Leland Beck
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Cooperative learning is a well-known instructional technique that has been applied with a wide variety of subject matter and a broad spectrum of populations. This article briefly reviews the principles of cooperative learning, and describes how these principles were incorporated into a comprehensive set of cooperative learning activities for a CS1 course. In each activity, specific roles are assigned to group members in order to highlight important concepts and to enhance the overall functioning of the group. The group processing is followed by a whole-class debriefing led by the instructor, which works in tandem with the group activity to help students improve their understanding of the material. The effectiveness of these cooperative learning activities was assessed in a series of educational research studies which spanned three academic years and included two different instructors. The results of these studies show statistically significant benefits from the cooperative learning approach, both overall and for a broad range of subgroups of students. The article concludes with suggestions for faculty members who may want to use these cooperative learning activities in the classroom, or to develop their own activities along similar lines.
- Alexander, M. G., Chizhik, A. W., Chizhik, E. W., and Goodman, J. A. 2009. Lower-status participation and influence: Task structure matters. J. Social Issues 65, 2, 365--381.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Bargh, J. A. and Schul, Y. 1980. On the cognitive benefits of teaching. J. Educ. Psychol. 72, 5, 593--604.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Beck, K. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beck, L. L. and Chizhik, A. W. 2008. An experimental study of cooperative learning in CS1. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'08). ACM Press, New York, 205--209. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beck, L. L., Chizhik, A. W., and Mcelroy, A. C. 2005. Cooperative learning techniques in CS1: Design and experimental evaluation. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'05). ACM Press, New York, 470--474. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Braught, G., Eby, L. M., and Wahls, T. 2008. The effects of pair-programming on individual programming skill. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'08). ACM Press, New York, 200--204. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chase, J. D. and Okie, E. G. 2000. Combining cooperative learning and peer instruction in introductory computer science. In Proceedings of the 31st SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'00), S. Haller, Ed., ACM Press, New York, 372--376. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chizhik, A. W. 1998. Collaborative learning through high-level verbal interaction: From theory to practice. The Clearing House 72, 1, 58--61.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chizhik, A. W. 2001. Equity and status in group collaboration: Learning through explanations depends on task characteristics. Social Psychol. Educ. 5, 179--200.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chizhik, A. W., Shelly, R. K., and Troyer, L. 2009. Intragroup conflict and cooperation: An introduction. J. Social Issues 65, 2, 251--259.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chizhik, A. W., Alexander, M., Chizhik, E. W., and Goodman, J. 2003. The rise and fall of power and prestige orders: Influence of task structure. Social Psychol. Quart. 66, 3, 303--317.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cohen, E. G. 1994. Restructuring the classroom: conditions for productive small groups. Rev. Educ. Res. 64, 1, 1--35.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. A., and Abram, P. L. 2002. Can groups learn? Teachers College Rec. 104, 6, 1045--1068.Google Scholar
- Cohen, E. G. and Lotan, R. A. 1995. Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. Amer. Educ. Res. J. 32, 1, 99--120.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cole, M. and Hatano, G. 2007. Cultural-historical activity theory: Integrating phylogeny, cultural history, and ontogenesis in cultural psychology. In Handbook of Cultural Psychology, S. Kitayama and D. Cohen, Eds., Guilford Press, New York, 109--135.Google Scholar
- Damon, W. 1984. Peer education: The untapped potential. J. Appl. Devel. Psychol. 5, 4, 331--343.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Esmonde, I. 2009. Mathematics learning in groups: Analyzing equity in two cooperative activity structures. J. Learn. Sci. 18, 2, 247--284.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Falkner, K. and Palmer, E. 2009. Developing authentic problem solving skills in introductory computing classes. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'09). ACM Press, New York, 4--8. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fenci, H. and Scheel, K. 2005. Engaging students. J. College Sci. Teach. 35, 1, 20--24.Google Scholar
- Gonzalez, G. 2006. A systematic approach to active and cooperative learning in CS1 and its effects on CS2. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'06). ACM Press, New York, NY, 133--137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hanks, B. 2006. Student attitudes toward pair programming. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITICSE'06). ACM Press, New York, 113--117. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hanks, B., Mcdowell, C., Draper, D., and Krnjajic, M. 2004. Program quality with pair programming in CS1. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE'04). ACM Press, New York, 176--180. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hanson, D. M. 2006. Instructor's Guide to Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. Pacific Crest, Lisle, IL.Google Scholar
- Hanson, D. M. and Wolfskill, T. 2000. Process workshops—A new model for instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 77, 120--130.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harel, G. and Sowder, L. 2005. Advanced mathematical thinking at any age: Its nature and its development. Math. Thinking Learn. Int. J. 7, 1, 27--50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hinde, R. J. and Kovac, J. 2001. Student active learning methods in physical chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 78, 93--99.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. 1998. Learning Together and Alone 5th Ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. 1991. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Interaction Book Company, Edina, MN.Google Scholar
- Joseph, A. and Payne, M. 2003. Group dynamics and collaborative group performance. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'03). ACM Press, New York, 368--371. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., and Larkin, K. C. 1987. Comparison of three theoretically derived variables in predicting career and academic behavior. J. Counsel. Psychol. 34, 3, 293--298.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lewis, C. 1997. The social drama of literature discussions in a fifth/sixth-grade classroom. Res. Teach. English 31, 163--204.Google Scholar
- Lewis, S. E. and Lewis, J. E. 2005. Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. J. Chem. Educ. 82, 135--139.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mcdowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., and Fernald, J. 2002. The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course. In Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'02). ACM Press, New York, 38--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mentz, E., van Der Walt, J. L., and Goosen, L. 2008. The effect of incorporating cooperative learning principles in pair programming for student teachers. Comput. Sci. Educ. 18, 247--260.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moog, R. S. and Spencer, J. N., Eds. 2008. Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. 2005. How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Nelson, C. E. 1996. Student diversity requires different approaches to college teaching, even in math and science. Amer. Behav. Scientist 40, 165--175.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nussbaum, M. E. 2008. Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 33, 3, 345--359.Google ScholarCross Ref
- O'Donnell, A. M. 2006. The role of peers and group learning. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2nd Ed, P. Alexander and P. Winne, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 781--802.Google Scholar
- Osborne, J. 2010. Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Sci. 328, 5977, 463--466.Google Scholar
- Pattis, R. E. 1995. Karel The Robot: A Gentle Introduction to the Art of Programming 2nd Ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rogoff, B. 1990. Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Roschelle, J. 1996. Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. In CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm, T. Koschmann, Ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 209--248.Google Scholar
- Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., and Hall, R. M. 1996. The Chilly Classroom Climate: A Guide to Improve the Education of Women. National Association for Women in Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Seymour, E. and Hewitt, N. M. 1997. Talking about Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. West View Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
- Sharan, S., Ed. 1990. Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
- Sharan, S., Ed. 1994. Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.Google Scholar
- Slavin, R. E. 1995, Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice 2nd Ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- Sormunen-Jones, C., Chalupa, M. R., and Charles, T. A. 2000. The dynamics of gender impact on group achievement. Delta Pi Epsilon J. 42, 154--170.Google Scholar
- Troeger, D. 1995. Formal methods, design, and collaborative learning in the first computer science course. New Directions Teach. Learn. 61, 55--66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Troyer, L. and Youngreen, R. 2009. Conflict and creativity in groups. J. Social Issues 65, 2, 409--427.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Veenman, S., Denessen, E., van den Akker, A., and van der Rijt, J. 2005. Effects of a cooperative learning program on the elaborations of students during help seeking and help giving. Amer. Educ. Res. J. 42, 115--151.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vygotsky, L. 1962. Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Walker, H. M. 1997. Collaborative learning: A case study for CS1 at Grinnell College and UT-Austin. In Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'97). J. E. Miller, Ed., ACM Press, New York, 209--213. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Webb, N. M. 1984. Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. J. Educ. Psychol. 76, 33--34.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Webb, N. M. 1991. Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. J. Res. Math. Educ. 22, 5, 366--89.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Webb, N. 2009. The teacher's role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. Brit. J. Educ. Psychol. 79, 1, 1--28.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Webb, N. M., Baxter, G. P., and Thompson, L. 1997. Teachers' grouping practices in fifth-grade science classrooms. Elementary School J. 98, 91--113.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Webb, N. M. and Palincsar, A. S. 1996. Group processes in the classroom. In Handbook of Research in Educational Psychology, D. Berliner and R. Calfee, Eds., Prentice-Hall, London, 841--873.Google Scholar
- Webster, M. and Rashotte, L. S. 2010. Behavior, expectations, and status. Social Forces 88, 3, 1021--1049.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wenger, E., Mcdermott, R., and Snyder, W. M. 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Williams, L. 2000. The collaborative software process. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
- Williams, L. and Kessler, R. 2002. Pair Programming Illuminated. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Williams, L., Kessler, R., Cunningham, W., and Jeffries, R. 2002a. Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Softw. 19, 19--25. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Williams, L., Layman, L., Slaten, K. M., Berenson, S. B., and Seaman, C. 2007. On the impact of a collaborative pedagogy on african american millennial students in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, 677--687. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Williams, L., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., and Miller, C. 2002b. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Comput. Sci. Educ. 12, 197--212.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yerion, K. A. and Rinehart, J. A. 1995. Guidelines for collaborative learning in computer science. SIGCSE Bull. 27, 4, 29--34. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation
Recommendations
An experimental study of cooperative learning in cs1
SIGCSE '08: Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science educationAn experiment was conducted to study the effectiveness of the cooperative learning approach to teaching CS1. The cooperative learning exercises, which used specific roles to focus students' attention on key concepts, were designed so they could be used ...
Cooperative learning techniques in CS1: design and experimental evaluation
A set of cooperative learning exercises were designed for use in a Java-based CS1 course. The exercises used specific roles to focus students' attention on key concepts of the Java language, and on key mental processes of programming and problem ...
Reducing lecture and increasing student activity in large computer science courses
This paper describes how one instructor uses a web-based tool called MessageGrid in a laptop-enhanced computer science course to accomplish five goals: (1) to solicit questions from students regarding pre-lecture reading assignments, (2) to engage the ...
Comments