1 / 12

Issues Involved in Studio-Based Learning for a GUI Programming Class

Issues Involved in Studio-Based Learning for a GUI Programming Class. Jesse M. Heines Dept. of Computer Science University of Massachusetts Lowell heines@cs.uml.edu. ACM SIGCSE 2009 Chattanooga, TN. March 3, 2009. Upon completion of this course, students should be able to:.

ondrea
Download Presentation

Issues Involved in Studio-Based Learning for a GUI Programming Class

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. Issues Involved inStudio-Based Learning for a GUI Programming Class Jesse M. Heines Dept. of Computer Science University of Massachusetts Lowell heines@cs.uml.edu ACM SIGCSE 2009 Chattanooga, TN March 3, 2009

  2. Upon completion of this course, students should be able to: • Work on a project team with other students. • Write a project plan. • Complete the design, implementation, and documentation of a program of significant size and complexity. • Correctly document Java code using the basic features of the Javadoc tool. • Make oral presentations to the class on their work. • Conduct and report on a relevant usability test. • Solve programming and other project-related problems on their own by exploring documentation and other resources.

  3. Course Issues Discussed inOur Subgroup • Having enough time to cover technical programming issues as well as project issues • “No one knows OOP as well as they think they do” [Heines, after Kruglinski & others] • Finding time for students to work together outside of class • Virtually all students work 15-25 hours/week • Motivating students through realistic projects • Getting students to respond critically

  4. Approach • Performance model • Actors + musicians + scenery + marketing • “Pair” CS and non-CS courses • upper-level courses for majors • joint project developed within the two courses • “Synchronized” = multiple tasks by multiple people must come together by a specific time for the final “performance” • Courses remain independent • “Hybrid” = another model

  5. Performamatics:Sample Programs: CS+Art • Art students’ influence on Computer Science students’ programs

  6. Performamatics:Sample Programs: CS+Music • Computer Science students’ implementations of Music students’ creative notations

  7. Usability Testing by Non-CS Majors

  8. Critiques and Discussions with Non-CS Majors

  9. Problems with This Approach • A lot of things get in the way of interdisciplinary courses • Logistics are complex and sticky • Come hear my presentation on Saturday morning  • Sustaining studio-based learning approach during the “normal” part of the class • Easy to “slip back” into our more “comfortable” instructor-centered mode

  10. Discussions in Our Subgroup • How to foster student critiques (session #1) • Dave: Writing on slips of paper rather than speaking in front of the class • Jesse: A colleague does this with his “fuzzy points” • Jesse: Using web-based technology instead of paper (real time posting to social networks) • Issue: Is anonymity important? • SBL contribution to challenging students (#2) • The problems students pose are more difficult than the ones posed by the professor

  11. Discussions in Our Subgroup • Effect of SBL and other such “educational innovations” – many not really new – on recruitment & retention (session #2) • Especially with women and other underrepre-sented groups, i.e., benefit for BPC • Lack of good studies on interventions and their effects on the above groups • An evaluation issue to consider (#2) • Effect on professors as well as students

  12. Jesse M. Heines, Ed.D. Dept. of Computer Science Univ. of Massachusetts Lowell heines@cs.uml.edu http://www.performamatics.org Thiswork is supported by the National Science Foundation CPATH Program under Grant No. 0722161. ACM SIGCSE 2009 Chattanooga, TN March 3, 2009

More Related