Student Opinion of Learning Activities on Computing Undergraduate Degrees John Colvin and Alan Phelan University of Worcester February 2006.

Student Opinion of Student Opinion of Learning Activities on Learning Activities on

Computing Computing Undergraduate DegreesUndergraduate Degrees

John Colvin and Alan Phelan

University of Worcester

February 2006

Project Origins Catalyst

Constructive Alignment

• Belief in student-centred learning• Admiration of the teaching of some of my

colleagues• Positive anecdotal evidence from students

Project– Student opinion of student-centred learning

activities?– Why did academics incorporate these learning

activities?

Context University of Worcester

– University Title 2005

Computing Students– Modular Scheme– Entry

• 160 UCAS points

• Non-traditional entries

– Likely to come from a less academic background than a decade ago

– Project staff recognise ‘traditional’ approach is inappropriate

Learning Activities 9 modules Year 2/3 students 4-7 weeks Followed an introductory session ..

– Group Discussion & Presentational Activities– On-line discussions– Computer simulations– Graded programming exercises– Investigations using propriety software

On-line discussions

• Encourages deep learning• Discussions are not spontaneous• Staff monitored / encouraged in-depth discussion.

Discussion and Presentations

• Topics - encourage higher level cognitive skills

• e.g. “Compare and contrast the pressures that the DPA and the F of IA place on companies”

• Potential of cooperative learning

Programming Exercises and Examples

Structured series of both examples and also exercises of increasing difficulty

Examples and straightforward exercises may only encourage surface learning more complex exercises require higher levels of problem solving, which involves deep learning

Challenge is to encourage surface learners to move onto the more challenging exercises.

possible by a structured levels of complexity of successive exercises + appropriate support mechanisms.

MCQ tests as formative assessment, might encourage surface learning

Simulation Software (Small Groups)

Proprietary Software (Individually)

• Open-ended questions or analyse / reflect• Formative activity will encourage deep learning• Students focus on summative assessment • Exploit the assessment focus

Learning Activities

Generally– All project modules

• > 50% of timetabled sessions was scheduled for student-centred learning activities

• Academics have addressed the problem of devoting too much time to teaching content

• Project staff are “student-focused”

Student Opinion of Learning Activity

Challenging? Interest? Enable the achievement of the ILO’s? Appropriate for the stage of the course? Frequency? Encourage attendance? Purpose of the activity?

How Challenging?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Too Difficult Challenging - itstretched me

Not verychallenging

Too Easy No Opinion

How Challenging is the Activitiy?

Interesting?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Excited andAbsorbed

Interested No Opinion Uninterested Bored

Level of Interest aroused by Activity

• Deep Learning Enjoyable

Achievement of ILO’s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All LO's Most LO's No Opinion Some LO's No LO's

Achievement of Learning Outcomes (Student Opinion)

•Student-centred - higher quality learning outcomes. •Disappointing - students exaggerate their abilities. •Other learning opportunities.•Expect better?

Appropriate for Stage of Course

0102030405060708090

VeryAppropriate

Appropriate No Opinion Inappropriate VeryInappropriate

Appropriateness for Stage of Course

•87% -Appropriate / very appropriate

•Encouraging

•Consistent with student views on purpose

How Often?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Every week Half thesessions

No Opinion Occassionally Never

How Frequently should the Learning Activity Occur?

•Staff favour particular activity

•Students favour palette of activities?

Encourage Attendance?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

More likely toattend

No effect No opinion Less likely to attend

Describe how this activity encourages attendance

•Little effect on attendance

•Strategies for non-attendees?

Why were Learning Activities included?

Influence Ranking

Academics Students

So that the lecturer does not need to talk for 3 hours

5th 5th

To encourage students to reflect on what they are learning

2nd 1st

To prevent students from being bored 4th 4th

To exploit the view that students learn better when ‘doing’

1st 2nd

To fill time 6th 6th

To encourage students to work autonomously

3rd 3rd

Academic Awareness of Constructive Alignment

00.5

11.5

22.5

3

3.54

Unaware ofterm

Aware of term,not of meaning

Aware ofterm,not sureof meaning

Aware of termand of

meaning

Awareness of the term "Constructive Alignment"

• Theory not fully appreciated by these academics

• Local phenomenon?

Conclusions– Student Opinion

• Positive & uniform across different activities

• Learning activities are interesting, challenging, supportive and appropriate for the stage of their course

• Preference for a palette of differing learning activities throughout a module

• Only a few students believed that individual activities might encourage attendance

– Academics• Correspondence between academics and students on the why

academics incorporate their learning activity.

• Constructive Alignment theory was not yet fully appreciated by academics

Further Research

To determine the effectiveness of including a palette of differing learning activities throughout a module to better student achievement.

To investigate adopting other strategies with students that have a poor attendance record

To determine whether the lack of awareness of Constructive Alignment theory amongst academics is a general or a local phenomenon

To correlate students’ preference for the type of learning activities with their level of learning.