skip to main content
article

A framework for CS1 closed laboratories

Published:01 December 2005Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Closed laboratories are becoming an increasingly popular approach to teaching introductory computer science courses, as they facilitate structured problem-solving and cooperation. However, most closed laboratories have been designed and implemented without embedded instructional research components for constant evaluation of the laboratories' effectiveness. As a result, it is not convenient to maintain and improve the laboratories over time so that they adapt to changing CS topics, curricula, and student needs. This article reports on an integrated framework for designing, implementing, and maintaining laboratories with embedded instructional research design. Although the activities reported here are part of our department-wide effort to cover CS0, CS1, and CS2, we focus here on the design and implementation of the labs for CS1.

References

  1. ACM/IEEE Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. 2002. Computing Curricula 2001: Computer Science. IEEE Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bloom, B.S., Mesia, B.B., and Krathwohl, D.R. 1964. Taxonomy of EducationalObjectives. In two volumes: The Affective Domain and The Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruce, R., Brock, J.D., and Bogert, K. 2004. X-Lab: XML-based laboratory exercises for CS1. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Annual Southeast Regional Conference (Huntsville, AL). ACM, New York, 434-435. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Chavey, D. 1991. A structured laboratory component for the introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 22nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE'1991 (San Antonio, TX). ACM, New York, 87-95. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, J. 1994. Pieces of the puzzle: The jigsaw method. In Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods, S. Sharan, ed., Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Doran, M.V. and Langan, D.D. 1995. A cognitive-based approach to introductory computer science courses: Lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 26th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'95, Nashville, TN). ACM, New York, 218-222. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Geitz, R. 1994. Concepts in the classroom, programming in the lab. In Proceedings of the 25th SIGSE Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'94, Phoenix, AZ). ACM, New York, 164-168. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Hein, J.L. 1993. A declarative laboratory approach for discrete structures, logic and computability. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 25, 3 (1993), 19-25. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kumar, A.N. 2003. The effects of closed labs in computer science I: An assessment. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 18, 5 (2003), 40-48. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Lischner, R. 2001. Explorations: Structured labs for first-time programmers. In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'2001, Charlotte, NC). ACM, New York, 154-158. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu, X., Zhang, Z., Soh, L.-K., Al-Jaroodi, J., and Jiang, H. 2003. A distributed, multiagent infrastructure for real-time, virtual classrooms, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2003, Hong Kong, Dec. 2-5), 640-647.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Mccauley, R., Parrs, W., Pothering, G., and Starr, C. 2003. A proposal to evaluate the effectiveness of closed laboratories in the computer science curriculum. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 19, 3 (2003), 191-198. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Nugent, G., Soh, L.-K., Samal, A., and Lang, J. 2006. A placement test for computer science: Design, implementation, and analysis. Comput. Sci. Edu. 16, 1 (2006), 19-36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Nugent, G., Soh, L.-K., Samal, A., Person, S., and Lang, J. 2005. Design, development, and evaluation of a CS1 learning object for CS1. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE'2005, Monte de Caparica, Portugal, June 27-29), 370. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Oliver, S.R. and Dalbey, J. 1994. A software development process laboratory for CS1 and CS2. In Proceedings of the 25th SIGSE Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'94, Phoenix, AZ). ACM, New York, 169-173. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Parker, B.C. and Mcgregor, J.D. 1995. A goal-oriented approach to laboratory development and implementation. In Proceedings of t he 26th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'95, Nashville, TN). ACM, New Yprk, 92-96. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Parker, J., Cupper, R., Kelemen, C., Molnar, D., and Scragg, G. 1990. Laboratories in the computer science curriculum. Comput. Sci. Edu. 1, 3 (1990), 205-221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Pintrich, P.R. and DeGroot, E.V. 1990. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J. Edu. Psychol. 82, 1 (1990), 33-40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Roumani, H. 2002. Design guidelines for the lab component of the objects-first CS1. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'2002, Covington, KY). ACM, New York, 222-226. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Samal, A., Nugent, G., Soh, L.-K., Lang, J., and Person, J. 2005. Computer science curriculum at the University of Nebraska. In Technology-Based Education: Bringing Researchers and Practitioners Together. L. Pytlikzillig et al. eds. Information Age Publishing, 203-224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Soh, L.-K., Samal, A., Person, S., Nugent, G., and Lang, J. 2005a. Closed laboratories with embedded instructional research design for CS1. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'2005, St. Louis, MO, Feb. 23-27). ACM, New York, 297-301. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Soh, L.-K., Samal, A., Person, S., Nugent, G., and Lang, J. 2005b. Analyzing relationships between closed labs and course activities in CS1. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE'2005, Monte de Caparica, Portugal, June 27-29), 183-187. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Soh, L.-K., Khandaker, N., Liu, X., and Jiang, H. 2005c. Computer-supported structured cooperative learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE'2005, Singapore, Nov. 28-Dec. 2). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Thweatt, M. 1994. CS1 closed lab vs. open lab experiment. In Proceedings of the 25th SIGCSE Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'94, Phoenix, AZ). ACM, New York, 80-82. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Tucker, A. et al. 1991. Computing Curricula 1991: Report of the ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Curriculum Task Force. ACM Press, New York. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A framework for CS1 closed laboratories

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader