New paper from @dianamfranklin1 -- the correlation between student *use* of a @scratch programming construct is only weakly correlated with their *understanding* of that construct. Artifact analysis isn't enough to measure learning. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3341525.3387379 …
Valid point, but I don't think that works here. Physics has immutable laws that sometimes work in counterintuitive ways. But programming is malleable. Say a student thinks "primitive types have no default value" in Java. CSE calls that a misconception. I call it a language flaw.
-
-
It still feels like we're far from understanding what most important to consider as CT, and whether our assessments actually get at those skills.
-
It's a great point! By trying to assess CT, we try to define what we mean by CT -- and maybe (like me) decide that we don't have a definition and can't assess it well.https://computinged.wordpress.com/2020/01/13/computing-education-lessons-learned-from-the-2010s-what-i-got-wrong/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've been part of two efforts to build validated assessments for CS1 knowledge. Yes, it's hard to do. It's important to do because it requires us to think hard about what's important to learn, teach, and value.https://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/238782-we-should-stop-saying-language-independent-we-dont-know-how-to-do-that/fulltext?mobile=false …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
cognitive psychology. PhD