Comparing two free programming projects used in introductory programming courses

1
Comparing two free programming projects used in
introductory programming courses

• Quintin Cutts, University of Glasgow
• Stephan Jamieson, Durham University

2
Motivations for FPP

• Engagement
• Students with a wide range of abilities.
• Continual development.
• Cut loose, consolidate, catch-up.
• Motivating learning
• Personal interests.
• Encourage ownership.

3
The institutions

• Very similar..
• Research led
• Students spend 1/6th of time learning programming
• Lectures and labs
• Some differences...
• Java/Bluej at Durham, Python at Glasgow
• Slightly different motivations for FPPs
• Different FPP implementations

4
Durham FPP

• Announced in first lecture.
• Web page with last years projects.
• Ideas from current cohort added during term.
• Runs in last fortnight of term 1.
• After 4th Study block
• Optionally over Christmas and into 1st week term
  2.
• Focus on consolidation.
• Exemplar gold standard project.
• Strongly encourage participation.
• 1st summative assessment soon after.

5
Glasgow FPP(S)

• 2 FPPs
• Ownership and engagement
• Options
• FPP1 in week 8 specification, plan, program.
• Optionally start FPP1 in week 7.
• Optionally over further 5 weeks.
• FPP2 optional
• Weekly exercises
• Students must complete 2/3 of exercises.
• FPP counts as one credit.
• Explicit catch-up/FPP periods.

6
Evaluation

• Analysis of artefacts submitted by students
• Focus groups conducted at each institution
• Follow up questionnaire
• Conducted at Durham
• 21 valid responses (25 of the cohort)

7
Student projects

• Glasgow FPP1
• 97 of 157 students submitted at least a
  specification document.
• 65 had running programs (40).
• Tasks chosen mostly games connect 4, blackjack,
  hangman, alternatives include encryption,
  decryption program,
• Glasgow FPP2
• Fewer participants (20), more ambitious e.g.
  gene sequencer.

8

• Durham
• 91 students enrolled on the course, 72 attempted
  a project.
• All but handful had a running program.
• Wide range in complexity how happy is the
  sun?, to XML adventure game.
• Projects generally games, but also simulations
  (cyber pets, ant colonies, burger van business),
  cipher/deciphers (incl morse code translator).

9
Engagement

• The project work allowed me to jump ahead of the
  study block work which up till then had been
  going a little slowly
• Study blocks only use a narrow range of skills
  whereas the December project used it all at once.
  You had to think about what to do rather than
  just practicing exercises on a particular topic.
• I thought it was good just to get me like back
  on track this term,

10
Engagement

• Cutting loose
• Durham XML adventure game system, Glasgow gene
  sequencer
• Consolidation
• Asked about gains, responses positive.
• 5 of 21 (24) indicate greater confidence
• the knowledge that I can create a whole
  program, and it isnt as hard as it looks.
• The FPP used it all at once. You had to think
  about what to do
• Catch-up
• Glasgow students made good use of opt out.
• Opt-in is a resource issue.

11
Ownership of learning

• The whole concept of it, write your own program,
  write something that you want to write, work on
  your own through it, learn from your own
  mistakes Glasgow
• Adding to the project as new blocks arrive is a
  fun way to cover the block material Durham

12

• 60 of Durham cohort tried out something new.
• Asked if felt pressure to learn more Java.
• 8 out of 21 (40) indicated positive investment.
• I wanted to make something visually lovely and
  that sounded good.
• On assessment
• ultimately its your thing, and if you think
  its good and it works then that should be
  accepted by your tutor

13
Observations

• Closure
• Go out with a bang not a whimper.
• Choosing and bounding
• Challenging, compounded by design.
• Design
• Challenging, compounded by expectations.
• Expectations
• Glasgow openness appreciated
• Durham misperception.

14
Closure

• .. only thing that was missing was that final
  run down well done guys, we like what weve
  seen, this is a good example of X, this is a good
  example of Y, clap, clap, clap.
• you do kind of put a lot into it, thinking
  its my project, . I was like phffw, yeah but
  I worked quite hard on that, and its quite, its
  really good, but obviously not!

15
Choosing and designing

• once you know what youre going to do, you can
  just get on and do it. But its quite easy to get
  stuck with lots of bits of paper, wondering what
  to do.
• and it seems like one problem leads on to
  another. Its like I need this, oh no wait, to
  make that Im going to need this, for this Im
  going to need this, but to make this I , go
  back where I started

16
Expectations

• It would put a lot of pressure on people if
  you started knowing exactly what standard was
  expected before you start Glasgow
• some like the robot game made it look like I
  should be doing something awesome Durham
• I think people have got to realise that its not
  that easy and you should be a bit less ambitious

17
Inverted expectations

• if we write our own program then we may end up
  with something wed actually use
• getting credits for something you thought of on
  your own
• its funny that computing, considered as one of
  the least creative subjects, gives you the most
  creativity in first year, which is quite cool

18
A Final Pearl

• Programming after five
• dark rums is a bad idea.