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

ABSTRACT

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.

References

1. A. M. Al-Zahrani. From passive to active: The impact of the flipped classroom through social learning platforms on higher education students' creative thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6):1133--1148, 2015.
2. J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. Failure rates in introductory programming. SIGCSE Bull., 39(2):32--36, June 2007.
3. J. Bergmann and A. Sams. Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education, 2012.
4. S. Cheryan, V. C. Plaut, P. G. Davies, and C. M. Steele. Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of personality and social psychology, 97(6):1045, 2009.
5. T. Dahlberg, T. Barnes, K. Buch, and A. Rorrer. The stars alliance: Viable strategies for broadening participation in computing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(3):18, 2011.
6. S. L. Dazo, N. R. Stepanek, R. Fulkerson, and B. Dorn. An empirical analysis of video viewing behaviors in flipped cs1 courses. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '16, pages 106--111, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.
7. R. Deil-Amen. Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1):54--91, 2011.
8. S. L. Eddy and K. A. Hogan. Getting under the hood: how and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(3):453--468, 2014.
9. J. Goode and J. Margolis. Exploring computer science: A case study of school reform. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(2):12, 2011.
10. D. Gross, E. S. Pietri, G. Anderson, K. Moyano-Camihort, and M. J. Graham. Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(4):ar36, 2015.
11. N. A. Hamid. A functional flipped CS1. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., 32(2):120--126, Dec. 2016.
12. D. Horton, M. Craig, J. Campbell, P. Gries, and D. Zingaro. Comparing outcomes in inverted and traditional CS1. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '14, pages 261--266, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
13. G. Ladson-Billings. Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1):74--84, 2014.
14. C. Latulipe, N. B. Long, and C. E. Seminario. Structuring flipped classes with lightweight teams and gamification. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '15, pages 392--397, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.
15. A. Luxton-Reilly. Learning to program is easy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '16, pages 284--289, New York, NY, USA, 2016. ACM.
16. M. L. Maher, C. Latulipe, H. Lipford, and A. Rorrer. Flipped classroom strategies for CS education. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '15, pages 218--223, New York, NY, USA, 2015. ACM.
17. C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM, 49(8):90--95, Aug. 2006.
18. L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, and L. D. Fink. Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002.
19. L. K. Michaelsen and M. Sweet. Fundamental principles and practices of team-based learning. Team-based learning for health professions education: A guide to using small groups for improving learning. Sterling (VA): Stylus Publishing, pages 9--31, 2008.
20. J. Pirker, M. Riffnaller-Schiefer, and C. Gütl. Motivational active learning: Engaging university students in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '14, pages 297--302, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
21. L. Porter, M. Guzdial, C. McDowell, and B. Simon. Success in introductory programming: What works? Commun. ACM, 56(8):34--36, Aug. 2013.
22. L. Porter and B. Simon. Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '13, pages 165--170, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.
23. K. Sanders, J. Boustedt, A. Eckerdal, R. McCartney, and C. Zander. Folk pedagogy: Nobody doesn't like active learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, ICER '17, pages 145--154, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM.
24. P. Sankar, J. Gilmartin, and M. Sobel. An examination of belongingness and confidence among female computer science students. SIGCAS Comput. Soc., 45(2):7--10, July 2015.
25. A. Vihavainen, J. Airaksinen, and C. Watson. A systematic review of approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on success. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research, ICER '14, pages 19--26, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
26. C. Watson and F. W. Li. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '14, pages 39--44, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.
27. D. Zingaro. Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in cs1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '14, pages 373--378, New York, NY, USA, 2014. ACM.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • Computing education programs

        • Computer science education

          • CS1