Driscoll & Wood Chatpers 7-8

Being in the peculiar situation of having my syllabus supplied to me for the class I teach, I found these chapters informative in regard to creating engaging syllabi; however, I chose to focus on analyzing (read critique) the syllabus and course composition I’m supplied. This way, I’ll be able to glean what I like and dislike from my supplied course.

The syllabus begins with a description of the course along with rationale as to its purpose. Subsequently, the three course objectives are listed:

• Describe issues related to the design and implementation of network-enabled information systems
• Describe the functionality of some common server-side web application technologies
• Demonstrate proficiency in implementing those technologies

Removing the tech jargon, the objectives of the course are to understand the structure of the web and how services are brought to the end user while using the prescribed programming language to demonstrate proficiency in the concepts that go into making these services. My first concern with these objectives is they do not give the student an idea of what their state should be leaving the class, answering the “so what” or “why take this class” is vital to framing the semester for students. Additionally the objectives make no mention of my role as professor. These objectives could be the foreword on a “do it yourself” programming book. As a logical segue, the textbook is listed next. I’ll return to the textbook at the end of my posting as it’s a large personal gripe of mine.

The next sections of the syllabus describe the various technologies that will be necessary for the class “Blackboard, Webserver access, VPN, PDF Reader, etc. While this information is undeniably important I feel that it is terribly misplaced. This type of information would serve its same purpose as an appendix of sorts to the syllabus, but in its current location it removes the focus from learning and dives deeply into semantics.

Next up is the grading section. The two components of this section are the breakdown of how a students’ final grade will be calculated (participation, quizzes, labs, exam, project) and also the generic A-F scale. There is no mention of assessment scales and this is a huge problem as per our readings.

Aside from the sections on honor code and disability accommodations the remainder of the syllabus are long verbose descriptions of each of the aspects of the course (lecture, participation, quizzes, labs, project, exam). Each of these descriptions may make loose mention of learning objectives, but there is no mention of assessment and thus a misalignment in the course content. These long descriptions are more concerned with protocols such as reiterating punctuality and emergency policy. They do not elaborate on HOW each assessment category will tie back to learning objectives and how it will build to a final outcome at the end of the semester.

Moving onto the idea of alignment, the course is terribly misaligned and imbalanced with the course outcomes. The entire course revolves around learning how to code and there is little discussion of the first and second objectives. Part of the problem is the enormous amount of content the course aims to cover. Because there is so much, the course most focus on the third objective exclusively. However, when reviewing the topics there are many that can be condensed and many that fall under the category of “interesting but not integral to the course”. Removing some of these learning modules would allow room to shift the class to have more thematic elements and less of a procedural feel to it. Drawing on my professional experience as a software developer I know that the process is infinitely more important than the syntax output. But there is very little mention of good practices that will aid in the field. This is reflected in the grading of the assessments which are simply shopping cart lists of “does the assignment have X component?” These grading structures DIRECTLY conflict with promoting, rewarding, and fostering the second learning outcome. Rubrics that also cover coding practices and give room for feedback and formative process will improve the course.

The schedule for the course is a separate document, mainly for ease of access on Blackboard, but has its flaws as well. The main deficiency is that each week’s lecture, lab, quiz, etc. has no linking to what learning objective the students are learning about that meeting. There is also no description as to what each section is and leaves students with the feeling that they’re reading a foreign document. This is clearly not student and learner oriented.

Returning to the textbook debacle, I have yet to find a text book that is outcomes-based friendly. All books, especially in the programming field, have a very procedural structure to them which all but forces teachers to structure their classes accordingly. The other option is to ignore the textbook (which I end up doing in my class) but then you’re removing a key source of information that the students could use to help. Specifically for my class, the lectures are very “textbook ported” in that they cover WHAT each programming construct is, and show one, maybe two examples but there are no built in opportunities to practice and focus on the other learning objectives. This is why I’m constantly having to provide supplemental materials. Going through CTCH 602 and using it to reflect and formulate my opinions of the class I teach, I wonder if I should begin work on the first outcomes-based programming text book for student learning.