Student Perceptions of Alternative Evaluation in an Introductory Programming Course
TL;DR
Perceptions of skills-based evaluation in an introductory (CS0) course for non majors are assessed; teaching assistants were generally positive towards the methodology's impact on students, though opinions were largely split on the impact on workload.
Abstract
Skills-based evaluation is an alternative evaluation model that is a variation of both mastery and specifications grading. Students are evaluated on the set of skills they have demonstrably acquired over the duration of a course and the level at which they are able to demonstrate those skills. This is in opposition to traditional models which evaluate performance at fixed time points. A growing body of research suggests that such alternative evaluation models are more equitable, motivating, and efficacious for students. However, adoption remains limited in part due to concerns about student acceptance, perceived lack of rigour, and the potential increase in workload due to repeated assessments. In this study, we assess perceptions of skills-based evaluation in an introductory (CS0) course for non majors. A total of 248 students and 7 teaching assistants responded to survey prompts addressing their experience of the efficacy, psychological impact, and workload when compared to traditional grading. Participants also provided open-ended feedback to provide additional context. The students showed broad support for the skills-based evaluation, expressing strong preferences across all recorded metrics. Results were consistent across gender lines, and supported by sentiment analysis of open ended responses. Although the small number of responses prevent any strong conclusions, teaching assistants were generally positive towards the methodology's impact on students, though opinions were largely split on the impact on workload.