Java程序辅导

Programming 2: An assessment review 
David Chen1, Roger W. Moni2 and Lynda Davies2 
 
1School of Information Technology, Griffith University;  
2.The Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University 
 
Introduction to the case 
 
Learning, teaching and assessment issues within Information and Communication 
Technology (ICT) university curricula are tightly geared to both the rapidity of 
technological innovations and the dynamics and vicissitudes of market forces.  
The federally-funded Foresighting Working Group (2006) made seven 
recommendations around closer education-industry practices, leading to the 
establishment of the Australian Council of Deans of Information and Communication 
Technology (ACDICT) in July 2008. This body regularly sponsors networking and 
leadership forums. Concerns about ICT programs remain, however, with similar 
issues identified across Australian and UK universities (Koppi, Naghdy, Chicharo, 
Sheard, Edwards & Wilson, 2008). A recent report on managing change at the 
tertiary level (Koppi and Naghdy, 2009) captured the opinions and experiences of 
academics, graduates and industry employers. While strengths were identified—
notably that ICT programs generally prepare students well for the types of teamwork 
they need in industry—critical concerns dominated the findings. These included 
educational issues: 
 
a) the ICT discipline is fragmented because it is delivered across many other 
disciplines (e.g. Engineering, Economics) and complicated by struggles to 
provide effective developmental balance among technical, business and ‘soft’ 
skills; 
b) student enrolments have declined due to unfavourable perceptions of the 
profession, yet industry demands for graduates continues to rise; 
c) more students entering ICT programs have lower academic achievement 
records and that may contribute to the higher attrition rates emerging; 
d) there is a need for curricula with greater relevance to industry; and 
e) good teaching practices need to be documented and disseminated throughout 
the sector. 
 
This case study takes its lead from the final point about documenting and 
disseminating good practices. What follows is a description of assessment review in 
the undergraduate ICT course Programming 2 convened by one of the authors, 
David Chen. This early-stage investigation should be considered as part of the cycle 
of course improvement centred largely around reflection-upon-action (Schön,1983). 
It documents disciplinary and course aspirations, changes to learning-teaching 
activities and associated trends in student achievements in laboratory classes. 
Course improvements and challenges are summarised and then contextualised by 
reference to the Statements and Quality Indicators of Good Practice in Assessment 
developed by Griffith University. 
 
 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 1 
 
Context 
The ICT program 
At Griffith University, the Bachelor of Information Technology (BIT) is a three-year 
degree program emphasising the integration of theory and technology in real-life 
situations. Students can specialise in one of ten diverse areas: Artificial Intelligence 
and Robotics, Computer Systems and Networks, Computer Science, Databases, 
Internet Computing and eCommerce, Information Systems, Multimedia, Pervasive 
Computing, Computer Security and Software Engineering. 
The structure of Griffith’s ICT program focuses on the University’s strategic priority of 
work-integrated learning which is evidenced in a number of ways: 
“Information technology is a rapidly changing industry with fast-paced 
careers and research issues that are evolving swiftly. Griffith University 
has strong links with industry via a number of scholarships, guest 
lecturers, programs, research centres and the Industrial Affiliates 
Program.” 
Entry into the BIT and Bachelor of MultiMedia (BMM) programs requires an OP of 17 
and 16, respectively. 
 
The course, Programming 2 
 
Programming 2 is convened by a team across Nathan, Gold Coast and Logan 
Campuses. Co-author, David Chen, is based at Nathan. Programming 2 is a core 
course in the BIT and BMM programs, and is offered in semester two of Year One at 
both Nathan and Gold Coast campuses and to be eligible to enrol, students must 
first pass Programming 1. Enrolments typically exceed 150 at Nathan, and 100 at the 
Gold Coast. 
The course provides a broad coverage of programming concepts; the Java 
programming language, including an introduction to the Java class library; and a 
range of basic problem-solving and software engineering techniques for the 
development, testing and documentation of moderate-sized programs that address a 
variety of problem types. 
Intended learning outcomes are that students should have: 
1) a detailed knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the Java 
programming language and a general knowledge of the Java class library; 
2) learned and practiced the application of primitive data types, arrays, 
classes, and the application of classes in the Java class library; 
3) learned basic software engineering skills for designing, implementing, 
testing and documenting moderate-sized programs using procedural, and 
object-oriented programming; 
4) learned how to design and apply reusable software components; and 
5) developed skill and confidence in Java programming through the solution 
of selected problem-solving and programming exercises. 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 2 
 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 3 
 
Teaching and learning strategy 
Course delivery 
 
The course has two one-hour lectures, one two-hour laboratory class, and an  
optional one-hour drop-in clinic each week. New material is introduced, explained 
and illustrated during lectures. Material is reinforced and extended in laboratory 
classes where students are able to practice and then submit laboratory exercises for 
marking; receive advice and feedback on other programming projects; and request 
clarification on all aspects of the course. Drop-in clinics provide an opportunity for 
students to receive additional assistance when it is of most benefit. 
 
Students are required to attend both lectures each week and to attend and 
participate in one laboratory class each week. Drop-in clinics are optional. Failure to 
attend and participate in required classes may be taken into consideration by the 
teaching team if students request out-of-hours assistance, special consideration 
and/or deferred examinations. 
 
Extensive teaching materials, including weekly learning plans, lecture notes, 
example programs, online quizzes, and selected reference material is available on 
the course Web site. 
 
Learning and teaching issues 
 
The chief educational concern is whether students understand the fundamental 
concepts underlying their working program so that they can address similar issues 
identified in new situations and apply what they have learned. This is an important 
developmental step because success in Programming 2 relies on students being 
able to adapt what they have learned from this object-oriented programming to a 
broader application where they will tackle architecture and systems across networks 
and multiple computers. 
 
Teaching and learning strategies in this context can be understood by first 
considering an idealised depiction of how professional programmers work: 
 
1. Code pattern, re-use (copy and paste). 
2. Modify the code, and add some original code. This may require looking up 
documents and examples. 
3. Test the code, if it doesn’t work, go back to step 2. 
4. Still can’t fix error(s)? Ask colleagues/internet for help. 
 
In contrast, the Course Convenor has observed that when some students program 
they: 
 repeat steps 2 and 3 many times until they eventually get it right; 
 might do a lot of step 4; and/or 
 complete step 1 and re-use some (or all) code from a friend doing the same 
assessment item/s. 
 
Course history 
 
Before 2008 and the subsequent assessment review, there were disturbing trends 
emerging. Student attendance in laboratory classes was declining; overall student 
academic achievements were decreasing; and the number of plagiarism cases was 
increasing. 
 
In 2009, the Course Convenor introduced changes to teaching and assessment 
activities: 
 “Before-lab questions” were introduced that students needed to answer prior 
to them attempting the practice “in-lab questions”; 
 one-hour, open-book assessed-lab tests were conducted. This format tests  
what was practiced the week before; and 
 Marking occurred on-the-spot to provide immediate feedback. 
 
 
Assessment 
 
Historical changes to course assessment 
 
Before 2008, the course assessment consisted of four formative projects, and an 
end-of-semester summative exam.  Overall student achievement was poor due to 
excessive effort on getting the project programs to work and insufficient focus on 
understanding the fundamental concepts. Thus some students fell behind early in 
the course. 
 
To address this in 2008, the number of projects was reduced from four to two, and a 
system of practice laboratory exercises (formatively assessed) were introduced for 
students to complete before they were required to submit responses for marking. 
 
Further changes to the assessment schedule were introduced in 2009 as per the 
assessment plan below: 
 
1. Five Practice labs     5x2%   10% 
2. Five Assessed labs      5x4%   20% 
3. Two projects (building medium size programs) 10%, 20%  30% 
4. Five in-lecture quizzes    5x2%   10% 
5. End-of-semester exam       30%. 
 
Description of assessment items 
 
1. Practice laboratory exercises 
 
Five practice labs are assessable, at 2% each. Practice lab exercises contain a set 
of before-lab questions that need to be completed before students are allowed to 
work on the in-lab practice questions. If students can show their tutor at the start of 
the class that they have completed the required before-lab questions, then they are 
awarded 1% for that component of the work. If students complete the in-lab 
questions before the end of class, then they are awarded another 1%, bringing the 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 4 
 
potential marks for the practice-lab exercises to 2%. Part marks are allowed. Given 
that these exercises are meant to be formative in nature, students can ask tutors for 
help before and during the lab class. 
 
 
2. Assessed laboratory exercises 
 Each assessed-lab exercise is structured as an open book programming test 
to be completed without asking for help (particularly from friends). 
 Students are given one hour to produce a solution, then submit their work 
online at the end of class. 
 Each test is a simpler and shorter version of the practice lab exercises 
students were given to do the previous week and they are permitted to re-use 
some of the practice-lab exercise solutions. 
 If students understood what they did in the practice-lab, they should perform 
equally well (if not better) in the assessed-lab exercise. 
 These exercises are marked during lab classes so students can receive 
immediate feedback. 
 
3. Projects 
The two individual programming projects test students’ understanding and problem-
solving skills by requiring them to solve increasingly complex programming 
problems. Students should be able to answer simple questions regarding their 
submission, and may be required to demonstrate their work. 
 
4. In-lecture quizzes 
The five in-lecture quizzes test students’ understanding of the basic concepts in 
programming. Each quiz consists of five to ten multiple choice questions. While 
quizzes are held during lectures to encourage lecture attendance, students are 
required to demonstrate conceptual understanding in the tests and hence this activity 
is a test of learning and achievement 
 
5. End-of-semester exam 
The final examination will test students’ knowledge and skills acquired during the 
course and by requiring them to demonstrate their understanding of programming 
concepts, ability to write Java methods, classes, and applications. 
 
To be eligible for a passing grade in this course, students are required to achieve an 
overall mark of 50% and achieve a satisfactory standard (50%) in the final exam. 
 
Outcomes from changes to assessment 
 
Averaged assessment results from practice and assessed labs can be compared to 
determine how much students understood from their practice labs and how much 
they can apply this understanding to other contexts. As students cannot receive help 
from others during the assessed lab, the assessed lab result is a more accurate 
indication of what students know. The Semester 2, 2009 lab assessment results are 
summarised in Table 1. 
 
Table 1. Comparison of practice and assessed lab results in Programming 2, 
Semester 2 2009. 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 5 
 
 
  Item 1 Item  2 Item 3* Item 4 Item 5 
Practice lab result 
(N=no. of 
submissions) 
96% 
(N=269)
77% 
(N=246)
80% 
(N=190) 
74% 
(N=168) 
70% 
(N=141) 
Assessed lab result 
(N=no. of 
submissions) 
89% 
(N=273)
63% 
(N=257)
63% 
(N=223) 
56% 
(N=188) 
67% 
(N=162) 
Difference -7% -14% -17% -18% -3% 
 
 
The difference in student marks between the practice and assessed labs is of 
interest. Negative results indicate that students perform better in practice than during 
assessed labs. Results from Item 3 (of Table 1) serve as an illustration. Here, 
 178 students attempted both practice and assessed labs; 
 36 students did better in assessed labs than in practice labs; 
 39 students did equally well in both labs; 
 103 students (58%) did worse in assessed labs; and 
 The average difference for these students is 25%. 
The Course Convenor concluded from these data a significant number of students 
do not sufficiently understand the work they submit during the practice labs.  
 
A more promising trend for student achievement in the assessed labs was identified 
across 2009. Table 2 summarises the averaged class results for Semesters 1 and 2 
– indicating a clear overall improvement. 
 
 
Table 2. Assessed laboratory results for Semesters 1 and 2, 2009. 
 
  Item 1 Item  2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 
Sem 1 59%  53%  66%  48%  66%  
Sem 2 89%  63%  63%  56%  67%  
Difference +30% +10% +3% +8% +1% 
 
Course improvements 
The assessment schedule for, and activities during, practice laboratories has: 
1) been associated with a substantial increase in lab attendance and student 
participation; 
2) provided tutors and students with a concrete demonstration of student 
learning; and 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 6 
 
3) provided examples of the types of problems students were experiencing and 
identified what part of the curriculum was producing difficulties for them. 
Assessed-laboratory exercises were structured in ways that made it easier for tutors 
to identify those students who were having trouble understanding the concepts 
underpinning their work in the practice lab, and provided opportunities for them to 
help those students in subsequent practice laboratories.  
 
 
Remaining challenges 
The biggest challenge arising from this new design is the capacity of tutors to help all 
the students during both practice- and assessed-labs due to increased calls on their 
time. Tutors are now fulfilling a number of roles during class: assisting students with 
their problems, marking the solutions and providing feedback. 
While the introduction of the practice- and assessed-labs has been successful, a 
number of challenging issues outside the scope of assessment review remain. 
These include: variation of students’ ability when they enter Programming 2 and the 
prior knowledge and skill they should be bringing with them; tensions between ideal 
teaching conditions (such as staff-student ratio) and budgetary restraints; insufficient 
time in class to cover content so students can assimilate knowledge and practice 
new skills; and the capacity to cover the topics and develop skill sets for the diverse 
student cohort in ways that are relevant and challenging to all while maximising 
graduate employability.  
A review of the three Programming courses has been proposed. The aim of this 
review is to take a more unified approach to course design so there is a smoother 
transition for students between the courses Programming 1, 2, and 3. This 
programmatic focus will address the challenges identified to date. 
The Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology (CPRIT) are a 
useful source of assessment research in ICT (http://crpit.com/). The struggles which 
many students face when they learn to program have long been documented 
(Oman, Cook and Nanja, 1989). More recently, an analysis of how novice student 
programmers perform on summative assessment tasks illustrates the need for 
designing assessment tasks which better reflect disciplinary needs (Shuhidan, 
Hamilton and D’Souza, 2009). Clearly, there is an urgent need for more scholarship 
around the learning, teaching and assessment of Programming. 
 
 
Principles of Good Practice illustrated by the 
practice 
 
The review of assessment in Programming 2 can be situated within the context of 
the Statements and Quality Indicators of Good Practice in Assessment developed by 
Griffith University as part of its work on national Teaching Quality Indicators Project 
in 2007-2008. The outcomes of, and resources produced for, this Australian 
Learning and Teaching Council initiative underpin the review of Griffith’s Assessment 
Policy and support the work of this Good Practices in Assessment Project. 
 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 7 
 
It is useful, therefore, to reproduce the Principle upon which the Statements and 
Quality Indicators were constructed, and to identify the two Statements and Quality 
Indicators relevant to this case study. 
 
Principle 
Griffith University’s Teaching Quality Indicators Project has been guided by research 
into the theoretical literature on good principles and practices of assessment in 
higher education; assessment practice at Griffith University; and assessment policies 
used across Australia and overseas.  
This work has shown that assessment inevitably shapes how students approach 
learning, including what they focus on and how they go about learning it, and is used 
for a variety of purposes. Necessarily, assessment underpins the core values and 
principles of the University’s learning and teaching strategic plans and a clear 
enunciation of what drives assessment at the University is important for students, 
staff, and the broader community.  
It is accepted, therefore, that the primary purpose of assessment is to:  
 promote student learning; and  
 provide information upon which judgements are made about students’ work 
and the standards their performances exhibit. 
In doing this, the University has a commitment to processes that are transparent, fair, 
reliable and valid. To articulate the purpose of assessment, Griffith adopts the 
following Statements of Good Practice. 
 
It is clear that the Convenor of Programming 2 believed the pre-2009 assessment 
plan was no longer adequately serving its students and teachers. As such he started 
a process of review that included looking at the purpose of the assessment and what 
he wanted it to achieve for his students and his teaching team.  
 
This activity is reflected in the following Statement of Good Practice and shows the 
link between the stages of review and subsequent improvement. 
Statement of Good Practice #4: Assessment policies and practices are 
planned, implemented, reviewed and improved  
This occurs when:  
4.1. assessment practices are given consideration in cyclical reviews of teaching, 
Programs, Courses and academic units; 
and 
4.2. staff use feedback from peers and students to improve subsequent 
assessment practices; 
 
It had become clear to the convenor and teaching team members that many 
students did not have a deep understanding of the concepts and processes they 
used to produce answers in the practice-laboratory exercise. When the teaching 
team compared students’ responses to pairs of like practice- and assessed-
laboratory exercises, it showed that only half the students could reproduce the 
quality of work from the practice-laboratory exercise in the subsequently assessed-
laboratory exercise. 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 8 
 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 9 
 
 
The review of the course’s assessment therefore produced changes in both the 
assessment plan and the design of the tasks. The new assessment tasks encourage 
and require students to engage with their course content on a progressive basis, 
offering them opportunities to practice exercises and test their knowledge in a 
formative environment before they are expected to complete exercises for marking.  
 
The new assessment plan reflects the research about the primary purpose of 
assessment and the principles underpinning the first of our Statements and Quality 
Indicators of Good Practice. 
 
Statement of Good Practice #1: Assessment tasks are designed to 
advance student learning  
This occurs when:  
1.3 tasks test appropriately the increasing complexity of intellectual activity, and 
require students to demonstrate their growth in understanding and 
development of skills; 
and 
 
1.5 there is an appropriate combination of formative and summative tasks to 
maximise learning opportunities;  
The new assessment plan encourages students to start work earlier, do work 
regularly and test themselves as they go along to make sure they understand the 
concepts they will need to employ later as the complexity of the tasks increase. 
Students need to demonstrate they can build medium-sized programs and the new 
assessment arrangements support the advance of students’ learning throughout the 
semester. 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements 
 
 
The authors thank Professor Vladimir Estivill-Castro for referring us to the 
Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology.
References 
 
Australian Council of Deans of Information and Communication Technology 
http://www.acdict.edu.au/  
 
Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology http://crpit.com/ 
 
Foresighting Working Group (2006). Recommendations available at 
http://www.acs.org.au/news/181206.htm [viewed 10 April 2010].  
 
Koppi, T., Naghdy, F., Chicharo, J., Sheard, J., Edwards, S. & Wilson, D. (2008). 
The crisis in ICT education: An academic perspective. In Hello! Where are you in the 
landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. 
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/koppi.pdf [viewed 10 April 
2010]. 
 
Koppi, T., Naghdy, F. (2009). Managing educational change in the ICT discipline at 
the tertiary education level. Support for the original work was provided by the 
Australian Learning and Teaching Council, an initiative of the Australian Government 
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.  
http://www.altc.edu.au/project-managing-educational-change-ict-uow-2006. [viewed 
10 April 2010]. 
 
Oman, P. W., Cook, C. R. and Nanja, M. (1989). Effects of programming experience 
in debugging semantic errors. J.Syst. Softw. 9(3): 197-207. 
 
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think in action. 
London: Temple Smith. 
 
Shuhidan, S., Hamilton, M. and D’Souza, D. (2009). A taxonomic study of novice 
programming summative assessment. Eleventh Australasian Computing Education 
Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, January. Conferences in Research and 
Practice in Information Technology. Vol. 95. Hamilton, M. and Clear, T. (eds). 
Programming 2: An assessment review Page 10