On Jan 3rd,
Mike and Kelvin met in Kelvin’s Office at 1pm. The following are records from
our discussion.
i.
Identify
the learning objectives (reference to ACM Curriculum
2001)
ii.
Derive
technical checklist that student would learn from the
assignment
iii.
Describe
aspects of the assignment that will ensure students practice the technical
competencies
iv.
Derive a
technical specification for the assignment.
i.
The first
set is non-games, non-graphics, but API-based
ii.
The second
set is XNA based
i.
Kelvin
plans on implement, refine the XNA based assignments and build a simple API for
assignment development based on the XNA framework.
i.
Based on
short 10 week-quarters, we envision sufficient time to use 2 of the assignments
each time.
ii.
We may try
using different combinations of the assignments for each (e.g. use a1, a2 for
142 in Fall, and a2,a3 in 142 in Winter)
i.
Assessment
Tools must be derived (both quantitative and
qualitative)
ii.
External
faculty: must evaluate 3b and we must refine 3b after receive the
evaluation.
iii.
We should
document how our refinements address the potential issues raised by the
evaluation process.
i.
Tools:
must be derived (again, quantitative and
qualitative)
ii.
External
faculty: will evaluate 3.c.i.
i.
Tools:
must be derived (again, quantitative and
qualitative)
ii.
External
Games industry person(s) will evaluate
i.
Tools:
must be derived (quantitative and qualitative)
ii.
External
Games industry and external faculty
i.
Design
tools to assess students knowledge on the technical
checklist
1.
pre-test
2.
post-test
3.
general
pooling questions for students
ii.
The
research question we want answers to are:
1.
Did
students have these knowledge before the assignment
2.
Did
students learn from these
assignments
3. How did they learn (what aspect of the assignment helped them learned)
Kelvin is in contact with Ruth Anderson from CSE at UWSeattle, for having her as potential external faculty reviewer.
== meeting ended at
about 2:50pm.