Longitudinal Data on Flipped Class Effects on Performance in CS1 and Retention after CS1

We present results of a college wide undergraduate retention study tracking student retention in computing, comparing students who experience a flipped, active learning version of CS1 against those who experience a traditional lecture and lab version of CS1. We examine demographic subgroups to understand retention differences between sexes and racial/ethnic groups. Specifically, we examine which students exit computing majors in the semester immediately after taking CS1, and those who leave following one academic year. This allows us to focus on how the immediate experience of the CS1 teaching approach impacts desire to continue in computer science during the critical first year in CS. Our dataset includes 698 CS majors who took CS1 in either the flipped or traditional style, between Fall 2013 and Fall 2016, at a large, comprehensive, urban research university in the US. Our results show that women were less likely to switch majors after taking the flipped version than after taking the traditional version. Conversely, male students were more likely to be retained following the traditional course, and less likely to be retained following the flipped course. Performance of CS majors in CS1, as measured by DFW rates, is statistically higher in the flipped classes than performance in the traditional classes. One-year retention in the major for under-represented groups (women and racial minorities) was higher in the flipped classes for new freshmen taking CS1, but not for transfer students.

[1]  Abdulrahman M. Al-Zahrani,et al.  From passive to active: The impact of the flipped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students' creative thinking , 2015, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

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

[3]  Johanna Pirker,et al.  Motivational active learning: engaging university students in computer science education , 2014, ITiCSE '14.

[4]  Daniel Zingaro Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1 , 2014, SIGCSE '14.

[5]  Jens Bennedsen,et al.  Failure rates in introductory programming , 2007, SGCS.

[7]  Mark J. Graham,et al.  Increased Preclass Preparation Underlies Student Outcome Improvement in the Flipped Classroom , 2015, CBE life sciences education.

[8]  Tiffany Barnes,et al.  The STARS Alliance: Viable Strategies for Broadening Participation in Computing , 2011, TOCE.

[9]  Robert McCartney,et al.  Folk Pedagogy: Nobody Doesn't Like Active Learning , 2017, ICER.

[10]  Andrew Luxton-Reilly,et al.  Learning to Program is Easy , 2016, ITiCSE.

[11]  Christopher Watson,et al.  A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success , 2014, ICER '14.

[12]  Gloria J. Ladson-Billings,et al.  Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the Remix , 2014 .

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

[14]  L. Fink,et al.  Team-based learning : a transformative use of small groups , 2002 .

[15]  Melissa Sobel,et al.  An examination of belongingness and confidence among female computer science students , 2015, CSOC.

[16]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Success in introductory programming: what works? , 2013, CACM.

[17]  Aaron Sams,et al.  Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day , 2012 .

[18]  Celine Latulipe,et al.  Structuring Flipped Classes with Lightweight Teams and Gamification , 2015, SIGCSE.

[19]  Joanna Goode,et al.  Exploring Computer Science: A Case Study of School Reform , 2011, TOCE.

[20]  Brian Dorn,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Video Viewing Behaviors in Flipped CS1 Courses , 2016, ITiCSE.

[21]  Frederick W. B. Li,et al.  Failure rates in introductory programming revisited , 2014, ITiCSE '14.

[22]  Sun Huh,et al.  Team-Based Learning for Health Professions Education: A Guide to Using Small Groups for Improving Learning , 2013 .

[23]  Diane Horton,et al.  Comparing outcomes in inverted and traditional CS1 , 2014, ITiCSE '14.

[24]  Regina Deil-Amen Socio-Academic Integrative Moments: Rethinking Academic and Social Integration among Two-Year College Students in Career-Related Programs , 2011 .

[25]  Mary Lou Maher,et al.  Flipped Classroom Strategies for CS Education , 2015, SIGCSE.

[26]  Sarah L. Eddy,et al.  Getting Under the Hood: How and for Whom Does Increasing Course Structure Work? , 2014, CBE life sciences education.

[27]  C. Steele,et al.  Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  สุธััญญา ด้วงอินทร์,et al.  Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day , 2017 .