PDAs 200 pedagogy 12, 185, 186, 187, 197, 198 peer observation 168 personal development 146, 203 personal development planning (PDP) 9, 12, 16, 101, 107, 108, 139, 146, 194, 202, 203 placement 27, 95, 141, 149, 150, 155, 193 plagiarism 34, 35, 69, 70, 100–10 portfolios 71, 88, 94, 95, 101, 107, 108, 167 practical skills 29–35, 76, 178, 196 problem based learning 26, 164 problem solving 8, 10, 11, 12, 142, 144, 145, 193, 201 professional development, see continued professional development professionalism 10, 11, 101, 132, 133, 152, 173, 174, 176, 183, 184, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 202, 203 programming 10, 29–35, 50, 53, 58, 62, 71, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 87, 90, 93, 105, 124, 125, 133, 149, 184, 185, 186, 201

208

scholarship 150, 154, 173, 175, 177, 183, 186, 187, 196 software engineering 6, 29, 53, 59, 100, 123–33, 176, 180, 181, 186, 195, 196 staff development 13, 153, 198 student experience 106, 130, 163, 164, 169, 173, 202 student satisfaction 118, 200 student support 173, 200 teamwork 143, 153, 202 TechDis 15, 52 training 8, 91, 123, 125, 126, 130, 138, 139, 142, 146, 149, 150, 153, 156, 167, 170, 176, 193, 194, 198 transferable skills (see also key skills) 11, 12, 139, 150, 153, 193, 203 virtual learning environment 7, 13, 26, 53, 80, 102, 170, 186, 197 WebCT 80, 186 widening participation 13, 14, 16, 52 work-based learning 191, 200 workload 9, 26, 108, 117, 118, 119, 121, 161

14/5/04, 2:31 PM