6 . Represent a hierarchy diagram as Structured English and develop appropriate pseudocode ;
7 . Use a programming language to code an algorithm ;
8 . Produce a user manual for a piece of software and evaluate a piece of software ;
9 . Use binary arithmetic , boolean algebra and finite state machines to solve problems .
As a Foundation Year module , it also has a role in preparing students for a three-year Computer Science degree programme . Accordingly , the module must also give students a flavour of studying Computer Science . For example , the module should give a novice programmer the opportunity to determine whether or not they enjoy working on coding projects in their free time and , hence , if a full Computer Science degree programme is suitable for them .
The module is split into two distinct strands : computational theory and programming . These are taught and assessed separately , despite comprising the same module .
Module Changes , 2015 - Present
The review of the module began in the 2015-16 academic year , with one member of staff responsible for changing the delivery and assessment for the theory side of the module . In the 2017-18 academic year , the review also considered the programming side of the module , leading to further changes .
Teaching
A breakdown of the teaching structure of the module prior to 2015-16 is given in Figure 1 .
The module outline specifies a total of 23 hours each for lectures , programming laboratories and problem classes ( i . e . one hour per week each ). The theory side of the module was entirely delivered through the weekly lectures , although seven of the 23 problem classes were also given over to theory content at various points in the year . The remaining problem classes were used to teach the students about assembly language in preparation for an assembly language assignment . The 23 programming laboratories were used to teach the students about programming and program planning using the Processing language .
Assessment
The intended learning outcomes are measured by three assessments , listed below .
1 . A range of hardware and software tasks ( 25 %): split into two separate assignments , one theory assignment on logic gates ( 12.5 %) and one assembly language programming assignment ( 12.5 %).
2 . Algorithm and program design ( 50 %): when the module was first written , this was met by a portfolio comprising three separate elements , namely planning documents ( 17.5 %), a user manual ( 7.5 %) and Processing code ( 25 %). A later iteration of the module added two formative and two assessed tasks in semester 1 .
3 . 2-hour examination ( 25 %): a two hour examination on all elements of the theory side of the module , held in semester 2 .
This is summarised in Figure 2 , which shows how the three assessments actually comprised eight summative assignments and two formative assignments , and that the programming side of the module was subject to a greater amount of assessment .
Structure of Paper
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows . Section 2 critically evaluates the module , identifying some areas that worked well alongside a number
Article # 3 23