Beth Simon
Sarah Esper
Leo Porter
ABSTRACT
Although studies have shown Peer Instruction (PI) in computing courses to be beneficial for learning and retention, study of the student experience has been limited to attitudinal survey results. This study provides a preliminary evaluation of student experiences in a PI course -- specifically asking them to reflect on their role as a student in a PI lecture compared to a standard university lecture. Student responses to this question are first analyzed using Chi's Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive framework which categorizes student activities by their value in a constructivist learning framework. This analysis finds that the majority of students reported activity in a PI lecture as "interactive" in contrast with "active" (e.g. taking notes) in a standard lecture. Additionally, a grounded theory open-coding analysis provides an initial examination of student perceptions of the PI lecture experience. Although students positively value learning-related aspects (feedback and increased understanding) a surprising breadth of value was noted around issues of affect and increased sense of community. In particular, these experiences invite discussion about PI and issues of STEM retention in post-secondary education.
- Bjork, R.A., Information-Processing Analysis of College Teaching. Educational PsychologistI, 14. 1979.Google Scholar
- Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Prince, M., Henderson, C., & Froyd, J. E. Fidelity of Implementation of Research-Based Instructional Strategies (RBIS) in Engineering Science Courses. Journal of Engineering Education. 2013.Google Scholar
- Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. How people learn. J. D. Bransford (Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 2000.Google Scholar
- Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1). 1989.Google Scholar
- Chi, M. T. Active?constructive?interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1). 2009.Google Scholar
- Corbin, J., Strauss, A., Basics of Qualitative Analysis: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd Edition, Sage Pub. 2007.Google Scholar
- Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69. 2001.Google Scholar
- Crouch, C. H., Fagen, A. P., Callan, J. P., and Mazur, E. Classroom demonstrations: Learning tools or entertainment? American Journal of Physics 72. 2004.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C.S. Self-Theories -- Their role in Motivation, Personality and Development. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press, 1999.Google Scholar
- Esper, S., Simon, B., & Cutts, Q. Exploratory homeworks: An active learning tool for textbook reading. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference on International computing education research. 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gaffney, J. D., Gaffney, A. L. H., & Beichner, R. J. Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 6(1). 2010.Google Scholar
- Hake, R. R. Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics 66 (1). 1998.Google Scholar
- Hrepic, Z., Zollman, D. A., & Rebello, N. S. Comparing students' and experts' understanding of the content of a lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3). 2007.Google Scholar
- Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865). 2008.Google Scholar
- Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., Simon, B., Cutts, Q., and Zingaro, D. Experience report: a multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., & Simon, B. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: a study of four computer science courses. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education). 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C. Simon, B., Zingaro, D. Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion? In the 7th Annual International Computing Education Research Workshop. 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Porter, L., Garcia, S., Glick, J., Matusiewicz, A., & Taylor, C. Peer Instruction in Computer Science at Small Liberal Arts Colleges. In proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Porter, L. and Simon, B.. Retaining Nearly One-Third more Majors with a Trio of Instructional Best Practices in CS1. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education Technical Symposium. March. 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. M. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1997.Google Scholar
- Simon, B., Kohanfars, M., Lee, J, Tamayo, K., and Cutts, Q. Experience report: peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Simon, B., Parris, J., & Spacco, J. How we teach impacts student learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Smith, M., Wood, W., Adams, W., Wieman, C., Knight, J., Guild, N., Su, T. Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions. Science 323. 2009.Google Scholar
- Teasley, S. D. Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration? In Resnick, L. B., Saljo, R., Pontecorvo, C., and Burge, B. (Eds.) Discourse, Tools, and Reasoning. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 361--384. 1997.Google Scholar
- Tobias, S. They're not dumb, they're different: stalking the second tier. Research Corporation, Tucson. 1990.Google Scholar
- Turpen, C., and Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors' implementation of Peer Instruction. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5(2). 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom
Recommendations
Promoting Student Engagement Using Flipped Classroom in Large Introductory Financial Accounting Class
ICEEL '19: Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education and E-LearningFlipped classroom has become an instructional trend used by many universities especially in Science courses. The use of flipped instructional classroom encourages student to be actively engaged in their learning. However, the implementation of flipped ...
Student-Centered Learning: Create a Significant Learning Experience by Using Flipped Classroom Approach
SIGITE '19: Proceedings of the 20th Annual SIG Conference on Information Technology EducationThis lightning-talk paper aims to invoke discussions on promoting student-centered learning in IT education. We will present our pedagogical experiment using flipped classroom approach to create significant learning experiences in delivering a core IT ...
Applying the Polysynchronous Learning to Foster the Student-centered Learning in the Higher Education Context: A Blended Course Design
Teaching and learning computer programming has posed great challenges for both instructors and students. An emerging blended learning mode-polysynchronous learning has potentials to motivate and engage students in the programming learning process, to ...
Comments