Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!dbreiden From: dbreiden@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Danny Breidenbach) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Setting programming exams in Comp. Sci. courses Keywords: viability? experiences? Message-ID: <13086@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> Date: 2 Jun 91 13:56:32 GMT References: Reply-To: dbreiden@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Danny Breidenbach) Organization: Purdue University Lines: 33 In article chris@cs.uwa.oz.au (chris mcdonald) writes: >These projects, though successful in highlighting many sections of the >course, introduce other problems : >* There is little guarantee that a student's submission is entirely their > own work - it may be the result of a group effort or include some > plagiarized material. Why not assign the projects to groups? A formally assigned group of 3, 4 ,or 5 students can learn tremendous amounts by working together. It could easily cut down on the crowding problem you mentioned earlier. In a calculus class this past year, we had every assignment done by groups. Each group turned in one assignment. We gave the group the power to complain if one member did not do any work, but we viewed this as a problem for the group to deal with (with our help) whenever possible. We also gave an exam in which the group did the exam. The logistics of such a venture are scary, and it takes a great leap of faith to attempt such a plan; but I assure you, our results were astounding! I cannot put all the credit on our use of collaborative learning; we used non-traditional techniques and microcomputers in our teaching. These factors weighed heavily in our results. But we definitely saw great benefits in the group work in our course. I think your exam session idea sounds wonderful. But don't discount the utitlity of having students groups be a POSITIVE aspect of learning. I find it *almost* amusing to see the words "group effort" used in such a negative\ manner as you did. Think about it. --Danny