June 15, 2014
June 15, 2014
June 18, 2014
Computers in Education
24.1383.1 - 24.1383.17
Work in progress: A first year common course on computational problemsolving and programming (Abstract)Introduction We created an entry-level course on computational problem-solving andprogramming for engineering students. It has been run since 2006Course objectives The course balances a need for having computer skills useful immediately infirst-year studies with the need for building a conceptual foundation to facilitate subsequentlearning in the multiple courses and experiences needed to reach professional skill levels. Moststudents are in a co-op education program, so we are aiming for externally useful effects by theend of the year. Due to course size, efficient use of staff and space resources is also a significantconcern. The course covers computational techniques of problem-solving and programming with800+ students/term, in a mix of closed labs in classrooms, and out-of-class autograded exercises.It runs for one or two credits over several terms. From 2006-2013, it used Maple. A transition toMatlab occurred starting in 2013.Course format 30 lab sections were typically scheduled across five days using 7 instructors (2faculty, 5 grad students) and 10-12 undergraduate assistants. This allowed a 12:1 student/staffratio in lab. Lab grading by staff consists of simple verification of completion. A lab instructor'soverview is given at the start of each lab in lieu of a lecture period. Students' pre-lab preparationconsists of reading on-line course materials verified by a pre-lab on-line quiz . Post-lab on-linequizzes are supported by drop-in clinics and electronic discussion groups. Roughly 120autograded problems were created by the staff for the course in Maple TA. Many problems showa different variant for each student, and required non-trivial amounts of analysis or softwaredevelopment to answer. These were also reused for in-class proctored proficiency exams.Interim observations Work on autograded problems peaks during evenings and afternoons.Autograded problems tended to spur “retry until success”, with successful completion rates forproblems typically in excess of 80 or 90% in the second and third terms. Problem variants madeit possible to offer them them as practice before proficiency exams that used them, and allowedthem to be used in a collection of exams given over many time periods. They also led to havingmost staff time spent face-to-face instruction and tutorage. However, unproctored practice withautograded problems did not necessarily lead all to mastering the material. Some chose to relyon help to satisfy the autograder rather than doing the cognitive work leading to mastery. Thisdiscrepancy was typically uncovered by the in-class exams.On going revision and refinement. The transition to Matlab programming has also broughtallocation of additional time and staff resources for more lab time, a weekly one hour lecture,and manually grading of some assignments and projects. We look to find effective ways ofcombining the immediate but limited feedback of autograded exercises with the potentiallydeeper but slower feedback from staff grading. We look to student-selected project-based workto spur greater student responsibility and motivation for learning. We continue to investigatehow the style, coverage, and automated prescription autograded exercises affect studentlearning. We are also plan to extend the use of autograded problems for proctored certification ofspecific Matlab skills using Open Badges. We hope this will allow students, if they choose, toadvertise their achievement of such skills in a verifiable and more detailed way than a coursegrade on a transcript.
Char, B. W., & Hewett, T. T. (2014, June), Work in progress: A First-Year Common Course on Computational Problem Solving and Programming Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--23316
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2014 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015