T he CS education community has many good ideas about how to improve our teaching, but an often-overlooked piece is getting these innovations adopted by other instructors. Research has shown that pedagogical, curricular, and education technology changes are not readily adopted by instructors without deliberate planning and effort on the part of developers [11]. We believe that our community must embark on a sustained effort to learn more about evidence-based strategies for propagating educational innovations and to use them in our own projects. To support this goal, we have written a report summarizing current research on propagation [12], much of it from other STEM fields. We also hope to more fully capture the knowledge within the CS education community with a series of interviews of prominent propagators, i.e., people in the community who have successfully encouraged faculty to adopt an innovation that they created or one they themselves adopted. In our first interview, we talked with Leo Porter, Associate Teaching Professor in the department of Computer Science and Engineering at UC San Diego. Leo is best known for his work as an earlier adopter, researcher and propagator of Peer Instruction [2,4,5,8,14], and other work on best practices in CS education [6,7,10,12,13]. Along with Beth Simon, Mark Guzdial, and Cynthia Lee, Leo developed the New Computer Science Faculty Teaching Workshop, aimed primarily at research-focused faculty in their first three years of teaching. Participants in this workshop make explicit their teaching philosophies and explore how to incorporate active learning strategies into their teaching. We asked Leo about the success of these workshops and his work to encourage broader use of Peer Instruction (PI). Below are highlights of the interview, which ran approximately an hour. After the interview, we communicated with Leo to seek clarification or to allow him to elaborate on certain items.
[1]
Daniel Pratt,et al.
The Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI)
,
2000
.
[2]
Jeffrey E. Froyd,et al.
Analysis of Propagation Plans in NSF-Funded Education Development Projects
,
2017
.
[3]
Cynthia Bailey Lee,et al.
Can peer instruction be effective in upper-division computer science courses?
,
2013,
TOCE.
[4]
Mark Guzdial,et al.
Success in introductory programming: what works?
,
2013,
CACM.
[5]
노혜란,et al.
TPI(Teaching Perspectives Inventory)를 활용한 대학에서의 교수철학 진단분석
,
2005
.
[6]
Cynthia Taylor,et al.
Computer science concept inventories: past and future
,
2014,
Comput. Sci. Educ..
[7]
Beth Simon,et al.
Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1
,
2013,
SIGCSE '13.
[8]
Raymond Lister,et al.
Predicting student success using fine grain clicker data
,
2014,
ICER '14.
[9]
Daniel Zingaro,et al.
Peer Instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention
,
2014,
Comput. Educ..
[10]
Beth Simon,et al.
Experience report: CS1 for majors with media computation
,
2010,
ITiCSE '10.
[11]
Beth Simon,et al.
Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing?
,
2011,
ICER.
[12]
Beth Simon,et al.
Halving fail rates using peer instruction: a study of four computer science courses
,
2013,
SIGCSE '13.
[13]
Christopher Lynnly Hovey,et al.
Propagating the adoption of CS educational innovations
,
2018,
ITiCSE.