A Comparison of Lecture-based and Active Learning Design Patterns in CS Education

This paper describes and compares two categories of pedagogical design patterns that have emerged from CS education practice: lecture-based design patterns and active learning design patterns. Pedagogical design patterns provide faculty with combinations of generalized descriptions of problems and solutions that occur in teaching and learning. The benefit of forming design patterns is the codification of successful practice that can be reused in multiple scenarios and draw on the creativity of the instructor for defining the details relevant to the course and the students. Design patterns have been represented in many formats since Alexander’s initial design pattern model highlighting different aspects of what is important in each domain in which the patterns are created and used. This paper analyzes design patterns emerging from recent developments in lecture-based pedagogy and active learning in CS education. Traditional lectures in computer science, engineering, and other STEM disciplines are being reconsidered due to research that shows that students are less likely to learn while listening and more likely to learn while actively engaged. Design patterns that address problems and provide potential solutions to traditional lectures in computer science education have been published that provide solutions to engage students during the lecture. The pedagogy of flipped classrooms and active learning have recently been adopted by many faculty in Computer Science leading to emerging design patterns for active learning. We compare how previously published lecture-based patterns and our active learning patterns address similar problems with different solutions to engaging students. We show how an object-based structure for pedagogical design patterns can provide additional information about the problems and the solutions addressed by the patterns that are more easily indexed and combined.

[1]  Larry K. Michaelsen,et al.  The essential elements of team‐based learning , 2008 .

[2]  Brian E. Mennecke,et al.  Making Project Groups Work: The Impact of Structuring Group Roles on the Performance and Perception of Information Systems Project Teams , 1997 .

[3]  Ralph Johnson,et al.  design patterns elements of reusable object oriented software , 2019 .

[4]  Nasrin Dehbozorgi,et al.  Active Learning Design Patterns for CS Education , 2017, ICER.

[5]  Bruria Haberman Pedagogical patterns: A means for communication within the CS teaching community of practice , 2006, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[6]  Max Jacobson,et al.  A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction , 1981 .

[7]  Stephen MacNeil,et al.  Using spectrums and dependency graphs to model progressions from introductory to capstone courses , 2017, 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[8]  C. Bonwell,et al.  Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ERIC Digest. , 1991 .

[9]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research , 2004 .

[10]  Barry Harper,et al.  Patterns and pattern languages in educational design , 2008 .

[11]  Christian Köppe,et al.  Lecture design patterns: improving the beginning of a lecture , 2014, EuroPLoP.

[12]  Barbara J. Millis,et al.  Cooperative Learning for Higher Education Faculty , 1997 .

[13]  Christian Köppe,et al.  Lecture design patterns: improving interactivity , 2013 .

[14]  C. Bonwell,et al.  Active learning : creating excitement in the classroom , 1991 .

[15]  P. Feden,et al.  Methods of teaching : applying cognitive science to promote student learning , 2003 .

[16]  Christopher D. Hundhausen,et al.  Transforming the CS classroom with studio-based learning , 2012, SIGCSE '12.

[17]  C. Wieman,et al.  Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions , 2009 .