1 / 12

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

This presentation discusses the challenges and strategies in implementing studio-based learning in GUI programming courses. Highlighting a project-based curriculum, it emphasizes the importance of teamwork, project planning, and the generation of significant Java applications. The session covers practical issues, including time management, motivation, and fostering critical student engagement. Various models are presented, including hybrid courses that integrate computer science with art and music, alongside methods for usability testing involving non-CS majors. Insights into sustaining this educational approach are shared.

jennis
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 on their work. • Conduct and report on a relevant usability test. • Solve programming and other project-related problems on their own by exploring documen-tation and other resources.

  3. Course Issues Discussed inOur Subgroup • Having enough time to cover technical pro-gramming 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 via 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’ implementa-tions 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 effect on 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 This work is supported by the National Science Foundation CPATH Program under Grant No. 0722161. ACM SIGCSE 2009 Chattanooga, TN March 3, 2009

More Related