MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789096433 · doi:10.1145/3159450.3159457

Developing Course-Level Learning Goals for Basic Data Structures in CS2

2018· article· en· W2789096433 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Focus (optics)Course (navigation)Interpretation (philosophy)Knowledge managementData scienceMathematics educationArtificial intelligencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing learning goals for a course allows instructors to design course content to address those goals, helps students to focus their learning appropriately, and enables researchers to assess learning of those goals. In this work, we propose six learning goals for a topic prevalent in CS2 courses: Basic Data Structures. These learning goals arise from reviewing several CS2 courses at a variety of institutions, surveying faculty experts who commonly teach CS2, and meeting and working closely with these experts. We outline our process for creating learning goals, identify important topics underlying these goals, and provide examples of how the goals developed on the path to consensus. We also document that the term "CS2" does not have a unified interpretation within the CS education community and describe how this hurdle influenced our decision to focus on Basic Data Structures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207