Search

Exams are an integral assessment component in CS1 courses. However, little research exists concerning the impact of the exam format on student performance. To address this deficit, we conducted a year-long study to investigate student performance across two test formats, paper and IDE, with the goal of identifying any differences attributable to the format. Data was collected from the second and third exams over the course of two semesters, with five sections per semester. Each exam, whether paper or IDE, was constructed from a common list of concepts to ensure comparability across formats and sections. To assess the impact of exam format, we considered three points of concern. The first factor, grade received, provides a direct indication of student performance. Next, we examined the type of error committed by students (either syntax or logic) to determine influence of exam format (e.g., Does an IDE reduce the occurrence of syntax errors?). Finally, we considered exam completion rates to address concerns such as if the additional feedback might be overwhelming students in an already stressful environment (exam-taking) leading to lower completion rates.

We describe a programming tutor framework that consists of two configurable components, a guided-planning component and an assisted-coding component that offers task relevant automatically-generated hints on demand to students. We evaluate the effectiveness of the new integrated planning and coding environment by comparing it to three other tutor conditions: planning-only, coding-only, and planning-only interleaved with planning-coding. We conclude that the integrated planning and coding tutor environment is more effective than tutored planning-only activities and that students make more efficient use of tutor feedback in the integrated environment than in the coding only environment.

I report on experiences teaching a Senior-level Special Topics course in Combat Robotics during the Fall 2012 semester. The surface goal of the course was for student teams to design and build a three-pound remote-control combat robot conforming to the Robot Battles rules (http://robotbattles.com/rules) and then to compete against their peer teams at semester's end. The higher-level goal was to expose students to physical design and fabrication techniques -- topics well outside our regular Computer Science curriculum -- and integrate those techniques with software development. Students were required to:Design their robot using 3D Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software. The CAD model allowed students to experiment with design trade-offs, ensure proper fit and placement of parts, and to estimate the weight of the robot prior to build to ensure their design was under the limit.Fabricate parts for their robot using a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) milling machine (similar to that used by machinists and product designers in industry).Understand tool, machine, and workshop safety.Build and program a custom remote-control system using Arduino microcontrollers and Xbee wireless modules. This included soldering, obeying voltage and current limitations, serial communication, servo and motor control, and interfacing with other hardware (such as a Wii Nunchuck video game controller).