1 / 16

Comparing Modalities in Learning in Computer Science

Comparing Modalities in Learning in Computer Science. Fourth annual LTSN-ICS conference Galway, August 27, 2003. Raymond Flood, Bob Lockhart Department for Continuing Education University of Oxford Pete Thomas Open University, Milton Keynes. One course - two delivery modes.

kiaria
Download Presentation

Comparing Modalities in Learning in Computer Science

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing Modalities in Learning in Computer Science Fourth annual LTSN-ICS conference Galway, August 27, 2003. Raymond Flood, Bob Lockhart Department for Continuing Education University of Oxford Pete Thomas Open University, Milton Keynes

  2. One course - two delivery modes • Undergraduate diploma in computing. • Part time study over two years. • 120 CATS points at level two. • Twelve topics - basic undergraduate computer science. • Continuous assessment plus an annual examination. • No formal admission requirements.

  3. Class course • Two-hour lecture weekly - October to May. • Three weekend schools each year. • One exam each year, in June. • Single class of 15-20 students. • Variety of lecturers. • Possession of a computer is not essential. • Limited amount of “hands-on” computing.

  4. Two-hour lecture weekly - October to May. Three weekend schools each year. One exam each year, in June. Single class of 15-20 students. Variety of lecturers. Possession of a computer is not essential. Limited amount of “hands-on” computing. Units last six weeks and are delivered via Web. One, six-day, summer school each year. One exam each year, in August. Classes of 100-150 students. Students are in tutor groups of 15-20 students. Internet connection vital. Some “hands-on” computing. Class course, Internet course.

  5. The versions of this course are similar in …. • Subject matter. • Teaching staff. • Assignments. • Examinations.

  6. The versions of this course are different in …. • Delivery modes. • Timing. • Support. • Size. • Facilities.

  7. The point of this work is …. • To compare student performance in the two courses, on the basis of assessment results. • To compare the students’ perceptions of their educational experience of these courses, on the basis of a questionnaire much used within Oxford University.

  8. Axiomatics • We believe the courses are sufficiently similar in subject matter and assessment for us to relate differences in performance and perception to the different delivery modes. • Of course, there are differences in the two modes. • And it may well be that they attract different sorts of students in the first place or that different sorts of students do well in them. • We do have stable courses - both courses have been running for more than four years.

  9. Demographics • The mean age of class-based students is usually a little above that of the Internet students. • Both courses attract students with average age just above 35. • A bigger proportion of the class course is usually female (sometimes more than 50%). • In the Internet course we normally have about 65% male students. • Attrition rates are much lower in the class course.

  10. Assessed performance • The figures support the view that students completing these courses perform as well in either version. • This applies both to continuous assessment and examination scores. • There was a significant difference in the first cohort of Internet students. • They performed significantly better in the examinations. • This may be a phenomenon anecdotally observed in the OU - the first cohort does better! • This certainly has not occurred in subsequent years.

  11. Typical results

  12. Student perceptions • We used a questionnaire developed by IAUL, Oxford, and previously administered to just under one thousand Oxford undergraduates. • The questionnaire involves about 70 questions, most involving a five-point Lickert scale.

  13. Questionnaire results • Internet students tended to hold stronger opinions all round! • Clear difference in appreciation of team-building skills from Internet students. • This may relate to structural differences between the two courses. • We are considering how we might introduce more group working into the house course due to this response.

  14. Further work • We have much additional material to analyse. • This includes the performance and opinions of further cohorts of students. • Plus additional feedback from standard departmental questionnaires. • We should also like to target particular questions suggested by this work.

  15. Further questions • Can attrition in the Internet course be related to delivery modes? • Does attrition correlate with various sorts of support? • Should we consider re-organising some aspect of support and delivery? • Would the inclusion of some aspects of the Internet course augment the house course?

  16. Further information • More detailed information is included in our paper. • We have also started work on a Web site: www.conted.ox.ac.uk/cleat where more information may be found. Thank You!

More Related