You are on page 1of 36

Proceedings

 of  the  3rd  Workshop  on


Methods  and  Cases  in  Computing  
Education  

Held  in  Cádiz  (Spain),  June  30th  2010  

Published  by  the  Spanish  Chapter  of  the  ACM  Special  Interest  Group  on  Computer  Science  
Education  with  the  collaboration  of  the  University  of  Cádiz.  

 
 
www.uca.es   www.sigcse.es  
 

ISBN  978-­‐84-­‐694-­‐0523-­‐9    

 
Methods  and  Cases  in  Computing  Education  by  Spain  ACM  SIGCSE  Chapter  is  licensed  under  a  Creative  Commons  Reconocimiento  
2.5  España  License.    

 
[this  page  is  intentionally  left  blank]  

 
Foreword  
By  Juan-­‐Manuel  Dodero,  president  of  the  ACM  SIGCSE  Spanish  Chapter  

The  ACM  SIGCSE  Spanish  Chapter  is  the  chapter  of  the  Association  for  Computing  Machinery  (ACM)  
Special  Interest  Group  on  Computer  Science  Education  (SIGCSE)  serving  Spain.  It  started  operations  
in  2008.  The  chapter  provides  a  forum  for  common  problems  among  educators  working  to  develop,  
implement  and  evaluate  computing  programs,  curricula  and  courses,  as  well  as  syllabi,  
laboratories,  learning  technologies,  and  other  elements  of  teaching  and  pedagogy.  The  Chapter  
supports  activities  complimentary  to  SIGCSE,  the  ACM,  and  other  ACM  activities  in  the  Spain  area.  

The  Chapter  is  organized  and  operated  for  educational  and  scientific  purposes,  its  aim  being  to  
increase  knowledge  about  computing  education,  as  well  as  to  serve  as  a  means  of  communication  
for  those  interested  in  this  discipline.  This  workshop  on  Methods  and  Cases  in  Computing  Education  
(MCCE)  is  the  third  of  a  series  of  events  intended  to  the  dissemination  of  the  activities  of  the  
chapter  members.  As  such,  it  publishes  articles  dealing  with  the  joy,  pain  and  hope  of  our  daily  
teaching  and  research  experiences  in  computing  education.  The  MCCE  workshop  thus  constitutes  a  
forum  open  to  anyone  wanting  to  contribute  to  the  chapter  aims.  The  birth  of  the  Chapter  and  the  
MCCE  workshop,  have  the  main  objective  of  contributing  to  the  discussions  on  the  European  Higher  
Education  Area  held  among  the  Spanish  Higher  Education  community.  For  the  third  edition  of  
MCCE,  held  at  Cádiz,  a  number  of  contributions  were  selected  after  a  peer  review  process  carried  
out  by  the  chapter  committee  members  and  renowned  international  researchers.  

i  
[this  page  is  intentionally  left  blank]  

ii  
Table  of  contents  
Introduction  to  University  and  the  ICT  Sector......................................................... 1  
  Davinia  Hernández-­‐Leo,  Verónica  Moreno  Oliver    

Collaboration  and  competitiveness  in  project-­‐based  learning ............................... 8  


  Pablo  Recio  Quijano,  Noelia  Sales  Montes,  Antonio  García  
Domínguez,  Manuel  Palomo  Duarte  

Case  of  an  online  course:  Java  Programming....................................................... 15  


  Ángel  García-­‐Beltrán  

Adapting  LEARN-­‐SQL  to  Database  computer-­‐supported  cooperative  


learning ................................................................................................................ 22  
  Xavier  Burgués,  Carme  Martín,  Carme  Quer,  Alberto  Abelló,  
M.  José  Casany,  Toni  Urpí,  M.  Elena  Rodríguez  

iii  
[this  page  is  intentionally  left  blank]  

 
 

iv  
Introduction  to  University  and  the  ICT  Sector  
Davinia  Hernández-­‐Leo  (1),  Verónica  Moreno  Oliver  (2)  
(1)  
Universitat  Pompeu  Fabra  
Roc  Boronat,  138,  08018  Barcelona  
davinia.hernandez@upf.edu
(2)  
Universitat  Pompeu  Fabra  
Roc  Boronat,  138,  08018  Barcelona  
veronica.moreno@upf.edu

Abstract  
The  innovative  subject  “Introduction  to  ICT”  combines  a  general  Introductory  Course  to  the  University  with  
elements   around   the   Information   and   Communication   Technologies   sector   (including   the   ICT   engineer  
competence  profile,  market  aspects,  etc.)    
This   new   course   has   been   developed   and   implemented   in   three   degree   programmes   offered   by   the  
Polytechnic   School   at   Universitat   Pompeu   Fabra,   Barcelona.   The   course   team   consists   of   thirteen   teachers,  
including  business  professionals,  librarians,  computer  technicians,  institutional  representatives  as  well  as  an  
educationalist  responsible  for  advising  on  methodology  and  study  techniques.  The  subject  was  designed  for  a  
high   number   of   students   (260).     At   the   end   of   the   course,   we   collected   quantitative   and   qualitative  
information   about   the   students’   satisfaction.   The   findings   show   the   positive   vision   that   they   had   about   the  
topics  worked  during  the  subject.    
This   paper   describes   the   course,   its   implementation   and   evaluation   and,   of   course,   the   details   of   the   findings  
that  we  collected  about  students'  satisfaction.  
Keywords:  Introduction  to  the  University,  Teacher  coordination,  work  about  competences  training,  immersion  
in  European  Higher  Education  Area  (EHEA).    

1.    Introduction  
The  transition  to  University  is  certainly  an  important  change  for  students,  since  it  represents  the  
evolution   of   the   regulatory   context   as   well   as   training   orientation.   Both   elements   affect   their  
academic  and  personal  lives  (Gairín,  2004).  Adapting  to  this  new  way  of  doing  and  learning  can  be  
more   or   less   traumatic   depending   on   variables   that   affect   the   adaptation   process   such   as   the  
maturity  of  the  student  or  previous  learning  experiences.    
To   ensure   the   processes´   quality   of   transition   between   the   different   stages   of   education,   we   must  
ensure  the  organization  (Guillamón  and  Feixas,  2005),  Universitat  Pompeu  Fabra,  gives  substantial  
support   to   minimize   the   most   harmful   effects   that   transition   could   cause   to   help   students  
overcome   insecurities,   lack   of   information,   uncertainties   or   lack   of   study   skills   (Brick,   2006),   which  
may  in  turn  lead  to  academic  failure  and  drop  out  in  the  early  months.    
The  first  step  to  act  on  this  line  was  to  design  the  Course  of  Introduction  to  the  University  (CIU)  
during   2006   to   2007.   Then,   the   Universitat   Pompeu   Fabra   raised   the   possibility   of   offering   an  
introductory   course   for   new   students   and   this   was   the   moment   when   the   Polytechnic   School  
(among  other  faculties  and  schools  of  the  UPF)  decided  to  conduct  a  pilot  study.    
To   this   end,   some   teachers   began   to   reflect   on   the   objectives,   content,   overall   structure   of   the  
course  and  other  specific  characteristics  for  good  design  of  the  program.  
In   addition,   we   must   consider   the   introduction   of   the   European   Higher   Education   Area   (EHEA),  
which  implies  an  additional  change  with  double  reading:  
 Maybe  this  effort  to  adapt  the  degrees  with  consistency  and  quality  to  the  EHEA  has  
1  
exhausted  everyone  involved  and  they  do  not  feel  sufficiently  motivated  to  carry  out  a  
proposal  as  CIU  
 Or  maybe,  it  could  be  an  opportunity  to  initiate  processes  of  structural  and  organizational  
change  such  as  the  design,  development  and  evaluation  of  the  CIU,  which  way  be  useful  in  
the  processes  of  decision  making  when  creating  the  new  degrees.  
Thus,   during   2007-­‐2008   the   CIU   was   held   for   the   first   time   in   the   ESUP   with   a   program   developed  
by  a  group  of  internal  and  external  UPF  professionals.    
From   this   first   experience   arose   a   paper   (Moreno   et   al,   2008a;   2008b)   in   which   the   results   are  
collected   as   well   as   progress   in   terms   of   immersion   in   the   EHEA.   All   these   results   were   considered  
in  the  design  of  the  CIU  08-­‐09  and  for  the  ITIC  subject  too.  
With   the   arrival   of   the   new   degrees   it   was   decided   to   turn   this   into   a   mandatory   course   for   all  
freshmen   at   the   UPF.   This   was   the   beginning   of   the   ITIC   subject.   Specifically   this   subject   has   a  
weight  of  6  ECTS  credit  concentrated  in  the  first  quarter.    
Given   the   design   of   new   degrees   this   course   consists   of   two   main   blocks:   one   concerning   the  
introduction  to  the  University  and  another  focused  on  the  introduction  to  the  sector,  enterprise  
and  ICT  market.  Each  block  is  also  divided  into  subsections;  for  example,  they  have  got  their  own  
laboratory   practices,   workshops   and   works   about   specific   themes.   And   each   one   had   different  
requirements,   duration,   evaluation   weight,   etc.   There   is   a   certain   level   of   integration   between   the  
two  blocks.  The  content  for  some  of  the  methodological  activities  carried  out  in  the  introduction  
to   the   University   block   were   related   to   ICT   sector   issues,   and   to   practice   the   written  
communication   skills   introduced   in   the   first   block,   the   students   were   asked   in   the   second   block  
(introduction  to  the  sector)  to  write  an  academic  report  on  ICT  market  aspects.  
Below  you  will  found  the  methods  that  we  used,  the  evidences  that  we  collected  and  finally,  the  
conclusions  in  play.  

2.    Methods  
As  presented  in  the  previous  section,  the  subject  of  ITIC  is  composed  of  two  large  blocks  closely  
linked   through   practice   and   activities,   with   the   aim   of   not   losing   sight   of   transversally   and  
continuity  of  the  subject.  This  objective  is  reinforced  with  greater  intensity  with  the  realization  of  a  
final   report   to   be   presented   in   public.   This   work   has   a   number   of   requirements   (quality   of  
information  sources,  formal  quality  of  both  written  and  oral  presentation,  etc.)  to  secure  the  use  
of   everything   worked   (or   much   of   the   content)   along   the   subject.   With   each   and   every   one   of  
them   we   want   to   guarantee   the   quality   of   their   work,   not   only   the   result   but   also   the   whole  
process.  
The  formative  program  is  based  in  work  and  competences  development,  not  only  instrumental  but  
also  transversal  (Tuning  project,  2006),  so,  we  must  collect  evidence  about  all  of  them.  This  variety  
is  the  principal  motivation  to  design  a  complete  methodological  model  as  it  can  be  seen  in  Table  1.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2  
Table  1.  General  and  specific  competences  in  ITIC  
  General  skills   Specific  Skills  
 
 
  Instrumental      
1.  Ability  to  organize  and  planning.      
  A.  Basic  knowledge  of  ICT  engineering  
  2.  Ability  to  search  and  information   profession.    
management.    
   
3.  Ability  to  communicate  orally  and  property  
  written  in  Catalan  and  Spanish,  to  audiences   B.  Know  the  general  principles  of  economics  
both  expert  and  inexperienced.     and  business,  and  the  impact  of  ICT  on  society.    
 
4.  Troubleshooting.      
 
Interpersonal     C.  Ability  to  work  draft  and  development  in  
  the  area  of  their  specialty.    
Ability  to  work  as  a  team.    
   
Systemic    
  D.  Ability  to  manage  own  documentation  of  
6.  Ability  to  adapt  to  the  new  situation  in   the  profession  as  specifications,  regulations  
  University  and  ESUP.     and  mandatory  standards.    
  7.  Ability  to  recognize  and  understand  the    
diversity  and  multiculturalism.  
  E.  Ability  to  use  search  tools  and  bibliographic  
information  resources  relating  to  ICT.  
 
Since   this   is   an   introductory   course,   the   proficiency   levels   for   some   of   the   basic   skills   is   low  
because   there   are   others   subjects   along   the   degrees   will   work   them   at   higher   levels.   Anyway,   this  
is  an  ideal  moment  to  enable  them  to  become  familiar  with  them.  
At  this  point,  we  present  the   methodological  strategy.  It  is  characterized  by  the  combination  of  
plenary  lectures  with  sessions  of  individual  and  group  work  that  students  perform  in  large  group  
sessions  or  small.  
In  particular,  the  work  inside  and  outside  the  classroom  is  organized  as  follows:    
• Lecture  sessions  of  presentation:  the  teacher  presents  the  theory  about  each  theme  of  the  
course.  Students  are  expected  to  participate  with  questions  and  comments.    
• Seminars:   These   are   small-­‐group   sessions   where   students   work   individually   or   in   groups  
depending  on  the  activities  planned  by  the  teacher.  The  activities  outlined  in  the  seminars  
are  diverse  in  nature  so  as  to  enable  practice,  review  and  discuss  the  issues  worked  actively  
in  the  lectures.  To  prepare  the  seminars,  students  perform  the  preliminary  work  required  
at  home.  The  activities  form  part  of  the  continue  evaluation  system.  
• Practice   with   PC's:   The   students   work   in   a   computer   room.   The   teacher   monitors   the  
work.   These   practices   serve   to   reinforce   the   concepts   presented   in   the   lecture   sessions  
and  personal  study.  The  activity  is  conducted  in  groups  of  two.    
• Work  about  a  ICT  sub-­‐sector:  Groups  of  four  or  five  students  deepen  over  part  of  the  ICT  
market.   The   students   must   use   the   information   received   in   lectures,   practices   and  
reference's  documentation  and  write  an  academic  report.  Each  group  presents  the  work  
to   be   done   plenary.   The   work   will   be   supervised   by   tutors   in   the   corresponding   seminar  
groups.  

3  
• Academic  debate:  Debates  are  made  with  preparations  beforehand  (in  groups  of  four  or  
five   people)   and   students   assume   the   role   of   an   institution   to   discuss   a   controversial   issue  
in  the  ICT  sector.  It  will  provide  a  guide  that  details  the  procedure  for  the  conduct  during  
the  debates.  
• Final  exam:  Short  written  examination  including  all  the  contents  worked  along  the  subject.    
As  mentioned  earlier,  the  teaching  methodology  is  complex  because  it  must  include  the  work  of  
instrumental  competence  and  transverse.  Thus,  the  evaluation  system  is  also  on  the  same  line  as  
shown  below.    
The   evaluation   process   focused   on   the   achievement   level   of   each   of   the   competence   so,   every  
activity  with  evaluator  character  was  associated  with  a  range  of  activities  and  competences.  This  
relation   about   competences,   activities   and   evaluation   weight   was   explicit   in   the   subject's  
formative   plan.   It   means   that,   the   students   were   fully   aware   of   how   you   would   develop   the  
subject  at  all  times  (Bloxham  and  Boyd,  2007).    
Some  details  of  this  assessment  are  as  follows:  
• To   successfully   overcome   the   subject   is   necessary   achieving   the   minimum   level   required   in  
each   of   the   competencies   to   be   developed   along   the   subject.   Every   competence   was  
worked  in  more  than  one  activity,  so,  this  criterion  does  not  mean  that  the  students  must  
pass  all  the  activities.  They  can  fail  in  3  (maxim).    
• Since   most   of   these   skills   are   employed   and   evaluated   in   person   (classroom)   and  
continuing   along   the   course,   the   class   attendance   was   essential.   (In   general,   in   the  
continuous  assessment  is  not  taken  into  account  whether  the  lack  of  attendance  is  justified  
or  not.)  
It   is   also   a   key   point   for   the   course   that   students   take   an   active   role.   That   means   they   must   be  
critical  of  the  issues  raised,  they  should  think  about  their  own  ideas  while  maintaining  the  interest  
and   curiosity   about   the   material   presented   throughout   the   sessions.   It   is   essential   that   their  
reflections  are  based  on  the  formative  plan  references'  and,  where  possible,  also  contrasted  with  
the  additional  sources  that  are  provided  along  the  classes.  
Finally,  it  is  worth  mentioning  to  add  that  the  materials  were  available  in  a  Moodle  course  (Aula  
Global)  where  the  students  could  access  all  the  materials  that  were  needed.  Teachers  also  
provided  another  resources  list  and  materials  to  widening  and  deepening  about  different  topics.  
Also,  the  students  can  go  to  the  tutorial  sessions  always  that  they  need  it.  

3.    Evidence  
Given   the   nature   and   characteristics   of   this   course,   it   is   coordinated   by   the   director   of   the  
Teaching  Quality  and  Innovation  Unit  (USQUID)  of  the  Polytechnic  School.  The  global  evaluation  of  
the  course  development  was  evaluated  by  the  USQUID.  The  pedagogical  staff  of  the  USQUID  was  
in   charge   of   designing   the   instrument   to   evaluate   the   students'   satisfaction   and   performing   the  
analysis.  
Emphasis   was   put   on   this   evaluation   process,   as   well   as   a   new   item   we   consider   essential   for   new  
programs   in   its   distinct   character.   The   evaluation   results   will   provide   important   indications   to  
enhace   the   ICT   subject   which   is   consider   in   the   Polytechnic   School   a   great   opportunity   for   our  
students  and  to  increase  the  academic  quality  of  ESUP.    
Trying   to   cover   most   of   the   issues,   the   USQUID   designed   several   instruments   collecting   both  
general   aspects   of   the   subject   development   as   more   concrete   and   specific   aspects   of   the   teaching  
4  
received.  
Specifically,  the  evaluation  of  the  subject  was  developed  through:  
• Conducting  an  assessment  of  overall  satisfaction  by  a  short  questionnaire  prepared  by  the  
USQUID.  
• Conducting   an   assessment   on   each   and   every   one   of   the   sessions   and   activities   raised  
during   the   subject   by   a   larger   questionnaire   prepared   by   the   USQUID   (in   key   academic  
quality,   interest,   motivation   on   the   topics,   quality   of   resources   provided   by   the   teacher,  
adequacy  of  the  dedication  required  in  each  activity,  etc.).  
• Other   elements   coming   from   observations   performed   along   the   course   (classes,   tutorial  
sessions,  etc).  
With   this   information,   we   can   extract   a   very   positive   level   of   satisfaction.   It   is   also   true   that  
students   have   emphasized   some   elements   of   improvement   such   as   changing   the   order   of   some  
sessions.  
The  following  findings  result  from  the  analysis  of  the  data  collected  in  the  evaluation  (n  =  155):  
General  aspects:    
• The  62.6%  of  students  who  responded  to  the  questionnaire  believed  that  there  has  been  
no  repetition  throughout  the  course.  
• About  75%  of  students  believe  there  is  a  good  level  of  coordination  between  teachers  of  
ITIC.  
Aspect  of  the  subject  they  liked  most:  
• “One  of  the  jobs  that  I  liked  the  most  were  the  debates,  because  they  present  interesting  
topics  around  important  concepts  about  the  industry.”  
• “I  like  the  debates.”  
• “The   aspects   that   I   have   liked   most   were   the   work   on   transversal   competences   because   of  
their  importance  (for  example  oral  expression).”  
• “What   I   liked   most   is   the   activities   involving   the   interaction   and   collaboration   with  
classmates,  especially  the  debates.”  
• “The  level  of  satisfaction  is  high;  I  have  found  it  useful  to  augment  my  knowledge  about  my  
future  professional  context.”  
• “The  debates  have  been  most  fun.”  
Also  we  analyzed  their  academic  performance  because  it  represent  the  final  computation  of  the  
evaluation  that  students  have  been  receiving  in  each  and  every  one  of  the  activities,  and  therefore  
represents   numerically   the   achievement   of   goals   outlined   in   the   formative   plan:   27   don't  
presented   (10%),   1   suspended   more   than   three   minimum   requirements,   therefore   there   is   no  
option   to   recover   the   subject   in   September   but   should   be   repeated   next   year,   19   have   the  
opportunity  to  recover  the  subject  in  September  (since  they  fail  less  than  3  minimums),  213  pass  
(82%).   Considering   the   totality   of   the   information   collected   we   can   make   a   positive   assessment   of  
the  subject.    
Well   worth   adding   that   at   the   beginning   of   the   quarter,   we   prepared   a   document   open   to   all  
teachers  (by  Aula  Global)  where  they  could  add  all  the  comments  and  suggestions  they  think  can  
be  useful  to  improve  the  subject  for  the  forthcoming  year.  In  this  way,  besides  having  the  detailed  

5  
assessment  of  students,  we  also  have  the  teachers’  feedback.  Most  of  the  teacher  comments  are  
around   organizational   aspects   so   that   students   have   more   time   to   prepare   the   activities   and  
assignments   proposed   along   the   course   (for   example   increasing   the   number   of   days   between  
debates).   This   measure   will   also   allow   the   groups   to   deepen   more   in   each   of   the   topics   proposed.  
In  general,  teachers  are  satisfied  on  how  well  the  students  have  received  the  course.  

4.    Conclusions  in  play  


This   section   presents   the   conclusions   reached   after   the   development   of   the   subject   ITIC.   These  
conclusions   derive   from   the   feedback   received   by   students   and   teachers,   and   will   help   to   improve  
the  implementation  of  the  subject  in  the  forthcoming  year:  
• We  must  reconstruct  some  aspects  to  improve  the  ordering  of  topics,  for  example,  present  
the   "oral   expression   techniques"   before   carrying   out   the   debates.   Doing   so,   we   will   also  
make  our  students  to  work  harder  the  transversals  competences'  related  to  this  issue,  such  
as  nonverbal  expression,  attitude  towards  a  hearing  expert  and  not  experts,  etc.  

• It  should  be  emphasized  the  use  of  all  resources  that  UPF  offers  (for  this  and  for  the  rest  of  
subjects).  

• Increase  the  time  devoted  to  discuss  the  advantages  and  difficulties  of  group  work,  since  
we  detected  some  conflicts  where  students  have  asked  for  help.  Team  work  is  an  essential  
transversal   competence   for   engineers   (Martinez-­‐Monés   et.   al.,   2005;   Hernández-­‐Leo   et   al.,  
2006).   Students   should   understand   its   importance   and   challenge   from   the   beginning   of  
their   engineering   studies   and   take   advantage   of   the   opportunities   provided   to   work   in  
groups  to  develop  this  competence.  

• Improve  the  structure  of  the  organization  of  materials  in  the  Aula  Global  (Moodle  course)  
so  that  it  is  easier  to  navigate  and  find  materials.  

• Increasing  the  dynamism  of  some  sessions  to  motivate  the  students  and  let  them  see  the  
value  of  the  issues  tackle  for  their  short-­‐term  future  performance  in  the  University  and  a  
subsequent  professional  development.  

References  
Bloxham,  S.  and  Boyd,  P.  (2007).  Developing  effective  assessment  in  higher  education.  A  Practical  
Guide.  Open  University  Press,  London.  
Brick,  J.,  (2006).  Academic  Culture:  A  Student's  Guide  to  Studying  at  University,  NCELTR,  Macquarie  
Uni,  Sydney.  
Gairín,  J.  (2004).  La  transición  entre  etapas  educativas.  In  Proccedings  of  the  8th  Congreso  
Interuniversitario  de  Organización  de  Instituciones  Educativas.  Seville,  Spain,  887-­‐893.    
Guillamón,  C.  and  Feixas,  M  (2005).  El  pla  de  transició  i  incorporació  a  la  universitat.  Algunes  notes  
per  guiar  l’actuació.  In  Proceedings  of  the  II  Jornada  de  Campus  d’Innovació  Docent.  
Universitat  Autónoma  de  Barcelona,  Spain.  
Hernández  Leo,  D.,  Asensio  Pérez,  J.I.  and    Dimitriadis,  Y.  (2006).  Collaborative  learning  strategies  
and  scenario-­‐based  activities  for  understanding  network  protocols  In  Proceedings  of  the  
36th  ASEE/IEEE  Frontiers  in  Education  Conference,  San  Diego,  CA,  S2F,  FIE,  19-­‐24.  

6  
Martínez-­‐Monés,  A.,    Gómez-­‐Sánchez,  E.,    Dimitriadis,  Y.,    Jorrín-­‐Abellán,  I.M.,    Rubia-­‐Avi,  B.  and    
Vega-­‐Gorgojo,  G.  (2005).  Multiple  Case  Studies  to  Enhance  Project-­‐Based  Learning  in  a  
Computer  Architecture,  Course  IEEE  Transactions  on  Education,  48(3),  482-­‐489.  
Moreno.  V.,  Frangi.  A.,  Bellalta.  B.,  Piella.  G.  and  Infante.  J.  (2008a)    El  Curs  d’Introducció  a  la  
Universitat  com  a  Estratègia  Organitzativa  per  a  apropar  els  estudiants  de  nova  incorporació  
a  l’Escola  Superior  Politècnica  In  Proceedings  of  the  X  Congrés  Interuniversitari  
d’Organització  de  les  Institucions  Educatives,  Barcelona,  Spain.  
Moreno.  V.,  Frangi.  A.,  Bellalta.  B.,  Piella.  G.  and  Infante.  J.  (2008b)  Avaluació  del  Curs  
d’Introducció  a  la  Universitat  In  Proceedings  of  the    II  Jornades  Internacionals  UPM  sobre  
Innovació  Educativa  i  Convergència  Europea  2008,  Madrid,  Spain.  
Tuning  Project  (2006),  http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/,  last  visited  March  2010.  

7  
Collaboration  and  competitiveness  in  project-­‐
based  learning  
Pablo  Recio  Quijano  (1),  Noelia  Sales  Montes  (1),  Antonio  García  Domínguez  (2),  Manuel  Palomo  
Duarte  (2)  
 Department  of  Computer  Languages  and  Systems,  University  of  Cádiz  
(1)  

C/  Chile  nº  1,  Cádiz  (Spain)  


{pablo.recioquijano,noelia.salesmontes}@alum.uca.es
(2)  
Department  of  Computer  Languages  and  Systems,  University  of  Cádiz  
C/  Chile  nº  1,  Cádiz  (Spain)  
{manuel.palomo,antonio.garciadominguez}@uca.es

Abstract  
This  paper  presents  the  methodology  used  in  the  “Video  Game  Design”  course  of  the  Technical  
Engineering  in  Computer  Systems  (“Ingeniería  Técnica  en  Informática  de  Sistemas”)  degree  at  the  
University  of  Cádiz.  This  methodology  combines  collaboration  and  competition  with  a  strong  
commitment  to  free  software.  On  the  one  hand,  students  develop  video  games  in  teams.  On  the  other  
hand,  grading  partially  depends  on  the  place  obtained  in  a  competition  between  expert  system  rulesets  
developed  by  the  students  for  a  board  game  exclusively  developed  for  it.    

1.    Introduction  
In   recent   years,   the   importance   of   the   video   game   and   electronic   entertainment   industries   has  
greatly  increased.  Universities  are  gradually  incorporating  their  design  and  implementation  in  their  
curricula.  At  the   University   of   Cádiz,   these   topics   are   taught   in   the   “Video   Game   Design”   course   of  
its   degree   on   Technical   Engineering   in   Computer   Systems   (“Ingeniería   Técnica   en   Informática   de  
Sistemas”).  
The   course   is   divided   into   two   parts.   In   the   first   part,   students   are   organized   into   three-­‐person  
teams   to   develop   a   video   game,   following   a   project-­‐based   learning   approach   (Mills   &   Treagust,  
2003).   This   part   is   a   collaborative   experience   in   medium-­‐scale   project   development   in   small  
groups.   Projects   are   hosted   on   the   Free   Knowledge   Forge   of   the   RedIRIS   (Spanish   National  
Research  and  Education  Network)  Community  to  increase  their  visibility  and  let  students  use  latest  
generation  tools.  
In  the  second  part,  students  learn  about  expert  systems:  a  branch  of  artificial  intelligence  suited  
for   problems   with   partial   knowledge   of   the   environment   (Russell   &   Norvig,   2009).   Students  
develop   an   expert   system   which   implements   a   strategy   to   play   a   predefined   board   game   in   which  
two  armies  move  by  turns.  Students  compete  against  each  other  by  running  their  expert  systems  
in  a  predefined  environment  which  implements  the  game  itself.  Grading  in  this  part  of  the  course  
depends  on  the  results  obtained  in  the  competition.  

2.    Course  syllabus  
“Video   Game   Design”   is   an   optional   course   of   the   third   year   of   the   Technical   Engineering   in  
Computer  Systems  (“Ingeniería  Técnica  en  Informática  de  Sistemas”)  degree  at  the  University  of  
Cadiz.   It   is   worth   6   LRU   credits   (4.5   ECTS   credits),   which   are   equally   divided   into   lectures   and  
practical   sessions.   There   are   two   weekly   sessions   of   two   hours   each   during   the   second   term   (from  
February   to   June).   The   course   integrates   knowledge   about   several   IT   branches,   such   as  

8  
programming,   artificial   intelligence,   physics,   modeling,   group   work,   etc.   The   course   has   been  
taught  since  the  2006–2007  academic  year,  using  a  project-­‐based  learning  for  most  of  the  course  
except  for  the  competition.  
Since   its   inception,   the   course   has   been   strongly   committed   to   using   high-­‐quality   free   software,  
according   to   the   “Institutional   Declaration   of   Support   of   Free   Software”   approved   by   the  
Governing  Council   of   the   University   of   Cádiz   (Universidad   de   Cádiz,   2004).   This   commitment   is   not  
only   due   to   the   ethical   responsibility   of   the   University   as   a   public   educational   organization,   but  
also  to  the  practical  benefits  linked  with  the  use  of  free  software  in  education  (González  Barahona  
et  al.,  2004).  
Free   software   can   contribute   to   achieve   the   objectives   established   by   the   European   Higher  
Education   Area   (EHEA)   (García   &   Rodríguez   &   Palomo,   2008).   Students   have   access   to   bleeding-­‐
edge  tools  and  all  information  produced  during  their  development,  regardless  of  their  economic  
situation.   They   can   analyze   and   modify   the   program   for   learning   and   experimenting,   and   obtain  
skills   as   task   management,   architectural   design,   software   configuration   control   and   other   high-­‐
level  skills.  
Additionally,  free  software  also  tends  to  be  more  accessible  to  disabled  users,  offer  translations  in  
more   languages   and   better   conform   to   existing   standards.   All   these   features   require   specific  
techniques   that   students   can   learn   from   the   code   and   the   developer   community,   making   them  
more   competitive   in   the   labor   market.   Finally,   some   of   the   free   software   projects   are   more  
successful   than   others:   students   may   see   directly   what   were   the   key   factors   and   keep   them   in  
mind  for  their  own  initiatives.  
After   the   insights   obtained   in   the   Teacher   Training   Group   GFUCA17   (“Course   adaptations   for  
Computer   Science   degrees   at   the   EHEA”),   during   2007,   the   course   was   included   into   the  
Educational   Innovation   Project   IE-­‐26.   In   2009,   the   course   was   part   of   the   EHEA   Adaptation   Pilot  
Experience   of   the   degree   and   the   Teaching   Innovation   Action   “Usage   of   Web   2.0   collaborative  
technologies  to  encourage  student  teamwork”.  These  initiatives  are  part  of  the  Europe  Project  of  
the  University  of  Cádiz.  

3.    Video  game  development  


In   the   collaborative   part   of   the   course,   students   develop   a   video   game   in   groups   of   three   and  
release   it   as   free   software.   All   code   is   publicly   available,   but   evaluation   is   done   in   class   using  
templates  previously  agreed  with  the  students.  

3.1.    Software  forge  


A  software  forge  is  an  on-­‐line  environment  that  provides  several  tools  that  simplify  collaborative  
development   and   eases   distributed   work.   Current   forges   feature   mailing   lists,   forums,   task   and  
bug  trackers,  content  syndication  feeds  and  wikis,  among  others.  These  tools  provide  constant  up-­‐
to-­‐date   information   which   allows   the   teacher   to   efficiently   and   closely   follow   the   students’  
progress.  
Among  these  collaboration  tools,  version  control  systems  (such  as   Subversion)  play  a  key  role  in  
enabling  the  collaboration  between  the  students  in  each  group.  Most  work  is  done  in  a  distributed  
fashion,   as   differing   group   member   schedules   make   face-­‐to-­‐face   meetings   hard   to   plan.   Version  
control  systems  let  each  student  plan  their  own  work  in  a  flexible  manner  and  stay  in  sync  with  the  
rest  of  the  group.  
The   basic   workflow   with   Subversion   is   as   follows:   when   the   project   begins,   students   create   a  
9  
repository  with  a  basic  directory  structure.  At  the  start  of  each  working  session,  every  developer  
updates  their  working  copy  to  the  latest  revision  of  the  contents  of  the  repository.  After  making  
their  contributions  (new  features,  bug  fixes,  etc.),  these  are  committed  as  new  revisions.  If  in  the  
meantime   another   developer   has   sent   more   contributions,   Subversion   will   merge   the   changes  
introduced   by   both.   More   advanced   workflows   exist,   but   this   is   often   enough   for   the   projects  
developed  in  the  course.  
Subversion’s   advantages   do   not   end   there:   the   system   keeps   all   intermediate   versions   of   the  
program  resulting  from  each  contribution  of  each  user.  Every  revision  includes  the  author’s  name,  
its   date   and   time   and   a   description   message.   This   enables   all   users   to   fetch   any   version   of   the  
program,   either   by   its   version   number   (1.0)   or   its   date   and   time   (yesterday   at   15:00).   This  
information  can  also  be  used,  for  example,  to  compare  different  versions  of  a  file.  
Moreover,  the  forge  is  publicly  available,  so  anyone  interested  in  the  video  games  can  download  
them  and  spread  the  word.  

3.2.    Results  
Table  1  reports  several  statistics  for  the  nine  projects  carried  out  during  the  2008–2009  academic  
year   (Free   Software   and   Knowledge   Office   of   the   University   of   Cádiz,   2009).   Average   values   for  
each  project  and  student  are  shown  as  well.  
Table  1.  Statistics  for  the  2008–2009  academic  year  
Metric   9  projects   Proj.  average.   Student  
average  
Revisions  (commits)   964   107.11   37.08  
Total  files  (raw)   3516   390.67   135.23  
Total  code  files  (.h  +   1096   121.78   42.15  
.cpp)  
Total  lines  (raw)   286495   31832.78   11019.04  
Total  code  lines  (.h  +   177884   19764.89   6841.69  
.cpp)  
Number  of  additions   3724   413.78   143.23  
Number  of   1462   162.44   56.23  
modifications  
 
There  is  a  large  difference  between  the  raw  file  count  and  the  code  file  count  and  the  raw  total  
lines  and  code  total  lines.  This  is  because  the  projects  use  Doxygen  (Van  Heesch,  2010).  to  produce  
large  amounts  of  HTML  documentation  automatically  from  the  C.2ex++  sources.  
The   data   has   been   obtained   using   StatSVN   (Appendium,   2010)   and   the   RedIRIS   software   forge.  
StatSVN   is   a   full-­‐featured   free   software   tool   that   generates   statistics   of   a   project   from   its   SVN  
repository.  It  also  provides  information  about  the  work  from  each  developer.  For  instance,  it  can  
show  the  distribution  of  work  over  the  term  and  over  the  week.  
Using   this   data   we   can   classify   the   students   over   several   profiles.   For   example,   some   students   like  
to  work  during  the  night  (with  almost  40%  of  their  contributions  done  after  midnight),  while  the  
rest   do   the   work   during   the   entire   day.   Regarding   weekdays,   some   groups   work   on   the   project  
during   class,   so   their   contributions   are   focused   in   working   days,   and   other   students   work   on  
10  
weekends.   There   are   some   common   patterns,   though:   contribution   rate   always   increases   in   the  
last  few  days  before  each  monthly  presentation.  
We  conclude  that,  in  general,  the  students  have  produced  a  considerable  amount  of  work  bearing  
in   mind   that   this   is   an   optional   4-­‐month   course.   Each   student   has   sent   on   average   over   37  
contributions   and   has   produced   more   than   40   files.   The   177884   lines   of   source   code   have  
generated  nearly  110000  lines  of  documentation.  

4.    Competition  between  expert  systems  


In   the   competitive   part,   students   face   each   other   with   the   expert   systems   they   have   developed   to  
play   a   board   game   similar   to   Stratego   (Palomo,   2007).   The   game   pits   two   armies   made   up   by  
several  pieces  against  each  other.  Every  piece  has  an  associated  value  that  is  initially  only  visible  to  
its  owner.  When  two  pieces  face  each  other,  their  values  are  revealed  and  the  lowest  valued  piece  
is   removed   from   the   board   (“dies”).   If   both   pieces   have   the   same   value,   both   pieces   die.   The  
objective  of  the  game  is  to  capture  the  opponent’s  lowest  valued  piece.  

4.1.    Development  
To  perform  the  competition,  a  free  software  tool  which  provides  a  common  environment  where  
the  expert  systems  can  face  off  each  other  has  been  developed:  Resistencia  en  Cádiz:  1812  (Recio,  
2010).   Using   this   application,   the   students   can   test   their   expert   systems   against   other   expert  
systems   and   themselves.   This   helps   students   improve   their   modules   and   make   their   systems  
stronger.   Figure   1   shows   a   screenshot   of   a   game   between   two   teams,   with   some   pieces  
uncovered.  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
Fig.  1:  Screenshot  of  a  match  in  “Resistencia  en  Cádiz:  1812”  
 
Near   the   end   of   the   course,   2   weeks   are   used   to   perform   this   experience.   A   1-­‐hour   lecture  

11  
provides   the   required   conceptual   foundations   behind   rule-­‐based   expert   systems,   emphasizing  
their  practical  applications  in  science  and  engineering.  The  second  hour  of  this  first  session  is  used  
to  show  the  main  application,  so  they  can  get  familiar  with  the  environment  they  are  going  to  use.  
In   this   session   some   sample   rules   will   be   shown,   from   simple   cases   to   a   reasonably   complex  
system.  
The   application   is   easy   to   learn   and   use,   so   the   practical   session   of   that   week   can   be   used   to   code  
a   basic   ruleset,   so   they   can   be   improved   at   home.   They   can   test   their   rulesets   against   some  
examples  included  in  the  system.  Two  features  are  very  useful  for  learning.  First,  it  can  play  a  very  
large  set  of  games  automatically,  showing  general  statistics  of  the  behavior  of  the  ruleset.  Second,  
human  players  can  play  directly  against  an  expert  system  and  test  how  it  behaves  under  certain  
situations.  
Lecture   time   for   the   second   week   is   used   to   organize   a   league   which   faces   all   students   against  
each   other.   Figure   2   shows   a   screenshot   with   results   from   a   round   and   the   resulting   overall  
ranking.  

Fig.  2:  Results  on  a  league-­‐format  competition  


Usually,  students  identify  issues  and  weak  points  in  their  systems  during  the  competition,  so  they  
have  an  extra  hour  during  the  last  week’s  practical  session  to  improve  their  ruleset.  The  last  hour  
is  used  to  play  a  shorter  tournament  with  their  improved  teams.  

4.2.    Evaluation  
In  order  to  pass  this  part  of  the  course,  the  student  only  needs  to  defeat  a  naive  (“sparring”)  team  
that   is   included   in   the   system.   This   lets   the   student   pass   this   part   with   confidence,   even   if   the  
ruleset  ends  up  in  last  place  in  the  following  competition.  
If  they  want  to  get  a  better  score,  students  need  to  win  against  their  classmates.  Students  get  an  
extra  point  for  each  of:  winning  once  during  the  league,  being  in  the  top  half  of  the  league,  passing  
each  of  the  two  play-­‐off  rounds  and  winning  a  tournament.  
The   experience   has   been   rewarding   both   for   the   students   and   the   teacher.   Students   were   on  
average  much  more  interested  in  this  course  than  in  others,  judging  from  the  surveys  conducted  
near  the  end  of  the  term.  Results  showed  a  very  high  score  in  that  attribute,  with  4.77  points  over  
5.  

12  
Students  reported  that  they  felt  more  motivated  due  to  competing  with  their  peers  through  their  
work,   rather   than   speed   or   reflexes,   as   usual   in   most   video   games.   Students   enjoyed   developing   a  
program  and  seeing  it  play  a  game  following  a  strategy  without  their  intervention.  

5.    Conclusions  
We   have   presented   two   educational   experiences   which,   combined   in   a   course,   focus   learning  
around  the  student.  Students  of  the  “Video  Game  Design”  course  collaborate  with  each  other  and  
build   up   teamwork   skills   on   the   one   hand,   and   learn   new   concepts   by   competing   against   each  
other  on  the  other.  
Students   have   worked   together   as   teams   during   the   whole   course,   generating   177884   lines   of  
code   at   an   uniform   pace.   Using   StatSVN,   we   identified   several   patterns   during   their   development.  
Every  video  game  is  available  at  the  RedIRIS  software  forge  for  download.  
The  competitive  part  of  the  course  has  been  well  received  by  the  students,  being  scored  with  4.77  
points   over   5   in   the   surveys   conducted   at   the   end   of   the   course.   Students   felt   more   motivated  
since  the  ranking  of  their  expert  system  among  their  peers’  influenced  their  grades.  
Future  editions  of  the  course  will  mostly  preserve  its  current  structure.  The  collaborative  part  will  
mostly   be   kept   as   is.   However,   the   rules   of   the   competitive   game   will   be   slightly   changed   over  
time,  so  students  will  not  copy  the  winner  strategies  of  the  past  courses.  

Acknowledgments  
This   work   has   been   funded   for   the   Acción   de   Innovación   Educativa   Universitaria   del   Personal  
Docente  e  Investigador  “Empleo  de  tecnologías  colaborativas  web  2.0  para  fomentar  el  trabajo  en  
equipo   del   alumnado”   (PIE-­‐101)   belonging   to   the   Proyecto   Europa   de   la   Universidad   de   Cádiz,  
funded   by   the   Consejería   de   Innovación,   Ciencia   y   Empresa   of   the   Junta   de   Andalucía,   the  
Ministerio  de  Educación  y  Ciencia  and  the  University  of  Cádiz.  

References  
Álvarez,  A.,  Palomo,  M.,  Rodríguez,  J.R.  (2009).  Experiencias  en  la  aplicación  de  técnicas  y  
herramientas  de  desarrollo  colaborativo  de  software  en  una  asignatura  basada  en  proyectos.  
Actas  del  XVII  Congreso  de  Innovación  Educativa  en  las  Enseñanzas  Técnicas.  
Appendium  (2010).  Homepage  of  the  StatSVN  project.  http://www.statsvn.org/
Free  Software  and  Knowledge  Office  of  the  University  of  Cádiz  (2009).  Proyectos  de  Diseño  de  
Videojuegos  curso  2008/9.  http://osl.uca.es/node/998
González  Barahona,  J.,  Matellán  Olivera,  V.,  de  las  Heras  Quirós,  P.,  Robles,  G.,  eds.  (2004).  Sobre  
software  libre:  compilación  de  ensayos  sobre  software  libre.  Dykinson  
I.  García,  A.,  Rodríguez,  R.,  Palomo,  M.  (2008).  El  software  libre  en  el  EEES.  Actas  del  Congreso  
internacional  sobre  investigación  educativa.  page101–page120  
Mills,  J.E.,  Treagust,  D.F.  (2003).  Engineering  education:  Is  Problem-­‐Based  or  Project-­‐Based  
learning  the  answer?    Australasian  Journal  of  Engineering  Education(3)  page2–page16  
Palomo,  M.  (2007).  La  competitividad  como  un  factor  motivante  para  el  aprendizaje  de  sistemas  
expertos.  Actas  de  las  II  Jornadas  Nacionales  de  Intercambio  de  Experiencias  Piloto  de  
Implantación  de  Metodologías  ECTS.  

13  
Recio  Quijano,  P.  (2010).  Homepage  of  the  Resistencia  en  Cádiz:  1812  project.  http://cusl4-
res-cadiz.forja.rediris.es/  
Russell,  S.,  Norvig,  P.  (2009).  Artificial  Intelligence:  A  Modern  Approach.  3rd  ed.  Prentice  Hall  
Spanish  Network  for  Research.  Free  forge  RedIRIS.  http://forja.rediris.es
Universidad  de  Cádiz.  (2004).  Acuerdo  del  Consejo  de  Gobierno  de  15  de  marzo  de  2004,  por  la  
que  se  aprueba  la  adhesión  a  la  declaración  institucional  de  apoyo  al  uso  de  Software  Libre  
en  la  Universidad  de  Cádiz.  Boletín  Oficial  de  la  Universidad  de  Cádiz  (9)  page78–page79  
Universidad  de  Cádiz.  Convocatoria  de  Proyectos  de  Innovación  Educativa  Universitaria  del  
Proyecto  Europa.  http://www.uca.es/web/estudios/proyecto_europa/  
Van  Heesch,  D.  (2010).  Homepage  of  the  Doxygen  project.  http://www.doxygen.org/  

14  
Case  of  an  online  course:  Java  Programming  
Ángel  García-­‐Beltrán  (1)  
(1)  
Universidad  Politécnica  de  Madrid  
Escuela  Técnica  Superior  de  Ingenieros  Industriales,  c/José  Gutiérrez  Abascal,  2.  28006  –  Madrid  (SPAIN)  
agarcia@etsii.upm.es

Abstract  
This  paper  describes  the  pedagogical  methodology  and  some  results  drawn  from  the  experience  of  a  
Java  Programming  online  course.  The  work  presents  and  discusses  the  online  learning-­‐teaching  actions:  
SCORM  contents  publishing,  self-­‐assessment  exercises,  single  and  collaborative  homeworks  delivering  
and  several  web-­‐based  communications.  All  of  these  activities  are  driven  to  encourage  students  to  
practice  programming  techniques  with  Java  language.  The  course  grading  is  equally  based  on  the  
individual  and  the  collaborative  activities.  

1.  Introduction  
Several  years  ago,  the  teaching  methodology  for  Computer  Science  courses  was  fairly  traditional,  
with  face-­‐to-­‐face  lectures  and  laboratory  work.  Currently,  many  online  systems  and  tools  are  used  
as  support  to  the  traditional  instructional  methods.  They  can  become  interactive  learning  systems  
helping  students  to  learn  the  basic  concepts  of  any  subject,  i.e.  computer  programming.  In  this  
work  a  methodology  for  an  online  course  based  in  virtual  tools  is  described.  The  fully  online  Java  
Programming  course  is  presented  at  the  beginning  of  this  paper;  the  rest  of  the  paper  describes  
the  learning-­‐teaching  activities  by  clearly  indicating  the  initial  objective,  the  procedure  adopted,  
and  the  conclusions  drawn  from  this  experience.  

2.  The  course  
Java  Programming  (4.5  ECTS  credits,  English  language,  one  teacher  and  about  25  students  per  
academic  year)  is  one  of  the  elective  courses  taught  to  Industrial  and  Chemical  Engineering  
students  at  the  ETSII-­‐UPM  in  the  second  semester  since  2005-­‐06.  The  course  is  fully  online  and  
students  and  teacher  only  need  a  web  browser  (and  a  local  Java  SDK)  to  develop  all  the  course  
activities.  Prior  to  this  course,  students  have  to  learn  TurboPascal  programming  in  a  first  
programming  course  (called  Computer  Science  or  Informática)  in  the  very  first  semester.    The  
second  semester  begins  at  the  middle  of  February  and  lasts  until  the  beginning  of  June.  

2.1.  Syllabus  
The  course  is  pretended  to  be  an  introduction  to  the  Java  programming  basics.  The  first  units  of  
the  syllabus  (Table  1)  focus  on  the  essential  programming  elements  (data  types,  control  sentences  
and  routines)  of  Java  and  the  last  ones  point  towards  the  methodology  of  object  oriented  
programming  paradigm.    

15  
 
Table  1.  Units  of  the  Java  Programming  course  syllabus  
Unit  1   Introduction      
Unit  2   Program  Structure  and  Data  Types        
Unit  3   Operators  
Unit  4   Control  Statements        
Unit  5   Return  Statement        
Unit  6   Objects  and  Classes        
Unit  7   Class  Members:  Variables  and  Methods        
Unit  8   Inheritance  
Unit  9   Interfaces  
Unit  10   Packages  and  Exceptions  

2.2.  Methodology  and  grading  


Since  the  2005-­‐06  academic  year,  the  course  methodology  supported  by  the  AulaWeb  virtual  
campus  (Martínez  and  García-­‐Beltran,  2003)  involves  the  following  activities  classified  in  two  
groups:  
1. Individual  or  single  activities  
 Theoretical  and  practical  contents    
 Self-­‐assessment  exercises  
 Single  homeworks  
2. Team  or  collaborative  activities  
 Open-­‐discussion  forums  participation  
 Collaborative  final  homework    
 Chat  sessions  participation  
These  activities  and  their  implementation  match  with  the  three  main  concerns  to  be  considered  in  
Bologna  Process  (Fernández  et  al,  2009):    (a)  everything  that  implies  an  effort  for  students  should  
be  measured,  (b)  students’  feedback  should  be  continuous  and  (c)  monitoring  activities  might  
observe  the  evolution  of  the  subject.  So,  the  course  grading  is  based  not  only  on  the  single  
activities  (50%)  but  also  on  the  collaborative  ones  (50%).  There  is  no  a  traditional  final  
examination.  

3.  Activities  implementation  
There  are  no  face-­‐to-­‐face  lectures  and  contents  publishing,  interactive  communication,  self-­‐
assessment  and  programming  homeworks  appear  as  a  set  of  key  activities  to  encourage  the  
students  to  connect  actively  in  Java  basics  by  “doing”.  
All  the  activities  are  implemented  by  means  of  web  based  tools.  The  interactive  nature  of  
AulaWeb  allows  students  of  programming  courses  not  only  to  study  the  material  and  see  
programming  code  examples,  but  also  to  edit,  compile  and  run  programs  written  in  Java,  and  to  
evaluate  their  level  of  learning.  Students  and  teachers  only  need  a  computer  connected  to  the  
Internet  and  a  WWW  browser  in  order  to  take  advantage  of  all  the  application  functions.  
16  
3.1.  Theoretical  and  practical  contents  
Java  Programming  course  contents  are  organized  in  theoretical  and  practical  documents.  The  
theoretical  part  is  provided  by  a  SCORM  course  (ADL,  2010  and  García-­‐Beltrán  et  al,  2007).  These  
contents  are  a  translated  adaptation  of  a  book  (García-­‐Beltrán  and  Arranz,  2005)  and  the  OCW-­‐
UPM  Programación  en  Java  course  (García-­‐Beltrán  and  Arranz,  2008).  A  SCORM  course  may  be  
used  by  the  tutors  to  monitor  the  student  working  progress  during  the  academic  term,  since  there  
are  no  face-­‐to-­‐face  lectures  (Fig.  1).    

 
Fig.  1:  SCORM  contents  for  the  Java  Programming  course  
The  practical  part  is  given  by  a  set  of  documents,  structured  into  several  units  of  the  course  
syllabus.  These  documents  include  solved  problems  and  exercises  as  well  as  source  programs,  
which  can  be  edited,  compiled  and  executed  by  the  Java  SDK.  The  proposed  problems  are  sorted  
by  increasing  difficulty.  

3.2.  Self-­‐assessment  exercises  (SAE)  


These  exercises  are  used  to  improve  the  performance  of  the  students,  focus  their  learning  and  so  
drive  them  to  practice  computer  programming  during  the  academic  term.  To  encourage  them  the  
test  results  make  a  contribution  (20%)  to  the  subject  grading,  so  these  marks  are  meant  to  
motivate  and  to  assess.  The  questions  have  been  distributed  in  the  corresponding  units  and  can  
incorporate  graphics  and  multimedia.  There  are  also  many  types  of  questions  (single  choice,  
multiple  choice,  numerical  input,  text,  etc)  implemented  in  this  tool.  However,  this  course  may  
employ  questions  with  Java  Programming  code  answers  (Figure  2)  and  questions  with  randomly  
generated  wording  (García-­‐Beltrán  et  al,  2009).  The  code  questions  are  focused  on  developing  
programs  to  do  something  not  on  learning  language  syntax  or  program  rules.  Of  course  the  
learning  of  the  language  syntax  and  rules  are  a  previous  step.  The  tutor  set  up  exercises  for  the  
group  of  students  with  short  deadlines,  so  the  students  must  work  according  to  the  subject  design.  
Exercises  correction  is  automatic  and  the  student  and  the  teacher  can  access  immediately  the  
results  of  the  self-­‐assessment  activities.  Therefore,  the  system  allows  the  teacher  to  track  the  
student’s  learning  progress  during  the  course.    
 

17  
 
Fig.  2:    Example  of  a  Java  code  question  in  the  student  interface  
The  final  aim  is  that  tutor  may  identify  knowledge  gaps  among  students  in  order  to  have  a  better  
understanding  of  potential  corrective  activities.  As  shown  in  Table  2,  students  finished  148  SAE  
configured  by  the  tutor  in  2008-­‐09.  
Table  2.  Summary  of  exercises  results  for  the  Java  Programming  course  (2008-­‐09)  
  Unit   From:   To  (deadline):   N.  Q.   Students   Ave.  Score  
who  did  it   (out  of  10)  
1   Introduction   27/02/2009   06/03/2009   5   17   9,76  
2   Program  Structure  &  Data  Types   07/03/2009   16/03/2009   5   18   9,11  
3   Operators   15/03/2009   23/03/2009   5   18   9,56  
4   Control  Statements   22/03/2009   30/03/2009   4   19   9,68  
5   The  return  Statement   27/04/2009   03/04/2009   4   18   9,03  
6   Objects  and  Classes   07/04/2009   15/04/2009   4   19   8,55  
7   Class  members   18/04/2009   30/04/2009   4   19   8,68  
8   Inheritance   22/04/2009   05/05/2009   4   21   8,69  
9   Interfaces   29/05/2009   10/05/2009   4   19   9,16  
10   Packages  &  Exceptions   05/05/2009   17/05/2009   4   20   9,25  

3.3.  Single  homeworks  


Students  must  face  five  individual  programming  assignments  during  the  semester.  The  homeworks  
set  up  and  the  delivery  of  the  corresponding  reports  by  the  students  are  done  by  means  of  
AulaWeb.  These  programming  exercises  are  handed  at  regular  intervals  throughout  the  course.  
Once  the  content  of  the  student’s  work  has  been  checked,  the  teacher  can  mark  it  and  send  the  
corresponding  grading  and  comments  to  the  student.  This  activity  score  also  contributes  (20%)  to  
the  course  final  mark  of  the  student.  

18  
3.4.  Open  discussion  forums  
These  activities  can  facilitate  the  interchange  of  ideas  among  lecturer  and  students,  who  can  
publish  news  and  express  their  own  ideas,  doubts  and  comments,  and  ask  or  answer  questions  
posed  by  other  students  or  by  the  tutor.  The  AulaWeb  forum  is  opened  since  the  beginning  of  the  
academic  period  and  the  student  participation  makes  up  the  10%  of  the  course  final  grading.  

3.5.  Collaborative  final  homework  


The  aim  is  the  development  of  a  Java  Program  using  the  concepts  and  programming  elements  
learned  in  this  course.  This  final  homework  must  be  performed  in  groups  of  three  (or  four)  
students.  The  tutor  selects  the  students  teams  composition  and  each  students  group  has  to  meet,  
planify,  design  and  implement  one  program  project.  Before  the  development,  students  must  
consult  the  tutor  about  the  scope  of  the  program.  All  the  projects  must  include  a  program  (with  a  
main  method)  in  order  to  test  the  application  code.  This  work  contributes  30%  to  the  student  final  
mark.  

3.6.  Chat  sessions  


There  are  three  chat  sessions  per  course:  at  the  beginning,  in  the  middle  and  at  the  end  of  the  
academic  period.  Due  to  its  spreading,  Microsoft  Messenger  is  used  to  carry  out  the  sessions  
(Microsoft,  2010).  Evening  hours  are  choosen  for  these  sessions  because  students  timetable  used  
to  take  up  mornings  and  afternoons.  The  chat  sessions  length is approximately one hour.  

4.  Results  
In  order  to  determine  the  goodness  of  the  methodology,  success  data  of  a  traditional  (face-­‐to-­‐
face,  in  Spanish)  Java  Programming  course  is  compared  to  the  fully  online  course  results  (similar  to  
Sánchez  et  al  2009  analysis).  Both  courses  are  elective  ones  taught  in  the  ETSII-­‐UPM.  The  two-­‐
hours  per  week  lectures  in  the  traditional  course  address  not  only  the  theory  but  also  the  practice  
of  the  course  and  are  taught  using  the  Spanish  language  in  a  computer  laboratory.  Table  2  shows  
the  success  rate  in  both  courses  since  2005-­‐06  academic  year.  In  short  the  rate  of  students  passing  
the  traditional  course  (63.9%)  is  worse  than  the  online’s  one  (87.9%).  
Table  2.  Traditional  course  vs.  online  course  results  comparison  
  Java  Programming  (Face  to  face  –  Spanish)   Java  Programming  (Online  –  English)  
Acad.  Year   Students:  Pass/Total   %  Pass   Students:  Pass/Total   %  Pass  
2005-­‐06   22/33   66,7   23/25   92,0  
2006-­‐07   13/24   54,2   21/24   87,5  
2007-­‐08   13/19   68,4   23/27   85,2  
2008-­‐09   12/18   66,7   20/23   87,0  
Total   60/94   63,9   87/99   87,9  

5.    Validation  
To  analyse  the  effectiveness  of  the  methodology,  at  the  end  of  the  academic  period,  students  
completed  a  survey,  providing  anonymous  and  very  interesting  feedback  about  the  courses.  The  
responses  for  the  questions  were  given  a  five-­‐position  scale  graded  from  1  (Strongly  disagree)  to  5  
(Strongly  agree).  An  example  of  the  survey  results  for  the  2008-­‐09  academic  year  is  shown  in  Table  
3.  

19  
Table  3.  Summary  of  students  survey  in  the  Java  Programming  course  (2008-­‐09)  
  Question   Students   Answers   1   2   3   4   5   Ave.  
1   I  enjoyed  using  the  virtual  learning  management  system   23   21   2   1   3   5   10   3,95  
2   The  methodology  enabled  me  to  practice  and  develop   23   20   0   1   4   5   10   4,2  
programming  skills  
3   I  worked  harder  than  I  would  have  done  without  it   23   21   2   1   4   5   9   3,86  
4   It  encouraged  me  to  work  consistently  throughout  the  term   23   21   1   2   4   6   8   3,86  
6   The  activities  results  have  been  a  fair  reflection  of  my  ability   23   21   0   1   4   7   9   4,14  

6.    Conclusions  and  future  work  


An  approach  of  a  learning-­‐teaching  methodology  in  a  Java  Programming  online  course  has  been  
presented.  Java  Programming  online  course  has  been  taught  since  2005-­‐06  academic  year.    Data  
collected  during  five  years  of  application  are  showed.  To  date,  students  generally  report  an  
encouraging  experience  in  this  online  course.  The  virtual  campus  facilitates  innovative  and  easy  
funcionalities  to  plan  courses,  provide  contents,  develop  several  learning  activities  and  evaluate  
students.  New  technologies  and  tools  can  help  and  effectively  change  the  classical  approach  of  
learning/teaching  of  taking  lessons,  assignments  and  manual  grading  with  many  educational  
benefits  and  low  cost.  Virtual  platforms  employment  may  be  very  efficient  in  the  pedagogical  
process:  students  have  spatial  and  temporal  flexibility  to  do  the  assignments  and  also  immediate  
feedback  and  lectures  can  support  (any-­‐size)  groups  of  students,  make  easy  and/or  avoid  the  
grading  discrepancies  and  focus  their  activity  on  issues  regarding  content  and  didactics.  
Furthermore,  this  kind  of  web-­‐based  systems  may  help  to  reduce  distance  barriers  not  only  for  
local  or  national  students  but  also  for  other  students  from  international  institutions.  The  overall  
conclusion  is  that  this  type  of  non-­‐presential  methodologies  is  generally  viewed  positively  by  
students  and  tutors.    
Future  plans  include  a  more  exhaustive  analysis  of  collected  data  and  the  development  of  a  new  
set  of  Java  programming  code  questions  for  the  self-­‐assessment  database.  

Acknowledgements  
The  author  would  like  to  acknowledge  the  support  of  A.  Alonso,  J.  M.  Arranz,  P.  Avendaño,  M.  Aza,  
L.  Blanco,  S.  Campos,  D.  Cortés,  J.  A.  Criado,  F.  de  Ory,  C.  Engels,  M.  Fernández,  V.  Gámiz,  P.  García,  
M.  González,  J.  Granado,  T.  Hernández,  I.  Iglesias,  J.  A.  Jaén,  A.  R.  López,  D.  López,  J.  A.  Martín,  M.  
Martín,  R.  Martínez,  F.  J.  Mascato,  D.  Molina,  C.  Moreno,  L.  M.  Pabón,  S.  Pastor,  J.  C.  Pérez,  A.  
Rodelgo,  S.  Tapia,  A.  Valero,  E.  Villalar  and  C.  Zoido.  

References  
ADL,  Advanced  Distributed  Learning  (2010),  About  Sharable  Content  Object  Reference  Model  
(SCORM),  http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/default.aspx  
Fernández,  C.,  Díez,  D.,  Torres,  J.  and  Zarraonandía,  T.  (2009).  The  cost  of  learning  and  teaching  
Java  in  the  Bologna  process,  In  Proc.  of  the  2nd  Workshop  on  Methods  and  Cases  in  
Computing  Education,  Barcelona,  Spain,  pp.  41-­‐45.  
García-­‐Beltrán,  A.  and  Arranz,  J.M.  (2004).  Introducción  a  la  Programación  con  Java,  Sección  de  
Publicaciones  de  la  ETSII-­‐UPM,  Madrid.  
García-­‐Beltrán,  A.  and  Arranz,  J.M.  (2008).  Programación  con  Java  I,  OpenCourseWare-­‐UPM,  
http://ocw.upm.es/lenguajes-­‐y-­‐sistemas-­‐informaticos/programacion-­‐en-­‐java-­‐i  
García-­‐Beltrán,  A.,  Martínez,  R.,  Muñoz,  D.  J.  and  Muñoz-­‐Guijosa,  J.  A.  (2007).  Implementación  de  
20  
un  Módulo  de  Gestión  de  Contenidos  SCORM  en  la  Plataforma  AulaWeb,  In  Proc.  of  SPDECE  
2007,  Diseño,  Evaluación  y  Desarrollo  de  Contenidos  Educativos  Reutilizables,  Bilbao,  Spain.  
García-­‐Beltrán,  A.,  Tapia,  S.,  Martínez,  R.  and  Jaén,  J.  A.  (2009).  Simulator  for  a  Multi-­‐Programming  
Environment  for  Computer  Science  Learning  and  Teaching,  International  Journal  of  
Engineering  Education,  25-­‐2,  221-­‐227.  
Martínez,  R.  and  García-­‐Beltrán,  A.  (2003).  AulaWeb,  un  sistema  de  e-­‐learning  para  la  gestión,  
evaluación  y  seguimiento  de  asignaturas,  Industria  XXI,  4,  26-­‐27.  
Microsoft  (2010),  Windows  Live  Messenger,  http://windowslive.es.msn.com/  
Sánchez,  S.,    Rodríguez,  D.  and  Clarisó,  R.  (2009),  Comparing  a  fully  online  course  to  a  blended  one:  
the  case  of  compilers,  In  Proc.  of  the  2nd  Workshop  on  Methods  and  Cases  in  Computing  
Education,  Barcelona,  Spain,  pp.  52-­‐60.  
Sun  Developer  Network  Site  (2010),  Developer  Resources  for  Java  Technology,  
http://java.sun.com/  

21  
Adapting  LEARN-­‐SQL  to  Database  computer-­‐
supported  cooperative  learning  
Xavier  Burgués  (1),  Carme  Martín  (1),  Carme  Quer  (1),  Alberto  Abelló  (1),  M.  José  Casany  (1),  Toni  Urpí  
(1)
,  M.  Elena  Rodríguez  (2)  
Universitat  Politècnica  de  Catalunya  
Mòdul  A0,  Campus  Nord.  Jordi  Girona  Salgado  1-­‐3.  08034  Barcelona,  Spain
{diafebus,cquer,aabello,mjcasany,martin,urpi}@essi.upc.edu
Universitat  Oberta  de  Catalunya  
Rambla  del  Poblenou  156.  08018  Barcelona,  Spain  
mrodriguezgo@uoc.edu

Abstract  
LEARN-­‐SQL  is  a  tool  that  we  are  using  since  three  years  ago  in  several  database  courses,  and  that  has  
shown  its  positive  effects  in  the  learning  of  different  database  issues.  This  tool  allows  proposing  remote  
questionnaires  to  students,  which  are  automatically  corrected  giving  them  a  feed-­‐back  and  promoting  
their  self-­‐learning  and  self-­‐assessment  of  their  work.  However,  this  tool  as  it  is  currently  used  does  not  
has  the  possibility  to  propose  structured  exercises  to  teams  that  promote  their  cooperative  learning.  In  
this  paper,  we  present  our  adaptation  of  the  LEARN-­‐SQL  tool  for  allowing  some  Computer-­‐Supported  
Collaboration  Learning  techniques.  

1.  Introduction  
Universities  in  Europe  are  involved  in  an  uniformisation  process  in  the  so-­‐called  high  European  
Space  for  Higher  Education  (ESHE).  The  adoption  of  this  framework  requires  the  reduction  and  
optimization  of  the  time  spent  in  learning  tasks  with  active  participation  of  the  student.  ESHE  also  
increases  the  importance  of  practice,  personal  relationships  and  the  capacity  to  work  within  a  
team.  These  goals  suggest  the  reduction  of  explanations  in  classes  and  the  increase  of  personal  
and  cooperative  tasks  performed  by  students.  
Because  of  these  reasons  we  began  to  introduce  new  didactic  methods  in  the  area  of  databases  
some  time  ago.  On  the  one  hand,  since  three  years  ago,  we  are  using  the  LEARN-­‐SQL  tool  (Abelló  
et  al.,  2007;  http://www.upc.edu/learn-­‐sql/)  that  promotes  self-­‐learning  and  self-­‐assessment,  
makes  evaluation  of  exercises  easier,  and  provides  information  about  the  knowledge  of  the  
students  on  different  subjects  of  the  database  area.  On  the  other  hand,  since  one  year  ago,  we  
have  also  introduced  cooperative  learning  techniques  in  database  courses.    
In  both  cases  we  began  with  a  reduced  number  of  students,  in  order  to  do  not  introduce  changes  
that  affect  a  big  number  of  students,  also  to  get  used  to  the  new  learning  techniques,  and  finally,  
because  the  preparation  of  classes  and  exercises,  its  evaluation,  and  also  the  feed-­‐back  that  must  
be  given  to  students  requires  much  time  from  the  teacher.  Once  extended  gradually  the  
application  of  these  techniques,  we  have  now  practiced  both  didactic  methods  in  courses  with  a  
considerable  number  of  students.  As  the  results  obtained  are  satisfactory  and  promising,  we  will  
go  further  by  using  an  adaptation  of  the  LEARN-­‐SQL  tool  that:  provides  the  functionality  of  
defining  group  exercises  that  must  be  solved  by  some  cooperative  learning  techniques;  helps  us  in  
the  evaluation  of  students;  gives  feed-­‐back  to  groups  of  their  effective  learning;  and  facilitates  
Computer-­‐Supported  Cooperative  Learning  (CSCL),  that  is,  the  cooperative  learning  in  an  online  
framework.      
22  
In  this  paper  we  are  presenting  our  adaptation  of  the  tool,  the  particular  cooperative  techniques  
that  the  tool  will  provide,  the  results  of  the  use  of  theses  techniques  that  we  have  already  
experienced  without  the  help  of  computers,  and  how  we  can  take  advantage  of  the  
implementation  of  these  techniques  with  the  tool.  The  structure  of  the  paper  is  the  following:  
section  2  describes  the  tool;  section  3  presents  its  adaptation  to  new  learning  techniques,  the  
results  of  the  use  of  these  techniques  in  ordinary  classes,  and  how  we  are  taking  advantage  of  the  
online  implementation  of  these  techniques;  and  finally,  section  4  gives  some  conclusions.  

2.  LEARN-­‐SQL  
LEARN-­‐SQL  (Learning  Environment  for  Automatic  Rating  Notions  of  SQL)  is,  in  fact,  a  system  
composed  of  three  tools  (see  Fig.  1),  following  the  IMS  QTI  proposal  (IMS  learning  Consortium,  
2006).  The  Authoring  Tool  allows  the  teacher  to  manage  the  repository  of  questions  or  exercises,  
which  can  be  used  later  on  in  several  questionnaires.  The  students  access  remote  questionnaires,  
to  answer  the  questions  that  the  teacher  has  assigned  previously  to  them  through  the  Moodle  
learning  environment  (Alier,  2007)  which  acts  as  the  Remote  Questionnaires  Tool.  Finally  the  
Scorer  evaluates  the  students  solutions.  

 
Fig.  1  LEARN-­‐SQL  system  
Currently,  the  categories  of  exercises  that  may  be  taught  with  the  help  of  our  tool  are:  SQL  
queries,  SQL  table  definitions,  SQL  row  insertion/deletion/updating,  SQL  view  definition,  relational  
algebra,  conceptual  model  translation  to  relational  model,  normalization,  verification  of  properties  
of  a  relational  model,  multidimensional  queries,  materialized  views,  table  access  structures,  
optimization  and  access  plan.    There  are  other  tools  related  with  learning  in  the  database  area,  
but,  as  far  as  we  know,  they  just  correct  SQL  queries  and  in  some  cases  relational  algebra  
(Brusilovsky  et  al.,  2010;  Dekeyser  et  al.,  2007;  Kenny  &  Pahl,  2008;  Mitrovic,  2003;  Sadiq  et  al.,  
2004;  Soler  et  al.,  2006,  2007).  
We  have  implemented  our  tool  with  a  strategy  that  evaluates  in  an  objective  way  the  students'  
solutions,  taking  into  account  that  the  exercises  may  be  solved  in  many  different  ways  and  that  is  
not  possible  to  know  the  whole  set  of  correct  solutions  in  advance.  The  strategy  is  based  on  
several  executions  (depending  on  the  exercise  and  its  category)  of  the  student  solution  using  
different  inputs.  Each  execution  constitutes  an  experiment  which  verifies  if  one  of  the  possible  
mistakes  has  been  committed.  Assuming  that  the  set  of  inputs  are  complete,  if  each  experiment  
done  with  the  student  question  solution  produces  the  same  effect  than  the  one  produced  by  the  
23  
teacher  question  solution,  we  may  guarantee  the  correctness  of  the  student  solution.  
Currently  we  use  the  tool  in  our  courses  proposing  three  types  of  questionnaires:  
• When  a  new  subject  that  drives  to  a  new  category  of  exercises  is  introduced,  we  propose  
training   questionnaires   that   the   students   solve   online   not   during   a   class.   Training  
questionnaires   are   evaluated   but   just   to   give   feed-­‐back   to   the   student   of   his   learning  
progress.  
• If   the   new   subject   is   especially   difficult,   the   training   questionnaire   is   solved   at   class   with  
help  of  the  teacher.    
• When   we   want   to   evaluate   if   the   students   have   achieved   the   learning   specific   goal   of   a  
certain   category   of   exercises,   they   do   a   questionnaire   in   class   for   evaluation   purpose.   In  
these  questionnaires  some  penalty  is  applied  taking  into  account  the  number  of  students  
attempts.  
Taking  into  account  our  experience  with  the  tool,  we  may  see  that  its  use  has  several  advantages:  
the  teacher  is  no  required  to  take  part  on  the  evaluation  (automatic  evaluation,  leaving  to  the  
teacher  more  time  available  for  the  preparation  of  new  exercises);  the  student  may  use  it  at  any  
time  and  in  any  place,  since  it  may  be  used  through  Moodle  obtaining  an  immediate  answer  from  
the  tool  (interactive,  online);  the  student  receives  feed-­‐back  about  his  errors  and  has  the  
possibility  to  correct  them  and  to  submit  a  new  answer  (self-­‐learning);  the  use  of  the  tool  as  a  
training  tool  has  increased  the  questions  of  the  student  to  the  teacher  in  order  to  clarify  their  
knowledge,  showing  an  improvement  in  the  maturity  of  their  learning  of  the  different  database  
subjects  (learning  goals  achievement  and  average  grade  increased  from  6.5,  on  a  0  -­‐  10  scale,  to  
8.5).  Moreover,  the  tool  can  perform  with  good  response  time  even  if  the  number  of  students  is  
very  high  (scalable)  and  it  is  easy  to  extend  to  support  new  categories  of  exercises  (extensible).  
From  the  student’s  point  of  view,  the  tool  not  only  has  been  accepted;  in  addition  it  is  considered  
a  valuable  help.  This  can  be  concluded  from  the  answers  to  a  six-­‐monthly  opinion  poll,  involving  
more  than  400  students  (175  of  them  answered  the  poll)  and  3  courses.  The  results  obtained  were  
(1  stands  for  maximum  disagreement,  5  for  maximum  agreement):  
• Having  the  tool  available  outside  the  laboratory  helps  me  learning:  4.08  
• Knowing  the  grade  and  the  possibility  to  retry  helps  improving  the  grade:  4.05  
• Messages  about  mistakes  are  useful:  2.99  
• This  is  a  good  tool  to  learn  SQL:  3.86  

3.  CSCL  LEARN-­‐SQL    
We  are  going  to  begin  the  section  explaining  the  implementation  of  cooperative  learning  
techniques  (CoLT)  to  our  database  courses  and,  after  that,  we  will  describe  each  of  the  techniques  
used  and  our  adaptation  of  LEARN-­‐SQL  for  implementing  them.  Finally,  we  summarise  the  results  
that  validate  our  implementation  and,  thus,  justifies  the  adaptation  of  LEARN-­‐SQL.

3.1.  Implementing  cooperative  learning  


Before  introducing  computer-­‐supported  cooperative  learning  techniques  we  decided  to  test  these  
kind  of  practices  in  ordinary  classes  without  any  use  of  computers,  in  order  to  do  a  kind  of  
validation  of  its  use  in  the  databases  area.    
After  assisting  to  different  introductory  cooperative  learning  courses,  we  studied  the  big  diversity  

24  
of  techniques  recommended  that  may  be  considered  as  cooperative  learning  that  may  be  find  in  
the  literature  (Barkley  et  al.,  2005;  Jonhson  et  al.,  2006;  Kagan,  1994).  We  also  considered  the  
types  of  exercises  to  which  we  wanted  to  apply  this  kind  of  learning.  These  exercises  are  concrete  
exercises  of  some  of  the  categories  introduced  in  section  2,  which  can  be  solved  in  one  or  two  
hours  of  students  work,  that  may  have  more  than  one  correct  solution  and  the  learning  objectives  
of  which  correspond  to  the  Application  level  in  the  Bloom’  Taxonomy  (Bloom,  1956).  It  was  also  
important  for  us  to  promote  the  comparison  and  discrimination  among  multiple  solutions  to  
exercises  together  with  the  positive  interdependence  and  both  individual  and  group  accountability  
of  the  learning  advances.    
We  finally  considered  the  types  of  students  that  we  have  and  our  experience  in  asking  them  to  do  
team-­‐work.  Our  students  are  more  or  less  homogeneous  in  morning  classes  taking  into  account  
their  previous  knowledge  of  the  databases  area  (we  think  this  is  the  only  kind  of  diversity  to  
currently  take  into  account),  but  not  in  the  afternoon  classes,  since  there  are  a  lot  of  students  that  
already  use  databases  in  their  jobs  and  also  some  students  that  repeat  the  course.  Our  experience  
in  team-­‐work  is  that  having  big  teams  (of  more  than  three  people)  increases  the  chance  to  have  
students  that  do  not  do  anything,  although  we  knew  that  this  must  be  solved  by  means  of  a  
proper  design  of  the  cooperative  learning  techniques  and  the  evaluation.    
All  these  previous  considerations  helped  us  to  decide  the  following:    
• The   teams   of   students   would   be   of   three   people,   which   would   be   randomly   generated,  
with  a  requirement  to  have  (as  much  is  possible)  students  with  previous  knowledge  about  
the   database   area   distributed   among   the   different   teams.     The   teams   are   meant   to   be  
stable  in  order  to  increase  fidelity,  complicity  and  harmony  in  the  personal  relationships.  
• We   began   with   the   implementation   of   three   different   kinds   of   techniques   on   a   non  
computer  supported  framework.  We  have  made  variations  of  the  techniques  found  in  the  
literature  in  order  to  fulfill  our  requirements.    
• We  decided  to  begin  the  adaptation  of  LEARN-­‐SQL  to  allow  team  support.  This  support  is  
necessary   whatever   technique   is   going   to   be   applied.   As   we   said   before,   the   Remote  
Questionnaire   tool   is   used   through   Moodle   and   we   use   as   much   as   possible   Moodle  
functionalities.   Thus,   our   courses   are   Moodle   courses   and   our   students   are   Moodle  
participants   of   the   courses.   However,   Moodle   does   not   give   us   the   concept   of   team   of  
students.   For   this   reason   we   implemented   functionalities   for   team   management   that   allow  
the   teacher   to   create   randomly   the   teams,   defining   their   size   and   if   it   is   necessary   defining  
incompatibilities  among  students.  In  spite  of  the  initial  requirements  stated  above,  the  new  
Moodle  module  for  defining  teams  allows  also  the  students  to  create  and  enroll  to  teams.  
Another   functionality   already   defined   at   this   stage   was   the   possibility   to   obtain   lists   of  
students  and  teams  and  to  assign  grades  individually  or  by  team.  

3.2.  CoLT  techniques  and  online  implementation  


We  present  now  the  three  techniques  practiced  (which  we  refer  to  as  CoLT1,  CoLT2  and  CoLT3,  
borrowing  this  naming  procedure  from  Barkley  et  al.,  2005)  for  wich  we  are  going  to  provide  an  
online  implementation  adapting  them  to  LEARN-­‐SQL,  giving  the  possibility  to  use  them  outside  the  
classroom.  In  the  existing  literature  we  just  have  found  the  approach  in  (de  Raadt  et  al.,  2007)  that  
tries  to  add  cooperative  learning  techniques  to  online  database  learning.  Their  approach  proposes  
the  use  of  just  one  technique  that  is  similar  to  the  one  refereed  here  as  CoLT3.  

25  
3.2.1.  CoLT  1  
This  is  an  instance  of  the  write-­‐pair-­‐share  technique  (Barkley  et  al.,  2005).  We  used  it  to  teach  the  
students  how  to  make  the  translation  of  an  UML  class  diagram  to  a  relational  database  schema  
and  also  view  creation  exercises.  The  procedure  was:  
1. Give   the   same   exercise   to   each   member   of   the   team;   each   student   has   to   solve   it  
individually.  In  the  particular  case  of  relational  databases  design,  the  exercise  was  an  UML  
class  diagram  to  be  translated.  Every  student  had  to  propose  a  relational  schema.    
2. Ask   the   students   to   join   with   the   other   members   of   their   team   and   discuss   about   the  
proposed   solutions.   The   difference   with   the   write-­‐pair-­‐share   technique   is   in   the   number   of  
people  that  join  to  discuss  their  solutions.  
3. Each  team  must  create  a  joint  solution  that  must  be  given  to  the  teacher.  The  solution  is  
corrected  by  the  teacher  and  the  feed-­‐back  is  given  to  the  students  in  the  next  class.  This  
part  is  different  from  write-­‐pair-­‐share  technique,  where  the  students  present  the  solution  
of   the   pair   to   the   class,   because   we   have   observed   that   sometimes,   when   the   students  
know   that   they   can   be   asked   to   present   something,   they   are   just   worried   about   his  
presentation   and   do   not   hear   what   the   other   students   present   nor   the   comments   of   the  
teacher  to  other  students.  
The  purpose  of  the  use  of  this  technique  was  to  promote  the  discussion  and  discrimination  among  
different  solutions.  The  grade  obtained  by  each  student  becomes  the  grade  of  the  other  members  
of  the  team,  trying  to  achieve  positive  interdependence.  
LEARN-­‐SQL  can  assist  to  publish  the  statement  of  the  problem  as  a  questionnaire;  during  stage  1  
(individual  thinking),  the  students  are  not  allowed  to  submit  any  answer;  during  stage  2  
(discussion)  the  tool  can  be  the  communication  channel;  finally,  during  stage  3  one  chosen  student  
is  allowed  to  submit  an  answer  in  behalf  of  the  entire  team.  Submitted  answers  are  made  public  to  
all  the  students  together  with  the  grade  and  corresponding  feedback.  

3.2.2.  CoLT  2  
We  designed  this  technique  as  an  extension  of  the  Structured  Problem  Solving  techniques  (Barkley  
et  al.,  2005).  We  used  it  to  teach  the  students  how  to  do  exercises  on  serialization  and  
concurrence  control  of  transactions.  The  procedure  was:  
1. Give  to  the  team  one  or  more  exercises  and  the  steps  that  the  team  must  follow  to  solve  
the  exercises.  In  our  case  the  steps  were  specific  of  the  problem  to  be  solved.  
2. Ask   the   students   to   solve   the   exercises   in   group.   The   teacher   gives   feed-­‐back   if   it   is  
necessary  during  this  part  of  the  activity.  
3. Give   to   each   student   one   or   more   exercises   similar   to   the   ones   solved   before   that,   this  
time,   must   be   solved   individually.   This   stage   does   not   exist   in   the   Structured   Problem  
Solving  technique,  but  we  think  that  it  is  important  to  achieve  the  learning  of  each  member  
of  the  team.  
The  purpose  of  the  use  of  this  technique  was  to  promote  the  students  to  practice  together  and  
learn  from  each  other.  Another  purpose  is  to  increase  the  positive  interdependence,  since  
individual  students’  solutions  grades  affect  positively  or  negatively  to  the  other  members  of  the  
team  and,  thus  the  students  are  interested  that  all  other  members  of  the  team  learn  to  solve  the  
exercises.  
In  LEARN-­‐SQL  we  will  have  four  questionnaires.  One  of  them  will  be  available  to  all  the  students  of  
26  
the  team  and  the  students  will  discuss  and  communicate  with  the  tool  as  a  communication  
channel.  They  will  be  allowed  to  send  to  the  scorer  as  many  solutions  as  they  want,  with  no  
penalty.  Afterwards,  each  of  the  other  three  questionnaires  will  be  available  to  a  single  member.  
Some  penalty  will  be  applied  as  the  students  use  more  attempts.  Submitted  solutions  will  be  made  
public  to  all  the  students  together  with  the  grade  and  corresponding  feedback.  

3.2.3.  CoLT  3  
The  last  technique  that  we  practiced  and  that  we  are  going  to  adapt  in  LEARN-­‐SQL  is  based  in  
the  Send-­‐A-­‐Problem  technique  (Barkley  et  al.,  2005).  We  used  it  to  teach  the  students  how  to  
do  relational  algebra  exercises  and  also  in  teaching  methods  for  accessing  data,  and  their  
efficiency  implications.  The  procedure  was:  
1. There  are  three  sets  of  exercises  (each  one  with  one  or  two  exercises).  Each  member  of  a  
team  solves  one  set  of  exercises.      
2. Afterwards,   each   member   of   the   team   checks   the   solutions   of   another   member   of   the  
team  without  interaction.  In  the  original  technique,  Send-­‐A-­‐Problem,  the  different  sets  of  
exercises  are  solved  by  teams,  and  in  this  stage  the  solutions  are  passed  to  another  team  
that  proposes  its  own  solution.  
3. Finally   each   member   of   the   team   takes   the   solutions   and   the   correction   done   by   the   other  
two   members   and   gives   an   agreed   solution   to   the   teacher.   In   the   Send-­‐A-­‐Problem  
technique  it  is  a  third  team  that  decides  which  must  be  the  agreed  solution.  
The  purpose  of  the  use  of  this  technique  was  to  promote  learning  to  compare  and  discriminate  
among  multiple  solutions;  it  also  promotes  positive  interdependence  since  the  corresponding  
grade  is  assigned  to  each  member  of  the  team.  
In  this  kind  of  activities,  the  students  will  use  LEARN-­‐SQL  in  each  stage  of  the  procedure.    In  the  
first  and  second  stage,  we  do  not  consider  the  solution  for  grading  the  students;  thus,  the  grade  
will  depend  just  on  the  last  solution  sent,  which  will  receive  a  penalty  in  case  of  multiple  
submissions.  Submitted  solutions  will  be  made  public  to  all  the  students  together  with  the  grade  
and  the  corresponding  feedback.  The  teacher  will  have  information  about  the  individual  learning  
based  in  stage  3,  but  also  in  the  solutions  provided  in  stages  1  and  2,  since  is  in  this  stage  when  the  
student  has  to  show  his  knowledge  about  the  subject.  

3.3.  Results  of  the  experience  with  collaborative  techniques  


Fig.  2  shows  the  mean  grade  obtained  by  students  in  three  exercises  during  three  consecutive  
semesters  on  one  course  (involving  104,  137  and  123  students).  Green  bars  correspond  to  
semesters  prior  to  the  introduction  of  collaborative  techniques  and  the  red  ones  to  the  semester  
in  which  the  same  exercises  were  done  using  the  techniques  stated  in  the  graphic  itself  (CoLT1,  
CoLT2,  CoLT3).  There  is  only  one  case  out  of  six  in  which  the  result  for  an  exercise  is  slightly  better  
with  no  collaborative  techniques  (CoLT2,  autumn  2009  vs.  spring  2009).  We  did  realize  that  the  
exercises  to  be  solved  individually  were  significantly  more  difficult  than  the  ones  solved  in  group;  
we  think  that  this  is  the  reason  that  caused  this  result.  

27  
 
Fig.  2  mean  grade  obtained  by  students  in  exercises  during  consecutive  semesters  

4.  Conclusions    
The  importance  given  to  the  active  involvement  of  the  students  in  the  learning  process  is  
increasing  every  day.  In  particular,  using  teams  to  make  the  learning  be  the  result  of  discussion,  
reasoning  and  sharing  of  knowledge  within  the  team  is  a  strategy  that  is  getting  very  used.  
In  this  paper  we  have  presented  our  experience  on  the  application  of  cooperative  learning  
techniques  in  the  area  of  databases.  We  have  shown  the  positive  results  obtained  and  how  we  are  
making  a  step  forward  incorporating  such  techniques  in  LEARN-­‐SQL,  a  self-­‐assessment  and  self-­‐
learning  of  SQL  tool  that  we  have  been  using  since  three  years  ago.  Our  aim  is  to  make  it  easy  to  
work  within  a  team  without  the  need  to  meet  in  the  same  space,  and  time  and  to  save  time  to  
students  and  teachers  increasing  thus  the  efficiency  of  the  learning  process.  

Acknowdgments  
This  work  has  been  made  with  the  help  of  the  teaching  quality  improvement  project  2009MQD  
00251,  granted  by  the  Catalan  government,  and  the  UPC  teaching  innovative  project  Adaptació  de  
LEARN-­‐SQL  al  nou  Espai  Europeu  d'Educació  Superior  (EEES).  

References  
Abelló,   A.,   Urpí,   T.,   Rodríguez,   M.   E.,   Estévez,   M.   (2007).   Extensión   de   Moodle   para   facilitar   la  
corrección  automática  de  cuestionarios  y  su  aplicación  en  el  ámbito  de  las  bases  de  datos.  
Proceedings  of  the  MoodleMoot  2007.  Caceres,  Spain.  
Abelló,  A.,  Rodríguez,  M.E.,  Urpí,  T.,  Burgués,  X.,  Casany,  M.J.,  Martín,  C.,  Quer,  C.  (2008)  LEARN-­‐
SQL:   Automatic   Assessment   of   SQL   Based   on   IMS   QTI   Specification   (©   IEEE).   8th  
International   Conference   on   Advanced   Learning   Technologies.   Santander   (Spain),   pp:   592-­‐
593.  

28  
Alier,  A.  (2007).  A  social  constructionist  approach  to  learning  communities:  Moodle  in  Open  Source  
for  Knowledge  and  Learning  Management.  Idea  Group  Publishing,  Hershey,  USA.  
Barkley,  E.F.,  Cross,  K.P.,  Major,  C.H.  (2005).   Collaborative  Learning  Techniques,  Jossey-­‐Bass,  Wiley  
Print,  San  Francisco.  
Bloom,  B.S.  (Ed.)  (1956).  Taxonomy  of  Educational  Objectives:  Handbook  I,  Cognitive  Domain.  New  
York.  
Brusilovsky,  P.,  Sosnovsky,  S.,  Yudelson,  M.,  Lee,  D.,  Zadorozhny,  V.,  and  Zhou,  X.  (2010).  Learning  
SQL   Programming   with   Interactive   Tools:   From   Integration   to   Personalization.   Trans.   on  
Computing  Education,  9,  4,  pp:1-­‐15.  
de  Raadt,  M.,  Dekeyser,  S.,  and  Lee,  T.  Y.  (2007).  A  system  employing  peer  review  and  enhanced  
computer  assisted  assessment  of  querying  skills.  Informatics  in  education  6,  1,  pp:163-­‐178.  
Dekeyser,   S.,   de   Raadt,   M..,   Lee,   T.Y.   (2007)   Computer   Assisted   Assessment   of   SQL   query   Skills,  
ADC.  
IMS  Learning  Consortium  (2006)  IMS  QTI  Specification,  Accessible  in  http://www.imsglobal.org.  
Kagan,  S.  (1994)  Cooperative  Learning,  Kagan  Cooperative  Learning,  San  Clemente.  
Kenny,   C.,   Pahl,   C.   (2008).   Personalised   correction,   feedback   and   guidance   in   an   automated  
tutoring   system  for  skills  training.  International  Journal  of  Knowledge  and  Learning.  v.4,   n.  1,  
pp:  75  -­‐  92  
Johnson,   D.   W.,   Johnson,   R.T.,   Smith,   K.A.   (2006)   Active   Learning:   Cooperation   in   the   College  
Classroom,  Edina,  MN:  Interaction  Book  Company.    
Mitrovic,   A.   (2003).   An   Intelligent   SQL   Tutor   on   the   Web.   International   Journal   of   Artificial  
Intelligence  in  Education  13,  pp:171-­‐195  
Sadiq,  S.,  Orlowska,  M..,  Sadiq,  W.,  Lin,  J.,  (2004)  ”SQLator:  an  Online  SQL  Learning  Workbench”,  
Proceedings  of  the  9th  annual  SIGCSE  conference  on  Innovation  and  technology  in  computer  
science  education.  Leeds,  United  Kingdom,  pp:  28-­‐30.  
Soler,   J.,   Boada,   I.,   Prados,   F.,   Poch,   J.,   Fabregat,   R.   (2007)   An   Automatic   Correction   Tool   for  
Relational  Algebra  Queries.  ICCSA  (2),  pp:  861-­‐872.  
Soler,   J.,   Prados,   F.,   Boada,   I.,   Poch,   J.   (2006)   Utilización   de   una   plataforma   de   e-­‐learning   en   la  
docencia  de  Bases  de  Datos”,  Proceedings  of  the  XII  Jornadas  de  Enseñanza  universitaria  de  
la  Informática.  Bilbao.  Spain.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

29  
 

This  document  was  finished  in  Cádiz,  

June  15th,  2010  

ISBN  978-­‐84-­‐694-­‐0523-­‐9  
 

30  

You might also like