Daniel Zingaro
ABSTRACT
Recent work in computing suggests that Peer Instruction (PI) is a valuable interactive learning pedagogy: it lowers fail rates, increases retention, and is enjoyed by students and instructors alike. While these findings are promising, they are somewhat incidental if our goal is to understand whether PI is "better" than lecture in terms of student outcomes. Only one recent study in computing has made such a comparison, finding that PI students outperform traditionally-taught students on a CS0 final exam. That work was conducted in a CS0, where the same instructor taught both courses, and where the only outcome measure was final exam grade. Here, I offer a study that complements their work in two ways. First, I argue for and measure self-efficacy as a valued outcome, in addition to that of final exam grade. Second, I offer an inter-instructor CS1 study, whose biases differ from those of intra-instructor studies. I find evidence that PI significantly increases self-efficacy and suggestively increases exam scores compared to a traditional lecture-based CS1 class. I note validity concerns of such an in-situ study and offer a synthesis of this work with the extant PI literature.
- A. Bandura. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2):191--215, 1977.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research, pages 155--163. ACM, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. Failure rates in introductory programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39:32--36, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Byrne and G. Lyons. The effect of student attributes on success in programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33:49--52, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. T. H. Chi. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1):73--105, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. H. Crouch, J. Watkins, A. P. Fagen, and E. Mazur. Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. In E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney, editors, Research-Based Reform of University Physics. American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
- S. Dehnadi, R. Bornat, and R. Adams. Meta-analysis of the effect of consistency on success in early learning of programming. In 21st Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, 2009.Google Scholar
- G. E. Evans and M. G. Simkin. What best predicts computer proficiency? Communications of the ACM, 32:1322--1327, 1989. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Fisher, J. Margolis, and F. Miller. Undergraduate women in computer science: experience, motivation and culture. SIGCSE Bulletin, 29:106--110, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Hagan and S. Markham. Does it help to have some programming experience before beginning a computing degree program? SIGCSE Bulletin, 32:25--28, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Holden and E. Weeden. The impact of prior experience in an information technology programming course sequence. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Information technology curriculum, pages 41--46. ACM, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. A. Hudak and D. E. Anderson. Formal operations and learning style predict success in statistics and computer science courses. Teaching of Psychology, 17(4):231--234, 1990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Jenkins. The motivation of students of programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3):53--56, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Margolis and A. Fisher. Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
- M. Morrison and T. S. Newman. A study of the impact of student background and preparedness on outcomes in CS I. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1):179--183, 2001. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Petersen, M. Craig, and D. Zingaro. Reviewing CS1 exam question content. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 631--636. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Porter, C. Bailey Lee, B. Simon, Q. Cutts, and D. Zingaro. Experience report: a multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In Proceedings of the 16th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pages 138--142. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Porter, C. Bailey-Lee, B. Simon, and D. Zingaro. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the Seventh international Workshop on Computing Education Research. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Porter, C. B. Lee, and B. Simon. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 177--182. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Porter and B. Simon. Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 165--170. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Ramalingam, D. LaBelle, and S. Wiedenbeck. Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. SIGCSE Bulletin, 36:171--175, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Ramalingam and S. Wiedenbeck. Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19:365--379, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Robins. Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes. Computer Science Education, 20(1):37--71, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Simon, S. Esper, L. Porter, and Q. Cutts. Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Computing Education Research. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Simon, M. Kohanfars, J. Lee, K. Tamayo, and Q. Cutts. Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 341--345. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Simon, J. Parris, and J. Spacco. How we teach impacts student learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in cs0. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 41--46. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Ventura. On the origins of programmers: Identifying predictors of success for an objects first CS1. PhD thesis, SUNY at Buffalo, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Zingaro, C. Bailey-Lee, and L. Porter. Peer instruction in computing: the role of reading quizzes. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 47--52. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Zingaro, A. Petersen, and M. Craig. Stepping up to integrative questions on CS1 exams. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 253--258. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1
Recommendations
Peer instruction in computing: the role of reading quizzes
SIGCSE '13: Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science educationPeer Instruction has recently gained interest in computing as an effective active learning pedagogy. The general focus of PI research has been on the in-class portion of PI: multiple choice questions and group discussion. Here, our focus is the reading ...
Can peer instruction be effective in upper-division computer science courses?
Special Issue on Alternatives to Lecture in the Computer Science ClassroomPeer Instruction (PI) is an active learning pedagogical technique. PI lectures present students with a series of multiple-choice questions, which they respond to both individually and in groups. PI has been widely successful in the physical sciences and,...
Peer instruction: a link to the exam
ITiCSE '14: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science educationIn computer science, the active learning pedagogical practice of Peer Instruction (PI) has been shown to improve final exam performance, reduce student failure rates, and improve student retention. PI consists of two major parts: group discussion and ...
Comments