Haden, Patricia

Fincher, Sally

Petre, Marian

English

Kent Academic Repository

276BRACE Yourself: CS EducationResearch Is ComingPatricia HadenSchool of IT and ElectrotechnologyOtago PolytechnicDunedin, NZphaden@tekotago.ac.nzComputer science education is a fledgling research discipline.Only recently have CS educators begun to explore importantissues and methodologies in computer science teaching. However,without a mature research community or a common theoreticalmodel, it can be difficult to develop a coherent research program.Efforts are duplicated between institutions, projects becomemired in methodological problems and experimental rigour issacrificed. In an effort to combat these problems, Sally Fincher(University of Kent) and Dr Marian Petre (Open University)have developed a method for fostering coordinated researchefforts between CS educators from different universities. A groupof interested CS educators from various institutions participatein a methodology workshop, followed by a year-long researchproject where each participant gathers data from his or her owninstitution, and a second combined workshop for datainterpretation and preparation of a research report.  TheAustralasian instantiation of this approach is titled BRACE:Building Research in Australasian Computing Education. TheBRACE project currently involves CS Educators from 15tertiary institutions in New Zealand, Australia and the UK in astudy of the determinants of early programming skill. This paperdescribes Fincher and Petre’s methodology, the content of thecurrent BRACE project, and the group’s goals for the future.INTRODUCTIONOver the last six decades, researchers in educa-tional and cognitive psychology have produced avast body of literature describing the mechanismsof learning for maths, language and reading. Teach-ers of traditional subjects are able to draw upon thissubstantial theoretical foundation to guide curricu-lum development and classroom technique. How-ever, as rapid technological advances create neweducational disciplines, it is not always clear how toapply existing human learning theory in the modernclassroom. For example, teachers of computer pro-gramming will have a number of questions: Is teach-ing programming like teaching maths, or like teach-ing a second language? Is it most effective to usedrills and rehearsal or to focus on abstract problemsolving? Are there different styles of learning thatDr. Marian PetreOpen UniversityUKSally FincherUniversity of KentUKneed to be accommodated? And so on. These ques-tions, and myriad others, need to be resolved be-fore we can develop truly effective techniques forprogramming instruction.The one thing that needs no further demonstra-tion is that we don’t yet know how to teach pro-gramming well. The literature is filled with stories ofdisillusionment and dismay at the difficulty of pro-ducing good programmers (Barr, Holden, Phillips,& Greening, 1999; Duke, Salzman, Burmeister,Poon, & Murray, 2000; Robins, Rountree, &Rountree, 2001). Different teaching languages(Adams, 1996; Decker, & Hirshfield, 1994), coursestructures (Haden & Mann, 2003) and course phi-losophies (Fincher, S. 1999; Kearsley, &Sheniderman, B., 1999; Stein, L. 1998) have allbeen attempted. The only common result is that moststudents struggle to learn to program. Even a cur-sory review of the literature demonstrates the needfor a coherent research approach, and a cohesiveresearch community.However, most people actually working in pro-gramming education are teachers, not researchers.Programming education is too new a discipline tohave developed the generations of experimentaliststhat are found in the study of maths, language andreading. Trained as teachers, CS educators oftenlack the technical knowledge necessary to produceeffective research in the educational domain, andlacking research institutions focussed on the topic,their efforts are scattered and poorly coordinated.It is to be hoped that this is a problem that willresolve itself naturally, given time. A hundred yearsfrom now there will, no doubt, be a coherent theoryof programming education supported by relevant277research. But two computer scientists from the UKare unwilling to wait that long. Sally Fincher of Uni-versity of Kent and Dr Marian Petre of the OpenUniversity, have developed an approach designedto jumpstart the research process in computing edu-cation. Their system is designed to gather educatorsfrom different universities and provide them with aconcentrated dose of technical training and a re-search experience that will help to build the skel-eton for a coherent research community.STRUCTURE OF THEPROJECTFincher and Petre’s program comprises twoworkshops and a group experiment. The basic struc-ture is shown in table 1.hensive overview of issues in human research in gen-eral, and CS education research in particular. Pres-entations are given on basic experimental design, dataanalysis, research ethics, and the value of develop-ing a strong research community. The workshop alsoincludes a number of group exercises that help par-ticipants to delineate their research interests, to learnto focus those interests into testable hypotheses, andto develop skills in conducting empirical studies.On the final day of the workshop, participantsare briefed on their group project. This study is de-signed and developed by Fincher and Petre. Par-ticipants receive detailed experimental materials,background literature, and supporting documenta-tion such as a template for ethics applications. Theexperimental protocol is discussed in depth with anopportunity for questions, feedback and, if neces-sary, modifications. Thus all workshop members,even those with limited research backgrounds, areable to participate in a sophisticated and robust re-search project.Interim YearAfter the initial workshop, the participants returnto their home institutions and collect their data forthe group project.Workshop 2One year after the initial workshop, the groupreconvenes with their collected data. The results arepooled, analysed and interpreted, and writing upbegins. The final product will be submitted to anappropriate journal for publication.In addition, at this second workshop, each par-ticipant will have an opportunity to discuss and de-velop his or her future research plans. The hope isthat experiencing the research process through thegroup project will provide the necessary skills andconfidence for each CS educator to establish his orher own personal research program.  The relation-ships developed from the workshop will foster col-laboration and provide a group of like-minded aca-demics who can furnish feedback and support offuture endeavours.ESSENTIAL GOALS:In their recruitment literature, Fincher and Petrelist the desired workshop outcomes as follows:RecruitmentInterested CS educators are selected on the ba-sis of submitted position papers and CVs. An at-tempt is made to select participants with a wide rangeof skills and backgrounds, and especially to encour-age those CS educators who wish to increase theirpersonal research activity in CS education.PreparationEach participant is required to select a paper –research or opinion – that they found particularlycompelling or influential to their educational ap-proach, and to write a commentary on it. The pa-pers and commentaries, along with some supple-mentary material chosen by the workshop organis-ers, are provided to each participant in advance.This provides a common basis for discussion be-fore the workshop actually begins.Workshop 1Workshop 1 comprises four full days. Fincherand Petre present a highly focussed yet compre-278“On completion of the program, participantsshould: have a respect for theory, evidence, multiplemethods and honesty; have a model of what constitutes good re-search and good research reporting; be able to frame research questions and havesome idea about how to find out how to investigatethem be able to conduct a study once specified know where to go for additional discourseand support”Clearly, providing CS educators with these skillswill speed the development of an effective researchcommunity, with concomitant benefit to the qualityof CS education. It is an ambitious list of desiredoutcomes, but the results of the first three work-shop groups show that it is achievable. The currentpaper will discuss the third workshop project, whichis now in progress. Information about the previoustwo workshop projects can be found at http://depts.washington.edu/bootstrp/ and http://depts.washington.edu/srcse/.Why This Structure Was DevelopedThe biggest cost in any community endeavour isthe cost of establishing relationships.  The work-shops put people into a ‘hothouse’ - a place whereideas are nurtured and sustained through intensiveinteraction. However, the flaw with most workshopsis that they end on the last day. Fincher & Petre’smodel addresses this by providing explicit continu-ation of activities, and support for them, when par-ticipants return to their own departments. The pieceof collaborative research and managed mailing listare designed as scaffolding for the propagation ofcommunity: bridging between the delivered content,the energy, and the discourse of the workshops intoeveryday working practice.The model aims to consolidate a community ofdiscourse, in which ideas can be generated, tested,examined and extended.  The approach has beendesigned to address directly and effectively the needsand problems faced by emergent CS Education re-searchers.  The approach is cost-effective because“enthusiasm comes free” - the hothouse is efficientand produces a quality of input that it isn’t possibleto buy.The experiences of intensive, extended discourseand the experience of mutually-supported activitieshave the natural consequence of developing a sus-tained, enthusiastic and actively participative net-work, which will carry on remotely.  The whole pro-gram of activity (over time) is designed to engenderskills and confidence that will allow participants toinitiate subsequent research and engage in the widerresearch community.The Workshop in AustralasiaThe Australasian version of the project is titledBRACE: Building Research in Australasian Com-puting Education. The group completed Workshop1 in January 2004 in Dunedin, and is now in thedata collection phase.The BRACE project is organised by Dr. AnthonyRobins from University of Otago in Dunedin, andDr. Raymond Lister from University of Technologyin Sydney. The group has 16 participants drawn from15 tertiary institutions in New Zealand, Australia andthe UK. The focus of the current BRACE project ison the teaching of Introductory Programming, es-pecially on gaining an understanding of why somestudents take to programming so easily, and otherstudents, who may excel in other academic subjects,find programming a continuing struggle.During the first three days of Workshop 1, thegroup received the “training” portion of the work-shop and engaged in vigorous and productive dis-cussion of issues surrounding CS education re-search: its nature, priorities and relevance to realclassroom experience. On the final day of the Work-shop, the group was given the experimental proto-col, and disbanded filled with enthusiasm for the re-search to be done.In the intervening months, workshop participantshave maintained active e-mail contact providing sup-port on a variety of issues ranging from the exigen-cies of ethics application to the subtleties of inter-viewing technique. Data collection is ongoing at allparticipating institutions. Participants report enthu-siasm for the process and pleased anticipation ofWorkshop 2, which will be held in Australia in Janu-ary, 2005.CONCLUSION:It can take years, even decades, for a compre-hensive body of literature to be developed. With279computing technology advancing at an unprec-edented rate, CS educators simply don’t have timeto let the research process move at its traditionallaborious pace.  By collecting a group of interestedpeople, giving them a concentrated dose of researchtraining, and jumpstarting their research programswith a ready-made experiment, Fincher and Petrehope to give CS educators a chance to develop asound theory of CS education, a supportive researchcommunity, and a research-driven understanding ofthe best teaching approaches for their rapidly de-veloping field.AcknowledgementsThe first iterations of this model were developedin conjunction with Josh Tenenberg from the Uni-versity of Washington, Tacoma and were funded bythe National Science Foundation of America underGrant Nos. DUE-0122560 and DUE-0243242.BRACE was funded in part by a Special ProjectGrant from the ACM Special Interest Group onComputer Science Education.ReferencesAdams, J., Object-Centered Design: A Five-PhaseIntroduction to Object-Oriented Programmingin Cs1-2, SIGCSE 1996Barr,M., Holden,S., Phillips,., Greening,T., AnExploration of Novice Programming Errors inan Object-Oriented Environment, SIGSCEBulletin, pp. 42-46, 31,4,December, 1999.Decker, R. & Hirshfield, S. The Top 10 ReasonsWhy Object-Oriented Programming Can’t BeTaught in CS!, SIGCSE, 1994Duke, R.. Salzman, E., Burmeister, J., Poon, J.,Murray,L., Teaching Programming ToBeginners – Choosing the Language is Just theFirst Step, Proceedings of the AustralasianConference on Computing Education, pp.79-86., December 2000, MelbourneAustralia.Fincher, S., What Are We Doing When We TeachProgramming?, In Frontiers in Education‘99, IEEE, November 1999.Haden, P. & Mann, S., The Trouble with TeachingProgramming, Proceedings of the NACCQ,pp. 63-70, July 2003, Hamilton, New Zealand.Kearsley, G.  Sheniderman, B., Engagement Theory:A Framework for Technology-Based Teachingand Learning , 1999 http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htmRobins, A., Rountree, N., Rountree, J., My ProgramIs Correct, But It Doesn’t Run: A review ofnovice programming and a study of anintroductory programming paper, University ofOtago Technical Report, OUCS-2001-06,2001.Stein, Lynn Andrea (1998) What We’ve SweptUnder the Rug: Radically Rethinking CS1.Computer Science Education 8(2):pp.118-129.

BRACE Yourself: CS Education Research Is Coming

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Kent Academic Repository