Programming courses can, by their nature, be very dry. One question this raises is: can a student-driven course provide an opportunity for a higher level of learning? This paper intends to present the results and analysis of such an innovative approach and the students' reactions to taking responsibility for a module in network programming.
RamsdenP., Learning to Teach in Higher Education (Routledge, London and New York, 1992).
2.
FryH.KetteridgeS. and MarshallS., Handbook for Teaching in Higher Education. Enhancing Academic Practise (Kogan Page, London, 2001).
3.
PowellJ. J., ‘Reducing teacher control’, in BoudD. (ed.), Developing student Autonomy in Learning (Kogan Page, London, 1998), pp. 109–118.
4.
KolbD. A., Experiential Learning (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1984).
5.
RocklandR., ‘Utilization of pre- and post-assessment testing for reinforcing learning processing in ECET courses’, in Proc. Intl Conf. on Engineering Education (ICEE), Norway, 2001, pp. 6E713–6E715.
6.
ParkerN., ‘Student learning as information behavior: Exploring assessment task processes’, Information Research, 6 (2001), 2.
7.
BiggsJ. B., Student Approaches to Learning and Studying (Australian Council for Educational Research, Hawthorn, Victoria, 1987).
8.
EntwistleN., ‘Contrasting perspectives on learning’, in MartonF.HounsellD. and EntwistleN. (eds), The Experience of Learning (Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1997).
9.
WallaceJ., ‘Supporting and guiding students’, in FryH.KetteridgeS. and MarshallS. (eds), Handbook for Teaching in Higher Education. Enhancing Academic Practise (Kogan Page, London, 2001), pp. 182.
10.
MooneyM. A. and MooneyP. J., ‘A student teaching-based instructional Model’, Int. J. Eng. Educ., 17(1) (2001), 10–16.
11.
MillsJ., ‘Improving the effectiveness of formative assessment in science’, (Sheffield Hallam University Learning Teaching and Assessment Conference, Sheffield, 2003).
NortcliffeA.FeatherstoneS.GarrickR. and SwiftG., ‘Student engineers: Lecturing, teaching and assessing’, in Proc. Intl Conf. on Engineering Education (ICEE), Manchester, 18–21 August, 2002 (International Network for Engineering Education and Research, UK, 2002).
14.
MindhamC., ‘Peer assessment: Report of a project involving group presentations and assessment by peers’, in BrownS. (ed.), Peer Assessment in Practise (Staff Education Development Association (SEDA), Scotland, 1998).
FalchikovN., ‘Involving students in feedback and assessment: A report from the Assessment Strategies in Scottish Higher Education (ASSHE) Project’, in BrownS. (ed.), Peer Assessment in Practise (Staff Education Development Association (SEDA), Scotland, 1998).
17.
WatkinsC., ‘Feedback between teachers’, in AskwewS. (ed.), Feedback for Learning (Routledge, London, 2000), pp. 34–44.
18.
ZariskiA., ‘Student peer assessment in tertiary education: Promise, perils and practice’, in Abbott and Willcoxson (eds), Teaching and Learning Within and Across Disciplines (Murdoch University, Perth, 1996), http://law.murdoch.edu.au/academics/zariski/peer1.html.
19.
NortcliffeA.FeatherstoneS.GarrickR. and SwiftG., ‘Supplemental instruction a higher level learning?’, in AungW.HoffmannM. W. H.JernN. W.KingR. W. and RuizL. M. S. (eds), Engineering Education and Research — 2002: A Chronicle of Worldwide Innovations (International Network for Engineering Education and Research, USA, 2003), p. 30.
20.
DohrenwendA., ‘Serving up the feedback sandwich’, Family Practice Management, November/December (2002), 43–46.
21.
RamsdenP., ‘Current challenges to quality in higher education’, Innovative Higher Education, 18(3) (1994), 177–187.
22.
KingA., ‘Structuring peer interaction to promote high level cognitive processing’, Theory in Practice, 41(1) (2002), 33–40.
23.
DonohoeS.ParkerM.Turpin-BrooksS. and MurrayP., ‘Deep learning in engineering analysis — A reflective practitioner approach’, in Proc. Intl Conf. on Engineering Education (ICEE), Manchester, 18–21 August, 2002 (International Network for Engineering Education and Research, UK, 2002).
24.
MutchA., ‘Exploring the practice of feedback to students’, Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1) (2003), 24–38.
25.
CaygillR. and EleyL., ‘Evidence about the effects of assessment task format on student achievement’, in Proc. Conf. British Educational Research Association, 13–15 September, 2001 (Leeds University, Leeds, 2001), http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001841.html.
26.
ClementsM. A. and EllertonN. F., ‘Assessing the effectiveness of pencil and paper tests for school of mathematics’, Proc. 18th Nat. Conf. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia (University of the Northern Territory, Darwin, 1995).
27.
SaatchiR., ‘Minutes of Staff/Student 2nd year HND/BSc CNE, CN and BNE Degree Course Committee Meeting’, personal communication (2002).
28.
WinterR., ‘Contextualizing the patchwork text: Addressing problems of coursework assessment in higher education’, in ‘The patchwork text: A radical re-assessment of coursework assignments’, special issue of Innovations in Education and Teaching International, The Journal of Staff and Educational Development, 40 (2003), 2.
