A mid-career review of teaching computer science I

ABSTRACT

A mid-career review is presented, of how the teaching of Computer Science I has changed for this instructor over the last two decades. The content of the course has evolved to include algorithm development and program design. Assessment in the course has gone online and moved away from testing how clever the student is, to how much the student has learned in the course. Professional practices are now covered that help students understand and incorporate preferred practices of the discipline. Changes incorporated into the pedagogy include going from using anthropomorphic and ad-hoc to discipline-specific and consistent vocabulary, and from writing code in the class like an experienced programmer to writing it to suit a beginning learner. It is hoped that this review will help new Computer Science I instructors avoid some misconceptions with which this instructor started out.

References

1. Beck, K. and Andres, C. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change.2nd Edition. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004.
2. Bennedsen, J. and Caspersen, M.E. Assessing Process and Product -- A Practical lab Exam for an Introductory Programming Course. Proc. FIE 2006. San Diego, Oct 2006.
3. Bergmann, J., Overmyer, J. and Willie, B. The Flipped Class: Myths Vs Reality. The Daily Riff. June 21, 2011.
4. Burkhardt, J., Detienne, F., and Wiedenbeck, S. Object-Oriented Program Comprehension: Effect of Expertise, Task and Phase. Empirical Softw. Engg. 7, 2 (June 2002), 115--156.
5. Clear, T., Edwards, J., Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., and Whalley, J. The teaching of novice computer programmers: bringing the scholarly-research approach to Australia. In Proceedings of the tenth conference on Australasian computing education - Volume 78 (ACE '08), Simon Hamilton and Margaret Hamilton (Eds.), Vol. 78. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 2008, 63--68.
6. Elnozahy, E.N., Alvisi, L., Wang, Y., and Johnson, D.B. A survey of roll-back recovery protocols in message-passing systems. ACM Computing Surveys. 34(3). September 2002. 375--408.
7. Kumar, A.N. The Effect of Closed Labs in Computer Science I: An Assessment. The Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges. 18(5). May 2003. 40--48.
8. Kumar, A.N. An assessment of On-line Testing in Computer Science I. Proc. ITiCSE 99, Krakow, Poland, June 1999, 25--28.
9. Kumar, A.N. The Design of On-line Tests for Computer Science I and their Effectiveness. Proc. FIE 99, Nov 99.
10. Kumar, A.N. An Algorithm to Design Loops. The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges. 12(5). May 97. 89--98.
11. Kumar, A.N. Fork Diagrams for Teaching Selection in CS I. Proc. SIGCSE 96.Philadelphia, PA, Feb 96. 348--352.
12. Lister, R., Berglund, A., Box, I., Cope, C., Pears, A., Avram, C., Bower, M., Carbone, A., Davey, B., de Raadt, M., Doyle, B., Fitzgerald, S., Mannila, L., Kutay, C., Peltomäki, M., Sheard, J., Simon, Sutton, K., Traynor, D., Tutty, J., and Venables, A. Differing ways that computing academics understand teaching. Proceedings of the ninth Australasian conference on Computing education (ACE '07), Vol 66, January 2007, 97--106.
13. Roth, W.M. Bridging the Gap Between School and real Life: Toward an Integration of Science, Mathematics, and Technology in the Context of Authentic Practice. School Science and Mathematics.92(6) Oct 1992. 307--317.
14. Sweller, J., Ayres, P. amd Kalyuga, S. Cognitive Load Theory (Explorations in the Learning Sciences, Instructional Systems and Performance Technologies). Springer, 2011.
15. Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 185(4157). Sep 27, 1974. 1124--1131.
16. www.programbydesign.org

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • Computing education programs

        • Computer science education