of possible improvements . Following this , Section 3 details changes made to the module in light of the reflection and Section 4 analyses the changes that this made to student performance . Section 5 concludes the paper .
Reflection on Module Organisation
Some aspects of the module that worked well at the start of the project . The language chosen for the programming portfolio , Processing , is particularly suitable for Foundation Year study . Firstly , the majority of introductory programming courses use Java ( Major , Kyriacou and Brereton , 2012 ), including the Keele first year module CSC-10024 Programming Fundamentals . Processing is based on Java and uses much of the same syntax , meaning that Computers and Programming prepares students for their first year at Keele without replicating Fundamentals of Programming . Additionally , Processing is purposely designed as a language for first-time programmers and is based around visual , interactive media ( Processing Foundation , 2019 ). This is important , since Cunniff , Taylor and Black ( 2013 ) and Milne and Rowe ( 2002 ) found that graphical programming languages can help beginners build a mental model of how programs work and eliminate common bugs . Finally , a typical cohort has a wide range of programming experience . As a less wellknown language , Processing can level the playing field between complete novices and students who may have used some more common programming languages .
The general concept of the program design assessment was also a strong point . The selfdirected coding project that formed the majority of the portfolio marks would take place over an entire semester . Students would decide on a program to make and would then spend the semester determining how best to do this using the taught Processing techniques . While staff assistance would be available in the laboratory
classes , a good project would need a student to spend time developing their code independently . This gives the students a valuable experience of how their future studies could develop .
While the existence of a 20-credit module that is effectively split into two separate parts may appear idiosyncratic , this does afford some benefits in terms of module delivery . For example , it allows for flexible allocation of teaching time according to the needs of each side of the module , while also allowing the students the time to develop their programming skills over two semesters , rather than one . There are also opportunities to draw common threads between aspects of programming and theory , such as the theory of boolean logic and decisions in programs .
The project did , however , identify room for improvement . By the time that I became involved in the theory side of the module ( 2015-16 ), the curriculum needed refreshing . This is not unusual in the rapidly developing field of Computer Science . The biggest issue with the theory side of the module was that it was principally delivered through a single weekly lecture , with only sporadic support from other classes . While lectures are a convenient method for delivering information , they only foster the development of the lower level cognitive skills in Bloom ’ s taxonomy ( Bloom , 1956 ). The provision of a single hour of lecturing per week did not allow for the students to apply , analyse , synthesise or evaluate meaningfully , meaning that their understanding of the module content was poorly developed . Furthermore , Kolb ( 1984 ) emphasises the importance of experimentation and reflection in learning , which was not amply provided by a single weekly lecture . All of this is reflected in the relatively low mean exam marks of 51.20 % in 2013-14 and 59.44 % in 2014-151 .
The programming side of the module also had scope for potential improvement . Processing was taught in programming laboratory sessions , where a section of the course notes ( in . doc format ) would be presented to the students , who would then be given the majority of the session to ‘ play around ’ with Processing . Perkins , et al . ( 2013 ) distinguished between two types of programming students : those who enjoy experimenting and modifying code , and those who stop when confronted with a problem . In a broader review of issues in teaching programming ,
24