MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323033920 · doi:10.1145/3545945.3569729

Embedding and Scaling Writing Instruction Across First- and Second-Year Computer Science Courses

2023· article· en· W4323033920 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 institutionsOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCurriculumVariety (cybernetics)Mathematics educationScale (ratio)PerceptionEmbeddingPedagogyPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Writing skills are often considered unimportant by computer science students and were under-emphasized in our curriculum. We describe our experience embedding CS-specific writing instruction at scale in most of our large, core, first- and second-year Computer Science courses, each with 300-800+ students. Our approach is to collaborate with a writing specialist and a community of course instructors, centralize the management of writing teaching assistants, and introduce a variety of relevant genres and contexts to help students develop and apply writing skills. We outline the institutional support and organization crucial to a project of this scale. In addition, we report on a survey collecting student perception of the writing instruction/assessment. We reflect on quantitative and qualitative evidence of success, as well as the challenges that we faced. We believe that many of these challenges will be common across institutions, particularly those with large courses.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207