Enhancing Students' Performance in Computer Science Through Tailored Instruction Based on their Programming Background
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computer science including data analytics is a widely popular field, boasting promising career opportunities in the future. Proficiency in programming stands as a fundamental requirement for success in this domain. However, students entering MSc programs in data analytics often possess varying levels of programming background, which can impact their performance in assignments. Recognising and addressing these differences through tailored instruction can improve students’ outcomes. This paper explores the importance of considering students' programming backgrounds in the data analytics field and highlights strategies to enhance their performance based on prior knowledge. This study was carried out on two different modules in two different pathways. We have chosen two distinct cohorts and pathways to ensure unbiased conclusions in our study. The initial research was applied to the Database and Programming Fundamentals module for an MSc data analytics cohort, and then we utilized a Deep Learning module for final year computer science undergraduates as a validation cohort. As a conclusion, this study successfully demonstrated a significant increase in student assignment performance through the implementation of tailored instruction based on students' programming backgrounds. Despite receiving positive student feedback and observing excellent and improved performances, it is crucial to acknowledge instances of unsatisfactory student performance as well. Both studies were conducted by the School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering, and Computer Science (EEECS) at Queen's University Belfast (QUB) during the academic year 2021/2022.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it