Understanding the impact of strategic team formation in early programming education

This evidence based research looks at the impact of a team-based instruction on learning to program in a first year engineering course designed under the Bauhaus studio model. Each team is formulated with a “more knowledgeable other” [1], or for this paper the “ringer” based on selfreported prior learning. The ringer is intended to support the team through early programming challenges. In addition to the professor and teaching assistants, having a peer mentor can yield higher satisfaction and confidence in learners [2]. Our analysis evaluates learning outcomes as student progress through the term, comparing performance based on the performance and prior knowledge reported by the ringer. The major research questions investigate the role of the ringer in the success of the team, as well looking to see if teams that include a low performing student have any common characteristics. Findings include data from 2013, 2014, and 2015 with trends apparent in each of the years across major topics. This study shows that the formulation of teams around a carefully selected more knowledgeable other can improve the learning of the entire team. In general, ringer score correlates to an increase in the rest of the team’s average. The ringer score only supports learning to a certain degree where if the gap in score is too larger compared to the rest of the team, lower performing members can suffer. In general the formation of teams using prior programming experience seems to do no harm and even possibly improve learning outcomes, and the data may also suggest additional improvements on the use of teams

A Learning Trajectory for Developing Computational Thinking and Programming

A learning trajectory for developing computational thinking and programming This research study identifies the relationship between students’ prior experiences with programming and their development of computational thinking and programming during their first year engineering experience. Many first year programs teach students basic programming constructs using languages like MATLAB or LABView. The reason for this is because the disciplinary schools expect students to transform the constitutive properties that model a system’s behavior into a computer model they can use to analyze a system’s performance. Some undergraduate engineering students are entering college with strong computational backgrounds, while others are not. Peer learning has been used to accommodate the variance is skills between students; however, more needs to be known about the opportunities and issues with helping students develop these skills. This study is the first in a series to better identify students’ transition into developing and reasoning with analytical tools. The initial conjecture is that well balanced teams of novice and expert programmers can have a positive effect on the novice programmer’s development. Further the learning progression across two programming languages is critical to developing a student’s ability to generalize across various computational tools. Self-report background survey, students’ performance on academic assessments and an end of semester exit survey are being analyzed to identify a pattern in the development of novice programmers’ ability to design algorithms and implement them in code. This paper will be of interest to instructors with the objective of developing computational thinking and programming in classrooms with a large variance in students’ backgrounds with programming

An Operationalized Model for Defining Computational Thinking

The Computational Thinking (CT) conceptual framework is entering its second decade of research yet still lacks a cohesive definition by which the field can coalesce. The lack of clear definition makes assessment tool challenging to formulate, pedagogical efforts difficult to compare, and research difficult to synthesize. This paper looks to operationalize differing definitions of CT enhancing the ability to teach then assess the presence of CT. Expanding upon CT definitions, industry practices and processes, and educational theory, we link existing concepts and propose a new element to model an active definition of CT as a theoretical framework to guide future research. Our model updates existing CT definition by formally including Modeling, introducing Socio-Technical processes, separating Information Gathering from Data Collection and adding emphasis to Testing as a vital CT concept. We feel these elements and interconnections make CT is easier to describe and measure

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C). CONCLUSIONS: Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients

nanoHUB.org: Advancing Education and Research in Nanotechnology

Through he Network for Computational Nanotechnology Web site, nanoHUB.org, tens of thousands of users from 172 countries collaborate, share resources, and solve real nanotechnology problems. The authors share their experiences in developing and using the site\u27s unique cyberinfrastructure