Daniel Zingaro
Leo Porter
ABSTRACT
Peer Instruction has recently gained interest in computing as an effective active learning pedagogy. The general focus of PI research has been on the in-class portion of PI: multiple choice questions and group discussion. Here, our focus is the reading quizzes completed by students for purposes of class preparation. These quizzes contain content questions but also ask for difficulties or confusion with course material. Consistent with expectations, we demonstrate that providing correct responses to quiz questions positively correlates with other course assessments. Somewhat counter-intuitively, we find that identifying confusions, noting problematic sections, or asking questions about the reading are also correlated with lab grades.
- I. D. Beatty, W. J. Gerace, W. J. Leonard, and R. J. Dufresne. Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74:31--39, 2006.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- J. Carter. Introduction to Computer Science Using C. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2008.Google Scholar
- C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69:970--977, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. H. Crouch, J. Watkins, A. P. Fagen, and E. Mazur. Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. In E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney, editors, Research-Based Reform of University Physics. American Association of Physics Teachers, 2007.Google Scholar
- Q. Cutts, S. Esper, M. Fecho, S. R. Foster, and B. Simon. The abstraction transition taxonomy: Developing desired learning outcomes through the lens of situated cognition. In ICER '12: Proceedings of the Eighth international Workshop on Computing Education Research, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Q. Cutts, G. Kennedy, C. Mitchell, and S. Draper. Maximising dialogue in lectures using group response systems. 7th IASTED international conference on computers and advanced technology in education. www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/ quintin/papers/cate2004.pdf (accessed August 19, 2011)., 2004.Google Scholar
- K. A. Ericsson, R. T. Krampe, and C. Tesch-Roemer. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3):363--406, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Esper, B. Simon, and Q. Cutts. Exploratory homeworks: An active learning tool for textbook reading. In ICER '12: Proceedings of the Eighth international Workshop on Computing Education Research, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. K. Knight and W. B. Wood. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4:298--310, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Lasry. Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher, 46:242--244, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Lasry, E. Mazur, and J. Watkins. Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76:1066--1069, 2008.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Mazur. ICER 2011 keynote address, 2011.Google Scholar
- R. P. Pargas and D. M. Shah. Things are clicking in computer science courses. In SIGCSE '06: Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 474--478, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Porter, C. Bailey-Lee, B. Simon, and D. Zingaro. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In ICER '11: Proceedings of the Seventh international Workshop on Computing Education Research, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Simon and Q. Cutts. CS principles pilot at University of California, San Diego. ACM Inroads, 3(2):61--63, June 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Simon, M. Kohanfars, J. Lee, K. Tamayo, and Q. Cutts. Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 341--345, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, and T. T. Su. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323:122--124, 2009.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Zingaro. Experience report: Peer instruction in remedial computer science. In Ed-Media 2010: Proceedings of the 22nd World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, pages 5030--5035. AACE, 2010.Google Scholar
- D. Zingaro. Pi-cs resource page. www.danielzingaro.com/pics.php, 2012.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Peer instruction in computing: the role of reading quizzes
Recommendations
Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing?
ICER '11: Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education researchPeer Instruction (PI) is an instructional approach that engages students in constructing their own understanding of concepts. Students individually respond to a question, discuss with peers, and respond to the same question again. In general, the peer ...
Peer instruction: a link to the exam
ITiCSE '14: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science educationIn computer science, the active learning pedagogical practice of Peer Instruction (PI) has been shown to improve final exam performance, reduce student failure rates, and improve student retention. PI consists of two major parts: group discussion and ...
Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1
SIGCSE '14: Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science educationRecent work in computing suggests that Peer Instruction (PI) is a valuable interactive learning pedagogy: it lowers fail rates, increases retention, and is enjoyed by students and instructors alike. While these findings are promising, they are somewhat ...
Comments