June 2009 - Volume 8 Issue 2

Editorial by Alan Poulter
University of Strathclyde

Hepworth tackles a core problem, which is the increasingly complex nature of the information environment with which students have to contend. All too many assume that they are digitally literate, only to discover that they are not. This information literacy course for first year undergraduates required that they identified an area of study and researched its resources and environment.

We all have had students who are not intrinsically motivated to learn. Hill reports on a fascinating re-structuring of assessment specifications and marking criteria, to make very clear the answers to “why do I need to know this” and “what do I need to be able to do”. While I always ask students questions in class, to try and hold their attention, I have never had access to the electronic voting systems (EVS) surveyed by King and Robinson. They analyse their use in mini-test, concept test and ice-breaker modes.  Personally I think such devices could really improve the usefulness of the large lecture.

Students always want more feedback. For programming, Esendal and Dean have employed a software tool, Doctor Code, which gives feedback on commenting, naming variables and objects, data validation and code complexity. Another approach to more and better feedback is the paper from Stone, Batmaz and Hinde, who decided to build a diagramming tool, for students to use in a graphical representation exercise.  The tool would mark ‘standard’ answers, leaving the more individual interpretations for a person to mark. This both reduced marking loads and increased the quality and amount of feedback to students.

Augusto presents a review of efforts to use ambient intelligence, literally ‘a pro-active digital environment’ in education. A grid is used to highlight the distinctive features of the eight projects analysed. While I cannot see the resources needed for ‘smart classrooms’ forthcoming in the short term, it might be prudent to think now about how technology might change the dominant ‘chalk and talk’ environment.

Bosschetto and Cortesi explain the rationale behind their ADA portal, designed to get more females interested in computing as a discipline. From the feedback they have received, it seems to be having the desired effect.

Finally, a very conceptual paper from Beynon looks at the challenge that Empirical Modelling makes to teaching computing. It questions formal models and mathematical approaches to programming by proposing an alternative educational model based on the interaction between human and device creating a dynamic set of requirements as well as emergent uses. This divergence is clearly illustrated, using as examples teaching bubble sorting and creating a Sudoku-solving routine.

Download the whole editorial in PDF Document

Download the whole issue in PDF Document