Session S1E
Work in Progress - Collaboration Pedagogy in the Introductory Computer Science Programming Course for Engineers William N. Crum1 and Brenda Capobianco 2 Abstract – First-Year Engineering students at Purdue University most frequently select CS 158, a C Programming course, to satisfy their computer programming requirement. During the Spring 2005 semester 915 students elected CS 158 and a major effort was made to introduce collaborative teaming on course assignments including projects and in weekly laboratories. It is believed that such collaboration represents how professional engineers function and is a friendlier environment to women who already face a number of barriers in an introductory computer programming course. Our exploratory research is to identify barriers, recommended by Scragg and Smith, present in CS 158 after the implementation of collaborative teaming. Index Terms – Collaboration, Computer Science, Engineers, Gender Barriers, Introductory Programming INTRODUCTION Students in the First-Year Engineering Program at Purdue University are required to complete a computer programming course; one option for students to meet this requirement is CS 158 (C Programming). Students in CS 158 attend two weekly meetings in very large 50 minute lectures and once a week in a two hour laboratory. Topics covered in this structured programming course include the following a) introduction to the C language and the structure of a C program; b) flow charting and problem solving; c) user-defined functions; d) selection structures; e) repetition structures; f) preprocessor directives; g) text files; h) arrays, searching and sorting algorithms; i) pointers; j) strings; and k) derived data types. CS 158 labs utilize Sun machines running the UNIX operating system and require students the submission of code that compiles on the current version of the gcc compiler. Most students enrolling the Spring semester have previously taken a Computer Tools for Engineers course where they have been exposed to some concepts of structured programming implemented in Excel and MATLAB and have used some UNIX, but the only formal co-requisite for CS 158 is the first semester calculus course for science and engineering majors.
1 2
The recent Spring 2005 semester was the first attempt at utilizing a collaborative approach in the weekly laboratory environment and on each of the four major programming projects of the course. Previous offerings of CS 158 strictly enforced individual development and did not encourage students to collaboratively develop solutions to assignments. Students were initially assigned to groups based on previous computing experience. These initial groups worked together on the first two projects (which included topics a – e from above) and the first eight (of eleven total) lab assignments. Halfway through the semester teams were reassigned based on the scores of the first exam and the lab instructor’s impression of who might compose a successful team. These groups worked on the final two projects, which included a presentation in the lab the week following each project due date, and the remaining three labs. The expectation of every member of a collaborative team was to contribute equally to the solution of every assignment. Students would document their time spent and the activities of the group in the form of a log that was submitted prior to the group presentation. THE LITERATURE The implementation of the collaborative environment is supported from two different sources. The first is that the collaborative team is representative of how scientists and engineers work in a professional environment [1]. Second, collaborative teams have been proposed as part of the remedy for the struggles of women in computer science courses [2] as such teaming emphasizes that work with computers includes communication with others. Barriers to undergraduate women in computer science courses have been identified by Scragg and Smith [3] as relevant to their department at SUNY Geneseo. Their findings indicate that women have significantly less computing experience than men, feel their opinions are not valued the same as men, and are less comfortable in class activities. THE STUDY Our exploratory study attempts to identify which barriers identified by the researchers at SUNY Geneseo exist in CS 158 given the recent pedagogical shift to more collaborative
William N. Crum, Department of Computer Sciences, Purdue University,
[email protected] Brenda Capobianco , Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University,
[email protected]
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1E-20
Session S1E efforts. This study represents the first regarding gender barriers in CS 158. During the Spring semester 2005, 915 students enrolled in CS 158, 532 of which participated in our end of the semester survey. Of the participants, 123 students identified themselves as women, 409 as men. The survey consisted of 34 Likert scale statements on a scale of 1-5. Many of the statements used in the survey were taken directly from the survey used by Scragg and Smith [3] with a few additions that are directly relevant to CS 158. Statements were classified to represent the barriers identified by Scragg and Smith [3] of previous experience, self-confidence, and value of opinion. For example, I felt comfortable discussing with my teams relevant course material and assignments. FINDINGS Each of the following tables presents the averages (arithmetic mean) for each survey statement based on gender and all participants, where 1 represents strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree for each statement. The findings below will permit us to draw some initial conclusions to direct future research that addresses each of the suspected barriers present in CS 158. The first barrier reported by students is the issue of previous experience. Two statements from the survey directly address this issue: 1. I came to college with experience in computing relevant to this course. 2. I feel I had less experience in computing relevant to this course than my classmates. Table 1 Response averages to two statements related to previous computing experience in CS 158. Statement
Women
Men
All
#1
2.114754
2.619403
2.501901
#2
3.450820
3.059701
3.150190
Three survey questions directly address confidence in course material compared to their peers. The findings by Scragg and Smith indicate that the significant difference between the responses of men and women represents a barrier. 1. Overall, I do better in my classes than most of my classmates. 2. I did better in this class grade-wise than most of my classmates. 3. I seldom feel inferior to other people in this course. Table 2 displays the average responses for each of these statements.
Scragg and Smith found women to be less comfortable then men in course activities. The statements from the survey listed below test that notion related to collaborative teaming in CS 158. Table 3 displays the average responses to the following statements: 1. I felt comfortable discussing with my teams relevant course material and assignments. 2. I felt comfortable asking my team to explain an idea I didn’t understand. 3. My opinion was valued by my team. 4. The opinions of others on my teams seemed to be valued more than mine. Table 3 Response averages to four statements related to comfort in collaborative teaming activities. Statement
Women
Men
All
#1
3.677966
3.489744
3.537255
#2
3.677966
3.508997
3.554028
#3
3.677966
3.529563
3.567780
#4
2.722689
2.652062
2.666012
INITIAL CONCLUSIONS The study presented here represents a work in progress. The findings demonstrate the need for further analysis on what students are reporting as barriers and in what ways did collaborative approaches address these potential barriers. All data collected appears to support the findings of Scragg and Smith; women enter with less experience in computing, women report lower levels of self-confidence, and women do not experience less respect from fellow students than men. The fact that the self-reported values related to teaming experiences appears nearly equal for men and women may indicate that the teaming environment is a comfortable one through which it may be able to address the barriers of previous experience and self-confidence found to be present in CS 158. REFERENCES [1] Bruffee, K. A. Collaborative Learning. The John Hopkins University Press, 1999. [2] Liu, M. and Blanc, L. On the retention of female computer science students, Proceedings of the twenty-seventh SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.32-36, February 15-17, 1996, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States [3] Scragg, G. and Smith J. A study of barriers to women in undergraduate computer science, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, v.30 n.1, p.82-86, Mar. 1998
Table 2 Response averages to three statements related to self-confidence regarding course material. Statement
Women
Men
All
#1
2.811475
3.141089
3.066288
#2
2.803279
3.104218
3.034156
#3
3.809917
3.243176
3.148008
0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE October 19 – 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference S1E-21
