[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3408877.3432549acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Frequent, Timed Coding Tests for Training and Assessment of Full-Stack Web Development Skills: An Experience Report

Published: 05 March 2021 Publication History

Abstract

This experience report describes the use of frequent, timed coding tests in a project-intensive software engineering course in which students first learn full-stack web development using Ruby on Rails and then apply their skills in a team project. The goal of the skills tests was twofold: (1) to help motivate students to engage in distributed practice and, thus, gain adequate coding skills to be an effective team member during the team project and (2) to accurately assess whether students had acquired the requisite skills and, thereby, catch deficiencies early, while there was still time to address them. Regarding the first goal, although several students indicated that the tests motivated them to engage in substantial practice coding, it was ultimately inconclusive as to the extent of the tests' impact on students' distributed practice behavior and on their preparation for the project. Regarding the second goal, the skills testing approach was indeed considerably more effective than graded homework assignments for assessing coding skill and detecting struggling students early. Lessons learned from our experiences included that students had significant concerns about the strict time limit on the tests, that the tests caused a spike in mid-semester withdrawals from the course that disproportionately impacted students from underrepresented groups, and that detecting struggling students was one thing, but effectively helping them catch up was a whole other challenge.

References

[1]
Benjamin S. Bloom. 1971. Mastery Learning. In Mastery Learning: Theory and Practice, James H. Block (Ed.). Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 47--63.
[2]
Dino Capovilla, Marc Berges, Andreas Mühling, and Peter Hubwieser. 2015. Handling Heterogeneity in Programming Courses for Freshmen. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LATICE '15). 197--203. https://doi.org/10.1109/LaTiCE.2015.18
[3]
Shana K. Carpenter, Nicholas J. Cepeda, Doug Rohrer, Sean H. K. Kang, and Harold Pashler. 2012. Using Spacing to Enhance Diverse Forms of Learning: Review of Recent Research and Implications for Instruction. Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 24, 3 (2012), 369--378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9205-z
[4]
William B. Davidson, William J. House, and Thomas L. Boyd. 1984. A Test-Retest Policy for Introductory Psychology Courses. Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 11, 3 (1984), 182--184. https://doi.org/10.1177/009862838401100320
[5]
Amy Diegelman-Parente. 2011. The Use of Mastery Learning With Competency-Based Grading in an Organic Chemistry Course. Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 40, 5 (2011), 50--58.
[6]
John Dunlosky, Katherine A. Rawson, Elizabeth J. Marsh, Mitchell J. Nathan, and Daniel T. Willingham. 2013. Improving Students' Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 14, 1 (2013), 4--58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
[7]
Stephen H. Edwards and Manuel A. Perez-Quinones. 2008. Web-CAT: Automatically Grading Programming Assignments (ITiCSE '08). 328. https://doi.org/10.1145/1384271.1384371
[8]
Sophie Engle and Sami Rollins. 2013. Expert Code Review and Mastery Learning in a Software Development Course. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., Vol. 28, 4 (April 2013), 139--147.
[9]
Armando Fox and David Patterson. 2012. Crossing the Software Education Chasm. Commun. ACM, Vol. 55, 5 (May 2012), 44--49. https://doi.org/10.1145/2160718.2160732
[10]
James Garner, Paul Denny, and Andrew Luxton-Reilly. 2019. Mastery Learning in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE '19). 37--46. https://doi.org/10.1145/3286960.3286965
[11]
Mark Guzdial. 2020. CS Teachers, It's (Past) Time To Learn About Race | blog@CACM . https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/245408-cs-teachers-its-past-time-to-learn-about-race/ Retrieved August 28, 2020 from
[12]
G. Herman, K. Varghese, and C. Zilles. 2019. Second-chance Testing Course Policies and Student Behavior. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE '19). 1--7.
[13]
Geoffrey L. Herman, Zhouxiang Cai, Timothy Bretl, Craig Zilles, and Matthew West. 2020. Comparison of Grade Replacement and Weighted Averages for Second-Chance Exams. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 56--66. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3406260
[14]
E. Hill, P. M. Johnson, and D. Port. 2016. Is an Athletic Approach the Future of Software Engineering Education? IEEE Software, Vol. 33, 1 (2016), 97--100.
[15]
Mehdi Jazayeri. 2015. Combining Mastery Learning with Project-Based Learning in a First Programming Course: An Experience Report. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 2 (ICSE '15). 315--318.
[16]
Philip Johnson. 2019. Design and Evaluation of an "Athletic" Approach to Software Engineering Education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., Vol. 19, 4, Article 41 (Aug. 2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3344273
[17]
P. Johnson, D. Port, and E. Hill. 2016. An Athletic Approach to Software Engineering Education. In 2016 IEEE 29th International Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET). 8--17.
[18]
Chen-Lin C. Kulik and James A. Kulik. 1987. Mastery Testing and Student Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, Vol. 15, 3 (1987), 325--345. https://doi.org/10.2190/FG7X-7Q9V-JX8M-RDJP
[19]
Noel LeJeune. 2010. Contract Grading with Mastery Learning in CS 1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., Vol. 26, 2 (Dec. 2010), 149--156.
[20]
Jason W. Morphew, Mariana Silva, Geoffrey Herman, and Matthew West. 2020. Frequent mastery testing with second-chance exams leads to enhanced student learning in undergraduate engineering. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 34, 1 (2020), 168--181. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3605
[21]
Craig E. Nelson. 1996. Student Diversity Requires Different Approaches To College Teaching, Even in Math and Science. American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 40, 2 (1996), 165--175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764296040002007
[22]
Tia Newhall, Lisa Meeden, Andrew Danner, Ameet Soni, Frances Ruiz, and Richard Wicentowski. 2014. A Support Program for Introductory CS Courses That Improves Student Performance and Retains Students from Underrepresented Groups. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '14). 433--438. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538923
[23]
Steven C. Shaffer and Mary Beth Rosson. 2013. Increasing Student Success by Modifying Course Delivery Based on Student Submission Data. ACM Inroads, Vol. 4, 4 (Dec. 2013), 81--86. https://doi.org/10.1145/2537753.2537778
[24]
Nicholas C. Soderstrom and Robert A. Bjork. 2015. Learning Versus Performance: An Integrative Review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 10, 2 (2015), 176--199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615569000
[25]
Craig Zilles., Matthew West., Geoffrey Herman., and T. Bretl. 2019. Every University Should Have a Computer-Based Testing Facility. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,. 414--420. https://doi.org/10.5220/0007753304140420

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
March 2021
1454 pages
ISBN:9781450380621
DOI:10.1145/3408877
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 March 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. assessment
  2. full-stack web development
  3. mastery learning
  4. skills testing
  5. software engineering education

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

SIGCSE '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025
The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 26 - March 1, 2025
Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 406
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)88
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media