skip to main content
10.1145/3304221.3319731acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using Automated Prompts for Student Reflection on Computer Security Concepts

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Reflection is known to be an effective means to improve students' learning. In this paper, we aim to foster meaningful reflection via prompts in computer science courses with a significant practical, software development component. To this end we develop an instructional strategy and system that automatically delivers prompts to students based on their commits in a source code repository. The system allows for prompts that instigate reflection in students to be timely with respect to students' work, and delivered automatically, thus easily scaling up the strategy.

In this paper, we describe the design of a rule-based prompt delivery system, including a list of security related reflection prompts. We collect preliminary evidence for the reflection strategy in a course targeting mobile development. The evaluation provides evidence that such a system can help realize a reflection-in-action instructional strategy at scale and improve students' learning.

References

  1. Android. 2018. App security best practices. (2018). available via https://developer.android.com/topic/security/best-practices, retrieved November 12, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Eric P.S. Baumer, Vera Khovanskaya, Mark Matthews, Lindsay Reynolds, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Geri Gay. 2014. Reviewing Reflection: On the Use of Reflection in Interactive System Design. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Matt Bishop. 2003. Computer security: art and science .Addison-Wesley Professional.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Christopher N. Bull and Jon Whittle. 2014. Supporting Reflective Practice in Software Engineering Education through a Studio-Based Approach. IEEE Software, Vol. 31, 4 (July 2014), 44--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. John W. Coffey. 2017. A Study of the Use of a Reflective Activity to Improve Students' Software Design Capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 129--134. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Stephen H. Edwards. 2004. Using Software Testing to Move Students from Trial-and-error to Reflection-in-action. SIGCSE Bull., Vol. 36, 1 (March 2004), 26--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Angela Fessl, Oliver Blunk, Michael Prilla, and Viktoria Pammer. 2017. The known universe of reflection guidance: a literature review. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, Vol. 9, 2--3 (2017), 103--125. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Linda Finlay. 2008. Reflecting on reflective practice. PBPL paper, Vol. 52 (2008), 1--27. Available: https://www.open.ac.uk/opencetl/resources/pbpl-resources/finlay-l-2008-reflecting-reflective-practice-pbpl-paper-52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cindy E Hmelo-Silver, Ravit Golan Duncan, and Clark A Chinn. 2007. Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational psychologist, Vol. 42, 2 (2007), 99--107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Norio Ishii and Kazuhisa Miwa. 2005. Supporting Reflective Practice in Creativity Education. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 150--157. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Paul A Kirschner, John Sweller, and Richard E Clark. 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, Vol. 41, 2 (2006), 75--86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Äli Leijen, Kai Valtna, Djuddah AJ Leijen, and Margus Pedaste. 2012. How to determine the quality of students' reflections? Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 37, 2 (2012), 203--217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Stephen MacNeil. 2017. Tools to Support Data-driven Reflective Learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 299--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Charles P Pfleeger and Shari Lawrence Pfleeger. 2002. Security in computing .Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Julia Prior, Samuel Ferguson, and John Leaney. 2016. Reflection is Hard: Teaching and Learning Reflective Practice in a Software Studio. In Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, bibinfonumpages8 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Arthur S Reber. 1989. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of experimental psychology: General, Vol. 118, 3 (1989), 219.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Gary Rolfe. 1997. Beyond expertise: theory, practice and the reflexive practitioner. Journal of clinical nursing, Vol. 6, 2 (1997), 93--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Jerome H Saltzer and Michael D Schroeder. 1975. The protection of information in computer systems. Proc. IEEE, Vol. 63, 9 (1975), 1278--1308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Henk G Schmidt, Sofie MM Loyens, Tamara Van Gog, and Fred Paas. 2007. Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational psychologist, Vol. 42, 2 (2007), 91--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Donald A. Schön. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions .Wiley. 86045626 https://books.google.com/books?id=qqxsQgAACAAJGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Moushumi Sharmin and Brian P. Bailey. 2011. “I Reflect to Improve My Design”: Investigating the Role and Process of Reflection in Creative Design. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 389--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Moushumi Sharmin and Brian P. Bailey. 2013. ReflectionSpace: An Interactive Visualization Tool for Supporting Reflection-on-action in Design. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 83--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Richard E Smith. 2012. A contemporary look at Saltzer and Schroeder's 1975 design principles. IEEE Security & Privacy, Vol. 10, 6 (2012), 20--25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Software Engineering Institute. 2018. Android Secure Coding Standard. (2018). available via https://wiki.sei.cmu.edu/confluence/display/android, retrieved November 12, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeffrey A. Stone. 2012. Using Reflective Blogs for Pedagogical Feedback in CS1. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 259--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. John Sweller, Paul A Kirschner, and Richard E Clark. 2007. Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational psychologist, Vol. 42, 2 (2007), 115--121.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Andrew M. Webb, Rhema Linder, Andruid Kerne, Nic Lupfer, Yin Qu, Bryant Poffenberger, and Colton Revia. 2013. Promoting Reflection and Interpretation in Education: Curating Rich Bookmarks As Information Composition. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 53--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Yu-Chun Grace Yen, Steven P. Dow, Elizabeth Gerber, and Brian P. Bailey. 2017. Listen to Others, Listen to Yourself: Combining Feedback Review and Reflection to Improve Iterative Design. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 158--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Jose P. Zagal and Amy S. Bruckman. 2007. GameLog: Fostering Reflective Gameplaying for Learning. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Video Games (Sandbox '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Using Automated Prompts for Student Reflection on Computer Security Concepts

      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
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
        July 2019
        583 pages
        ISBN:9781450368957
        DOI:10.1145/3304221

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 2 July 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate552of1,613submissions,34%

        Upcoming Conference

        ITiCSE 2024

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader