Constructive Alignment for Teaching Computer Science
description
Transcript of Constructive Alignment for Teaching Computer Science
Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Constructive Alignment for Teaching Computer Science
Claus Brabrand((( [email protected] )))((( http://www.itu.dk/people/brabrand/ )))
Associate Professor,IT University of Copenhagen Denmark
Koli’2007 – Keynote
[ 2 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
utline
1 Introduction: Background, Motivation, and Expectations
2
3
4
5
6
--- short (10’) break ---
The Theory of Constructive Alignment: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”
From Theory to Practice: “From content to competence”
Implementing Alignment (case study): Implementing alignment in Teaching Computer Science
Computer Science Analysis: Preliminary Analysis of DK experiences (~new grade scale)
Open discussion: Q’n’A / open debate / discussion, …
O
[ 3 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
First: exercise
Before we start: Post-It exercise:
T
1) Write down answer to: "what is good teaching?"2) Swap Post-Its...
[ 4 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Background (~ this talk)
Concurrency 2004+2005: "Pre-alignment"
Exposure to teaching/learning theories: “Constructive Alignment” “The SOLO Taxonomy”
Concurrency 2006+2007: "Post-alignment"
[ 5 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
utline
1 Introduction: Background, Motivation, and Expectations
2
3
4
5
6
--- short (10’) break ---
The Theory of Constructive Alignment: FILM: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”
From Theory to Practice: “From content to competence”
Implementing Alignment (case study): Implementing alignment in Teaching Computer Science
Computer Science Analysis: Preliminary Analysis of DK experiences (~new grade scale)
Open discussion: Q’n’A / open debate / discussion, …
O
[ 6 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Let's watch the short-film...
Teaching Teaching&
Understanding Understanding
Teaching Teaching&
Understanding Understanding(((((( ))))))
Available on DVD through Aarhus University Press:((( http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/short-film/ )))
Features Epilogue by John Biggs, DVD menu, and subtitles inEnglish, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German, and Danish
Won “The Golden Ratio 2006” Award for “Best Educational Video” (~4000 DVDs sold)
Inspired by: "Teaching for Quality Learning at University", John Biggs
[ 7 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
utline
1 Introduction: Background, Motivation, and Expectations
2
3
4
5
6
--- short (10’) break ---
The Theory of Constructive Alignment: FILM: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”
From Theory to Practice: “From content to competence”
Implementing Alignment (case study): Implementing alignment in Teaching Computer Science
Computer Science Analysis: Preliminary Analysis of DK experiences (~new grade scale)
Open discussion: Q’n’A / open debate / discussion, …
O
[ 8 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
From Content to Competence
The “pre-alignment” Concurrency course aims: Given in terms of a 'content description':
Essentially:
This is a bad ideafor 2 reasons...!
The goal is...:
To understand: deadlock interference synchronization ...
[ 9 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Problem with 'content' as aim
What is the problem with 'content'as learning objectives ?!?
Objective:
To understand: deadlock interference synchronization ...
analyze ...theorize ...
explain deadlockdescribe ...
name solutions
recite conditons
Stud. C
Stud. A
Stud. B
analyze systems
explain causes
Censor
Teacher
BUT, even if it werepossible to agree, we know that the
exam will dictate thelearning anyways.
agreement
analyze systems
explain causes
tacit knowledge
from research-based tradition
(not known by stud.)
[ 10 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Problem with 'understanding'
Why not use 'understanding'as learning objectives ?!?
The answer is simple:
concept of deadlock ?!
Objective:
To understand: deadlock interference synchronization ...
It cannot be measured (!)
[ 11 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
'Competence' as objectives !
'Competence' as learning objectives ! Evaluation = Have the student do something,
and then measure product and/or process
'SOLO' = Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome
Note': inherently operational (~ verbs)
Objective !
To learn to: analyze systems for... explain cause/effects... prove properties of... compare methods of... ...
Note:'understanding' is (of course) pre-requisitional (!)
[ Competence := knowledge + capacity to act upon it ]
[ 12 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Neighbour Discussion
Discuss with neighbour:"does this make sense ?!?"
(content competence)
T
[ 13 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Advantages of 'SOLO'
Advantages of 'SOLO': Constructed for research-based (university) teaching Converges on research (at SOLO 5)
SOLO 1 no understanding irrelevant information misses point ...
SOLO 2
SOLO 3
SOLO 4
SOLO 5
"pre-structural"
to identify to do procedure to recite ...
"uni-structural"
to classify to combine to enumerate ...
"multi-structural"
to relate to compare to analyze ...
"relational"
to generalize to hypothesize to theorize ...
"extended abstract"
dep
th(q
ual
itat
ive
leve
ls)
surf
ace
(qu
anti
tati
vele
vels
)
[ 14 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
SOLO (elaborated)Note: the list is non-exhaustive
R
SOLO 2”uni-structural”
SOLO 3“multi-structural”
SOLO 4“relational”
SOLO 5“extended abstract”
R
R2
R3
R1
R
xx
R
x R'
R''
x
theorize generalize hypothesize predict judge reflect transfer theory
(to new domain) …
analyze compare contrast integrate relate explain causes apply theory
(to its domain) …
combine structure describe classify enumerate list do algorithm apply method …
define identify count name recite paraphrase follow (simple)
instructions …
Graphic Legend
immediately relevant aspects – given! related or hypothetical – not given! irrellevant or inappropriate student responsex
R
QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE
[ 15 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Concrete Example andConcrete Recommendations (4x)
Intended Learning Outcomes [Genetics 101]
After the course, the students are expected to be able to: locate genes on chromosomes do simple calculations : (e.g., recombination frequencies,
in-breeding coefficients, Hardy-Weinberg, evolutionary equilibria).
describe and perform connexion-analysis describe fundamental genetic concepts: (e.g., mutation
variation, in-breeding, natural selection). describe and analyze simple inheritancies analyze inheritance of multiple genes simultaneously
2) List sub-goals as 'bullets': Clearer than text
1) Use 'standard formulation':
a) puts learning focus on the student
b) competence formulation: "to be able to"
3) Use 'Verb + Noun' formulation:
What the student is expected to
do with a given matter .V N
V
V
VV
V
V
V
V
N
N
N
N
4) Avoid 'understanding-goals':
"To understand X", "Be familiar with Y", "Have a notion of Z", ...!
N
[ 16 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Post-It exercise
Write down 1-2 key competences (i.e., verbs)
(for your course)
T
Concurrency:
analyze for deadlock
compare models
Concurrency:
analyze for deadlock
compare models
[ 17 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
utline
1 Introduction: Background, Motivation, and Expectations
2
3
4
5
6
--- short (10’) break ---
The Theory of Constructive Alignment: FILM: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”
From Theory to Practice: “From content to competence”
Implementing Alignment (case study): Implementing alignment in Teaching Computer Science
Computer Science Analysis: Preliminary Analysis of DK experiences (~new grade scale)
Open discussion: Q’n’A / open debate / discussion, …
O
Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
10' Break
Please put the Post-Its on the wall
"What is good teaching?" Key competences(in your course)
[ 19 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
utline
1 Introduction: Background, Motivation, and Expectations
2
3
4
5
6
--- short (10’) break ---
The Theory of Constructive Alignment: FILM: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”
From Theory to Practice: “From content to competence”
Implementing Alignment (case study): Implementing alignment in Teaching Computer Science
Computer Science Analysis: Preliminary Analysis of DK experiences (~new grade scale)
Open discussion: Q’n’A / open debate / discussion, …
O
[ 20 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Disclaimer
not to exhibit a perfectly aligned course; but to show how the principles of alignment can be put to use (esp. how ILO’s may serve as guidelines for exam and teaching form).
The point of this part is:
[ 21 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Implementation Process
Process (course specific):
1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?)
2) Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes
3) Choose carefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes)
4) Choose carefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)
alignmentlearning incentive learning support
[ 22 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Starting Point
Content description (Concurrency '04+'05):
What is the overall goal of the course...?(what are the students to learn)
[ 23 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Overall Course Philosophy
Model-Based Design for Concurrency:
[ 24 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Implementation Process
Process (course specific):
1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?)
2) Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes
3) Choose carefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes)
4) Choose carefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)
alignment
[ 25 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Intended Learning Outcomes
Model-based design
for Concurrency
.. .
SM
I
#1#2
#3
Intended Learning Outcomes(based on The SOLO Taxonomy):
Note:explicitlyincludedas a non-goal
T
[ 26 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Implementation Process
Process (course specific):
1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?)
2) Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes
3) Choose carefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes)
4) Choose carefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)
alignmentlearning incentive
[ 27 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
On Aligning the Exam (~ ILOs)
Pre-alignment (Concurrency 2004+2005): Group Project (50%) Individual Multiple-Choice Test (50%)
Post-alignment (Concurrency 2006+2007): Group Project (50%) Individual Multiple-Choice Test (50%)
However;BIG differences...!Coincidentally:
'Inherited' from pre-2004:
Because it seemed like agood idea to do a project
Carefully designed (~ILOs):
Project good for evaluating
model-based design process
Added in 2005:Politically motivated: exammust have individual part!
Carefully designed (~ILOs):
MC-test good for evaluating
analytical skills (~problem):
to analyze/compare models
[ 28 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Project (pre- vs. post-alignment)
2004 Project: "The Beer Factory":
2006 Project: "The Banana Republic":
Some student projects with no appearant model impl. relationship (at least, to me)!
No explicit learning objectives (only 'list of contents') No explicit project grading criteria
result
[ 29 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
The Banana Republic
Project designed (~ ILO's): (a) Construct unsafe model (w/o controller); (b) Test model - observe that collisions with 'El Presidente' can occur; (c) Define safety property NO_CRASH; (d) Verify that collisions can occur; (e) Construct a controller (such that collisions can no longer occur); (f) Verify that collisions can no longer occur; (g) Define liveness property ('El Presidente' can eventually leave); (h) Implement model in Java.
Grading (of the report): construct models...
apply common solutions...
relate specmodel...
test model... define properties...
verify model wrt. properties...
implement model...
relate modelimpl...
All ILO's except:
analyze models
compare models
Betterevaluatedon MC-test
[ 30 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
2004 MC-test:
2006 Project:
MC-test (pre- vs. post-alignment)
analyze models (and programs) wrt. behavior
(a bunch of seemingly reasonable questions):
Carefully designed (~ ILO's):
Bad Alignment
compare models (and program) wrt. behavior
[ 33 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Implementation Process
Process (course specific):
1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?)
2) Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes
3) Choose carefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes)
4) Choose carefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)
alignmentlearning support
[ 34 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
On Aligning the TLA (~ ILOs)
Pre-alignment (Concurrency 2004+2005): Lectures (2-3 hrs/week) 'Theoretical Exercise Classes' (2 hrs/week) 'Programming Lab' (2 hrs/week)
Post-alignment (Concurrency 2006+2007): Lectures (2-3 hrs/week) with activation exercises 'Theoretical Exercise Classes' (2h/w) apply common solutions
'Programming Lab' (2 hrs/week) hands-on training for project
Weekly hand-ins (every week) train for project (w/ feedback!)
MC-test sample questions (given early) train for MC-test
[ Idea due to colleague Thomas Hildebrandt at ITU ]
essentially teacher-centric "monologues"
stu
den
t-ce
ntr
ic[ TLA := Teaching/Learning Activities ]
[ 35 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
TLA's (~ ILOs)
Student-centric: 'Th. Ex. Classes' (2h/w) apply common solutions
'Programming Lab' (2 hrs/week) hands-on training for project
Weekly hand-ins (every week) train for project (w/ feedback!)
MC-test sample questions (given early) train for MC-test
Teacher-centric: Lectures (2-3 hrs/week) with activation exercises
{ apply common solutions }
{ construct, implement, test, verify, define, apply }
{ construct, implement, relate }
{ analyze, compare }
introduce fundamental concepts/problems/solutions (in terms of models & impl)
construct models… apply common solutions... relate specmodel... test model... define properties... verify model wrt. properties... analyze models… compare models… implement model... relate modelimpl...
Intended learning outcomes
[ 36 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Implementation Process
Process (course specific):
1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?)
2) Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes
3) Choose carefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes)
4) Choose carefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)
alignment??
[ 37 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Conclusions (pre vs. post)
Subjectively: Constructive Alignment (!!!):
To the point that I bothered making a film about it :)
Own behavior changed: From 'intuition' to conscious choices;
awareness of alternatives and of consequences of choices (~ student learning)
My students' behavior changed (from my perspective): More focusses on learning the objectives (esp. 'to relate')
Student background and prerequisites; The "Susan/Robert ratio"; Teacher's experience gain;
Disclaimer:(many factors involved that vary from-year-to-year)
... ...and many more
[ 38 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Objectively (I/III):(Questionnaire at end, 7-step scale) Student satisfaction:
"slightly more satisfied" ..or
"constructive alignment doesn't compromize student satisfaction"
Student proficiency:
More useful figures (~learning)! However: I only have
post-alignment data :( Thus: "inconclusive" :(
self-reported
Pre ('04-'05)Post ('06-'07)
Pre ('04+'05)Post ('06+'07)
[ 39 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Objectively (II/III):(Competences explicitly tested & trained)
Competences (tested and trained for):
Conclusion: "Substantial SOLO-level increase" (~ good teaching) ! Much better projects (esp. 'modelimpl' relationship) !
[ 40 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Objectively (III/III):(Qualitative data from 2006 eval) Anonymous student in 2006 evaluation:
“This course has been awesome! It took me a while to be able to think in models, but I saw the light along the way.”
“Lectures have been great, the theoretical exercise classes have been rewarding and the feedback has been immense and insightful”
“I did not have a lot of time to do the exercises, but they seemed relevant from week to week.”
“The mini project was a good and solid exercise in analyzing a problem, making a model and implementing it. A very good exercise!”
Overall:
Teaching:
Exercises:
Project:
[ 41 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
utline
1 Introduction: Background, Motivation, and Expectations
2
3
4
5
6
--- short (10’) break ---
The Theory of Constructive Alignment: FILM: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”
From Theory to Practice: “From content to competence”
Implementing Alignment (case study): Implementing alignment in Teaching Computer Science
Computer Science Analysis: Preliminary Analysis of DK experiences (~new grade scale)
Open discussion: Q’n’A / open debate / discussion, …
O
[ 42 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
The New Danish Grade Scale
ECTSSCALE
A, B, C, D, E, Fx, F
...
4 steps
8 steps
10 steps
21 steps
...
4 steps
8 steps
10 steps
21 steps
7 steps:
...
... ...
Conversion (between EU countries):
Problems (comparability ~ EU nations): Information loss (10 steps 7 steps):
(13,11) A; (9,8) C; …
The “13” (“exception grade”); doesn’t exist in other scales! Some places only access if you have top grade (~ 13)
…and a number of other motivations
pigeon hole principle
[ 43 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
“The Danish 7 Step Scale”
Unacceptable-3 For a performance which is unacceptable in all respects F
Inadequate00 For an insufficient performance which does not meet the course objectives Fx
Adequate02 For a sufficient performance which barely meets the course objectives E
Fair4For a fair performance which adequately meets the course objectives but also displays several major weaknesses D
Good7 For a good performance which meets the course objectives but also displays some weaknesses C
Very good10 For a very good performance which meets the course objectives, with only minor weaknesses B
Excellent 12 For an excellent performance which completely meets the course objectives, with no or only a few insignificant weaknesses . A
Grade := Degree of realization
of course objectives!
[ 44 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Intended Learning Outcomes
Consequence: Every course has to explicitly define…:
Intended Learning Outcomes (!):)
[ 45 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Collect data...
Systematically collect data (i.e. competences) Quantifiable via The SOLO Taxonomy:
Note: Work in progress (with Bettina Dahl Søndergaard, STENO/AU)
(1000 courses!)
[ 46 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Analysis: ”Nature of Subjects”
Analyzing for diff.’s in ”nature of subjects”: i.e., CS vs. Math vs. Physics vs. Biology vs.
Chemistry vs. Geology vs. Statistics vs. …)
Note: Work in progress (with Bettina Dahl Søndergaard, STENO/AU)
* *) Tool used forentering ILO’s
[ 47 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Analysis: ”Progression”
Analyzing for ”progression”: i.e., ”undergraduate” vs. ”graduate” courses
Note: Work in progress (with Bettina Dahl Søndergaard, STENO/AU)
*
[ 48 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Top 15 Competences
Top 15 Competences: Computer Science (at Aarhus University):
Note: Work in progress (with Bettina Dahl Søndergaard, STENO/AU)
*
[ 49 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Danish Universities (~ Computer Science) (excl. AAU/Aalborg, DTU/Copenhagen, RUC/Roskilde):
(Note: much more systematic impl. processundertaken at IMADA/SDU and DAIMI/AU.)
Statistics: Computer Science (DK)
Note: Work in progress (with Bettina Dahl Søndergaard, STENO/AU)
*
[ 50 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
E.g. course: ”Databases” (at RUC/Roskilde):
Note: almost entirely non-operational(!)
i.e. measure how?!
obtain knowledge about the structure of database systems; be familiar with design of databases by use of special notations like E/R and analysis through normalization; get an overview of the most important database models and a detailed knowledge about the most important model - the relational model as well as the language SQL; get an overview of database indexing and query processing; obtain knowledge about application programming for DB systems.
…and Identify Potential Problems
Familiar with ?!
Note: Work in progress (with Bettina Dahl Søndergaard, STENO/AU)
[ 51 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Assumptions
Objectives: intended formulated achieved [correlation] (i.e. we “analyze” formulated, but “reason about” achieved) Goals in a course have equal weight [approximation] Competences in a goal have equal weight [approximation] SOLO is appropriate measure [Biggs’ studies] Context independence of SOLO mapping [approximation] Courses comparable via their SOLO levels [approximation] (e.g. “avg” partial order – average SOLO level) (e.g. “qual/quan” ratio – percentage of qualitative goals) Progression manifests itself as competences (~ SOLO) [assumption] (some progression may also be in “the content part”)
Many “assumptions”
Analysis conclusions rest on…:
Note: Work in progress (with Bettina Dahl Søndergaard, STENO/AU)
[ 52 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
utline
1 Introduction: Background, Motivation, and Expectations
2
3
4
5
6
--- short (10’) break ---
The Theory of Constructive Alignment: FILM: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”
From Theory to Practice: “From content to competence”
Implementing Alignment (case study): Implementing alignment in Teaching Computer Science
Computer Science Analysis: Preliminary Analysis of DK experiences (~new grade scale)
Open discussion: Q’n’A / open debate / discussion, …
O
[ 53 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Open Discussion...
"What is good teaching?"
R’
xR
R’’
x
The Short-Film
Cognition structures
The SOLO Taxonomy
Association
new ~ old
analyzeexplain
'The Book'
John Biggs
"understanding"
content competence
Student activation
Student models
Susan & RobertTeacher models
levels 1 - 2 - 3
Intended learning outcomes (ILO)
Constructive AlignmentExam
SatisfactionExperiences
Pre vs. Post
Students at Uni
Model-based designfor Concurrency
. ..
My researchand teaching
'TLA'Teaching/Learning Activities
Tips'n'Tricks ???
S M
I
?
SOLO Analyses
[ 54 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Tips'n'Tricks (activation)
Neighbour discussions:
Frequent breaks:
Post-It exercise: focus: zoom in anonymous (!) swap'able everyone will engage empathetic control shared knowledge pool
pu
lse
re
ad
er
me
asu
rem
en
ts:
more questions (students dare ask them)
better questions (students had a chance to discuss)
1-2 min timeout [Phil Race]
Form variation:
lecturing blended with in-class activation exercises
[ 55 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Tips'n'Tricks (cont'd)
"Less-is-more":
Use many examples:(build on student pre-knowledge)
Explicit structure:
analyze compare relate
common deadlock, uncommon deadlock, A-synchronization, B-synchronization, hand-shake, multi-party synchronization, multi-party hand-shake, binary semaphores, generalized semaphores, blocking semaphores, recursive locks, ...
vs.
Emphasize depth over breadth (coverage)
NEWOLD
1. xxxxxxxxxx
2. yyyyyyyyyy
3. zzzzzzzzzz
4. wwwwwww
1. xxxxxxxxxx
2. yyyyyyyyyy
3. zzzzzzzzzz
4. wwwwwww
1. xxxxxxxxxx
2. yyyyyyyyyy
3. zzzzzzzzzz
4. wwwwwww
1. xxxxxxxxxx
2. yyyyyyyyyy
3. zzzzzzzzzz
4. wwwwwww
self evident to you [ teacher ] not to a learner [ student ] (esp. during learning process)
Student 'recap' at end:
after 1 dayafter 1 week
after 3 weeks
after 2 weeks
now
[ 56 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Now, please: "3-minute recap"
Please spend 3' on thinking about and writing down the most important points from the talk – now!:
After 1 dayAfter 1 week
After 3 weeksAfter 2 weeks
Immediately
[ 57 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Key References ”Teaching for Quality Learning at University (what the student does)”
John BiggsThe Society for Higher Education and Open University Press, 2003((( Note: 3rd edition available soon )))
”Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy”John B. Biggs & Kevin F. CollisNew York: Academic Press, 1982
”Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”Claus Brabrand & Jacob Andersen19 minute award-winning short-film (DVD)Aarhus University Press, Faculty of Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark
”Constructive Alignment for Teaching Model-Based Design for Concurrency (a case-study on implementing alignment)”Claus BrabrandProc. Workshop on Teaching Concurrency (TeaConc’07)Siedlce, Poland, June 25, 2007((( http://www.itu.dk/people/brabrand/teaconc.pdf )))
[ 58 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
R
x R'
R''
x
Model-based designfor Concurrency
. ..S MI
#1#2
#3
Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Thank You!
((( http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/short-film/ )))
Film's homepage:
[ 61 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
The Role of the Exam
Alignment: A theory of planning (over the course of a course) A theory of motivation (and incentive)
The exam as a...:"Necessary evil"
Motivational and learning-guidingpedagogical tool for the teacher(!)
applicationof alignment
"The exam does not come after, but before the course!"
[ 62 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Motivation Beyond the Exam
Motivational problem: “Why bother learn the course material?”:
Tell them why it is important to learn these things: How could these skills benefit them in their work/life/…
(focus on advantages)
[ Example… ]
[ 63 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Program worldModel world
ConcreteAbstract
P Mabstraction
concretization
Programs and Models
[ 64 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
On Program EquivalenceProgram world
Model world
ConcreteAbstract
~
P
P’
M
M’
1. P ~ P’ ?2. abstract
3. M ~ M’ ?
4. relate
5. M ~ M’ !6. concretize7. P ~ P’ !
What discerns a really good programmer from one that is not so good is the capability of moving (consciously or unconsciously) between the concrete world of programs and the abstract world of models (via abstraction and concretization).
Specifically, such a programmer is capable of (consciously or unconsciously): - 1) abstracting programs into models - 2) reasoning about the models - 3) concretizing the insights back into the world of programs
[ 65 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
On Property Satisfaction
What discerns a really good programmer from one that is not so good is the capability of moving (consciously or unconsciously) between the concrete world of programs and the abstract world of models (via abstraction and concretization).
Specifically, such a programmer is capable of (consciously or unconsciously): - 1) abstracting programs into models - 2) reasoning about the models - 3) concretizing the insights back into the world of programs
[ 66 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Notes on Skill Acquisition
From the world of psychoanalysis: Skill acquisition progresses according to the following
stages of learning: 1. Unconscious incompetence 2. Conscious incompetence 3. Conscious competence 4. Unconscious competence
5. Capacity for moving consciously between stages 3. and 4.: [ required by a teacher ]
[ 67 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
A taxonomy / language for teaching impersonalizes teaching
Emotional detachment (aka. “dissociation”) The teacher is good/bad
identity: good/bad teacher The methods are good/bad
behavior: good/bad method knowledge: good/bad method
With dissociation: more capable of dealing with critique better to listen
to constructive advice (…just like with our research)
Impersonalization
identitymoralknowledgebehavior
“Neutological levels”
[model of the mind, “NLP”]
ethics
experience
reactions
convictions
capabilities
interaction
[ 68 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Based on John Biggs' Theories
2nd edition
(3rd edition expected this fall)
"Teaching for Quality Learning at University", John Biggs
[ 69 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Teacher’sintention
Student’sactivity
Exam’sassessment
e.g.- explain- relate- prove- apply
e.g.- memorize- describe
UNALIGNED COURSE
e.g.- memorize- describe
"Dealing with the test"
[ 70 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Teacher’sintention
Student’sactivity
Exam’sassessment
e.g.- explain- relate- prove- apply
ALIGNED COURSE
e.g.- explain- relate- prove- apply
e.g.- explain- relate- prove- apply
e.g.- explain- relate- prove- apply
e.g.- explain- relate- prove- apply
[ 71 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Definition: “Good Teaching”
Definition:
Good news: We now know how to do this:
Alignment!!! Explicitly defined course objectives (as verbs)! Discourage surface-learning! Encourage depth-learning! “Less-is-more”: depth rather than breadth of coverage!
”Good teaching is getting most students to use the higher cognitive level processes that the more academic students use spontaneously”
-- “Teaching for Quality Learning at University”, John Biggs, 2003
[ 72 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
Thoroughly Motivate(what can they do, if they 'bother' learning this?)
[ 73 ]Claus Brabrand Koli’2007 – Keynote November 16, 2007
The BLOOM Taxonomy (1956)
The BLOOM Taxonomy:
Knowledge
Comprehension
Application
Analysis EvaluationSynthesis
Qualitative
Quantitative
SO
LO 4
+5
SO
LO 2
+3
”[…] really intended to guide the selection of items for a test rather than to evaluate the quality of a student’s response to a particular item”
-- (Biggs & Collis, 1982)”