Focusing on learning through constructive alignment with task-oriented portfolio assessment

ABSTRACT Approaches to learning have been shown to have a significant impact on student success in technical units. This paper reports on an action research study that applied the principles of constructive alignment to improve student learning outcomes in programming units. The proposed model uses frequent formative feedback to engage students with unit material, and encourage them to adopt deep approaches to learning. Our results provide a set of guiding principles and a structured teaching approach that focuses students on meeting unit learning objectives, the goal of constructive alignment. The results are demonstrated via descriptions of the resulting teaching and learning environment, student results, and staff and student reflections.

[1]  L. Baird,et al.  Do grades and tests predict adult accomplishment? , 1985 .

[2]  A. Cain,et al.  Toward constructive alignment with portfolio assessment for introductory programming , 2012, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) 2012.

[3]  Martin A. Conway,et al.  Why is it that university grades do not predict very-long-term retention? , 1992 .

[4]  J. Markwell,et al.  The human side of science education: Using McGregor's theory Y as a framework for improving student motivation * , 2004, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[5]  Alessio Gaspar,et al.  Restoring "coding with intention" in introductory programming courses , 2007, SIGITE '07.

[6]  Andrea Raiker.  Assessment for learning , 2007 .

[7]  Andrew Cain,et al.  Factors influencing student learning in portfolio assessed introductory programming , 2014, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE).

[8]  Kate Skinner,et al.  Bridging gaps and jumping through hoops: First-year History students’ expectations and perceptions of assessment and feedback in a research-intensive UK university , 2014 .

[9]  Elizabeth Murphy.  Constructivism: From Philosophy to Practice. , 1997 .

[10]  G. Boulton‐Lewis.  Teaching for quality learning at university , 2008 .

[11]  Graham Gibbs,et al.  Coursework Assessment, Class Size and Student Performance: 1984‐94 , 1997 .

[12]  D. Mcgregor,et al.  The Human Side of Enterprise , 1960 .

[13]  Gail Fulenwider.  Web site creation for mobile devices , 2013 .

[14]  Scott Grissom,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of Using Constructive Classroom Activities to Teach Introductory Programming , 2001, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[15]  B. Kniveton.  Student Perceptions of Assessment Methods , 1996 .

[16]  Geoffrey E. Mills.  Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher , 1999 .

[17]  F. Marton,et al.  ON QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING: I—OUTCOME AND PROCESS* , 1976 .

[18]  Päivi Tynjälä,et al.  Traditional studying for examination versus constructivist learning tasks: Do learning outcomes differ? , 1998 .

[19]  G. Gibbs,et al.  Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning , 2005 .

[20]  Mordechai Ben-aft,et al.  Constructivism in computer science education , 1998, SIGCSE '98.

[21]  Neena Thota,et al.  Holistic approach to learning and teaching introductory object-oriented programming , 2010, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[22]  D. Jonassen.  Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? , 1991 .

[23]  Kim Chow Catherine 鄧劍秋 Tang,et al.  How do students prepare for traditional and portfolio assessment in a problem-based learning curriculum? , 1999 .

[24]  B. A. Chansarkar,et al.  STUDENT PERFORMANCE UNDER DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT SITUATIONS , 1987 .

[25]  David Gries,et al.  An introduction to programming , 1973 .

[26]  Alessio Gaspar,et al.  An experience report on improving constructive alignment in an introduction to programming , 2012 .

[27]  Branko Bognar,et al.  Evaluation in Higher Education. , 2014 .

[28]  Andrew Cain,et al.  Helping students track learning progress using burn down charts , 2013, Proceedings of 2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE).

[29]  Andrew Cain,et al.  Constructive alignment for introductory programming , 2013 .

[30]  Les Jervis,et al.  What is the Constructivism in Constructive Alignment? , 2005 .

[31]  Marc J. Rubin.  The effectiveness of live-coding to teach introductory programming , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[32]  J. Biggs.  Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment , 1996 .

[33]  Charalambos Vrasidas.  CONSTRUCTIVISM VERSUS OBJECTIVISM: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERACTION, COURSE DESIGN, AND EVALUATION IN DISTANCE EDUCATION. , 2000 .

[34]  George M. Bodner,et al.  The Many Forms of Constructivism , 2001 .

[35]  U. Dahllof,et al.  Evaluation of Distance Education. , 1975 .

[36]  Andrew Cain,et al.  Reflections on Applying Constructive Alignment with Formative Feedback for Teaching Introductory Programming and Software Architecture , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C).

[37]  J. Biggs.  What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning , 1999 .

[38]  P. Ramsden.  A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire , 1991 .

[39]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching , 2006 .

[40]  P. Black,et al.  Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment , 2010 .