skip to main content
10.1145/2674683.2674691acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pageskoli-callingConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Experiences in course design using neo-piagetian theory

Published: 20 November 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Course design is a fundamental yet challenging activity in any curriculum development exercise. A course needs to have clearly identified learning outcomes associated with the development of core concepts, and must include appropriate and varied topics, learning materials, and assessment activities that support those learning outcomes. For the identified core concepts, the learning and assessment activities must allow the learner the opportunity to develop an in-depth understanding of the concept and how it is applied. In this paper, we propose a methodology for course design that relies on a Neo-Piagetian taxonomy of cognitive development, which develops mastery through a series of explicit stages of cognitive development. In the design of the learning and assessment activities, we focus on ensuring that learning activities allow the students to explore the taught concepts at increasing Neo-Piagetian cognitive levels, supporting graduated exposure to concept development and the alignment of assessment with the cognitive level required from the learning outcomes. We demonstrate our approach for the design of an intermediate programming course and discuss our experiences and lessons learned.

References

[1]
S. Amarel. Computer science: A conceptual framework for curriculum planning. Communications of the ACM, 14(6), June 1971.
[2]
D. Buck and D. Stucki. Design early considered harmful: graduated exposure to complexity and structure based on levels of cognitive development. In Proceedings of SIGCSE'00, pages 75--79, 2000.
[3]
M. Caspersen and J. Bennedsen. Instructional design of a programming course - a learning theoretic approach. In Proceedings of ICER'07, pages 111--122, September 2007.
[4]
W. Dick, L. Carey, and J. Carey. The Systematic Design of Instruction. NY: Addison-Wesley, 2001.
[5]
M. Doherty. Learning objective based design of a computer simulation course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 26(4):181--188, April 2011.
[6]
K. Falkner, N. Falkner, and R. Vivian. Neo-Piagetian Forms of Reasoning in Software Development Process Construction. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LATICE 2013), 2013.
[7]
R. Gagne and L. Briggs. Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979.
[8]
R. Gluga, J. Kay, R. Lister, and D. Teague. On the reliability of classifying programming tasks using a neo-piagetian theory of cognitive development. In Proceedings of ICER'12, pages 31--38, 2012.
[9]
Harvard Graduate School of Education. The collaborative curriculum design tool, 2013. http://learnweb.harvard.edu/ccdt/, last accessed August 2013.
[10]
J. Kemp, G. Morrison, and S. Ross. Designing Effective Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[11]
C. Knight and R. Sutton. Neo-piagetian theory and research: enhancing pedagogical practice for educators of adults. London Review of Education, 2(1):47--60, March 2004.
[12]
M. Knobelsdorf, C. Kreitz, and S. Böhne. Teaching theoretical computer science using a cognitive apprenticeship approach. In Proceedings of SIGCSE'14, pages 67--72, March 2014.
[13]
K. P. Walker and S. Schach. Obstacles to learning a second programming language: An empirical study. Computer Science Education, 7:1--20, 1996.
[14]
R. Lister. Concrete and other neo-piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice programmer. In Proceedings of ACE'11, volume 114, pages 9--18, 2011.
[15]
S. Morra, C. Gobbo, Z. Marini, and R. Sheese. Cognitive Development: Neo-Piagetian Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008.
[16]
J. Piaget and B. Inhelder. The Psychology of the Child. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1969.
[17]
R. Reiser and W. Dick. Instructional Planning: A Guide for Teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2nd edition edition, 1996.
[18]
A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Journal of Computer Science Education, 13:137--172, 2003.
[19]
T. Sekiya, Y. Matsuda, and K. Yamaguchi. Analysis of computer science related curriculum on lda and isomap. In Proceedings of iTiCSE'10, 2010.
[20]
M. Tungere, X. Yu, W. Cameron, G. Teng, M. Perez-Quinones, L. Cassel, W. Fan, and E. Fox. Towards a syllabus repository for computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 55--59, 2007.
[21]
M. Veenman, J. Elshout, and J. Meijer. The generality vs domain-specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction, 7(2):187--209, 1997.
[22]
R. Zucker. Vicurrias: a curriculum visualization tool for faculty, advisors, and students. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(2):138--145, 2009.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
Koli Calling '14: Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
November 2014
176 pages
ISBN:9781450330657
DOI:10.1145/2674683
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]

Sponsors

  • Univ. Eastern Finland: University of Eastern Finland
  • The University of Newcastle, Australia
  • Aalto University

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 November 2014

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. computer science education
  2. course design
  3. neo-piaget

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

Koli Calling '14
Sponsor:
  • Univ. Eastern Finland

Acceptance Rates

Koli Calling '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 19 of 40 submissions, 48%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media