Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
more_information [2024/01/06 23:56] – beckermore_information [2024/01/07 00:01] (current) – becker
Line 87: Line 87:
 Invited Workshop Invited Workshop
  
-{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dVBaE_8AyQzLgvtOujA-6YvujiLX9X8wYFQiabyr93A/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,260 noborder}}+{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dVBaE_8AyQzLgvtOujA-6YvujiLX9X8wYFQiabyr93A/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,340 noborder}}
  
  
 ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 1 (of 3) ==== ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 1 (of 3) ====
  
-{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Fgc4q-v40tloOEBXBefb0Hb3FpbeF75E/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,260 noborder}}+{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Fgc4q-v40tloOEBXBefb0Hb3FpbeF75E/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,340 noborder}}
  
 ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 2 (of 3) ==== ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 2 (of 3) ====
  
-{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18GyhAb08S8xk9gmwPVQ1uo6jqAr9Nrvj/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,260 noborder}}+{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18GyhAb08S8xk9gmwPVQ1uo6jqAr9Nrvj/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,340 noborder}}
  
 ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 3 (of 3) ==== ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 3 (of 3) ====
  
-{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BB0BN2D6gHWI1lv0wdrtFWh19GEgekXg/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,260 noborder}}+{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BB0BN2D6gHWI1lv0wdrtFWh19GEgekXg/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,340 noborder}} 
 + 
 +==== Death to Deadlines ==== 
 + 
 +2016 
 + 
 +Various approaches to allowing flexibility for students in computer science (CS) assignments (deadlines, choices, graduated requirements, etc.) have been used in CS classes and this presentation reviews some of the results. 
 + 
 +Becker, K. (2016). Death to Deadlines 2.0 presented at: Mount Royal University Centennial Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Banff, Alberta, November 10-12, 2016. 
 + 
 +{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1edvnQGHmU9_5LViP-oHv0tyLrCK-yc9KivLVtPLoqFs/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,340 noborder}} 
 + 
  
 ==== Is gamification a game changer? ==== ==== Is gamification a game changer? ====
Line 110: Line 122:
 Becker, K., Patrick Perri (2013). Is Gamification a Game-Changer? Comparing Gamified and Non-Gamified Approaches presented at: Mount Royal University Centennial Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Banff, Alberta, November 7 - 9, 2013. Becker, K., Patrick Perri (2013). Is Gamification a Game-Changer? Comparing Gamified and Non-Gamified Approaches presented at: Mount Royal University Centennial Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Banff, Alberta, November 7 - 9, 2013.
  
-{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15MuAKMNhK9fSf-wnF70UiDgKoI6b8euOP9glc6137Wo/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,260 noborder}}+{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15MuAKMNhK9fSf-wnF70UiDgKoI6b8euOP9glc6137Wo/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,340 noborder}}
  
 ==== How Much Choice is Too Much? ==== ==== How Much Choice is Too Much? ====
Line 120: Line 132:
 Providing a learner-centered perspective is in keeping with modern constructivist approaches to learning, and this means that courses must be designed with learner attributes and choice in mind. Concerns over accreditation and the need for accountability at the post-secondary level seem to contradict freedom of choice and flexibility of term work, but this need not be the case. This paper outlines numerous strategies for offering choice and flexibility to students in a freshman programming course. Approaches include flexible deadlines, the ability to re-submit work that has already been assessed, writing tasks, contributing to course content, bonuses for embellishments and extra work, and choices about which problems to solve. All of the strategies have been employed in classes, and students’ reactions as well as effects on student engagement and quality of work are described. Providing a learner-centered perspective is in keeping with modern constructivist approaches to learning, and this means that courses must be designed with learner attributes and choice in mind. Concerns over accreditation and the need for accountability at the post-secondary level seem to contradict freedom of choice and flexibility of term work, but this need not be the case. This paper outlines numerous strategies for offering choice and flexibility to students in a freshman programming course. Approaches include flexible deadlines, the ability to re-submit work that has already been assessed, writing tasks, contributing to course content, bonuses for embellishments and extra work, and choices about which problems to solve. All of the strategies have been employed in classes, and students’ reactions as well as effects on student engagement and quality of work are described.
  
-{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10zHQkWqlxgXXQQE-L8-KjiOQC-AfJIAqPLfhukU5c_Q/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,260 noborder}}+{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10zHQkWqlxgXXQQE-L8-KjiOQC-AfJIAqPLfhukU5c_Q/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,340 noborder}}
  
 ==== Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course ==== ==== Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course ====
Line 130: Line 142:
 Becker, K. (2004) Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course The Journal of Computing Science in Colleges Volume 20, Number 2, December 2004, pp 28-37 Consortium for Computing Science in Colleges Northwest Conference, October 8-9 2004, Salem, Oregon  Becker, K. (2004) Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course The Journal of Computing Science in Colleges Volume 20, Number 2, December 2004, pp 28-37 Consortium for Computing Science in Colleges Northwest Conference, October 8-9 2004, Salem, Oregon 
  
-{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14XP96V-uxTup0SOiBEOeL0hxdBGMAxfQpYoKeeCRhQk//embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,260 noborder}} +{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14XP96V-uxTup0SOiBEOeL0hxdBGMAxfQpYoKeeCRhQk/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,340 noborder}}
- +
- +
-==== Death to Deadlines ==== +
- +
-2007 +
- +
-Various approaches to allowing flexibility for students in computer science (CS) assignments (deadlines, choices, graduated requirements, etc.) have been used in CS classes and this presentation reviews some of the results. +
- +
-Becker, K. (2016). Death to Deadlines 2.0 presented at: Mount Royal University Centennial Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Banff, Alberta, November 10-12, 2016. +
- +
-{{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1edvnQGHmU9_5LViP-oHv0tyLrCK-yc9KivLVtPLoqFs/embed?start=false&loop=false&delayms=5000    400,260 noborder}} +
- +
- +