Peer
Learning
in
an
Introductory
Computer
Science
Course*
Craig E. Wills
[email protected] David
Finkel
[email protected] Michael
A. Gennert
[email protected] Matthew
O. Ward
[email protected] Computer
Science
Worcester
Polytechnic
Worcester,
Abstract: computer ality
A problem science
of the large
sonal
attention
as to
use peer
dents
the
and
lecture
ihe
productivity of peer-learning The
aspects
in a large
for
we have
introduced
uate
their
students
tion.
of our
In
imize groups learning
*This Worcester
learning.
In
use
we have students
stu-
Recent students
be enhanced
through
where
students
are to
developed
apply
group
science
of these
of
goals
undergradgroup
interac-
software
to min-
of handling
to electronically
class
on the part
of upper-level student
do
teach.
support
overhead
in
learning
them.
responsibility
administrative
and for
their
computer
to help facilitate
addition,
the
more
the
instill
for
work
many
record
group
activities. work
is partially
Polytechnic
tion and Educational
sponsored
Institute
by a grant
Center for Curricular
from
the
Innova-
Development.
Permission to copy without fee afl or part of this material is granted provided that the copiee aro not made or distributed for direct commercial advtintaga, the ACM copyright notico end the title of the publication and ite date appear, ond notice is given that copying is by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwiso, or to republish, requires o feo andor specific perrrdesioni SIGSCE w- W, Phoank AtiwMJJSA @
01609
Introduction
A problem in teaching large introductory computer science courses is to overcome the impersonality y of the large lecture class and to provide more personal attention to individual students. The traditional lecture format, while being an efficient medium for transmission of factual knowledge, is poorly suited to developing higher-level cognitive skills and increasing student motivation [11]. In addition, we believe it reduces the quality of the educational experience for the student, which in an introductory class for majors can have negative ramifications for future classes. l[t is easier for students to become isolated in the course without an obvious support mechanism, so students who miss class or do not understand material can “fall through the cracks.” To combat these problems, our work has involved changes in how we teach one of our introductory courses CS2005, Techniques of Programming. Our approach is to use peer learning experiences to instill in students the need to take responsibility for their learning and for the learning of those around them. Recent work has shown that educational quality for students and productivity for faculty can be enhanced through use of peer-learning environments where students do not just learn and faculty do not j ust teach 1[5,7], This work also seeks to add more exposure to a breadth of upper-level topics through projects and closed labs. The novel aspects of our work are to apply group learning in a large introductory computer science class setting and to expect more direct responsibility on the
per-
approach
to
do not just
introductory
and to expect
students
can
more
for quality
environments
and faculty
novel
setting
faculty
1
introductory
Our
around
educational
for
learn
learning
of those
that
use
students.
experiences
MA
Institute
the imperson-
and to provide
responsibility
learning
and
not just
class
[earning
has shown
large
is to overcome
to individual
need to take
for
work
in teaching
courses
Department
1994 ACM O-89791~..$3.W
309
part
of students
for their
we have
introduced
goals
dergraduate
students
interaction.
In
to minimize
the
many
groups
group
learning
who
course The
group
The
software
ing
of handling
to electronically
analysis uses for
to
term
particularly
agement.
The
rollments
of 100-150
students
each
The
as
yearly
with
time
more
use of peer small class.
This students
in
approach
class,
than
for
have students
a responsibility
to themselves
their
learning.
goal
of cent acts which
among
we believe
students
for
their
Much
previous
computer
science
introduced the Biology
results increasing pus
and
technique
work work
The
is partially
computer
science
results
from [2],
at an early
senior of the
projects, evaluation
for
number process, of
approach.
engineering at this
in
[4, 9]. In
intensive
creating
collabbiology
many
positive
experience,
has led
stage
courses,
level
the first-year
this
In
is typically
collaboration
confirmed Major
the
collaboration
experience
in industry
they
accountability
into
of
absorb, to others
learning
here at WPI,
importance
each
the
this
on
and our
us to introduce our
curriculum.
on our was that
Projects campus. projects
the camthis The
by an evaluation
Qualifying
viable This
which
are
course
for
an
approach detailed
in
structure.
is typically
all students
20 students structure,
is utilized.
The
member.
The (TAs)
for
are upper-level group
group
learning
2.2
In-Class
work
each but
class
labs the
four
and
week.
changed
meetings
are led
are led by graduate course.
among
students
in class
and
lab-
We have
rather
Peer
undergraduate
exercises
50-minute
a 50-minute
and
by a teach-
learning
students assist
not how
aswho with
lab.
of the (MQPs),
One done
Activities
The class meetings involve lecture material by the instructor mixed with informal active learning activities and discussion [1]. A key component of the in-class activities is organized group work, with at least one of these activities each non-exam week. Typical in-class group exercises involve the students reviewing important concepts, examining different d~ sign possibilities or leading the students through new material. The groups are formed based on students sitting in close proximity to each other, but we are also exploring pre-assigned groups. While the students work and discuss, the faculty member circulates through the classroom answering questions and facilit at ing discussion. After the groups have worked on the exercise for most of the meeting time, the class spends time discussing problems encountered. The groups then have time to review their work. Groups are responsible for making sure each member understands the work that is done. one member records the group membership and results and then turns in the work at the end of the class. This approach allows the faculty member to easily review all, or a sampling, of the work submitted, as well as
to
from
the
software
results
of
others.
introduced
wit h the [3].
and
supports
Department
in
potential
increase
has been reported
decision capstone
and
education,
has been
sequence,
in
increase
in upper-level
and experience oration
is to
students will
its
part
outside
learn
sit and
have
The
and
them
the
administering
course
the
process;
of teaching of
a
assistants
through
take
in lab
and help
students
themselves
students
is appealing
together
Rather
for
by having
activities
draw other.
responsibility
learning
group
is to motivate
structure
the course
assist ants
sistants facilitate
to accept
course,
not
using
learning
teach.
describing
with
of about
changed
term.
ing
we have taken
course
oratory
en-
Approach approach
the
are
learning
as part
to
students
We
overhead
making
learnfaculty
Structure
class meetings
and Man-
the
The
the
of the
after
it.
peer
only
member
facets
Course
faculty
2
the
not
thus
so that
to
1) use peer
lessen
faculty all
in”
done
collaborative overwhelming
and
“buy
those
of
such
Math
twice
bring
facilitate
to
a course,
2.1
not
numbers
departments
is taught
but
help
but
affects
to
without
approach:
to
than [6].
language.
large
Engineering,
course
it,
the following
The
how
rat ive overhead,
individual
imple-
structures.
but
such
pro-
design,
is divers=including
from
and Computer
of computer
data
majors,
Electrical
are
better
by themselves
2) use software
course,
accept
generally
classroom
accept
and
an introto
C programming
course
science
after
in the
of basic
this
the
(PLAs)
gate-
upper-level
is intended
skills
the
take
is taken It
a single
develop
and
computer
and
class. had
to
issues
to
only
were working
in administ
record
recommended
wishing
courses
currently
non-majors,
is the
students
have
audience
only
student
team
by students
two-pronged
CS2005
and
ment ation
student
un-
activities.
science
students
of these
developed
overhead
students
programming
gramming
facilitate
we have
administrative
for
computer ductory
In support
use of upper-level
to help
and for
course
the
addition,
As background, way
learning,
of the by a
310
give
credit
ity.
In-class
pate
to
all
in group
while
students
group
activities
maintaining
tor.
students
learning
allow
in the
students
these
involvement type
in a setting
the
that
With
the instruc-
the help
Out-Of-Class
After
instructor.
The
students
on larger
Activities
the
students
are
four
term.
do out-of-class design
submit
such
The
the
and their
assignments
lab time
ules.
Each
the
with
in these
is led
activity.
The
grading.
the
course
groups
(often
PLA
by
projects
to
have
a group-specific
can
do their
students
of the
assistants
of
grades
for
tion
students. coming
C or Pascal. to help
and
ment
review
in the
Students evaluation
group
they
name.
have
done
and
have
done. the
after queues.
students
to
experience
jobs
based
policy jobs.
in the
passengers.
project
amongst
project
first
review
what
and
specific
the
The where
into
breadth of job
students
times
of jobs and
a queue
their In
these
policy.
Each
maintain
the
meeting
If possible,
this
assignment
outside meeting
are
of class includes
covered
and the
in
laboratory PLA.
by a TA
hash-
of databases
information
and
break
up the
who
must
The
final
work group
tlhe students
where
structure.
for
The
labs
as the
closed
laboratory
to computing and
are also
equipment.
assisted
by the
experience
debugging
such
topic,
a weekly
and obtain
lar
and used
PLAs.
with
building
soft-
software
to study
a particu-
timing
of different
comparative
procedures. lab
ities
related
have
time
2.5
periods
are used
to out-of-class to meet
with
the current on the
for
peer
projects.
learning Student
activgroups
each
other
and
their
PLA
to
assignment
and
how
their
group
is
assignment.
Exams
the There
of
lists,
system.
access
about
useful
proceeding
addi-
scheduling to
data
(linked
members
entire a tree
projects.
discuss
sys-
manage
stack
reser-
of the
the groups
and recursion
have
are led
tools
Other
a driver
to
or
an airline more
aspects
storing
evalua-
tc, the whole.
is to build
involves
and
tumn in their
an individual
uses
the
whole
contribution
also includes
learn
sorting
scheduling
duration.
routines job
into
to
The
to their
create
labs
ware is
and
pieces.
course students
Students
exposed project
abstraction
adds
arrival
creates
on a different either
course The
start
student
data
Students
assis-
of they
a week
been
of the
is broken
trees
a working
with
for
manipulate
group
Laboratory
2.4
others
over
have
involves
build
The
teaching
by building
group
the
PL,4, or
As before the
to build
the
members
group.
time
on what
a little
the problem
systems.
uses
Details group
a code
purpose
about that
to simulate
each
routing
the
are learning
and
work
individual
project
intelligence
Group
and choose
examining
students
The
by exploring
operating with
perform
and
this
searching)
other
culminates into
project This
the students
together
along
as the
each other
is given
learn
used
tion,
and
peer feedback
the
a project
assignment
tem
at ion
During
groups
from
activity
and
program
also
and
major
system.
artificial
The
course
complete
implement
next
and
and
of polyno-
differentiation,
get to know
to learn
second
to stacks
into
ing
assign-
to mathematics
and
to obtain
first
manipulation
polynomials.
They
work
The
member’s
and
each
group
with
data.
of each group
structures
with
on various
group
alias for each group
where it
together along
vations
previously
to speed”
The
an array
of the
activity
a group
in
relates
with
is designed
have
up
course.
and
are formed
each others
for
course
they “get
integration
students
into
the
create
symbolic
with
in
are familiar
in the course
material
representation
mials. allow
course
students
used
used
involves
the
project
to help
language
the
first
students
learned the
The
into
for work
contributions
The
Students
mail
share
faculty
students’
them
group
and problems.
directory and
modules
testing
facilitate
group
and
pcmtions
with
access to each other,
and
The
individual
sched-
help
styles
their
electronically)
work
have
tance.
a com-
of out-of-class a PLA
responsibility
individual
on
a electronic
and
There
among
work
on progress
with
that
groups
share
take
members.
on individual
work
students
focus-
projects
in pre-assigned
compatibility
group
activities
for
during
are done
Students
mon
group
programming
electronically
projects
4-5 students.
group
and
and how
the group
students
based
distributing
members,
is facilitated ing
of the project
among
of the PLA,
of the project
communicate 2.3
organization for work
interests.
of collaborative
the
the overall
for pieces
are important
value
involves
discuss
it can be divided
environment
with
of exercises
to understand
activ-
to partici-
in a comfortable
direct
We believe
for
participating
exercises
a peer time.
Students
important
exams
relate
activities
311
are three
sizing
exams material.
directly
and are noted
given
in the
Certain
to in-class as such.
course
questions
or out-of-class Student
emphaon the group
performance
on these all
questions
exam
given ual
a group
group
score
Groups
group
questions
course
for
the
and compared
to over-
student
is then
exam
that
do
bonus the
accountability but
course,
but
tive
is responsible. accountability are turning
mit
mem-
individual
not
relate
the
to make
lieve based
CLAM
with
with
Another
(CLassroom
process,
it is ac-
electronic
a large,
The
for
work
tool
tronic out
important
registration. paper
man-
did
we have
developed
formation
about
and
stored
of the from day
which
a survey
not
and
is the
execute
of class. along
also plan
methods
student
learning
Once
student
information
gram
to
are using
the
schedules
as the
groups
while
sections gram groups
for we
for
first
on new
learning
in-
parameters
the will
●
Students ing,
and
will
on We
out-of-class out-of-class different
With to
this
generate
take
involved
will
be
these
ac-
are: with
each other
the ma-
to achieve
in the course
to
re-
through
which
outcomes
students
ex-
more
and
member
under
with
develop
leading
rect
pro-
for from
faculty
of computer
lead
learning
be less depen-
will
in the concepts field
pro-
and
science.
Active
be more
engaged
thinkers.
We
and
groups.
capability
interest in
and
more
interact
will
themselves
expected
become
that
and
based
parameters.
criteria
students
another
students
section
in-class the
a higher
the
course.
will
and will
a survey
achievement
peer
they
environment
to
and therefore through the
is stored
two
Students
with
classes.
for learning
Specific
in early
of the course
of the
The
in this
be assessed
on their
upon
from
As an ongoing
successive
others.
occur.
contrasted
is that
course
learning will
instance
outcome
students
with
terial
first
for
the results
peer
be examined
a course
topics
student
the
●
nature
of determining
different
grouping the
in-
using
learning.
for learning
accounts
information
group
laboratory
have
based
to
all
styles.
automatically given
basic
into
will
on the faculty
tivities
online
of the
program
scheduling
using
priorities
the
coming
to explore
allows
computer
We gather
with
background
that
have
tool.
end of the
by t-he students.
experiences
peer
anticipated
fostering
fill
course
a previous
preparedness
dent
manually,
to be gathered Because
students
and
complete
of the students
from
periences
elec-
have students
a program
gather
survey
of delivering
have
learning
incorporate
The
Its ma-
is for
be sorted
a student
they
or two
student
than
must
us to
beginning
of aid
process
of the
sponsibility
of software
in a database.
course,
formation
●
that
at the
We will
cess, students
learn-
is called
the
peer
of students
is also useful
recording
in
The
using
we be-
package.
Rather
forms
that
is an electronic
assessment
1993.
delivery
1994.
as follows.
piece
results
is used
for
are
Fall
first
collaborative-
and
AdMinistration)
We
sub-
we are developing
environments
are described
most
allows
software
correlate
discussion ●
tool
perfor-
Results
the
on this expe-
Software
software
3
does
such software
responsibility The
to help
and group
of group
Without of such
Unix
components
group
the
software
We built
be difficult.
[10].
compatible jor
experience
classes.
student
activities
of the
group
also sub-
administra-
learning
the administration
would
to promote ing
this
on grades
of projects.
administration
class
the
of software
Although
records
some
for large
the
to reducing
to the student
and grading
ageable
to aid in teaching
development
course.
We had
mission rience
aspect
is the
to maintain
tivities.
which
Students
assessments
the
approach
mance.
This
directly
necessary
gathers This
by recording in work.
group
for which
software
for each the group.
increases
and
a key
in managing
The
Each
it.
do we use software
overhead
of the project
together
course only
as a group.
members
Software Not
in projects in the piece
of
●
2.6
turns
the
aspect
all group
turn
member pieces
of students
for
Students he/she
queson
This
●
individ-
group
better
points.
the work,
to understand
on
on the
comparatively
receive
complete
group
based
performances
emphasizes
to not just bers
Each
members’
tions. the
are recorded
performance.
●
contact
between cannot
through
cracks.”
This
experience
future
sense
effort
by
better advancement curriculum. There
so students the
a stronger
increased
group
students remain
will
students
of the students will be more di-
and with anonymous
better
of belong-
all
prepare
the
PLAs
and
“slip
students
for
projects.
lab pro-
●
new
Collaboration an early
if desired.
ing
312
them
will
point
in
bring their
to different
the
students
academic learning
together
careers,
styles
and
at
exposserving
as a support This
structure
environment
students
from
grounds
and
at the
will
introductory
also be more
other
educational
more
relevant
References
level.
attractive
for
and
social
back-
to future
work
place
[1] Chris
C.
tive
realities.
Bonwell
learning
room).
and
James
(creating
ASHE-ERIC
A.
Eison.
excitement Higher
in
Ac-
the
Education
class-
Report
91-
1, 1991. Faculty
●
in
expertise
the
will
learning
source
be used
process
to answer
to guide
rather
than
students
be
the
[2] Rich
sole
Cohen
Computer
questions.
[3] Leonard We
will
not
comes
until
the course
ever,
we will
course
with
project, well.
group
project.
among
meetings
and
involved
with
each
progress
at a staff
continue
reasonable
level
as is often
the
The
and
handle that
report The
faculty
student
does not
case in large,
[5] David
on group
at
faculty
panding
the
concepts
in our
introductory
would
also like
ity).
a
time
to institute
that
[8] to
assess
and
their
The
student
experience on our has been
of the
more
measures
with much
computer
has been group
science
class sizes often
deter
courses.
However,
courses
can
of peer tional
be most
learning software
head
and
for
complete the
course
upper
are where
and
the
the
on making
delivery
of the
course
students
and
results
will
be available
has been
The
1990.
(in-
productivReport
91-1,
1993 com-
review.
Harvard with
courses
to Learn,
Press,
Technical Polytechnic
assessment
students and
sem-
and
student
faculty
life,
First
Gowin.
New
mapping.
chapter
strate-
In
5. Cambridge
Pournaghshband.
Steven
with
team
The
LearnUniver-
L.
Beyond
Tanimoto.
record Technical
of Computer
University
problems
SIGCSE
Bulletin,
1989.
Educational century.
students’
projects,
February
Department ing,
D. Bob
Concept
1984.
twenty-first
quality
and
evaluation:
grades:
over-
the
Report
Science
of Washington,
naivety
keeping and
October
for
of the
92-07-09, Engineer1992.
assessment
[11]
it is ben-
involved. and
[10]
use
of addi-
indicates
faculty
and
learning
E. Wills.
MQP
learning
D. Novak
21(1):37-41,
tech-
the
creation
C)ur preliminary
the
Johnson,
Worcester
J. Light.
in courses
that
this
administrative such
Craig
1993.
teaching,
[9] Hassan
levels
its use in introductory
assistants minimize
and
August
Report
sity
dis-
we believe
are exploring
to
T.
Education
department
about
gies for
Although
We
experiences.
during
eficial
in other
useful.
concentrate
educational made
these
work
curriculum,
Higher
Explorations
[8] Joseph
maps
of concepts
at the
March
assessment
positive.
work
the large nique
We
as concept
understanding
peer learning
Ben-
project interac-
instructional
WPI-CS-TR-93-5,
ing How
campus
faculty
E. Kinicki science
inars:
courses
curriculum,
complete such
ex-
relationships.
ciplines there
use
to other
science
Roger Cooperative
ASHE-ERIC
[6] Robert
on
John
1991.
courses.
concentrate
learning
computer
procedures help
of peer
to
and Mentoring
24(1) :246–251,
Johnson,
college
[7] Richard work
to
l?aoScaence,
on human-computer
Bulletin,
Smith.
creasing
and
but
A.
Institute,
follow-up
and
freshmen
1991.
design:
a course
W.
Karl
Conclusion expect
Miller,
work.
Winograd,
HCI
SIGC’SE
Report
We
1991.
1992.
of in-
member
in
tion.
puter
4
together!
E.
learning
Terry
Learning
groups a
are actively
introductory
Pull August
Teaching
November
Hartfield,
nett.
by group
questions,
overwhelm
[4] Brad
be
first-
amount
weekly
active
41(10):719-722,
working
developing
PLAs
Judith
Cheetham.
think—does
of the
would
as witnessed
meeting.
to
and
is a large
mail.
group
be
that
D.
Keuffel.
8(8):36-44,
group
and gaining
dynamics
students
electronic
to
projects
There
the
point
Warren
Goodwin,
Ronald
How-
second
appears
to complete
in group
out-
and beyond.
on their
are doing
for one student
of these
at the halfway
approach
groups
software
most
is completed that
teraction
TAs
assess
working
experience
large
to
comment
the
hand
able
students
Student
too large
be
and
Language,
reported
E. J. Thomas size.
More when
completed.
313
and C. F. Fink.
Psychological
Bulletin,
The
effects
60:371–385,
of group 1963.
