Peer Instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention

Research has demonstrated that Peer Instruction (PI) is an attractive pedagogical practice in computer science classes. PI has been shown to improve final exam performance over standard lecture, reduce failure rates, contribute to increased retention, and be widely valued by students. In addition, a recent study using isomorphic (same-concept) questions found that students are learning during peer discussion and not merely copying from neighbors. Though this prior work is useful for evaluating peer discussion, it does not capture learning that takes place after peer discussion when the instructor further expands on the concept through a whole-class discussion. In the present work, isomorphic questions were used to determine the value of a PI question from start to finish: solo vote, group discussion, group vote, and instructor-led classwide discussion. The analysis revealed that the value of the instructor-led classwide discussion was evident in increased student performance over peer-discussion alone (raw gains of 22% compared to 14%). Moreover, the instructor-led discussion was highly valuable for all groups of students (weak, average, and strong) and was of particular value for weak students. Importantly, the largest gains were associated with more challenging PI questions, further suggesting that instructor expertise was valuable when students struggled.

[1]  Charles E. McDowell,et al.  Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality , 2006, CACM.

[2]  Cynthia Bailey Lee,et al.  Experience report: CS1 in MATLAB for non-majors, with media computation and peer instruction , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[3]  K. Krauter,et al.  Combining Peer Discussion with Instructor Explanation Increases Student Learning from In-Class Concept Questions , 2011, CBE life sciences education.

[4]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method , 2005 .

[5]  Daniel Zingaro,et al.  Peer instruction: a link to the exam , 2014, ITiCSE '14.

[6]  Ian D. Beatty,et al.  Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching , 2005, physics/0508114.

[7]  Lorena Blasco-Arcas,et al.  Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[8]  N. Lasry,et al.  Clickers or Flashcards : Is There Really a Difference ? , 2008 .

[9]  Susan Matlock-Hetzel Basic Concepts in Item and Test Analysis. , 1997 .

[10]  M. Kamiński Symbolic computations in modern education of applied sciences and engineering , 2008 .

[11]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  Experience report: peer instruction in introductory computing , 2010, SIGCSE.

[12]  G. Cumming,et al.  Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. , 2005, The American psychologist.

[13]  William B Wood,et al.  Teaching more by lecturing less. , 2005, Cell biology education.

[14]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  A time for telling , 1998 .

[15]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[16]  Daniel Zingaro,et al.  Experience Report: Peer Instruction in Remedial Computer Science , 2010 .

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

[18]  Karen Moss,et al.  Effective learning in science: The use of personal response systems with a wide range of audiences , 2011, Comput. Educ..

[19]  R. Hake Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[20]  R. Hake Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction* , 1998 .

[21]  Beth Simon,et al.  Halving fail rates using peer instruction: a study of four computer science courses , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[22]  Cynthia Bailey Lee,et al.  Peer instruction in computing: the role of reading quizzes , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[23]  Anne Venables,et al.  A closer look at tracing, explaining and code writing skills in the novice programmer , 2009, ICER '09.

[24]  Cynthia Taylor,et al.  Peer instruction in computer science at small liberal arts colleges , 2013, ITiCSE '13.

[25]  Kate Lockwood,et al.  The inverted classroom and the CS curriculum , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[26]  Beth Simon,et al.  Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? , 2011, ICER.

[27]  Beth Simon,et al.  How we teach impacts student learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0 , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[28]  Beth Simon,et al.  Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1 , 2013, SIGCSE '13.

[29]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Assessing fundamental introductory computing concept knowledge in a language independent manner , 2010 .