On Jan 24th, Ruth
Anderson and Kelvin met in Ruth’s office (CSE360) at about 11am. The following
are records from our discussion.
- Kelvin briefed Ruth
on the background of the project.
Objectives (AO): This is the “student learning outcome/objective” for an
assignment. The AO will relate the assignment to the ACM curriculum (ACM).
Mike and Kelvin need to flush out one for each of the assignments. AO’s
should list out:
Learning objective of the assignment
(e.g., competency on working with 2D array)
Pre-Knowledge: e.g., nested loop,
“Typical Schedule” (with respect to
ACM sample syllabus): time-frame in a “typical” curriculum where this knowledge
should be introduced.
Specification (AS): This is the
technical competency the assignment is designed for students to practice.
This document should concentrate on describing “what” without details of
“how”. The AS should include:
Technical specification of what
students must accomplish (e.g., traverse a 2D array horizontally/vertically,
ability to make decision while traversing an array in deciding if continual
traversal is necessary).
- Assignment Design
(AD): There will be two of this for each AO/AS set: one for games theme
assignment (ADG), one for non-games but API-based (ADA).
- Assignment Sample
Solution (SS): again two sets one for Games-themed (SSG), and one for
non-games API-based (SSA).
Assessment (AA): a pre and post quiz for each assignment. These will serve
as quantitative assessment tools, Becky will administer these together with
the qualitative feedback pooling during class.
- Complete Assignment
Package (CAP): Complete set of all documents/solutions from
- ACM curriculum is the
foundation for reference, our assignments are vehicles in delivering
knowledge, we will consult the ACM curriculum when consider the following
- Schedule: with
respect to a “typical” syllabus, where does each assignment fit
- Level 1: AO (2.a.)
+ AS (2.b.): these documents must be evaluated with respect to the ACM
document, and AS must be address the requirements from
- Level 2: AD (2.c.)
+ SS (2.d.): the document and implementation must be evaluated with respect
to the refined AO document.
- Level 3: AA (2.e.):
appropriateness/feedback of the quizzes.
- Tutorials: for each
XNA-based assignments Kelvin should design one (or a series) of tutorials to
guide students/faculty into using the development
- The project schedule:
while the project should officially begin in July 2007, due to our schedules,
we will begin now, do most of the work in June/July, and August will be quiet.
September will be time for writing a paper(s) to SIGCSE. The following is
_NOT_ discussed during the
meeting, I am just listing it out as a reference:
- March (Spring
break) 2007: Mike and Kelvin should have 1 to 2 AO’s for different
assignments. Ruth can take a look at these and begin thinking about Level-1
- 2nd week
of June 2007:
Mike+Kelvin: flush out
all the AO’s
Mike+Kelvin: flush out
AS + AD (Will need to get Games people feedback
- 2nd and
3rd Week July:
and pass on results to Ruth
Ruth: receive draft CAPs from Mike+Kelvin and
- Based on 1 or 2
AO’s Ruth will examine and decide if it is more appropriate to design the
Level-1 assessment tool.
- After 7a. Mike and
Kelvin will design/implement 1 or 2 draft CAP, and Ruth will examine it and
decide if designing assessment tool herself makes
- After 7a, we will
have a better understanding of our Level-1 AO evaluation process, Mike and
Kelvin will deliver the other AO’s to Ruth for
- After 7b we will
have better understanding of our Level-2 evaluation procedure, together with
results from 7c, Mike and Kelvin will deliver the rest of the CAPs to Ruth for level-2
- We need to submit
the Quiz for level-3 evaluation also.
CS1 (no XNA) - control
CS2(XNA) – demonstrate students with
no XNA background can do this
CS1 (XNA) – begin of
CS2 (no XNA) – this is the
continuation of the control group from f.i.1
CS1 (XNA) – opportunity to use
CS2 (XNA) – experiment group from
f.ii.1. should definitely poll this group for how they
What is lacking is continuation of
f.iii.1 -> CS2(no XNA), this group will tell us how
students with CS1-XNA feel when they take CS2 without XNA. Opportunity for continuation
- CCSC 2007 Workshop:
We should think about proposing a CCSC 2007 workshop on something related to
XNA: Kelvin’s idea is to begin simple (since we won’t have any results yet).
Kelvin is proposing to organize a Event-Driven Programming workshop, main
we will describe API-independent
demonstrate theory with many
language/API: FLTK, MFC, WinForm, JavaSwing
relate theory to MVC framework and
lead to XNA Framework API, demonstrate how understanding allow easy programming
with the XNA framework
Kelvin has worked with Java Swing
(or AWT), but prefers if someone else would do
We should invite MSR people to give
short talk on what is MS’s take on all this. I wonder
if they would be interested.
Kelvin plans to start developing a
proposal during Spring break 2007.
- SIGCSE 2008: write
a paper on our summer’s work in September 2007.
- We should do
pre/post-course “survey” asking students questions
Your interests in
Did this course increase/decrease
your interests in majoring in CS
- JERIC: http://www.acm.org/pubs/jeric/ is
a potential avenue for publishing our results.