Experiences with building intrinsic motivation through self-directed projects
Abstract
In the effort to control and manage the task of assessing student work, there is a strong tendency in computer science (and many other disciplines) to give well-defined tasks that are variations on or combinations of examples students have previously been shown. Although this makes assessment straight forward as students are expected to produce largely homogenous, convergent answers, it stifles students’ ability to be creative in their solutions and offer (possibly better) alternatives or to apply their knowledge to the less well-defined problems that exist in practice. In addition, as the tasks are defined by the lecturer, students may or may not see them as interesting or relevant.
In this paper, I argue for allowing students to define their own projects for assessment purposes as a way of generating intrinsic motivation for their studies. I discuss how this is implemented in one course and the challenges and outcomes for the students and lecturers. Finally I present some guidelines for others who want to implement student- defined projects in their courses.
Downloads
References
Baron, J., & Maier, H. (2004). A community of inquiry evaluation of mekong e-sim: an online collaborative simulation. In International Conference on Educational Technology: Evolving Technologies in Education: Enhancing Learning & Teaching [CD-ROM], September.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. SRHE (Society for Research into Higher Education) and Open University Press.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18:32 – 42.
Eris, O. (2006). Insisting on truth at the expense of conceptualization: Can engineering portfolios help? International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3): 551–559.
Hiemstra, R. & Brockett, R.G. (1994). Overcoming resistance to self-direction in adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Katz, I.R. & Smith Macklin, A. (2007). Information and communication technology (ICT) literacy: Integration and assessment in higher education. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 5(4):50–55.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Martin, E. (1993). Changing academic work: Developing the learning university. Open University Press.
Mitchell, S.N., Reilly, R., Bramwell, F.G., Solnosky, A., & Lilly, F. (2004). Friendship and choosing groupmates: Preferences for teacher-selected vs. student-selected groupings in high school science classes. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(1):20–32.
Narayanan, R. & Neethi, S. Creating human resources for information technology -a systemic study. Retrieved December 17, 2008, 2005, from http://www.edugrid.ac.in/download/ nasscom whitepaper.pdf.
Newman, I., Daniels, M., & Faulkner, X. (2003). Open ended group projects a ’tool’ for more effective teaching. In ACE ’03: Proceedings of the Fifth Australasian Conference on Computing Education (pp. 95–103). Australian Computer Society, .
University of Adelaide. (2008). School of Computer Science, Graduate attributes. Retrieved December 2008, from http://cs.adelaide.edu.au/programs/compsci/attributes/.
University of Adelaide. (2008). Standard course and teacher aggregate SELT reports: 2005, 2006. Retrieved December 2008, from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/clpd/evaluation/ aggregates/.
University of Adelaide. (2008). University of Adelaide graduate attributes. Retrieved December 2008, from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/dvca/students/gradattributes/.