{"title":"Session details: Computing in the arts and sciences","authors":"T. Neller","doi":"10.1145/3258459","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3258459","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":137934,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132236494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2010 a new annual symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI) was launched as part of the AAAI annual meeting. The event was held in cooperation with ACM SIGCSE and has many similar goals related to broadening and disseminating work in computer science education. EAAI has a particular focus, however, as the event is specific to educational work in Artificial Intelligence and collocated with a major research conference (AAAI) to promote more interaction between researchers and educators in that domain. This panel seeks to introduce participants to EAAI as a way of fostering more interaction between educational communities in computing. Specifically, the panel will discuss the goals of EAAI, provide an overview of the kinds of work presented at the symposium, and identify potential synergies between that EAAI and SIGCSE as a way of better linking the two communities going forward.
{"title":"Educational advances in artificial intelligence","authors":"M. Sahami, Marie desJardins, Z. Dodds, T. Neller","doi":"10.1145/1953163.1953189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953189","url":null,"abstract":"In 2010 a new annual symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI) was launched as part of the AAAI annual meeting. The event was held in cooperation with ACM SIGCSE and has many similar goals related to broadening and disseminating work in computer science education. EAAI has a particular focus, however, as the event is specific to educational work in Artificial Intelligence and collocated with a major research conference (AAAI) to promote more interaction between researchers and educators in that domain. This panel seeks to introduce participants to EAAI as a way of fostering more interaction between educational communities in computing. Specifically, the panel will discuss the goals of EAAI, provide an overview of the kinds of work presented at the symposium, and identify potential synergies between that EAAI and SIGCSE as a way of better linking the two communities going forward.","PeriodicalId":137934,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education","volume":"192 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132584835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The design of computer games can be a powerful motivator as students learn about computer architecture and design. Students in classes where computer designs are developed and implemented (usually on Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs)) seem much more highly motivated if their computer design can be used for something visual and interactive when the project is complete. However, ensuring that the student teams can have a working game by the end of a semester requires careful planning of how their computer designs will interact with the world. Keyboard inputs and VGA outputs are a relatively simple set of I/O interfaces that open up significant new potential for development of game applications on the student's own computer designs. In this paper we describe the curriculum of a computer design course that uses game design as a "carrot" to encourage active student exploration and deeper understanding of computer architecture, I/O subsystems, and computer implementation.
{"title":"Games as motivation in computer design courses: I/O is the key","authors":"E. Brunvand","doi":"10.1145/1953163.1953178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953178","url":null,"abstract":"The design of computer games can be a powerful motivator as students learn about computer architecture and design. Students in classes where computer designs are developed and implemented (usually on Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs)) seem much more highly motivated if their computer design can be used for something visual and interactive when the project is complete. However, ensuring that the student teams can have a working game by the end of a semester requires careful planning of how their computer designs will interact with the world. Keyboard inputs and VGA outputs are a relatively simple set of I/O interfaces that open up significant new potential for development of game applications on the student's own computer designs. In this paper we describe the curriculum of a computer design course that uses game design as a \"carrot\" to encourage active student exploration and deeper understanding of computer architecture, I/O subsystems, and computer implementation.","PeriodicalId":137934,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130144148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. D. Miller, Leen-Kiat Soh, Gwen Nugent, K. Kupzyk, Leyla Masmaliyeva, A. Samal
Learning objects (LOs) have been previously used in computer science education. However, analyses in previous studies have been limited to surveys with limited numbers of LOs and students. The lack of copious quantitative data on how LOs impact student learning makes detailed analysis of LO usefulness problematic. Using an empirical approach, we have studied a suite of LOs, comprehensive in both the content covered and the range of difficulty, deployed to CS1 courses from 2007-2010. We review previous work on predictors of achievement and impact of active learning and feedback. We also provide a high-level overview of our LO deployment. Finally, based on our analysis of student interaction data, we found that (1) students using LOs have significantly higher assessment scores than the control group, (2) several student attributes are significant predictors of learning, (3) active learning has a significant effect on student assessment scores, and (4) feedback does not have a significant effect, but there are variables with significant moderating effects.
{"title":"Evaluating the use of learning objects in CS1","authors":"L. D. Miller, Leen-Kiat Soh, Gwen Nugent, K. Kupzyk, Leyla Masmaliyeva, A. Samal","doi":"10.1145/1953163.1953183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953183","url":null,"abstract":"Learning objects (LOs) have been previously used in computer science education. However, analyses in previous studies have been limited to surveys with limited numbers of LOs and students. The lack of copious quantitative data on how LOs impact student learning makes detailed analysis of LO usefulness problematic. Using an empirical approach, we have studied a suite of LOs, comprehensive in both the content covered and the range of difficulty, deployed to CS1 courses from 2007-2010. We review previous work on predictors of achievement and impact of active learning and feedback. We also provide a high-level overview of our LO deployment. Finally, based on our analysis of student interaction data, we found that (1) students using LOs have significantly higher assessment scores than the control group, (2) several student attributes are significant predictors of learning, (3) active learning has a significant effect on student assessment scores, and (4) feedback does not have a significant effect, but there are variables with significant moderating effects.","PeriodicalId":137934,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130085682","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following a roughly 10 year cycle, the Computing Curricula volumes have helped to set international curricular guidelines for undergraduate programs in computing. In the summer of 2010, planning for the next volume in the series, Computer Science 2013, began. This panel seeks to update and engage the SIGCSE community on the Computer Science 2013 effort. The development of curricular guidelines in Computer Science is particularly challenging given the rapid evolution and expansion of the field. Moreover, the growing diversity of topics in Computer Science and the integration of computing with other disciplines create additional challenges and opportunities in defining computing curricula. As a result, it is particularly important to engage the broader computer science education community in a dialog to better understand new opportunities, local needs, and novel successful models of computing curriculum. The last complete Computer Science curricular volume was released in 2001 [3] and followed by a review effort that concluded in 2008 [2]. While the review helped to update some of the knowledge units in the 2001 volume, it was not aimed at producing an entirely new curricular volume and deferred some of the more significant questions that arose at the time. The Computer Science 2013 effort seeks to provide a new volume reflecting the current state of the field and highlighting promising future directions through revisiting and redefining the knowledge units in CS, rethinking the essentials necessary for a CS curriculum, and identifying working exemplars of courses and curricula along these lines.
{"title":"Setting the stage for computing curricula 2013: computer science -- report from the ACM/IEEE-CS joint task force","authors":"M. Sahami, M. Guzdial, A. McGettrick, S. Roach","doi":"10.1145/1953163.1953213","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953213","url":null,"abstract":"Following a roughly 10 year cycle, the Computing Curricula volumes have helped to set international curricular guidelines for undergraduate programs in computing. In the summer of 2010, planning for the next volume in the series, Computer Science 2013, began. This panel seeks to update and engage the SIGCSE community on the Computer Science 2013 effort. The development of curricular guidelines in Computer Science is particularly challenging given the rapid evolution and expansion of the field. Moreover, the growing diversity of topics in Computer Science and the integration of computing with other disciplines create additional challenges and opportunities in defining computing curricula. As a result, it is particularly important to engage the broader computer science education community in a dialog to better understand new opportunities, local needs, and novel successful models of computing curriculum. The last complete Computer Science curricular volume was released in 2001 [3] and followed by a review effort that concluded in 2008 [2]. While the review helped to update some of the knowledge units in the 2001 volume, it was not aimed at producing an entirely new curricular volume and deferred some of the more significant questions that arose at the time. The Computer Science 2013 effort seeks to provide a new volume reflecting the current state of the field and highlighting promising future directions through revisiting and redefining the knowledge units in CS, rethinking the essentials necessary for a CS curriculum, and identifying working exemplars of courses and curricula along these lines.","PeriodicalId":137934,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131850412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2006, computing education was suffering from a crisis - enrollments were dropping sharply at universities and colleges across the United States, and interest in computing from high school and middle school students was waning significantly. At the 2007 SIGCSE Symposium, the ACM Education Board organized a special session to explore the underlying causes [7]. In his keynote at the same conference, Grady Booch exhorted us to share the "passion, beauty, joy and awe" (PBJA) of computing [4]. This led to a series of room-packed sessions at the following three SIGCSE symposia to explore that idea from different perspectives [8, 9, 12]. They have provided a forum for sharing: " What we've done: Highlighting successful PBJA initiatives the presenters have undertaken or seen and wish to celebrate. - What we should do (curriculum): Pointing out where our curriculum is lacking in PBJA, and how to fix it. - How we should do it (pedagogy): Sharing how a change in attitude / focus / etc. can make strides to improving PBJA. Fortunately, enrollments have been continually rising, and there are colleges where the numbers are so strong (returning to historic highs), that some claim the crisis is over [10, 13]. Many dispute this, however, citing statistics that indicate under-represented students have not returned, and continuing negative connotations about the field [2]. Also, recent news of limited hiring in the information technology sector could have a damping affect [11]. This PBJA "movement" was born out of this enrollment crisis, but is not tied to it. There is always value in sharing novel best practices and advocating techniques that make computing fun. In the past, we tried to gather educators who brought a wide variety of perspectives (e.g., in 2010 we heard from international, domestic, high school, university and industrial representatives). This year, we've shifted from that "breadth-first" model to a "depth-first" one, and have invited three K-12 teachers who, collectively, have taught computing at an all-girls middle school, an under-served high school, and an affluent high school. The hope with this panel is to be able to drill down and understand the K-12 space, in terms of extolling the PBJA of computing.
{"title":"Rediscovering the passion, beauty, joy, and awe: making computing fun again, part 4","authors":"Daniel D. Garcia, M. Hutton, E. Lemon, Josh Paley","doi":"10.1145/1953163.1953332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953332","url":null,"abstract":"In 2006, computing education was suffering from a crisis - enrollments were dropping sharply at universities and colleges across the United States, and interest in computing from high school and middle school students was waning significantly. At the 2007 SIGCSE Symposium, the ACM Education Board organized a special session to explore the underlying causes [7]. In his keynote at the same conference, Grady Booch exhorted us to share the \"passion, beauty, joy and awe\" (PBJA) of computing [4]. This led to a series of room-packed sessions at the following three SIGCSE symposia to explore that idea from different perspectives [8, 9, 12]. They have provided a forum for sharing: \" What we've done: Highlighting successful PBJA initiatives the presenters have undertaken or seen and wish to celebrate. - What we should do (curriculum): Pointing out where our curriculum is lacking in PBJA, and how to fix it. - How we should do it (pedagogy): Sharing how a change in attitude / focus / etc. can make strides to improving PBJA. Fortunately, enrollments have been continually rising, and there are colleges where the numbers are so strong (returning to historic highs), that some claim the crisis is over [10, 13]. Many dispute this, however, citing statistics that indicate under-represented students have not returned, and continuing negative connotations about the field [2]. Also, recent news of limited hiring in the information technology sector could have a damping affect [11]. This PBJA \"movement\" was born out of this enrollment crisis, but is not tied to it. There is always value in sharing novel best practices and advocating techniques that make computing fun. In the past, we tried to gather educators who brought a wide variety of perspectives (e.g., in 2010 we heard from international, domestic, high school, university and industrial representatives). This year, we've shifted from that \"breadth-first\" model to a \"depth-first\" one, and have invited three K-12 teachers who, collectively, have taught computing at an all-girls middle school, an under-served high school, and an affluent high school. The hope with this panel is to be able to drill down and understand the K-12 space, in terms of extolling the PBJA of computing.","PeriodicalId":137934,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education","volume":"284 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132276542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Session details: Special session","authors":"Philip East","doi":"10.1145/3258451","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3258451","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":137934,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128555229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, we describe a research project that investigates how far freshmen at the University (without any programming background) are able to learn object-oriented programming with as little (human) instruction as possible. We designed specific tasks for programming assignments and supporting worksheets that contained the only information input that the students received during the courses. We examined the program code the students produced in order to assess the quality of their products. The surprising result was that most of the students were able to write quite satisfying programs. Additionally, a cluster analysis of the results showed that there are two different types of students: the ones that accept and apply the object-oriented concepts quite willingly, while the others prefer to program in a more traditional, procedural style.
{"title":"Minimally invasive programming courses: learning OOP with(out) instruction","authors":"Peter Hubwieser, Marc Berges","doi":"10.1145/1953163.1953195","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953195","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we describe a research project that investigates how far freshmen at the University (without any programming background) are able to learn object-oriented programming with as little (human) instruction as possible. We designed specific tasks for programming assignments and supporting worksheets that contained the only information input that the students received during the courses. We examined the program code the students produced in order to assess the quality of their products. The surprising result was that most of the students were able to write quite satisfying programs. Additionally, a cluster analysis of the results showed that there are two different types of students: the ones that accept and apply the object-oriented concepts quite willingly, while the others prefer to program in a more traditional, procedural style.","PeriodicalId":137934,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education","volume":"150 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134483048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：