|
Supporting a large-class programming course with Intranet tools
|
| Sana | 01.04.2020 | | Hajmi | 14.8 Kb. | | #9485 |
Supporting a large-class programming course with Intranet tools
Paul Curzon, Ann Blandford,
Matt Jones, Gary Marsden
and Matt Smith
School of Computer Science,
Middlesex University
Email: P.Curzon@mdx.ac.uk
Aims
Compare the effectiveness of different communication technologies.
Investigate the attitudes of students to the use of these technologies.
The study was based on a programming course characterised by
large-class size
200+ students,
low staff/student ratio, and
students with mixed ability and background
HND, BSc and students studying for non-computing degrees.
Method
split into 5, 5-member, mixed ability groups
given access to different communication technologies
structured email;
newsgroups;
live ‘talk’ discussion
all of above
none of above (control)
Tutors could contribute to discussions and answer questions.
Students completed online attitude questionnaires.
Post-trial interviews were conducted.
Results
Most students expressed the strong belief that the facilities could be extremely beneficial in appropriate conditions.
However, minimal use was made of any of the communication technologies.
Great use was made of the online questionnaires
considered very useful by students
Why?
Network limitations (speed, reliability, accessibility from outside the University) and other usability difficulties were seriously detrimental to activity.
Groups need to be much bigger to make participation worthwhile.
The immediacy offered by chat was considered valuable.
Students want to discuss their problems with someone now, not post a query and wait 24 hours for a reply.
Some viewed chat as an alternative to a seminar, with privileged tutor access, rather than as a way to discuss problems with a peer.
One student proposed that there should be private “student only” chat groups where they could discuss things without the presence of a lecturer.
Students in one group commented on the need to know who other group members are, both to put a name to a face and continue discussions offline.
The medium is seen as a complement to their other means of interaction.
Conclusions
Technological support needs to be useful and usable.
It needs to ‘fit in’ with the ways that students work.
It must be accessible from the places they choose to work.
It must complement other ways of interacting with tutors and peers
not represent an 'alternative reality'.
Electronic communication does not facilitate the negotiation of meanings to reach a common understanding.
There are real limits to its usefulness in helping people grapple with poorly understood difficulties that they cannot articulate clearly.
|
| |
