Methods for Innovation
Changes to theory delivery
As mentioned in the previous section , lectures deliver information to students , but only develop the lower level cognitive skills without additional support . Students must be given concrete experiences to reflect on in order to truly learn ( Kolb , 1984 ). The lectures were changed to combine the delivery of information with regular example questions . For topics where example questions are not applicable , other methods are used to give students concrete experiences . For example , the lecture on internal hardware of a computer combines lecture slides with a live dissection of a computer , where students could handle individual components . Most importantly , these lectures were backed up with weekly problem classes devoted to the topic of that week ’ s lecture . Work for these classes is released immediately after the lecture for students to attempt before class . Students are now able to have concrete experiences in the lectures , reflect on these between the lecture and problem class , and to then attempt active experimentation when presented with the problems .
These additional classes were supplemented with learning materials to be used outside of taught sessions , catering for students with different learning methods . For example , an interactive binary calculator was written in Excel , giving students visual solutions to conversions between base numbers , as well as fixed and floating point binary numbers . For those students with a less visual approach , the underlying formulae could be accessed and deconstructed . Since the examination covered two semesters worth of work , the students were also given an ‘ Exam Survival Guide ’ at the end of the second semester . This 39-page document covered every examinable topic , required methods and exam technique .
Programming Teaching and Assessment
One of the biggest changes made to the programming side of the module was the removal of the assembly language assignment , due to the intended learning outcomes being covered elsewhere , the relative irrelevance of low-level languages and the amount of assessment . However , assembly language was listed amongst the indicative content in the module outline , and so was not removed from the module entirely . It was instead incorporated into the theory side of the module as a part of the finite state machines topic .
The programming side of the module was completely restructured . Processing was retained , but the first semester is now devoted to learning different transferable techniques for coding in Processing . Each of these techniques is then assessed in the final portfolio . The semester culminates in a lecture on program planning , with the program planning assignment completed over the Christmas vacation . This feeds into the second semester , where the lab sessions are used to develop a game based on the plan . This is an example of the kind of problem-based learning that has previously been used successfully to teach programming ( O ’ Kelly and Gibson , 2006 ).
There are several advantages to this . Firstly , having the program plans submitted prior to the second semester , rather than as part of the final portfolio , means that the students think ahead about breaking down a problem into steps , rather than completing it based on the final program design . This is more in keeping with intended learning outcomes 3 , 4 and 6 . Secondly , the portfolio assesses how well the students have met learning outcomes 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 , meaning that the programming side of the module is constructively aligned ( Biggs , 1996 ). Finally , by giving the students the opportunity to direct their own learning in the second semester , the students gain independent study skills that will benefit them on a Computer Science degree .
The changes to the programming labs drew on a range of literature . They now use a scaffolding approach , where students are given support from staff when beginning to learn new concepts before the level of support is gradually reduced over time ( Wood , Bruner and Ross , 1976 ), and a spiral curriculum , which begins with a relatively simple concept that is then built upon until mastery of the subject is achieved ( Bruner , 1996 ). Tan , Ting and Ling ( 2009 ) found that programming students respond poorly to lecturing and prefer to work from interactive examples , while Jenkins ( 2001 ) indicated that teaching programming is not about transmitting information but motivating students to
26