1 / 60

Constructive Alignment for Teaching Model-Based Design for Concurrency

TeaConc 2007 – Invited Talk. Constructive Alignment for Teaching Model-Based Design for Concurrency. Claus Brabrand ((( brabrand@daimi.au.dk ))) DAIMI, Dept. of Computer Science STENO, Dept. of Studies of Science & Science Education UPNET, University Teaching/Learning Network

Patman
Télécharger la présentation

Constructive Alignment for Teaching Model-Based Design for Concurrency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TeaConc 2007 – Invited Talk Constructive Alignment for Teaching Model-Based Design for Concurrency Claus Brabrand ((( brabrand@daimi.au.dk ))) DAIMI, Dept. of Computer Science STENO, Dept. of Studies of Science & Science Education UPNET, University Teaching/Learning Network University of Aarhus

  2. Outline Introduction: • Background, Motivation, and Expectations The Theory of Constructive Alignment: • FILM: "Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding" "From Theory to Practice": • 'From content to competence' Implementing Alignment: • Constructive Alignment for Teaching Concurrency Open discussion: • Debate... 1 2 3 4 5

  3. Background (~ this talk) • Concurrency 2004+2005: • "Pre-alignment" • Learned about teaching/learning theories • In particular: Constructive Alignment,The SOLO Taxonomy, Constructivism, ... • Concurrency 2006+2007: • "Post-alignment"

  4. T 'Post-It' exercise • But first: Post-It exercise: • Write down answer to: • "what is good teaching?" • 2) Swap Post-Its...

  5. Outline Introduction: • Background, Motivation, and Expectations The Theory of Constructive Alignment: • FILM: "Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding" "From Theory to Practice": • 'From content to competence' Implementing Alignment: • Constructive Alignment for Teaching Concurrency Open discussion: • Debate... 1 2 3 4 5

  6. Let's watch the short-film... Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding ))) ((( Inspired by: "Teaching for Quality Learning at University", John Biggs Available on DVD through Aarhus University Press: ((( http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/short-film/ ))) Features Epilogue by John Biggs, DVD menu, and subtitles inEnglish, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, German, and Danish

  7. Outline Introduction: • Background, Motivation, and Expectations The Theory of Constructive Alignment: • FILM: "Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding" "From Theory to Practice": • 'From content to competence' Implementing Alignment: • Constructive Alignment for Teaching Concurrency Open discussion: • Debate... 1 2 3 4 5

  8. From Content to Competence • (Concurrency 2004+2005) course aims: • Given in terms of a 'content description': • Essentially: • The goal is...: • To understand: • deadlock • interference • synchronization • ... This is a bad idea for 2 reasons...!

  9. Problem with 'content' as aim • What is the problem with 'content'as learning objectives ?!? analyze ... theorize ... analyze systems explain causes explain ... circa-describe ... • Objective: • To understand: • deadlock • interference • synchronization • ... Stud. C agreement tacit knowledge from research-based tradition (not known by stud.)  name solutions recite conditons Teacher analyze systems explain causes Stud. B BUT, even if it were possible to agree, we know that the exam will dictate the learning anyways. Stud. A Censor

  10. Problem with 'understanding' • Why not use 'understanding'as learning objectives ?!? • Objective: • To understand: • deadlock • interference • synchronization • ... concept of deadlock ?!  The answer is simple: It cannot be measured (!)

  11. [ Competence := knowledge + capacity to act upon it ] 'Competence' as objectives ! • 'Competence' as learning objectives ! • Evaluation = Have the student do something, and then measure product and/or process • Objective ! • To learn to: • analyze systems for... • explain cause/effects... • prove properties of... • compare methods of... • ... Note:'understanding' is (of course)pre-requisitional (!)  Note': inherently operational (~ verbs) 'SOLO' = Structure of the ObservedLearning Outcome

  12. T Neighbour Discussion Discuss with neighbour: "does this make sense ?!?" (content  competence)

  13. SOLO 5  to generalize  to hypothesize to theorize  ... "extended abstract" to relate  to compare  to analyze  ... SOLO 4 "relational" to classify  to combine  to enumerate  ... SOLO 3 "multi-structural" to identify  to do procedure  to recite  ... SOLO 2 "uni-structural" no understanding  irrelevant information misses point  ... SOLO 1 "pre-structural" Advantages of 'SOLO' • Advantages of 'SOLO': • Constructed for research-based (university) teaching • Converges on research (at SOLO 5) depth (qualitative levels) surface (quantitative levels)

  14. Graphic Illustration Legend immediately relevant aspects – given! related or hypothetical – not given! irrellevant or inappropriate student response x R x R' x R R'' x x R R1 R2 R R3 R X R SOLO (elaborated) • to theorize • to generalize • to hypothesize • to predict • to analyze • to relate • to compare • to explain causes • to describe • to combine • to classify • to perform algorithm • to do simple procedure • to define • to identify • to recite extended abstract SOLO 5 relational SOLO 4 multi structural SOLO 3 uni structural SOLO 2

  15. Note: the list is non-exhaustive SOLO (more verbs) SOLO 5 • to theorize • to hypothesize • to generalize • to critize • to predict • to applytheory (to 'distant' problems) • to put-into-perspective • to reflect • to judge • to discuss "extended abstract" SOLO 4 • to apply theory (to 'near' problems) • to reason about (reach conclusion) • to explain (cause-effect) • to explain (similarities-differences) • to explain (strengths-weaknesses) • to analyze • to argue • to relate • to compare • to integrate "relational" SOLO 2+3 • to enumerate • to paraphrase • to do simple procedure • to define • to identify / name • to recite • to describe • to structure • at collate • to combine • to classify • to perform algorithm "multi structural" & "uni structural"

  16. Concrete Example andConcrete Recommendations (4x) 1) Use 'standard formulation': put learning focus on student (Note: competence formulation "to be able to") Intended Learning Outcomes [Genetics 101] After the course, the students are expected to be able to: locate genes on chromosomes do simple calculations : (e.g., recombination frequencies, in-breeding coefficients, Hardy-Weinberg, evolutionary equilibria). describe and perform connexion-analysis describe fundamental genetic concepts: (e.g., mutation variation, in-breeding, natural selection). describe and analyze simple inheritancies analyze inheritance of multiple genes simultaneously 4)Avoid 'understanding-goals': "To understand X", "Be familiar with Y", "Have a notion of Z", ...! V N N V N V V V N V V N V 3) Use 'Verb + Noun' formulation: What the student is expected to dowith a given matter . 2) List sub-goals as 'bullets': Clearer than text N V

  17. T Post-It exercise Write down 1-2 key competences (i.e., verbs) (for your concurrency course) 5 4 2+3

  18. Outline Introduction: • Background, Motivation, and Expectations The Theory of Constructive Alignment: • FILM: "Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding" "From Theory to Practice": • 'From content to competence' Implementing Alignment: • Constructive Alignment for Teaching Concurrency Open discussion: • Debate... 1 2 3 4 5

  19. 10' Break Please put the Post-Its on the wall "What is good teaching?" Key competences (in your course)

  20. Outline Introduction: • Background, Motivation, and Expectations The Theory of Constructive Alignment: • FILM: "Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding" "From Theory to Practice": • 'From content to competence' Implementing Alignment: • Constructive Alignment for Teaching Concurrency Open discussion: • Debate... 1 2 3 4 5

  21. Disclaimer The point of this part is: • not to exhibit aperfectly aligned course; • but to show how the principles of alignment can be put to use (in particular, how it may serve as guidelines for the exam and TLA). [ TLA :=Teaching/Learning Activities ]

  22. Implementation Process • Process(course specific): 1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?) 2)Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes alignment 3)Choosecarefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes) 4)Choosecarefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)

  23. Starting Point • Content description (Concurrency '04+'05): What is the overall goal of the course...? (what are the students to learn)

  24. Overall Course Philosophy • Model-Based Designfor Concurrency:

  25. Thoroughly Motivate (what can they do, if they 'bother' learning this?)

  26. Implementation Process • Process(course specific): 1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?) 2)Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes alignment 3)Choosecarefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes) 4)Choosecarefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)

  27. #2 #1 . #3 . S M . I Model-based design for Concurrency T Intended Learning Outcomes • Intended Learning Outcomes(based on The SOLO Taxonomy): Note:explicitly included as a non-goal  #1 #2 #3

  28. Implementation Process • Process(course specific): 1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?) 2)Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes alignment 3)Choosecarefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes) 4)Choosecarefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)

  29. On Aligning the Exam (~ ILOs) • Pre-alignment (Concurrency 2004+2005): • Group Project (50%) • Individual Multiple-Choice Test (50%) • Post-alignment (Concurrency 2006+2007): • Group Project (50%) • Individual Multiple-Choice Test (50%) 'Inherited' from pre-2004: Because it seemed like a good idea to do a project Added in 2005: Politically motivated: exam must have individual part!  However; BIG differences...! Coincidentally: Carefully designed (~ILOs): Project good for evaluating model-based design process Carefully designed (~ILOs): MC-test good for evaluating analytical skills (~problem): to analyze/compare models

  30. Project (pre- vs. post-alignment) • 2004 Project: "The Beer Factory": • 2006 Project:"The Banana Republic": • No explicit learning objectives (only 'list of contents') • No explicit project grading criteria  result • Some student projects with no appearantmodel  impl. relationship (at least, to me)! 

  31. The Banana Republic Project designed(~ ILO's): • (a) Construct unsafe model (w/o controller); • (b) Test model - observe that collisions with 'El Presidente' can occur; • (c) Define safety property NO_CRASH; • (d) Verify that collisions can occur; • (e) Construct a controller (such that collisions can no longer occur); • (f) Verify that collisions can no longer occur; • (g) Define liveness property ('El Presidente' can eventually leave); • (h) Implement model in Java. • Grading (of the report): • constructmodels... • apply common solutions... • relate specmodel... • test model... • define properties... • verify model wrt. properties... • implement model... • relate modelimpl... • All ILO's except: • analyze models • comparemodels Better evaluated on MC-test

  32. MC-test (pre- vs. post-alignment) • 2004 MC-test: • 2006 Project: (a bunch of seemingly reasonable questions): Bad Alignment  Carefully designed (~ ILO's): • analyze models (and programs) wrt. behavior • compare models (and program) wrt. behavior

  33. Example: analyzemodels Good Alignment

  34. Example: compare models Good Alignment

  35. Implementation Process • Process(course specific): 1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?) 2)Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes alignment 3)Choosecarefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes) 4)Choosecarefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)

  36. On Aligning the TLA (~ ILOs) • Pre-alignment (Concurrency 2004+2005): • Lectures (2-3 hrs/week) • 'Theoretical Exercise Classes' (2 hrs/week) • 'Programming Lab' (2 hrs/week) • Post-alignment (Concurrency 2006+2007): • Lectures (2-3 hrs/week) with activation exercises • 'Theoretical Exercise Classes' (2h/w) apply common solutions • 'Programming Lab' (2 hrs/week) hands-on training for project • Weekly hand-ins (every week) train for project (w/ feedback!) • MC-test sample questions (given early) train for MC-test essentially teacher-centric "monologues" [ Idea due to colleague Thomas Hildebrandt at ITU ]  student-centric

  37. TLA's (post-alignment) Student-centric: • 'Theoretical Exercise Classes' (2h/w) apply common solutions • 'Programming Lab' (2 hrs/week) hands-on training for project • Weekly hand-ins (every week) train for project (w/ feedback!) • MC-test sample questions (given early) train for MC-test Teacher-centric: • Lectures (2-3 hrs/week) with activation exercises { apply common solutions } { construct, implement, test, verify, define, apply } { construct, implement, relate } { analyze, compare } introduce fundamental concepts/problems/solutions (in terms of models & impl)

  38. Implementation Process • Process(course specific): ? 1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?) 2)Operationalize these goals: and express them as intended learning outcomes alignment 3)Choosecarefully the form(s) of examination (~ intended learning outcomes) 4)Choosecarefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes)

  39. Conclusions (pre vs. post) • Subjectively: • Constructive Alignment (!!!): • To the point that I bothered making a film about it :) • Own behavior changed: • From 'intuition' to conscious choices;awareness of alternatives and of consequences of choices (~ student learning) • My students' behavior (from my perspective): • More focusses on learning the objectives (esp. 'to relate') • Disclaimer: • (many factors involved that vary from-year-to-year) • Student background and prerequisites; • The "Susan/Robert ratio"; • Teacher's experience gain; ... ...and many more

  40. Objectively (I/III):(Questionnaire at end, 7-step scale) self-reported • Student satisfaction: • "slightly more satisfied"..or • "constructive alignment doesn't compromize student satisfaction" • Student proficiency: • More useful figures (~learning)! • However: I only havepost-alignment data :( • Thus: "inconclusive" :( Pre ('04-'05) Pre ('04+'05) Post ('06-'07) Post ('06+'07)

  41. Objectively (II/III):(Competences explicitly tested & trained) • Competences explicitly tested and trained for: • Conclusion: • "Substantial SOLO-level increase" (~ good teaching)! • Much better projects (esp. 'modelimpl' relationship)!

  42. Objectively (III/III):(Qualitative data from 2006 eval) • Anonymous student in 2006 evaluation: Overall: “This course has been awesome! It took me a while to be able to think in models, but I saw the light along the way.” Teaching: “Lectures have been great, the theoretical exercise classes have been rewarding and the feedback has been immense and insightful” Exercises: “I did not have a lot of time to do the exercises, but they seemed relevant from week to week.” Project: “The mini project was a good and solid exercise in analyzing a problem, making a model and implementing it. A very good exercise!”

  43. Outline Introduction: • Background, Motivation, and Expectations The Theory of Constructive Alignment: • FILM: "Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding" "From Theory to Practice": • 'From content to competence' Implementing Alignment: • Constructive Alignment for Teaching Concurrency Open discussion: • Debate... 1 2 3 4 5

  44. x R x R’ R’’ . . . Open Discussion... My research and teaching Cognition & structures Intended learning outcomes (ILO) Association new ~ old "understanding" content  competence The SOLO Taxonomy 'TLA' Teaching/Learning Activities Teacher models levels 1 - 2 - 3 Student models Susan & Robert M S The Short-Film I 'The Book' Model-based design for Concurrency Experiences Pre vs. Post Student activation Satisfaction analyze explain Students at Uni ? "What is good teaching?" Exam Tips'n'Tricks ??? Constructive Alignment John Biggs

  45. Tips'n'Tricks (activation) • Neighbour discussions: • Post-It exercise: • Form variation: • focus: zoom in • anonymous (!) • swap'able • everyone will engage • empathetic control • shared knowledge pool • more questions(students dare ask them) • better questions(students had a chance to discuss) [Phil Race] 1-2 min timeout • Frequent breaks: pulse reader measurements: lecturing blended with in-class activation exercises

  46. NEW OLD Tips'n'Tricks (cont'd) • Use many examples:(build on student pre-knowledge) • Explicit structure: • Student 'recap' at end: 1. xxxxxxxxxx 2. yyyyyyyyyy 3. zzzzzzzzzz 4. wwwwwww 1. xxxxxxxxxx 2. yyyyyyyyyy 3. zzzzzzzzzz 4. wwwwwww 1. xxxxxxxxxx 2. yyyyyyyyyy 3. zzzzzzzzzz 4. wwwwwww 1. xxxxxxxxxx 2. yyyyyyyyyy 3. zzzzzzzzzz 4. wwwwwww  • self evident to you [ teacher ] • not to a learner [ student ] (esp. during learning process) • "Less-is-more": • analyze • compare • relate common deadlock, uncommon deadlock, A-synchronization, B-synchronization, hand-shake, multi-party synchronization, multi-party hand-shake, binary semaphores, generalized semaphores, blocking semaphores, recursive locks, ... vs. now after 1 day after 1 week after 2 weeks after 3 weeks Emphasize depth over breadth (coverage)

  47. Now, please: "3-minute recap" • Please spend 3' on thinking about and writing down the most important points from the talk – now!: Immediately After 1 day After 1 week After 2 weeks After 3 weeks

  48. Thank You! Film's homepage: ((( http://www.daimi.au.dk/~brabrand/short-film/ )))

  49. BONUS SLIDES

  50. The Role of the Exam • Alignment: • A theory of planning (over the course of a course) • A theory of motivation (and incentive) • The exam as a...: "The exam does not come after, but before the course!" "Necessary evil" application of alignment Motivational and learning-guiding pedagogical tool for the teacher(!)

More Related