Impact of Class Size on Student Evaluations for Traditional and Peer Instruction Classrooms

As student enrollments in computer science increase, there is a growing need for pedagogies that scale. Recent evidence has shown Peer Instruction (PI) to be an effective in-class pedagogy that reports high student satisfaction even with large classes. Yet, the question of the scalability of traditional lecture versus PI is largely unexplored. To explore this question, this work examines publicly available student evaluations of computer science courses across a wide range of class sizes (50--374 students) over a four year period. It first compares evaluations regardless of size and confirms prior work that PI classes are better appreciated by students than traditional lecture. It then examines how course evaluations change with class size and provides evidence that PI achieves a smaller decline in evaluations as class size increases.

[1]  Diane Ebert-May,et al.  Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning , 1997 .

[2]  Donald L. Gilbert,et al.  PANDAS , 2009, Neurology.

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

[4]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

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

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

[7]  References , 1971 .

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

[9]  Edward E. Prather,et al.  A national study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy. Part I. The effect of interactive instruction , 2009 .

[10]  D. Nicol,et al.  Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom , 2003 .

[11]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  Michèle Shuster,et al.  Introductory biology course reform: A tale of two courses , 2014 .

[13]  Robert McCartney,et al.  A Multi-institutional Study of Peer Instruction in Introductory Computing , 2016, SIGCSE.

[14]  A. Tsui,et al.  An examination of class size reduction on teaching and learning processes: a theoretical perspective , 2015 .

[15]  Mehran Sahami,et al.  As CS Enrollments Grow, Are We Attracting Weaker Students? , 2016, SIGCSE.

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

[17]  Cynthia Bailey Lee,et al.  Can peer instruction be effective in upper-division computer science courses? , 2013, TOCE.

[18]  David Lake,et al.  Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion. , 2001, Physical therapy.

[19]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  Experience report: a multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction , 2011, ITiCSE '11.

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

[21]  S. Kalinowski,et al.  Active Learning Not Associated with Student Learning in a Random Sample of College Biology Courses , 2011, CBE life sciences education.

[22]  Lawrence Mishel,et al.  The class size debate , 2002 .

[23]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Influence of engineering instructors' teaching and learning beliefs on pedagogies in engineering science courses , 2013 .

[24]  Deborah Allen,et al.  Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: seven strategies, from the simple to complex. , 2005, Cell biology education.