323 lines
13 KiB
TeX
323 lines
13 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[aspectratio=169]{beamer}
|
||
|
||
\usepackage{tabularx}
|
||
\usepackage{booktabs}
|
||
\usepackage{csquotes}
|
||
|
||
\usepackage{xcolor}
|
||
\newcommand\todo[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
|
||
|
||
% section frame
|
||
\AtBeginSection[]{
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\vfill
|
||
\centering
|
||
\begin{beamercolorbox}[sep=8pt,center,shadow=true,rounded=true]{title}
|
||
\usebeamerfont{title}\insertsectionhead\par%
|
||
\end{beamercolorbox}
|
||
\vfill
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
% URL coloring
|
||
\hypersetup {
|
||
colorlinks=true,
|
||
linkcolor=blue,
|
||
filecolor=magenta,
|
||
urlcolor=blue,
|
||
pdftitle={Overleaf Example},
|
||
pdfpagemode=FullScreen,
|
||
}
|
||
|
||
% Referencing
|
||
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
||
|
||
\title{PhD Interview Presentation}
|
||
%\subtitle{aa}
|
||
%\date{Week 1}
|
||
\author{Warwick New}
|
||
|
||
\begin{document}
|
||
\maketitle
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{Points to cover}
|
||
|
||
{\tiny
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item 1. Why have you chosen to undertake doctoral research at Falmouth
|
||
University, and how does its research environment align with your
|
||
aspirations?
|
||
\item 2. What is the central question, problem, or hypothesis driving your
|
||
research, and how does it connect to Falmouth’s research strengths?
|
||
\item 3. What do you hope to uncover, challenge, or contribute through your
|
||
research?
|
||
\item 4. Which prior work – whether theoretical, creative, or methodological
|
||
-- do you consider significant in shaping your research area?
|
||
\item 5. What key challenges do you anticipate in your research, and how do
|
||
you plan to address them?
|
||
\item 6. What previous work in your chosen or related field are you
|
||
particularly proud of, and how does it inform your research direction?
|
||
\item 7. What research methods do you propose to use (e.g. qualitative,
|
||
quantitative, mixed methods), and why are they suited to your project?
|
||
\item 8. What ethical considerations are relevant to your research,
|
||
particularly in relation to Falmouth’s emphasis on creative and critical
|
||
inquiry?
|
||
\item 9. Which disciplinary field(s) does your research engage with, and how
|
||
will your project contribute to existing knowledge within these areas?
|
||
\item 10. What technical skills (e.g. research methods, software, languages)
|
||
will you need to develop to support your research?
|
||
\item 11. If your project is practice-based, how does your creative or
|
||
professional practice inform and shape your enquiry?
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\section{What is the problem I'm trying to solve?}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{What is the problem space?}
|
||
Students self perceptions about their programming ability largely affects
|
||
several factors in deciding to continue learning to program \cite{lewis2011}.
|
||
\newline
|
||
|
||
A particular point of frustration for novice programmers is attempting to
|
||
debug without thinking of the problem critically \cite[p.~23]{vickers2008}.
|
||
\newline
|
||
|
||
Recent literature has identified this as a problem space that generative AI
|
||
can attempt to help resolve. Renzella et al's work \cite{renzella2025}
|
||
demonstrates that there are aspects of learning that traditionally could only
|
||
be fulfilled by an instructor outside highly controlled learning
|
||
environments (like Gidget \cite{Lee2014}) that can be partially automated with
|
||
generative AI. And therefore can be made more available to students outside
|
||
time tabled sessions.
|
||
%in this case reducing the cognitive load \cite{sweller1988} of reading and understanding compiler messages by providing more human-readable descriptions of compiler errors.
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
%\begin{frame}
|
||
% \frametitle{What is the gap I've identified}
|
||
% \todo{Cite and Professionalise this slide}
|
||
% \begin{itemize}
|
||
% \item Much research into debugging education for students more recently is
|
||
% focused on generative AI models and some new paradigms that come from that
|
||
% \todo{\cite{}}. This is to be expected with a whole new paradigm in
|
||
% education in this area.
|
||
% \item Before this focus however much research into the area of first stage
|
||
% computer science debbugging was focused on teaching debugging in closed
|
||
% controlled environments \todo{\cite{}}, This allowed for experimentation
|
||
% with making fixing coding problems more accessible, in terms of compiler
|
||
% error messages and scaffolding of the processes a student might take when
|
||
% they ran into a problem.
|
||
% \item I think that we can take these classical educational tools and use
|
||
% them combined with more recent generative AI computing education
|
||
% technologies to.
|
||
% \begin{enumerate}
|
||
% \item Remove the need for locked down highly controlled debugging
|
||
% environments.
|
||
% \item Improve the human element to debugging messages and tools with how
|
||
% much more human the AI can appear to be to students.
|
||
% \end{enumerate}
|
||
% \end{itemize}
|
||
%\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{What is the Gap}
|
||
Use of generative AI to learn how to debug isn't new in research. But there
|
||
are some lessons learned from educational programming interventions applied in
|
||
tools that could be made more accessible outside of sessions and scaled to a
|
||
wider range of programming environments that we could apply, which has the
|
||
potential to improve self-efficacy within the student base. Including:
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item Personification of programming tools as fallible and encouraging, as
|
||
presented by Lee et al \cite{Lee2011}, is shown to have a positive impact
|
||
on learning motivation and success.
|
||
\item Scaffolding what steps to take when you encounter a bug and
|
||
encouraging the student to think through them one step at a time, improves
|
||
self-efficacy and productivity as demonstrated in Pechorina et al's work
|
||
on Metacodenition \cite{Pechorina2023}.
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
Both of these works are restriceted to very specific environments limiting
|
||
their application on real world coding projects.
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
%\begin{frame}
|
||
% \frametitle{The fields this gap interacts with}
|
||
% \begin{itemize}
|
||
% \item Computer science education
|
||
% \begin{itemize}
|
||
% \item Specifically focusing on first stage debugging.
|
||
% \end{itemize}
|
||
% \item Psychology
|
||
% \begin{itemize}
|
||
% \item Student Self-efficacy. \todo{cite}
|
||
% \item Students engagement. (Time Spent working on programming tasks)
|
||
% \todo{Define engagement}
|
||
% \end{itemize}
|
||
% \item Artificial Intelligence
|
||
% \begin{itemize}
|
||
% \item Scaffolding of Generative AI queries to fit a more traditionally
|
||
% productive learning environment in a wide range of situations.
|
||
% \item Encourage personal reflection and action when attempting to solve
|
||
% an issue.
|
||
% \end{itemize}
|
||
% \end{itemize}
|
||
%\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\section{How I plan to address this space}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{How am I addressing the gap}
|
||
\todo{Talk about Gidget and offer scaffolding tools, then talk about how we
|
||
can create a tool to aid intervention}
|
||
I plan to create an intervention wherein I give students access to an AI tool
|
||
that takes elements from previous interventions that align with the principles
|
||
of improving self-efficacy in students, and combine it with more recent
|
||
breakthroughs in LLM based technologies to allow the intervention to be used
|
||
in a wider variety of programming environments and contexts.
|
||
|
||
I then plan to evaluate its impact on self-efficacy and potentially other
|
||
outcomes. \todo{Figure out what those outcomes are.}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{The Intervention}
|
||
\todo{Talk about methodology and the type of intervention that's taking place.
|
||
Why this method over other methods etc}
|
||
|
||
This artefact attempts to replicate the channels of self-efficacy improvement
|
||
that one on one support from an instructor, by targeting these factors in
|
||
Bandura's theory \todo{cite}:
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item Mastery experiences (Experiencing more success in coding tasks).
|
||
\item Verbal encouragement.
|
||
\item Guided support.
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
\todo{Check the previous itemisation isn't mistaken}
|
||
|
||
The agent will use techniques such as personification \todo{cite gidget} and
|
||
an AI models ability to translate errors into more accessible descriptions
|
||
replicate an instructors ability to help a student understand knowledge they
|
||
may be missing in terms of the language of a compiler. The model will also
|
||
focus on guiding the student towards the solution in a structured manner such
|
||
as in \todo{cite structured debugging intervention paper}.
|
||
|
||
The goal with this artefact is to as closely as possible replicate the
|
||
experience and self-efficacy improvements that come with 1 on 1 tuition
|
||
\todo{cite}, so that these benefits can be scaled up. And help seeking
|
||
behaviours be made more available.
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{Key influences in this field and area of research.}
|
||
\todo{Talk about the psychology and mikes previous paper bandura. gidget and
|
||
some scaffolding intervention if it's not all covered in the previous slide}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{What is the variable. What does better look like}
|
||
\todo{what research methods will analyse this}
|
||
\todo{Students drop out less, produce higher quality code? What do other
|
||
interventionist studies look at?}
|
||
\todo{There are a few outcomes we can try to measure. We can use likart style
|
||
surveys and attempt pre-post intervention comparisons}
|
||
|
||
The study plans to measure changes in the students self-efficacy and their
|
||
self perception of their coding ability before and after intervention.
|
||
|
||
The study falls into an educational intervention style methodology for which
|
||
the best style of study in regard to bias is usually random
|
||
assignment \todo{cite research methods and methodologies in education}.
|
||
However, due to the ethical concerns of depriving only part of a cohort of a
|
||
tool that may be beneficial to them without an alternative equally powerful
|
||
tool as an alternative, a longitudinal year of entry based cohort study could
|
||
be used as an alternative, albeit with a higher potential for bias.\todo{cite
|
||
research methods and methodologies in education different page}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\section{Challenges and ethical considerations}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{Key challenges in the study}
|
||
\todo{Talk about the time to develop the software and more about the study
|
||
structure and issues with pedagogical research in general}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{main ethical concerns}
|
||
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item \todo{This research should be limited to adults as gen ai and children = bad.}
|
||
\item \todo{Making the AI friendlier and having it say something outside my control}
|
||
\item \todo{Mention potential for bias in the current data collection}
|
||
\todo{Ethical AI models should be a requirement}
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{Key challenges in this area}
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item \todo{First stage programming generally has a high drop out rate because
|
||
overcoming programming problems can be distressing without a degree of
|
||
self-efficacy.}
|
||
\item \todo{Having a guide help students learn through the process one on one
|
||
is a time intensive process for staff and fairly cost inefficient in terms
|
||
of time spent with educators.}
|
||
\item \todo{This tool is also an attempt to scale the amount of human support
|
||
a student can receive, outside the classroom}
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\section{Me, My Skills, And why I want to study at Falmouth University}
|
||
% 1 4 9? 10?
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{Who am I?: Relevant Job Experience}
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item Senior Technician at Falmouth Universities Games Academy, specialising
|
||
in Computing.
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item Previously I was an Associate Lecturer and an e-Learning Developer
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
\item I have worked on streaming interactive 3D Architectural Visualisation
|
||
experiences with \href{https://www.amutri.com/}{Amutri Ltd}
|
||
\cite{AmutriLtd2025}. \item And I have worked with live audio streaming for
|
||
podcasts in a former startup called Ramble that attempted to live stream
|
||
podcasts and call in radio shows.
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{Who am I?: Relevant Research}
|
||
I have been contributed to the following papers with academic staff from
|
||
Falmouth University previously:
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item Student Perspectives on the Purpose of Peer Evaluation During Group
|
||
Game Development Projects \cite{Mitchell2021}
|
||
\item An Exploratory Analysis of Student Experiences with Peer Evaluation in
|
||
Group Game Development Projects \cite{Mitchell2022}
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}
|
||
\frametitle{Why I want to study here}
|
||
\begin{itemize}
|
||
\item I already work here delivering content to the students and feel that
|
||
the computing departments research goals and my work already align really
|
||
well.
|
||
\item The research area I'm applying to perform research within is the work
|
||
I am already performing at this institution.
|
||
\item It will be a good reason to continue to develop new software keeping
|
||
up with novel techniques which can also influence my teaching.
|
||
\end{itemize}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\begin{frame}[allowframebreaks]
|
||
\frametitle{References}
|
||
{\tiny
|
||
\bibliography{references.bib}
|
||
}
|
||
\end{frame}
|
||
|
||
\end{document}
|