Dirk Grunwald
Andy Sayler
ABSTRACT
Fostering an effective learning environment in large classes is a challenge: instructors and teaching assistants are stretched thin across many students, students often lack opportunities for personal interaction with course staff, and the size of the classes makes them seem impersonal. Furthermore, students in large classes can often find solutions to their labs and assignments online or copy them from other students, diminishing their impetus to learn and raising plagiarism concerns.
This paper describes our experience and evaluation of an assessment method that resolves many of these problems and appears to scale to large classes of 600+ students. Using this method, students are evaluated via a combination of automatic grading mechanisms (or clear objective rubrics) and a 1-on-1 "grading interview". The grading interview serves to ensure the provenance of the student's work product and their depth of understanding. This change allows us to make more effective use of peer-instruction and pair-programming in our courses. It also provides the ability to re-use assignments, the insurance of timely feedback to students, and the opportunity for individualized staff attention.
This paper describes variations on this method across numerous classes over the past seven years, some of the goals of this method, modifications and adaptations of the method over time, and the student experience of using this method based on survey feedback.
- V. Balijepally, R. Mahapatra, S. Nerur, and K. H. Price. Are two heads better than one for software development? the productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Q., 33(1):91--118, Mar. 2009. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- L. L. Beck and A. W. Chizhik. An experimental study of cooperative learning in cs1. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '08, pages 205--209, New York, NY, USA, 2008 ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Y. T. B. Blog. Stanford finds computer science students cheat more than others. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/stanford-finds-computer-science-students-cheat-more-than-others/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0, Feb 2010.Google Scholar
- G. Braught, T. Wahls, and L. M. Eby. The case for pair programming in the computer science classroom. Trans. Comput. Educ., 11(1):2:1--2:21, Feb. 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. C. Carver, L. Henderson, L. He, J. Hodges, and D. Reese. Increased retention of early computer science and software engineering students using pair programming. In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training, CSEET '07, pages 115--122, Washington, DC, USA, 2007. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. P. East and J. B. Schafer. In-person grading: an evaluative experiment. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education - SIGCSE '05, page 378, New York, New York, USA, 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. P. Fagen, C. H. Crouch, and E. Mazur. Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4):206--209, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Mac. The temptation to cheat in computer science classes at stanford. http://bayarea.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/heading-off-the-temptation-to-cheat-in-computer-science-classes-at-stanford/, Feb 2010.Google Scholar
- C. D. Marsan. Why computer science students cheat. Network World: http://www.pcworld.com/article/194486/Computer_Science_Students_Cheating.html, April 2010.Google Scholar
- C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. Bullock, and J. Fernald. 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, pages 38--42, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Porter, C. Bailey Lee, and B. Simon. 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, SIGCSE '13, pages 177--182, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Porter, M. Guzdial, C. McDowell, and B. Simon. Success in introductory programming: What works? Commun. ACM, 56(8):34--36, Aug. 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. M. Walker. A lab-based approach for introductory computing that emphasizes collaboration. In Computer Science Education Research Conference, CSERC '11, pages 21--31, Open Univ., Heerlen, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, 2011. Open Universiteit, Heerlen. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Personalized Attention @ Scale: Talk Isn't Cheap, But It's Effective
Recommendations
The Development of Blended-Learning Teaching Portfolio Course Using TBL Approach
This article was written to develop a teaching portfolio that helps lecturers maximize the benefits of blended learning, a combination of in-person and online learning, through the use of Team-Based Learning TBL teaching and learning approach. Studies ...
Student and instructor experiences in the inverted classroom
FIE '12: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)This paper discusses our ongoing experiences with teaching software engineering through an inverted classroom. This course format moves traditional lectures out of in-class hours and into the student's personal study time with prerecorded lectures. We ...
Software security education at scale
ICSE '16: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering CompanionMassively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) provide a unique opportunity to reach out to students who would not normally be reached by alleviating the need to be physically present in the classroom. However, teaching software security coursework outside of a ...
Comments