Category Archives: Assignment

Writing workshop: Project Abstract and more

Leave a reply

For this class, we will start with a presentation by Shao-Heng. He will be practicing his presentation for his SIGCSE TS 2023 paper “What Drives Students to Office Hours: Individual Differences and Similarities.” This presentation will serve as an example of what a polished Exemplary talk looks like to give everyone an idea of what kind of talk to strive for the following week. Note that Shao-Heng’s talk is polished by getting a lot of feedback from me and will not be used as the floor of the Exemplary standard but as something to aim for.

Then, we will have another writing workshop with the goal of writing an abstract about your project. These abstracts will be included in Prof. Stephens-Martinez’s advertisement to the CSEd faculty in the department, inviting them to come to see your presentations. Besides getting feedback on your abstract, you can get feedback on anything else, including your presentation next week.

Your abstract is due Thursday, 12/1 (the day of this class), at 11:59 PM. Your abstract should be 1-3 paragraphs and no more than half a page long. Formatting is not relevant since you will submit via an open textbox in Gradescope.

At this point, you’ve read many abstracts, so you should feel free to draw on what you’ve liked and not liked about those abstracts. The following should be included in your abstract:

  1. Why is it important? (1-2 sentences)
  2. What you did (2-4 sentences, e.g., “We investigated <what your data is> to answer <your research questions>”)
  3. What you found (2-5 sentences, e.g., “We found….”)
  4. Concluding sentence (1-2 sentences, optional)

This will count as 1% of the project presentation’s 12% for your overall grade.

Grading

  • Exemplary (10 points) – The abstract is well-written and has all of the required pieces.
  • Satisfactory (9 points) – The abstract has all of the required pieces, but some of it is confusing or vague.
  • Not yet (6 points) – The abstract is clearly missing one or more parts.
  • Unassessable (2 points) – There is an abstract but it does not fulfill the Not yet criteria.

Group Check-ins and Learning Theory in CS

Leave a reply

We will spend most of the class period doing one-on-one group check-ins. You will have feedback from your prototype by this day, so you can use the time to go over this feedback. When not meeting with Prof. Stephens-Martinez, plan to work or meet with your group, like a writing workshop.

Make sure to fill out a group check-in slide!

In the last 30 minutes, we will have Prof. Brandon Fain visit again to continue our conversation from last Thursday. To prepare for the discussion, answer the following questions in your QQC Docs the day before, Wednesday 11/16.

  1. Thinking about pedagogy (apart from curriculum and motivation), what has been particularly effective and/or ineffective in helping you to learn computing theory?
  2. What is one idea from the reading that stuck out to you, and how could it be applied?

11/10 Guest Speaker: Brandon Fain and Group Check-in

Leave a reply

For the first part of the class, we will have group check-ins. Make sure to create a slide like usual.

In the last 30 minutes, we will have Prof. Brandon Fain as a guest speaker. He will talk about how theory and algorithms are taught, how it’s motivated/connected to practice, how people learn it, how it’s assessed, and what’s known and what isn’t really well known about it.

Reading (Also in Box folder): Maria Knobelsdorf, Christoph Kreitz, and Sebastian Böhne. 2014. Teaching theoretical computer science using a cognitive apprenticeship approach. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538944

In your QQC Doc the day before class (11/9), write the following reflection, which will count as an assignment:

  1. Do you think learning theory/conceptual knowledge about computer science is important for all computing students? Why or why not?
  2. What has been rewarding or frustrating for you about learning these topics?

Grading

This will be out of 10 points:

  • Satisfactory (10 points) – There is a reflection and both questions are answered.
  • Unsatisfactory (5 points) – There is a reflection, but only one question is answered

Regrade

If you do not score a satisfactory, you can update your reflection and submit a regrade request via email. Use the subject line “CS290: Regrade Teaching Associate Reflection.” Please request a regrade by 11/15.

BYOPaper: SIGCSE or Handbook

Leave a reply

For this week’s reading, you may choose to find a paper from the Special Interest Group Computer Science Education Technical Symposium (SIGCSE TS) or pick a chapter in the Handbook. To find papers, you can try the following:

  1. Go to the ACM Digital library’s SIGCSE search engine.
  2. Use Google Scholar and include SIGCSE in your keyword search. Make sure the citation says SIGCSE.
  3. Google “SIGCSE <year>” with the year of your choice, and most of the conference’s websites have a program schedule, such as SIGCSE 2022, SIGCSE 2021, SIGCSE 2019, etc. (SIGCSE 2020 got canceled, so those papers were invited back to present in SIGCSE 2021).

There are two deliverables for all BYOPapers:

  1. An entry in your QQC Doc
  2. A Trello card in the class’s Trello board summarizing the paper
    1. Your card should contain a 1-2 sentence summary, key takeaways from the paper, any other thoughts/questions you had about the paper, and a citation with a link (unless it’s the handbook). Attaching a copy of the paper to the card is appreciated but not required. Be prepared to also discuss why you chose this paper. You do not need to make this extensive; see the example card for reference.

We will start class by discussing our labels from when we did the ICER BYOPaper. In your tables, you will then discuss what labels to apply to your SIGCSE paper (and if you didn’t present your ICER paper yet, your ICER paper) and any new labels that would make sense to have. Then we’ll come together and have a class discussion about the papers.

Grading

  • Exemplary (10 points) – There is a card with all the parts, and it was presented in class.
  • Satisfactory (9 points) – There is a card with all of the parts, but it was not presented in class. If you missed class for a reasonable reason, you will get the opportunity when you return to class.
  • Not yet (6 points) – There is a card, but it is missing one part.
  • Unassessable (2 points) – There is a card, but it does not fulfill the Not yet criteria.

Regrade

You may redo the work and request a single regrade to update your grade.

Guest Speaker: Teaching Associate & Group Check-ins

Leave a reply

Guest Speaker: Teaching Associate Reflection [Assignment]

Due: 10/20

During the first half of class, we will have all three of the department’s teaching associates serve on a panel. To prepare, listen to the following two podcast episodes about what the teaching associates do:

And then, in your QQC Doc, write the following reflection. The reflection will count as an assignment.

  1. Teaching associates can now also just have a bachelor’s, would you apply to this job? Why or why not? If yes, how would it fit into your career plan?
  2. Given your experience as a student in classes with teaching associates, what would you keep in the job? What would you remove? What would you add? Why?
  3. What is one question you’d like to ask the teaching associates when they visit the class?

Grading

This will be out of 10 points:

  • Satisfactory (10 points) – There is a reflection and both questions are answered.
  • Unsatisfactory (5 points) – There is a reflection, but only one question is answered

Regrade

If you do not score a satisfactory, you can update your reflection and submit a regrade request via email. Use the subject line “CS290: Regrade Teaching Associate Reflection.” Please request a regrade by 10/28.

Project Check-ins

After our guest speaker, we will have group check-ins. To make the best use of our time and move quickly, every group should answer the following questions in our class Google Slide deck. Make a copy of the template slide at the top and put it in your group’s section of the slide deck.

  1. What have you done so far?
  2. What do you want to discuss today?
  3. How is your progress compared to where you expected it to be?
  4. What will you do by the next meeting?

BYOPaper: ICER or Handbook

Leave a reply

The International Computing Education Research (ICER) conference. For this week’s reading, you may choose to find a paper from ICER or pick a chapter in the Handbook. To find papers, go to the ACM Digital library’s ICER search engine. Alternatively, you can use Google Scholar and include ICER in your keyword search, just be careful that it is actually a paper from ICER. The overall goal of this week’s reading is for you to start looking for related work for your research question and to share what you find with the class in case it would benefit them as well. Note a paper should be more than 2 pages long. If it’s less than this it is likely a poster’s extended abstract.

There are two deliverables for all BYOPapers:

  1. An entry in your QQC Doc
  2. A Trello card in the class’s Trello board summarizing the paper

Everyone will give a short presentation on what they read. You will present from your Trello card. Your card should contain a 1-2 sentence summary, key takeaways from the paper, any other thoughts/questions you had about the paper, and a citation with a link (unless it’s the handbook). Be prepared to also discuss why you chose this paper. You do not need to make this extensive, see the example card for reference.

Grading

  • Exemplary (10 points) – There is a card with all the parts and it was presented in class.
  • Satisfactory (9 points) – There is a card with all of the parts, but it was not presented in class. If you missed class for a reasonable reason, you will get the opportunity when you return to class.
  • Not yet (6 points) – There is a card, but it is missing one part.
  • Unassessable (2 points) – There is a card, but it does not fulfill the Not yet criteria.

Regrade

You may redo the work and request a single regrade to update your grade.

Assignment: Reading academic papers

Leave a reply

Due: Tuesday 9/20

Given what you learned in class, let’s practice it! For this week’s reading, do the following.

  1. Pick 3 papers to read using pass 1
  2. Of those 3 papers, pick 2 to read at the level of pass 2
  3. Of those 2 papers, pick 1 to read at the level of pass 3.
  4. Update your QQC doc to reflect your decisions and write a QQC entry for each paper.
  5. Add a separate section in your QQC doc with a Header 1 of “Reflection on Reading Academic Papers” and answer the following:
    1. What criteria did you use to choose the papers to move on to the next pass? Note this isn’t asking “why that particular paper,” it’s asking you to go meta and think about your decision process.
    2. How did it feel to read in a way that is different than reading every word?

Grading

  • Exemplary (10 points) – There is an entry for all three papers, noting which paper was which pass, and the reflection questions are answered.
  • Satisfactory (9 points) – All entries are there, but they are not clearly labeled. Reflection is present.
  • Not yet (6 points) – One pass is missing or the reflection is missing.
  • Unassessable (2 points) – There is an entry but it does not fulfill the Not yet criteria.

Regrade

You may redo the work and request a single regrade to update your grade.

QQC Doc Check-in

Leave a reply

The main point of this check is to confirm you are doing your due diligence in following the directions about what goes in your QQC Doc. In the real world, no one actually checks your notes to hold you to some standard. The only person that might ever care is the future you that has to go back and use those notes. However, the intention behind this exercise is to provide structure and help you practice reasonable organization and note-taking skills with me (Prof. Stephens-Martinez) to hold you accountable.

There are 10 possible points for each check, and they will be awarded as follows:

  • Exemplary (10 points) – Formatting is correct for all entries (title, citation, link if needed), and there are at least three “things” per entry. A thing can be a question, comment, or quote, but you do not need one of each.
  • Satisfactory (9 points) – Some formatting is incorrect, but otherwise, everything is there.
  • Not yet (6 points) – It is clearly missing one or more entries or frequently has fewer than three “things” per entry.
  • Unassessable (2 points) – The document exists and there is an attempt at at least one entry, but otherwise, there is little there.

Regrade

You may redo/update the work and request a single regrade to update your grade. To ask for a regrade email the instructor with the subject: “CS290 Regrade: QQC Doc Check-in” include a link to your QQC doc.

Checklist for QQC Check-in 1, due Thursday, 9/29

  1. Handbook: Ch 1 History of CER
  2. Handbook: Ch 3 Literature Review and Voices from the Field Part 1
  3. Some academic papers in CER: Student help-seeking and formative assessments
    1. 3 entries, one from each paper in that assignment
  4. BYOPaper: ICER or Handbook

Checklist for QQC Check-in 2, due Thursday, 11/3

  1. Handbook: Ch 3 Literature Review and Voices from the Field Part 2
  2. How to write briskly and well
  3. Chapter in Critically Conscious Computing
  4. BYOPaper: SIGCSE or Handbook
  5. Handbook: Ch 16 Equity and Diversity

Checklist for QQC Check-in 2, due Thursday, 12/8

  1. Handbook: Ch 14 Assessment and Plagiarism
  2. Teaching theoretical computer science using a cognitive apprenticeship approach
  3. BYOPaper: CER Journal

QQC Doc

Leave a reply

Due: Thursday, 9/1

QQC stands for Question, Quote, or Comment. The QQC Doc is a Google document shared with the instructor of the class and will serve as a bibliography and notes for the readings. To start, create and share a Google document with ksm@cs.duke.edu

The Google document should follow a particular format to help with navigation. To make things easier here is a Google doc template. Clicking on this link will prompt you to make a copy of the Google doc.

Format

  • Google doc name: “QQC Doc: Given_name Surname” – replace Given_name Surname with your name such that it can be matched to your name in the gradebook.
  • Contents for each reading
    • Title of the reading with the format “Heading 1”, so they appear in the document outline.
    • Citation – Must contain title, author, publication venue, and year (Google Scholar’s Cite feature will help)
    • Link to the reading (not needed for readings from the Handbook, but could be useful to you)
    • Your Question(s), Quote(s), and Comment(s) about the reading. If you are wondering how much to do, check out the QQC Doc Check-in post.

Supplement

You can learn about QQC from 5 Ways College Teachers Can Improve Their Instruction by the Cult of Pedagogy podcast.

Grading

The grading will be based on whether you created the document based on the above instructions. There are 10 possible points for each check and they will be awarded as follows:

  • Exemplary (10 points) – By the due date the document exists, is shared with the instructor, and is named correctly.
  • Not yet (6 points) – The document exists, is shared with the instructor, but is not named correctly.

Regrade

You may redo/update the work and request a single regrade to update your grade. To ask for a regrade email the instructor with the subject: “CS290 Regrade: QQC Doc Creation” include a link to your QQC doc.

Preparing to lead discussion

Leave a reply

As stated in the syllabus, in groups of 2-3 you will lead a class discussion on the readings. We will spend our entire Tuesday class on this, and therefore, your plan should take up about 1 hour and 5 minutes (leave 10 minutes for announcements and buffer).

Due: Sunday night before the designated class

You need to create a Google document(s) showing how you plan to lead the discussion. It needs to be shared with ksm@cs.duke.edu no later than Monday noon so Prof. Stephens-Martinez can provide comments that afternoon.

Suggested Discussion Structure

  1. Remind the class of one of the topics in the readings.
    1. There is no need to reteach the topic. Assume that everyone did the readings. Instead, provide brief reminders of what will be discussed next and provide greater context to the discussion question(s). Alternatively, provide a brief reminder and then dive deep into one aspect of the topic that interests you.
  2. Ask a series of questions, where questions are introduced one at a time, discussed in small groups, and each group reports back on their discussion.
    1. These questions should be open-ended and rarely have a correct answer. Their goal is to generate discussion and articulate ideas.
    2. Potential questions:
      1. What stood out the most (or top 3) to you from the reading/topic?
      2. Given <introduced idea>, what does that mean for your own learning?
      3. Reflect on your learning experiences so far; how did <topic> influence it? Should have influenced it?
      4. What question do you have about the reading?
      5. What did this reading leave you to wonder about?
  3. Repeat from 1

Deliverable(s)

  1. Presentation – The Google slide deck that you will screen share or project to the rest of the class.
    1. When we are in person, Prof. Stephens-Martinez can project for you so that you do not need to ensure your laptop is compatible with the projector.
  2. Your lesson plan – This should be an email to Prof. Stephens-Martinez with the following:
    1. A link to your Google slide deck that is shared with ksm@cs.duke.edu
    2. Time estimates for each section of the slides, the total estimated time should be around 1 hour and 5 minutes.
  3. Ed Discussion Post
    1. The day of class, you must create a post in the class Ed Discussion that includes a link to your slides for everyone to access them.

Supplemental Material

To help brainstorm ideas, I recommend the following podcast episodes:

Grading

  • Exemplary (10 points) – Your group submitted all deliverables on time and clearly show sufficient work and planning
  • Satisfactory (9 points) – All deliverables are done on time, but the presentation and lesson plan were sent later than Monday noon, which meant Prof. Stephens-Martinez did not have enough time to provide feedback
  • Not yet (6 points) – The deliverables were created, but the slides or plan are incomplete
  • Unassessable (2 points) – At least one deliverable is missing