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


First: exercise

Before we start: Post-It exercise:

T

1) Write down answer to: "what is good teaching?"2) Swap Post-Its...


Background (~ this talk)

Concurrency 2004+2005: "Pre-alignment"

Exposure to teaching/learning theories: “Constructive Alignment” “The SOLO Taxonomy”

Concurrency 2006+2007: "Post-alignment"


utline


2

3

4

5

6


The Theory of Constructive Alignment: FILM: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding”





O


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


utline


2

3

4

5

6







O


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 ...


Problem with 'content' as aim

What is the problem with 'content'as learning objectives ?!?

Objective:


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.)


Problem with 'understanding'

Why not use 'understanding'as learning objectives ?!?

The answer is simple:

concept of deadlock ?!

Objective:


It cannot be measured (!)


'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 ]


Neighbour Discussion

Discuss with neighbour:"does this make sense ?!?"

(content competence)

T


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

)


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


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


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


utline


2

3

4

5

6







O


10' Break

Please put the Post-Its on the wall

"What is good teaching?" Key competences(in your course)


utline


2

3

4

5

6







O


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:


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


Starting Point

Content description (Concurrency '04+'05):

What is the overall goal of the course...?(what are the students to learn)


Overall Course Philosophy

Model-Based Design for Concurrency:








alignment


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








alignmentlearning incentive


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


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


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


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


Example: analyze models

Good Alignment


Example: compare models

Good Alignment








alignmentlearning support


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 ]


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








alignment??


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


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)


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) !


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:


utline


2

3

4

5

6







O


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


“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!


Intended Learning Outcomes

Consequence: Every course has to explicitly define…:

Intended Learning Outcomes (!):)


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!)


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. …)


* *) Tool used forentering ILO’s


Analysis: ”Progression”

Analyzing for ”progression”: i.e., ”undergraduate” vs. ”graduate” courses


*


Top 15 Competences

Top 15 Competences: Computer Science (at Aarhus University):


*


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)


*


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 ?!



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…:



utline


2

3

4

5

6







O


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


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


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


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


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 )))


R

x R'

R''

x

Model-based designfor Concurrency

. ..S MI

#1#2

#3


Thank You!

((( http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/short-film/ )))

Film's homepage:


BONUS SLIDES


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!"


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… ]


Program worldModel world

ConcreteAbstract

P Mabstraction

concretization

Programs and Models


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


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


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 ]


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


Based on John Biggs' Theories

2nd edition

(3rd edition expected this fall)

"Teaching for Quality Learning at University", John Biggs


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"


Teacher’sintention

Student’sactivity

Exam’sassessment


ALIGNED COURSE






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


Thoroughly Motivate(what can they do, if they 'bother' learning this?)


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)”

Documents

Constructive Alignment for Teaching Computer Science