Computing Ed Research – Guzdial's Take

Participatory Design to Set Standards for PCAS Courses

July 7, 2023 at 7:12 am 5 comments

My main activity for the last year has been building two new courses for our new Program in Computing for the Arts and Sciences (PCAS), which I’ve blogged about recently here (with video of a talk about PCAS) and here where I described our launch. Here are the detailed pages describing the courses (e.g., including assignments and examples of students’ work):

• COMPFOR 121: Computing for Creative Expression
• COMPFOR 111: Computing’s Impact on Justice: From Text to the Web
  

When we got the go-ahead to start developing PCAS last year, the first question was, “Well, what should we teach?” The ACM/IEEE Computing Curriculum volumes weren’t going to be much help. They’re answering the question “What do CS, Software Engineering, Information Technology, etc. majors need to know?” They’re not answering the question, “What do students in liberal arts and sciences need to know about Computing for Discovery, for Expression, and for Justice?”

My starting place was the Computing Education Task Force (CETF) report (see link here) which summarized dozens of hours of interviews and survey results from over 100 faculty. We decided that the first two courses would be on Expression and Justice. There already were classes that introduced programming in a Discovery framing in some places on campus (and my colleague, Gus Evrard, has taken that even farther now — but that’s another blog post). There was nothing for first year students to introduce them to coding in an Expression or Justice context.

When faced with a design problem, I often think “WWBD” — “What Would Betsy Do.” I learned about participatory design working with Betsy DiSalvo at Georgia Tech, and now I reach for those methods often. I created participatory design activities so that Expression and Justice faculty in our College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) could set the standards for these courses.

I created three Padlets, shared digital whiteboards. A group of people edit a whiteboard, and everyone can see everyone else’s edits.

• One of them was filled with about 20 learning goals derived from the CETF report. These aren’t well-formed learning goals (e.g., not always framed in terms of what students should be able to do). These were what people said when we asked them “What should students in LSA learn about computing?” I wasn’t particularly thorough about this — I just grabbed a bunch that interested me when I reviewed the document and thought about what I might teach.
• I created two more Padlets with possible learning activities for students in these classes. Yvette Granata had recommended several books to me on coding in Expression and Justice contexts, so a lot of the project ideas came out of those. These were things that I was actively considering for the courses.
  

I ran two big sessions (with some 1:1 discussions afterwards with advisors who couldn’t make the big sessions), one for Expression and one for Justice. These were on-line (via Zoom) with me, Aadarsh Padiyath (PhD student working with me and Barbara Ericson), and a set of advisors. The advisors were faculty who self-identified as working in Computing for Expression or Computing for Justice. The design sessions had the same format.

1. I gave the advisors a copy of the learning goals Padlet. (Each session started with the same starting position.) I asked them as a group to move to the right those learning goals they wanted in the class and to move to the left those learning goals that they thought were less important. They did this activity over about 20-30 minutes, talking through their rationale and negotiating placement left-to-right.
2. I then gave the advisors a copy of the learning activities Padlet. Again, I asked them to sort them right is important and left is less important.. Again, about 20-30 minutes with lots of discussion.

We got transcripts from the discussion, and Aadarsh produced a terrific set of notes from each session. These were my standards for these courses. This guided me in deciding what goes in and what to de-emphasize in the courses.

Below are the end states of the shared whiteboards. There’s a lot in here. Three things I find interesting:

• Notice where the computer science goals like “Write secure, safe, and robust code” end up.
• Notice what’s in the upper-right corner — I was surprised in both cases.
• Notice that building chatbots is right-shifted for both Expression and Justice. Today, you’d say “Well, of course! ChatGPT!” But I held these sessions in February of 2022. The classes have a lot about chatbots in them, and that put us in a good place for integrating discussions about LLMSs this last semester.
  

Expression Learning Goals

(To see the full-res version, right-click/control-click on the picture, and open the image a new tab.)

Justice Learning Goals

Expression – Learning Activities

Justice – Learning Activities

These are Standards

The best description of how I used these whiteboards and the discussion notes is that these are my standards. My advisors said very clearly during the sessions — there are too many learning objectives and activities for one course here. Things on the left are not unimportant. They’re just not as important.. I can’t possibly get to everything on these whiteboards in a single semester class designed for arts and humanities students (as the primary audience) with no programming background and with some hesitancy about mathematics.

My advisors were designing in a vacuum. They weren’t going to actually teach this course. Most of them had never seen a course that tried to achieve these objectives for this student audience. So they told me (for Justice), “Yeah, use Jupyter notebooks, and teach HTML and databases and code, all in one semester. And don’t make students install anything on their computers — do it all in the browser.” But they didn’t really have an idea how this might work, or if it was possible. They also didn’t articulate, “You’ll probably to teach about data and iteration and conditionals in here, too.”

It was my job to use these standards as priorities, cover what I could, and fill in with the computer science knowledge to make these do-able. We are also using these to inform future classes, the next classes we make for PCAS. You can compare these whiteboards back up to the course pages at the top of this post to decide how well we did.

Overall, we use participatory design methods a lot as we design for PCAS, to get the input of faculty outside of CS, because these aren’t computer science classes. They are not CS0, CS1, or CS0.5, all of which presume a linear progression towards the goal of being a CS major. Yes, we’re teaching computer science knowledge and skills, but these are classes in Computing for Expression and Computing for Justice. The faculty in those areas are the authorities in what we should teach. They decide what’s important.

Side note: I’ve had these data for over a year, and even presented some of them in a poster at ITiCSE last year. I have trying to figure out how to share them. Maybe this could have been a peer-reviewed publication (conference or journal)? I don’t know. It’s a design activity, and I learned a lot from it, but I don’t know how to write about it as scholarship. I finally decided to write this blog post so that I could share the whole big Padlet whiteboards. Traditional publication venues would be unlikely to let me put these big pictures out there, but I can in a blog post.

---

My many thanks to my advisors for these classes: Yvette Granata, Catherine Griffiths, M. Remi Yergeau, Tony Bushner, Justin Schell, Jan Van den Bulck, Justin Joque, Sarita Schoenebeck , Nick Henricksen, Maggie Frye, Anne Cong-Huyen, and Matt Bui

Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: computing education, contextualized computing education, participatory design, PCAS.