\n \n \n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Abstraction in action: K-5 teachers' uses of levels of abstraction, particularly the design level, in teaching programming.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n WAITE, J.; CURZON, P; MARSH, D; Sentance, S; and Hawden-Bennett, A\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
International Journal Of Computer Science Education In Schools, 2(2): 14–40. Jan 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Paper\n \n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{waite2018abstractionprogramming,\n\tAbstract = {Research indicates that understanding levels of abstraction (LOA) and being able to move between the levels is essential to programming success. For K-5 contexts LOA levels have been named: problem, design, code and running the code. In a qualitative exploratory study, five K-5 teachers were interviewed on their uses of LOA, particularly the design level, in teaching programming and other subjects. Using PCK elements to analyse responses, the teachers interviewed used design as an instructional strategy and for assessment. The teachers used design as an aide memoire and the expert teachers used design: as a contract for pair-programming; to work out what they needed to teach; for learners to annotate with code snippets (to transition across LOA); for learners to self-assess and to assess `do-ability'. The teachers used planning in teaching writing to scaffold learning and promote self-regulation revealing their insight in student understanding. One issue was of the teachers'\nknowledge of terms including algorithm and code; a concept of `emergent algorithms' is proposed. Findings from the study suggest design helps learners learn to program in the same way that planning helps learners learn to write and that LOA, particularly the design level, may provide an accessible exemplar of abstraction in action. Further work is needed to verify whether the study's results are generalisable more widely.},\n\tAddress = {On line Journal},\n\tAuthor = {WAITE, JL and CURZON, P and MARSH, D and Sentance, S and Hawden-Bennett, A},\n\tDate-Added = {2019-03-09 15:34:34 +0000},\n\tDate-Modified = {2019-03-09 15:34:34 +0000},\n\tDay = {31},\n\tDoi = {10.21585/ijcses.v2i1.23},\n\tEditor = {Kalelioglu, F and Allsop, Y},\n\tIssn = {2513-8359},\n\tIssue = {1},\n\tJournal = {International Journal Of Computer Science Education In Schools},\n\tKeyword = {Computing Eductation},\n\tMonth = {Jan},\n\tNumber = {2},\n\tPages = {14--40},\n\tPublicationstatus = {published},\n\tTitle = {Abstraction in action: K-5 teachers' uses of levels of abstraction, particularly the design level, in teaching programming},\n\tUrl = {http://www.ijcses.org/index.php/ijcses/index},\n\tVolume = {2},\n\tYear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://www.ijcses.org/index.php/ijcses/index},\n\tBdsk-Url-2 = {https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v2i1.23}}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Research indicates that understanding levels of abstraction (LOA) and being able to move between the levels is essential to programming success. For K-5 contexts LOA levels have been named: problem, design, code and running the code. In a qualitative exploratory study, five K-5 teachers were interviewed on their uses of LOA, particularly the design level, in teaching programming and other subjects. Using PCK elements to analyse responses, the teachers interviewed used design as an instructional strategy and for assessment. The teachers used design as an aide memoire and the expert teachers used design: as a contract for pair-programming; to work out what they needed to teach; for learners to annotate with code snippets (to transition across LOA); for learners to self-assess and to assess `do-ability'. The teachers used planning in teaching writing to scaffold learning and promote self-regulation revealing their insight in student understanding. One issue was of the teachers' knowledge of terms including algorithm and code; a concept of `emergent algorithms' is proposed. Findings from the study suggest design helps learners learn to program in the same way that planning helps learners learn to write and that LOA, particularly the design level, may provide an accessible exemplar of abstraction in action. Further work is needed to verify whether the study's results are generalisable more widely.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Towards A Model-Based Asset Deterioration Framework Represented by Probabilistic Relational Models.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n ZHANG, H; and MARSH, D.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In
ESREL2018 conference proceeding, Jun 2018. Trondheim, Norway, Taylor & Francis\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n Paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{zhang2018towardsmodels,\n\tAbstract = {Most asset deterioration tools are designed for a specific application, as a consequence, a small change of the specification may result in a complete change of the tool. Inspired by the model-based approach of separating problem specification from analysis technique, we propose a model-based asset deterioration assessment framework using probabilistic relational models. The probabilistic relational models express abstract probabilistic dependency covers a range of deterioration modelling assumptions. An expert in the domain of asset deterioration can then use his knowledge of the factors that affect deterioration to customise the abstract models to a specific application, without requiring a detailed understanding the underlying computational framework. We illustrate the use of the framework with multiple variants of deterioration models.},\n\tAuthor = {ZHANG, H and MARSH, DWR},\n\tBooktitle = {ESREL2018 conference proceeding},\n\tConference = {European Safety and Reliability Conference ESREL 2018},\n\tDate-Added = {2019-03-09 15:34:26 +0000},\n\tDate-Modified = {2019-03-09 15:34:26 +0000},\n\tDay = {17},\n\tFinishday = {21},\n\tFinishmonth = {Jun},\n\tFinishyear = {2018},\n\tKeyword = {probabilistic relational model},\n\tMonth = {Jun},\n\tOrganization = {Trondheim, Norway},\n\tPublicationstatus = {accepted},\n\tPublisher = {Taylor \\& Francis},\n\tStartday = {17},\n\tStartmonth = {Jun},\n\tStartyear = {2018},\n\tTitle = {Towards A Model-Based Asset Deterioration Framework Represented by Probabilistic Relational Models},\n\tUrl = {http://haoyuan.uk/},\n\tYear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {http://haoyuan.uk/}}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Most asset deterioration tools are designed for a specific application, as a consequence, a small change of the specification may result in a complete change of the tool. Inspired by the model-based approach of separating problem specification from analysis technique, we propose a model-based asset deterioration assessment framework using probabilistic relational models. The probabilistic relational models express abstract probabilistic dependency covers a range of deterioration modelling assumptions. An expert in the domain of asset deterioration can then use his knowledge of the factors that affect deterioration to customise the abstract models to a specific application, without requiring a detailed understanding the underlying computational framework. We illustrate the use of the framework with multiple variants of deterioration models.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n The Heimdall framework for supporting characterisation of learning health systems.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n MCLACHLAN, S; Potts, H.; Dube, K; Buchanan, D; Lean, S; Gallagher, T; Johnson, O; DALEY, B; Marsh, W; and FENTON, N\n\n\n \n\n\n\n
BCS Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics, 25. Jun 2018.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{mclachlan2018thesystems,\n\tAbstract = {There are many proposed benefits of using learning health systems (LHS), including improved patient outcomes. There has been little adoption of LHS in practice due to challenges and barriers that limit adoption of new data-driven technologies in healthcare. We have identified a more fundamental explanation: the majority of developments in LHS are not identified as LHS. The absence of a unifying namespace and framework brings a lack of consistency in how LHS are identified and classified. As a result, the LHS `community' is fragmented, with groups working on similar systems being not aware of each other's work. This leads to duplication and the lack of a critical mass of researchers necessary to address barriers to adoption.\nObjective To find a way to support easy identification and classification of research works within the domain of LHS.\nMethod A qualitative meta-narrative study focusing on works that self-identified as LHS was used for two purposes. First, to find existing standard definitions and frameworks using these to create a new unifying framework. Second, seeking whether it was possible to classify those LHS solutions within the new framework. Results The study found that with apparently limited awareness, all current LHS works fall within nine primary archetypes. These findings were used to develop a unifying framework for LHS to classify works as LHS, and reduce diversity and fragmentation within the domain.\nConclusion Our finding brings clarification where there has been limited aware- ness for LHS among researchers. We believe our framework is simple and may help researchers to classify works in the LHS domain. This framework may enable realisation of the critical mass necessary to bring more substantial collaboration and funding to LHS. Ongoing research will seek to establish the framework's effect on the LHS domain.},\n\tAuthor = {MCLACHLAN, S and Potts, HWW and Dube, K and Buchanan, D and Lean, S and Gallagher, T and Johnson, O and DALEY, B and Marsh, W and FENTON, N},\n\tDate-Added = {2019-03-09 15:34:21 +0000},\n\tDate-Modified = {2019-03-09 15:34:21 +0000},\n\tDay = {15},\n\tDoi = {10.14236/jhi.v25i2.996},\n\tIssue = {2},\n\tJournal = {BCS Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics},\n\tKeyword = {precision medicine},\n\tMonth = {Jun},\n\tPublicationstatus = {published},\n\tTitle = {The Heimdall framework for supporting characterisation of learning health systems},\n\tVolume = {25},\n\tYear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v25i2.996}}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n There are many proposed benefits of using learning health systems (LHS), including improved patient outcomes. There has been little adoption of LHS in practice due to challenges and barriers that limit adoption of new data-driven technologies in healthcare. We have identified a more fundamental explanation: the majority of developments in LHS are not identified as LHS. The absence of a unifying namespace and framework brings a lack of consistency in how LHS are identified and classified. As a result, the LHS `community' is fragmented, with groups working on similar systems being not aware of each other's work. This leads to duplication and the lack of a critical mass of researchers necessary to address barriers to adoption. Objective To find a way to support easy identification and classification of research works within the domain of LHS. Method A qualitative meta-narrative study focusing on works that self-identified as LHS was used for two purposes. First, to find existing standard definitions and frameworks using these to create a new unifying framework. Second, seeking whether it was possible to classify those LHS solutions within the new framework. Results The study found that with apparently limited awareness, all current LHS works fall within nine primary archetypes. These findings were used to develop a unifying framework for LHS to classify works as LHS, and reduce diversity and fragmentation within the domain. Conclusion Our finding brings clarification where there has been limited aware- ness for LHS among researchers. We believe our framework is simple and may help researchers to classify works in the LHS domain. This framework may enable realisation of the critical mass necessary to bring more substantial collaboration and funding to LHS. Ongoing research will seek to establish the framework's effect on the LHS domain.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Comparing K-5 teachers' reported use of design in teaching programming and planning in teaching writing.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n WAITE, J.; CURZON, P; MARSH, D.; and Sentance, S\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In Muhling, A; Cutts, Q; and Schwill, A, editor(s),
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6588-8/18/10, Oct 2018. Potsdam, Germany\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n \n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{waite2018comparingwriting,\n\tAbstract = {K-5 teachers teach a range of subjects \\& develop generic teaching\nskills; when starting to teach computing, particularly programming,\npractitioners may not realise that they can draw on these other\nskills to support their teaching. In a small study of K-5 teachers,\npotential synergies were suggested between using planning in the\nthe teaching of writing and design in the teaching of programming.\nIn this paper, we explore these synergies by surveying a wider group\nof teachers (n=207) on their uses of planning and design. Teachers\nreported the usefulness of planning for writing and design for\nprogramming as equally important. However, there were significant\ndifferences in their uses. The majority saw planning as essential in\nwriting \\& put this into practice in their teaching. For example, they\ndemonstrated the creation of plans, expected students to annotate\nplans, required students to refer to plans when writing and used\nplans to differentiate. By contrast, these uses were implemented less\nfrequently in programming tasks. We also report on differences in\nthe confidence of male \\& female respondents, \\& between generalists\n(who teach programming \\& writing) \\& specialists (who do not\nteach writing). For example, females were more confident to teach\nwriting than programming, with males vice versa. Having revealed\nopportunities for reuse of successful techniques used in teaching\nwriting for the teaching of programming we recommend further\nwork is needed to explore this transfer of pedagogical knowledge.},\n\tAuthor = {WAITE, JL and CURZON, P and MARSH, DW and Sentance, S},\n\tBooktitle = {ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6588-8/18/10},\n\tConference = {WiPSCE 2018 (13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education)},\n\tDate-Added = {2019-03-09 15:34:15 +0000},\n\tDate-Modified = {2019-03-09 15:34:15 +0000},\n\tDay = {4},\n\tDoi = {10.1145/3265757.3265761},\n\tEditor = {Muhling, A and Cutts, Q and Schwill, A},\n\tFinishday = {6},\n\tFinishmonth = {Oct},\n\tFinishyear = {2018},\n\tHowpublished = {Online},\n\tIsbn = {978-1-4503-6588-8},\n\tKeyword = {Design},\n\tMonth = {Oct},\n\tOrganization = {Potsdam, Germany},\n\tPublicationstatus = {accepted},\n\tStartday = {4},\n\tStartmonth = {Oct},\n\tStartyear = {2018},\n\tTitle = {Comparing K-5 teachers' reported use of design in teaching programming and planning in teaching writing},\n\tYear = {2018},\n\tBdsk-Url-1 = {https://doi.org/10.1145/3265757.3265761}}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n K-5 teachers teach a range of subjects & develop generic teaching skills; when starting to teach computing, particularly programming, practitioners may not realise that they can draw on these other skills to support their teaching. In a small study of K-5 teachers, potential synergies were suggested between using planning in the the teaching of writing and design in the teaching of programming. In this paper, we explore these synergies by surveying a wider group of teachers (n=207) on their uses of planning and design. Teachers reported the usefulness of planning for writing and design for programming as equally important. However, there were significant differences in their uses. The majority saw planning as essential in writing & put this into practice in their teaching. For example, they demonstrated the creation of plans, expected students to annotate plans, required students to refer to plans when writing and used plans to differentiate. By contrast, these uses were implemented less frequently in programming tasks. We also report on differences in the confidence of male & female respondents, & between generalists (who teach programming & writing) & specialists (who do not teach writing). For example, females were more confident to teach writing than programming, with males vice versa. Having revealed opportunities for reuse of successful techniques used in teaching writing for the teaching of programming we recommend further work is needed to explore this transfer of pedagogical knowledge.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n