solve problems and develop skills. In line with this, the lecturing time in the lab is kept to a minimum and the students are given directed tasks. Each session now has a ten minute lecture to introduce a topic, after which the students are given a lab task to complete by midnight on the following Sunday evening. This sharply contrasts with the‘ play around with it’ approach used previously, and was intended to help bridge the gap between effective and ineffective novices( Robins, Rountree and Rountree, 2003). For example, the final task introduces the students to arrays, but also requires that they use primitives, variables, animation, loops, decisions and user input. The repetition of these topics as part of new work allows the students to develop mastery. The fact that the majority of the lab classes are given over to working on these tasks means that the students are able to begin their work in a supportive environment with multiple staff members on hand to assist, allowing them to address any problems before potentially completing the work at home.
While these lab tasks were introduced as a part of the Range of Hardware and Software Tasks assessment and contributed 10 % of the overall module mark, they were marked purely on engagement. There was one mark available for each section, and this would be awarded if the student had made an honest attempt at completing that part. This encourages engagement without deterring any ineffective novices.
The lab tasks allowed for the module assessment to be streamlined. Assembly language is now assessed as part of the exam, rendering the assembly language assignment unnecessary. Instead, the Range of Hardware and Software Tasks now consists of the logic assignment( 15 % of the overall module mark) and the lab tasks( 10 % of the overall module mark). The two formative and summative programming assignments were also redundant and, hence, removed. This all meant that it was possible to make the assignment more challenging by including a‘ functionality’ criterion that assessed how well the final program fulfilled its purpose. The updated breakdown of the module assessment is given in Figure 3. Overall, the number of assignments was reduced from ten to six.
Inclusivity
The reasons for lower female retention in Computer Science are complex, with Beyer, et al.( 2003) citing the availability of same-sex peer support, characteristics of the faculty and the community environment as key factors. While the first two items go beyond the scope of this work, the classroom environment in FYO-00096 does not. The ideas of problems with the environment, including perceived stereotypes, isolation from peers outside of computing, sexual harrassment and a sense of belonging, have been echoed in numerous past studies( Cheryan, et al., 2019; Giannakos, et al., 2017; Master, Cheryan and Meltzoff, 2016; Michell, et al., 2017). Beyer, Rynes and Haller( 2004), Malik and Al-Emran( 2018) and Sax, et al.( 2017) also emphasised a need to show that computing can help people, as female students were more motivated by being able to improve lives through their work than by their future job prospects.
Amongst issues such as a perception of computing being incompatible with communal goals and a relative lack of experience, Beyer( 2017) identified one key problem as a lack of appealing role models. Hence, one of the simplest means of creating a more inclusive environment was to have a five minute‘ heroes of computing’ section at the start of each theory lecture. Each week, a relevant figure from the world of computing would be introduced to the group with a short, humorous biography. While many of the key pioneers from this time period come from a similar background( such as Boole, de Morgan and Babbage, or Shockley, Brattain, Shannon and others from 1940- 1980), this gives ample scope to discuss important female computer scientists such as Margaret Hamilton, Sr. Mary Kenneth Keller and Grace Hopper. There is also cultural diversity, with the history of the binary number system covering Egypt, China, India and Mangareva. This all emphasises that contributions have been made by both men and women of varied backgrounds, which helps build a supportive environment. Additionally, humour and storytelling have been shown to have a positive effect on learning( Garner, 2006; Nasiri and Mafakheri, 2015; Papadimitriou, 2003; Short and Martin, 2011).
Article # 3 27