Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Analyzing CS Competencies using The SOLO Taxonomy Claus Brabrand ((( ))) ((( ))) Associate Professor, IT University of Copenhagen Denmark ITiCSE'09 – Keynote

[ 2 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Outline 1) Introduction Constructive Alignment The SOLO Taxonomy 2) From Content to Competence Advocate a shift in perspective Elaborate The SOLO Taxonomy 3) Analyzing CS Competencies …using The SOLO Taxonomy Compare: CS vs NAT vs MAT

[ 3 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) “Teaching for Quality Learning at University - What the student does” “Teaching for Quality Learning at University - What the student does” Constructive Alignment & SOLO Taxonomy: Introduction to…: “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding” “Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding” 19 min award-winning short-film on Constructive Alignment (available on DVD in 7 languages, epilogue by John Biggs) John Biggs’ popular and heavily cited book: Note: 3 rd Edition now available [J.Biggs & C.Tang, 2009]

[ 4 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) What are the ‘main messages’ of the film (which did YOU find particularly relevant, …if any)? Activation Exercise Discuss with your neighbour: T

[ 5 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Outline 1) Introduction Constructive Alignment The SOLO Taxonomy 2) From Content to Competence Advocate a shift in perspective Elaborate The SOLO Taxonomy 3) Analyzing CS Competencies …using The SOLO Taxonomy Compare: CS vs NAT vs MAT

[ 6 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) From Content to Competence My old course descriptions (Concurrency 2004): Given in terms of a 'content description': Essentially: This is a bad idea for two reasons...! Goal is…: To understand: deadlock interference synchronization...

[ 7 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Goal is…: To understand: deadlock interference synchronization... Problem 1 ! Problem with 'content' as goals ! analyze... theorize... define deadlock describe solutions name solutions recite conditons Stud. C Stud. A Stud. B analyze systems explain causes Censor Teacher P.S.: even if it were possible to agree, we know that the exam will dictate the learning anyway.  agreement analyze systems explain causes tacit knowledge from a research-based tradition not known by student

[ 8 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Problem 2 ! Problem with 'understanding' as goals ! The answer is simple : 'concept of deadlock' ?!  Goal is…: To understand: deadlock interference synchronization... It cannot be measured !

[ 9 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Competence ! 'Competence' as goals ! Have the student do something; and then "measure" the product and/or process 'SOLO' = Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome Note': inherently operational (~ verbs) Objective ! To learn how to: analyze systems for... explain cause/effects... prove properties of... compare methods of Note: 'understanding' is of course pre-requisitional ! Competence := knowledge + capacity to act upon it

[ 10 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) SOLO Advantages Advantages of The SOLO Taxonomy: Linear hierarchical structure Aimed at evaluating student learning Converges on research (at SOLO 5) Research: Production of new knowledge

[ 11 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) SOLO (elaborated) Note: the list is non-exhaustive SOLO 2 ”uni-structural” SOLO 3 “multi-structural” SOLO 4 “relational” SOLO 5 “extended abstract” theorize generalize hypothesize predict judge reflect transfer theory (to new domain) … analyze compare contrast integrate relate explain causes apply theory (to its domain) … combine structure describe classify enumerate list do algorithm apply method … define identify count name recite paraphrase follow (simple) instructions … Graphic Legend problem / question / cue known related issue - given! hypothetical related issue - not given! student response Q R QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE R R' Q R Q R Q R Q

[ 12 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Using SOLO in Practice Intended Learning Outcomes [Algorithms 101] After the course, the students are expected to be able to: identify and formulate algorithmic problems ; classify and compare algorithms ; construct and analyze algorithms using standard paradigms; implement algorithms for simple problems. 2) List sub-goals as 'bullets': Clearer than text 3) Use 'Verb + Noun' formulation: What the student is expected to do with a given matter V N N N V V V N V V V V N 4) Avoid 'understanding-goals': "To understand X", "Be familiar with Y", "Have a notion of Z",...! Recommendations on course descriptions: 1) Use 'standard formulation': a) puts learning focus on the student b) competence formulation: "to be able to"

[ 13 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Activation Exercise Which do you predict are key CS competences ? T Concurrency: analyze systems compare models Concurrency: analyze systems compare models

[ 14 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Outline 1) Introduction Constructive Alignment The SOLO Taxonomy 2) From Content to Competence Advocate a shift in perspective Elaborate The SOLO Taxonomy 3) Analyzing CS Competencies …using The SOLO Taxonomy Compare: CS vs NAT vs MAT Joint work with Bettina Dahl at Aarhus University

[ 15 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Grade Scales ECTS SCALE A, B, C, D, E, Fx, F... 4 steps 8 steps 10 steps 21 steps... 4 steps 8 steps 10 steps 21 steps 7 steps:... Conversion (between EU countries): All Universities: Explicit ILO's The SOLO Taxonomy! Grade := Degree of realization of course objectives!

[ 16 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Massive DATA set Unique Opportunity…: Systematically formulated ILO's for all courses Quantifiable (analyzable) via The SOLO Taxonomy 5, institutes TWO u niversities c ompetencies courses 21

[ 17 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) SOLO Mapping Mapped by:  B. Dahl & C. Brabrand With help from:  3 Educational research colleagues (medicine)  J. Biggs & C. Tang

[ 18 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Top 10 Competencies Top 10 Competencies: " " := { Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Molecular Biology } Natural Sciences

[ 19 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Histogram of Top Competencies If we look closer (comparative visualization)...: Legend: Computer ScienceNatural ScienceMathematics % CS MAT More than 3x CS …also:  program  construct  structure NAT CS: 15 % NAT: 1.0 % MAT: 0.3 % CS: 4.5 % NAT: 4.4 % MAT: 40 % CS: 14 % NAT: 14 % MAT: 60 % More than 2x with apply

[ 20 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) SOLO Distribution SOLO distribution: The 15% "programming competences" (all at SOLO 4): { implement, program, design, construct, structure } SOLO 2SOLO 3SOLO 4SOLO 5 Legend:  15%  E[X] = 3.7 E[X] = 3.4 E[X] = 3.1

[ 21 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Assumptions  SOLO is an appropriate competence measure (we refer to [J.Biggs & K.F.Collis, 1982] )  Context independence of SOLO mapping (for each competence we inspected several goals)  Subject independence of SOLO mapping (we limit ourselves to a 'science context')  Equal weight assumptions (Competences in a goal & goals in a course have equal weight)  Outcomes: intended  formulated  achieved (we “analyze” formulated, but “reason about” achieved) Assumptions: [Biggs’ studies] [approximation] [implicational]

[ 22 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Conclusions Most frequent CS Competences are: describe (13%), explain (10%), apply method (9%), implement (7%), analyze (6%), … "Programming-related" skills: 15% of CS-curriculum The "Essence of Math" is: reproducing, formulating, proving, solving, argueing, (and applying) SOLO-levels of subjects: CS > SOLO NAT > SOLO MAT 15%

[ 23 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) 1) Introduction Constructive Alignment The SOLO Taxonomy 2) From Content to Competence Advocate a shift in perspective Elaborate The SOLO Taxonomy 3) Analyzing CS Competencies …using The SOLO Taxonomy Compare: CS vs NAT vs MAT Outline

[ 24 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Keynote Points Constructive Alignment …addresses many teaching / learning problems; e.g.: Esp. student motivational issues (learning incentives)... and student performance issues (learning support) The SOLO Taxonomy …is good for reasoning about competencies: Esp. for designing courses and curricula DATA Study, analyze, and reflect on teaching / learning …using (objective) DATA!

[ 25 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Questions... "What is good teaching?" The Short-Film Cognitive processes Association new ~ old The Book John Biggs "understanding" content  competence Student activation Susan & Robert Teacher models levels Course descriptions Constructive Alignment Top 10 Competences 15% programming CS v. NAT v. MAT Students at University My research and teaching 'TLA' Teaching / Learning Activities Tips'n'Tricks ? recite generalize R R' Q The SOLO Taxonomy

Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Thank You! ((( ))) Film's homepage:

[ 27 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Related References ”Teaching for Quality Learning at University (what the student does) ” John Biggs & Catherine Tang Society for Research into Higher Education, McGraw-Hill. ”Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy” John Biggs & Kevin F. Collis London: Academic Press, 1982 ”Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding” Claus Brabrand & Jacob Andersen 19 minute award-winning short-film (DVD) Aarhus University Press, Aarhus University, 2006 ”Using the SOLO Taxonomy to Analyze Competence Progression of University Science Curricula” Claus Brabrand & Bettina Dahl Higher Education, 2009 "Constructive Alignment & The SOLO Taxonomy: a Comparative Study of University Competencies in Computer Science vs. Mathematics" Claus Brabrand & Bettina Dahl CRPIT, Vol. 88, ACS 3-17, R. Lister & Simon, Eds., 2007

[ 28 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Implementing Alignment Alignment Implementation Process: 1) Think carefully about: overall goal of course (what are the stud. to learn?) 2) Operationalize these goals and formulate them as SOLO intended learning outcomes 3) Choose carefully the form(s) of assessment (~ intended learning outcomes ) 4) Choose carefully the form(s) of teaching (~ intended learning outcomes ) alignment learning incentivelearning support Think of teaching activities as ”training for exam”

[ 29 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) SOLO Progression SOLO Progression: Computer Science vs. Mathematics vs. …

[ 30 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Conclusion (Progression) What have we really shown?!? A) SOLO has "proved" that progression exists in curricula (since we "believe" in SOLO as a measure) B) SOLO has "been proven" to be a good tool for analyzing competence progression (since we "believe" in the existence of progression) xor

[ 31 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Progression Assumptions  Numeric quantification of SOLO [assumption] (i.e., numeric step from 2-3 is comparable to 3-4 and 4-5)  Progression manifests itself as competences [assumption] (i.e., in 'verb'-, not 'noun'-dimension) Extra assumptions wrt. Progression:

[ 32 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) SOLO Calculation Method Calculation Example (for a course): "SOLO average": [ (2+3)/2 + (3+4)/2 + (4+4)/2 + 4 ] / 4 = 3.50 "SOLO distribution": identify (2) and formulate (3) algorithmic problems; classify (3) and compare (4) algorithms; construct (4) and analyze (4) algorithms using standard paradigms; implement (4) algorithms for simple problems. "double weight averaging"

[ 33 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Neighbour Discussion Discuss with neighbour: "does this make sense ?!?" (content  competence) T E.g.: ("Learning about programming" vs. "Learning to program" )

[ 34 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Discuss what you predict we would find in the DATA set ? Activation Exercise III Discuss with your neighbour: T Questions: a) most frequent CS competences? b) percentage of "programming-related" competences? c) CS v. NAT v. MAT (wrt. SOLO levels)?

[ 35 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Post-It exercise Write down 1-2 key competences (i.e., verbs) (for your course) T Concurrency: analyze systems for deadlock compare models wrt. behavior Concurrency: analyze systems for deadlock compare models wrt. behavior

[ 36 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Tips'n'Tricks (activation) Neighbour discussions: Frequent breaks: Post-It exercise:  focus: zoom in  anonymous (!)  swap'able  everyone will engage  empathetic control  shared knowledge pool pulse reader measurements:  more questions (students dare ask them)  better questions (students had a chance to discuss) 1-2 min timeout [Phil Race] Form variation: lecturing blended with in-class activation exercises

[ 37 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Tips'n'Tricks (cont'd) "Less-is-more": Use many examples: (build on student pre-knowledge) Explicit structure:  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. Emphasize depth over breadth (coverage) NEW OLD 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)  Student 'recap' at end: after 1 day after 1 week after 3 weeks after 2 weeks now

[ 38 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Now, please: "3-minute recap" Please spend 3' on thinking about and writing down the most important points from the talk – now!: After 1 day After 1 week After 3 weeks After 2 weeks Immediately

[ 39 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) E.g. course: ”Databases” (at RUC/Roskilde): Note: almost entirely non-operational(!) i.e. measure how?!  obtain knowledge about the structure of database systems;  be familiar with design of databases by use of special notations like E/R and analysis through normalization;  get an overview of the most important database models and a detailed knowledge about the most important model - the relational model as well as the language SQL;  get an overview of database indexing and query processing;  obtain knowledge about application programming for DB systems. Problematic Courses Familiar with ?!

Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) BONUS SLIDES

[ 41 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Based on John Biggs' Theories 2nd edition (3rd edition expected this fall) "Teaching for Quality Learning at University", John Biggs

[ 42 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Teacher’s intention Student’s activity Exam’s assessment  e.g. - explain - relate - prove - apply e.g. - memorize - describe U NALIGNED C OURSE e.g. - memorize - describe "Dealing with the test"

[ 43 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Teacher’s intention Student’s activity Exam’s assessment e.g. - explain - relate - prove - apply A LIGNED C OURSE e.g. - explain - relate - prove - apply e.g. - explain - relate - prove - apply e.g. - explain - relate - prove - apply e.g. - explain - relate - prove - apply

[ 44 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Top 10 Competencies Top 10 Competencies: " " := { Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Molecular Biology } Natural Sciences

[ 45 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) SOLO (elaborated) Note: the list is non-exhaustive SOLO 2 ”uni-structural” SOLO 3 “multi-structural” SOLO 4 “relational” SOLO 5 “extended abstract” theorize generalize hypothesize predict judge reflect transfer theory (to new domain) … analyze compare contrast integrate relate explain causes apply theory (to its domain) … combine structure describe classify enumerate list do algorithm apply method … define identify count name recite paraphrase follow (simple) instructions … Graphic Legend problem / question / cue known related issue - given! hypothetical related issue - not given! student response Q R QUANTITATIVE QUALITATIVE R R' Q R Q R2R2 R3R3 R1R1 Q R Q R Q

[ 46 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Exercise Buzz Session: 1) Discuss w/ neighbour: 2) Write it on a Post-It 3) Swap Post-Its… T Just Keep Swapping… "which film messages did you find particularly relevant?"

[ 47 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Student Motivation  Susan: (”intrinsic motivation”) - wants to…: learn !  Robert: (”extrinsic motivation”) - to…: pass exams !

[ 48 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Constructivism  ”Transmission is Dead…” : (lectures = )  Knowledge is… Actively Constructed ! active teacher & passive students ! risk

[ 49 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) SOLO Taxonomy  Hierarchy for Competences:  Deep learning (not surface) ! 5: generalize, theorize, predict, … 4: explain, analyze, compare, … 3: describe, combine, classify, … 2: recite, identify, calculate, …

[ 50 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Stud Learning Focus  Focus on Student Learning ! (instead of ”what teacher does” & labelling students: ’good/bad’)  Student activitation  learning

[ 51 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Alignment  Make explicit ILO’s (Intended Learning Outcomes):   (…and tell this to students) Exam = ILO’s = Teaching

[ 52 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) 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...: "Necessary evil" Motivational and learning-guiding pedagogical tool for the teacher(!) application of alignment "The exam does not come after, but before the course!"

[ 53 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Di-Transitive Verbs Mono-Transitive verbs: Di-Transitive verbs:

[ 54 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) Data Set (XML and XQuery) (: Extracts all mathematics courses w/ maximum 1 goal and 2 competencies :) xquery version "1.0"; { for $course in fn:doc("data-au.xml") = "MAT"]//course let $goals := $course/goal where (fn:count($goals) le 1) and (fn:count($goals/competence) eq 2) order by return $course } Data set: [ ] [ ] [ ] XML XQuery

[ 55 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) The BLOOM Taxonomy (1956) The BLOOM Taxonomy: Knowledge Comprehension Application AnalysisEvaluationSynthesis Qualitative Quantitative SOLO 4+5 SOLO 2+3 ”[…] really intended to guide the selection of items for a test rather than to evaluate the quality of a student’s response to a particular item” -- (Biggs & Collis, 1982) ”

[ 56 ] Claus Brabrand ITiCSE 2009 – KeynoteParis, France (July 06, 2009) CS vs Math Distributions Computer Science: Mathematics:  (  = 3.06,  = 0.24)  (  = 3.68,  = 0.39)