How we teach impacts student learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0

In this paper we look at the impact on student learning of how a class is taught. We compare 2 sections of a non-majors CS0 course offered in the same term, by the same instructor, covering the same content and utilizing the same book, labs and exams. One section was taught using standard lecture practices including lecture from slides, live coding and weekly quizzes. The other section was taught using the Peer Instruction (PI) method that actively engages students in constructing their own learning, instead of absorbing understanding from the instructor's explanations. Using a factorial analysis of variance, we find a main effect of instructional method on final exam grade (F (1,200) = 5.87, p = 0.016) with students in the Peer Instruction section scoring an average 5.7% higher than in the standard lecture practices section. We find no significant interactions among gender and grade or class status (lower or upper division) and grade. In a separate analysis, we also find the interaction of instructional method and high school background to be significant (F (1,147) = 7.48, p = 0.007). In discussion we consider the meaning of these results for educators and describe questions for future work.

[1]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  Exploratory homeworks: an active learning tool for textbook reading , 2012, ICER '12.

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

[3]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  Computing as the 4th "R": a general education approach to computing education , 2011, ICER.

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

[5]  N. Lasry,et al.  Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college , 2008 .

[6]  Colleen M. Lewis,et al.  Experiences with lab-centric instruction , 2010, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[7]  T. Shors,et al.  Saving new brain cells. , 2009, Scientific American.

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

[9]  Tammy VanDeGrift,et al.  Experience report: getting novice programmers to THINK about improving their software development process , 2011, SIGCSE.

[10]  Andrew Begel,et al.  Novice software developers, all over again , 2008, ICER '08.

[11]  Herbert S. Lin,et al.  They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different: Stalking the Second Tier , 1991 .

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

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

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

[15]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  The Design and Validation of the Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey , 2005 .

[16]  Janice E. Cuny,et al.  The CS10K project: mobilizing the community to transform high school computing , 2011, SIGCSE.

[17]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Farewell, Lecture? , 2009, Science.

[18]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  The abstraction transition taxonomy: developing desired learning outcomes through the lens of situated cognition , 2012, ICER '12.