Active Learning in Computing (ALiC)

1. Active Learning in Computing (ALiC) Marie Devlin School of Computing Science Newcastle University

2. Active Learning in Computing • Centre of Excellence in Teaching & Learning project - (CETL) • Durham, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Leeds and Leeds Metropolitan University as project partners.

3. Aims • Increase engagement in the curriculum • Better equip students for employment • Demonstrate how to better integrate research and teaching activities • Revolutionise the learning environment to embrace diversity and enable students to control the pace and style of their learning

4. Why is Active Learning important? • Helps to foster a deep approach to learning • Independent Learning • Personal Development • Problem-based learning • Reflection • Interaction and group work • Learning by doing • Developing learning skills • Assessed tasks similar to real world situations and problems • Access to learning resources

5. ALiC Activities • Newcastle CS currently involved in: • Techno-Café Development • Tool Enhancements – NESS • Both of which are inter-related to our main activity Cross-Site Software Development

6. Cross-Site Software Development • Industrial software often produced collaboratively between teams located at different geographical sites. • This activity simulates real working practice via a shared Software Engineering Project between teams of second year students at Durham & Newcastle • Align group activities to students’ future work-based practices

7. Benefit to Students • Simulates real working practice • Help students develop communication and team-working skills as part of transferable skills required by employers. • Enable students to take control of and responsibility for their own learning. • Allow students to employ the technologies and facilities in their own way in order to afford efficient communication and effective team-work.

8. Expected Outcomes • A better understanding of the types of projects that are suitable for this activity. • A better understanding of the assessment procedures and approaches we can use to ensure that no student fails on account of the poor performance of another in team projects.

9. Academic Year 2005-2006 • 12 companies formed between Newcastle & Durham • Team size 4-6 Durham, 6-7 Newcastle • Develop software for a holiday company • Newcastle PDA, Durham Mobile Phone • Collaborate on Look and Feel of application

10. Assessment • Agreed that a % of marks be given to each team for collaboration effort • Newcastle not given explicit marks – part of their deliverables – reports on collaboration, presentations etc. • Durham given explicit marks and had to compile a personal diary of all collaborations, meetings, concerns, problems etc. Legacy Report

11. Communication • Newcastle – VC room, belonging to School project, had to be staffed – temporary solution (1 year) • Access Grid facilities – 4 capture cameras, 2 PCs, 4 projectors, 3 large screens, echo-cancelling mics • Durham – simple set up, PC, Web cam, microphone, speakers

12. Communication Technologies • Technologies provided initially were video-conferencing, telephone and email. • Some SMS text messages were used to a lesser extent. • MSN with the option of web cameras. • Web Forums, Wikis, Weblogs, shared network areas for documents and bulletin boards set up by students themselves.

13. Communication problems were expected, students gradually became used to the technology, shy at first. Teams need to be well organised and have chosen an effective team structure with clear roles and responsibilities. Some technical problems – audio and visual Video conferencing successful in emulating face to face communication. Experiences

14. Experiences • Newcastle teams had to be supervised during video conferences • Scheduling became a major issue • Students had different times for practicals and this exacerbated the scheduling problems • Newcastle hardware (PC) was not great

15. Outcomes 2005-2006 • Disparity of schedules, deliverables and deadlines caused the students more problems than we anticipated. • Aims and motivation of the assignment needed to be outlined more clearly. • Assessment measures and procedures needed to be clearer. • Groups needed shared space to facilitate sharing and collaboration

16. Outcomes 2005-2006 • Students enjoyed trying out new roles and felt more confident about their abilities • Students liked the video conferencing mainly and found collaborating with another team at another site interesting, different and sometimes challenging! • Some students were disappointed with the collaboration because of the technical, scheduling and interpersonal difficulties • Students feared they would be accused of plagiarism if they collaborated too closely on look and feel

18. Academic Year 2006-2007 • Again 12 companies • Assignment more strongly coupled - must produce 1 piece of software per company • Running Application – user can monitor performance • Team size roughly the same as last year • Teams given hardware – GPS receivers and PDAs

19. Assessment More strongly interdependent • Has caused problems – • students unsure if marking is fair – have agreed marking criteria across sites but still need to review assessment procedure • Students are still fearful of the impact on their marks of non-contributing members and cross-site work makes fear greater • Introduction of contribution matrix to mitigate this

20. Improvements 2006-2007 • Newcastle VC room in action, students can run, 2nd room added • Skype – some teams have tried it • Google Talk - as a back up • Contingency plans – students made aware of risks and potential problems • NESS – forums, repositories for Companies

21. Improvements 2006-2007 • Team Games – Newcastle and Durham together • Schedules for practicals the same • Given guidance on how to conduct virtual meetings • Students know they do not need the whole team for a video conference • Development schedules and deliverables are the same (except for exam period at Newcastle)

22. Team Games

23. Ongoing Activities • Assessing projects for feasibility • Improvements in cross-site assessment – development of mechanisms and tools for ensuring fairness • Evaluation

24. Techno-Café Development • Places where guided study is conducted in a relaxed environment that is supported, not driven, by technology. • Change student perceptions by demonstrating the importance of Active Learning. • Merging teaching, technology & Active Learning into a single environment.

25. Students can run the VC themselves InSors software – more interactivity Google-Talk QA tested Capture Cameras, 1 Terrabyte of memory, 4 large screens, touch screen panel operation Connect to room next door to teach/work together Techno-Café 2006-2007

26. Techno-Café 2006-2007 Ongoing Activities: • Usage Monitoring • Student Survey, focus groups • Extending the café by putting two new screens in rooms across corridor – new teaching/learning suite • Interactive overlays, networked screens

27. Tool Enhancements Aim of this activity: • Merge/enhance/adopt support tools which can be used to support the change process. • NESS, SIS, Durham’s Automated Questionnaire Management System • Current support for group and project work for students is limited in these systems

28. Tool Enhancements • Need to design appropriate interfaces for staff and students . • Support communication mechanisms. • Define repository information that is available to students to support their work as well as staff for the purposes of assessment. • Reflect variations in practice that exist at each site.

29. NESS: Newcastle E-Learning Support System

30. NESS 2005-2006 NESS allows students to: • access their marks for coursework • access assignment descriptions • Submit assignments • Contact their tutor • Receive feedback on an individual, class or team assignment • View School of Computing Notices • Store files and documents for team projects

31. NESS 2006-2007 • Team Forums • Company Forums • Team & Company Repositories • FAQ section • Access for Durham staff • Separately : Access to subversion server to share code

35. Outcomes • Initially some difficulties regarding access and security but these have been overcome. • Was a steep learning curve for staff – needed a.s.a.p. and term had commenced at Newcastle – stressful • Uptake of forums quite slow – late development – students had set up their own alternative means of communicating.

36. Future Work Some mini-projects and planned developments: • Blue tooth, Screens, Mobile Phones • Social areas for students • New approach to teach real-time programming – robots, 4 rooms – live interaction • Tablet PCs – new ways to teach • Videos for Information Handling module – video editing, audio production, story boarding, script writing – new team element to the module

37. Future Work • Evaluation of projects with student participants (focus groups, reports, questionnaires) • Case Study designed with industrial partner • Improvements in assessment methods and criteria • Improvements in addressing student fears • Improvements in project and assignment design for cross-site work

38. Future Work • Participate in more ALiC activities • Develop new Active Learning techniques and implement them in the Computer Science curriculum. • Incorporate other technologies into group work to enhance interactivity e.g. PDAs & Robots. • Work with project partners to define best practice. • Distribute NESS and collaborate on customisations and improvements. • Disseminate findings to wider H.E. community.