Abstract
Student-centered instructional practices structure a class so that students interact with each other, engage deeply with the content, and receive formative feedback. These evidence-based practices benefit all students but are particularly effective with underrepresented learners, including women and members of other minority groups. To what extent have computer science (CS) faculty embraced these strategies? We surveyed over 700 U.S. faculty to find out. Results suggest that female faculty, associate professors, and those teaching courses with enrollment above 80 students are more likely to use these student-centered practices. Across all responses, 20% of faculty use student--student interaction on a regular basis during class. In contrast, 38% of faculty rely on lectures for content delivery. Results were also compared with published data for other academic disciplines. CS faculty are less likely to use these practices compared to their non-STEM colleagues but more likely to use these practices compared to other STEM discipline faculty. Overall, CS faculty have adopted student-centered practices to some degree, but our community should strive for higher adoption rates to help as many students as possible learn and remain in computer science.
- Susan A. Ambrose, Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C. Lovett, and Marie K. Norman. 2010. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, Wiley: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 2013. Measuring STEM teaching practices: A report from a national meeting on the measurement of undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teaching. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Leland L. Beck and Alexander W. Chizhik. 2013. Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 3, Article 10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul Black and Dylan William. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy 8 Practice 5, 1, 7--74.Google Scholar
- Maura Borrego, Jeffrey E. Froyd, and T. Simin Hall. 2010. Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education 99, 3, 185--207. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maura Borrego and Charles Henderson. 2014. Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies. Journal of Engineering Education 103, 2, 220--252. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michele T. H. Chi and Ruth Wylie. 2014. The ICAP Framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist 49, 4, 219--243. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Georgianne L. Connell, Deborah A. Donovan, and Timothy G. Chambers. 2016. Increasing the use of student-centered pedagogies from moderate to high improves student learning and attitudes about biology. CBE Life Sciences Education 15, 1, article 3. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Catherine H. Crouch and Eric Mazur. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69, 9, 970--977. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Terry L. Derting and Diane Ebert-May. 2010. Learner-centered inquiry in undergraduate biology: Positive relationships with long-term student achievement. CBE Life Sciences Education 9, 4, 462--472. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kevin Eagan, Ellen Bara Stolzenberg, Jennifer Berdan Lozano, Melissa C. Aragon, Maria Ramirez Suchard, and Sylvia Hurtado. 2014. Undergraduate Teaching Faculty: The 2013--2014 HERI Faculty Survey. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
- Richard M. Felder and Rebecca Brent. 2009. Active learning: An introduction. American Society for Quality Higher Education Brief, 2, 4, August.Google Scholar
- Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 111, 23, 8410--8415. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Graham Gibbs and Claire Simpson. 2004. Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1, 3--31.Google Scholar
- Scott Grissom. 2013. Introduction to special issue on alternatives to lecture in the computer science classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 3. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scott Grissom, Sue Fitzgerald, Renée McCauley, and Laurie Murphy. 2017. Exposed! CS faculty caught lecturing in public: A survey of instructional practices. SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education ACM, 261--266. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Haak, Janneke HilleRisLambers, Emile Pitre, and Scott Freeman. 2011. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332, 6034, 1213--1216.Google Scholar
- Brian Hanks, Sue Fitzgerald, Renée McCauley, Laurie Murphy, and Carol Zander. 2011. Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education 21, 2, 135--173. Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77, 1, 81--112. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Charles Henderson and Melissa H. Dancy. 2009. Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research 5, 2, 1--9. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Charles Henderson, Andrea Beach, and Noah Finkelstein. 2011. Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48, 952--984. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew T. Hora, Amanda Oleson, and Joseph J. Ferrare. 2013. Teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) user’s manual, Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin--Madison. Retrieved March 22, 2017 from http://tdop.wceruw.org/Document/TDOP-Users-Guide.pdf.Google Scholar
- Susan Horwitz, Susan Rodger, Maureen Biggers, David Binkley, C. Kolin Frantz, Dawn Gundermann, Susanne Hambrusch, Steven Huss-Lederman, Ethan Munson, Barbara Ryder, and Monica Sweat. 2009. Using peer-led team learning to increase participation and success of under-represented groups in introductory computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 1, 163--167. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jennifer K. Knight and William B. Wood. 2005. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education 4, 4, 298--310. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nancy Kober. 2015. Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Clif Kussmaul. 2012. Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) for computer science. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Raleigh, NC, Februart 29--March 3, 2012. ACM, New York, NY, 373--378.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scott E. Lewis. 2011. Retention and reform: An evaluation of peer-led team learning. Journal of Chemical Education 88, 6, 703--707. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mercedes Lorenzo, Catherine H. Crouch, and Eric Mazur. 2006. Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics 74, 2, 118--122. Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Heather Macdonald, Cathryn A. Manduca, David W. Mogk, and Barbara J. Tewksbury. 2005. Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 on the cutting edge survey of US faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education 53, 3, 237.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joel Michael. 2006. Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30, 4, 159--167. Google ScholarCross Ref
- PCAST—President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology. 2012. Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The White House, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Leo Porter, Cynthia Bailey Lee, and Beth Simon. 2013. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) Technical Symposium, March, 2013. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Leo Porter, Dennis Bouvier, Quintin Cutts, Scott Grissom, Cynthia Lee, Robert McCartney, Daniel Zingaro, and Beth Simon. 2016. A multi-institutional study of peer instruction in introductory computing. ACM Inroads 7, 2, 76--81. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elaine Puleo, Jane Zapka, Mary Jo White, Judy Mouchawar, Carol Somkin, and Stephen Taplin. 2002. Caffeine, cajoling, and other strategies to maximize clinician survey response rates. Evaluation and the Health Professions 25, 2, 169--184. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chris Rasmussen and Oh Nam Kwon. 2007. An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 26, 189--194. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daiyo Sawada, Michael D. Piburn, Eugene Judson, Kathleen Falconer, Russell Benford, and Irene Bloom. 2002. Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. School Science and Mathematics 102, 6, 245--253. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan R. Singer, Natalie R. Nielsen, and Heidi A. Schweingruber (eds). 2012. Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Michelle K. Smith, Francis H. M. Jones, Sarah L. Gilbert, and Carl E. Wieman. 2013. The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sciences Education 102, 6, 618--627. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jodi Tims, Stuart Sweben, and Jane Chu Prey. 2015. ACM NDC Study: The 2015 Survey of Non-Doctoral Granting Departments in Computing. Retrieved October 20, 2017 from http://www.acm.org/education/ndc2014-15.pdf.Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. T. Vernon and Robert L. Blake. 1993. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine 68, 7, 550--63.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Mitchell Waldrop. 2015. Why we are teaching science wrong, and how to make it right. Nature 523, 7560, 272--274. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Emily M. Walter, Charles R. Henderson, Andrea Beach, and Cody T. Williams. 2016. Introducing the postsecondary instructional practices survey (PIPS): A concise, interdisciplinary, and easy-to-score survey. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jessica Watkins and Eric Mazur. 2013. Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Science Teaching 42, 5, 36--41.Google Scholar
- Carl E. Wieman. 2014. Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 23, 8319--8320. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Carl E. Wieman and Sarah Gilbert. 2014. The teaching practices inventory: A new tool for characterizing college and university teaching in mathematics and science. CBE—Life Sciences Education 13, 552--569. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stuart Zweben and Betsy Bizot. 2015. Taulbee survey continued booming undergraduate CS enrollment; Doctoral degree production dips slightly. Retrieved October 20, 2017 from http://cra.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2015-Taulbee-Survey.pdf.Google Scholar
Index Terms
How Student Centered is the Computer Science Classroom? A Survey of College Faculty
Recommendations
Exposed! CS Faculty Caught Lecturing in Public: A Survey of Instructional Practices
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationMany research studies show students benefit from instructional practices that promote student interaction within the classroom. However, recent prominent reports suggest many instructors still rely on lecture as their dominant classroom activity. This ...
Retraining of college faculty for computer science (Panel Session)
SIGCSE '83: Proceedings of the fourteenth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science educationWilliam Mitchell, Moderator
This panel is convened so that the issues inherent in retraining strategies may be debated by representatives of the formal faculty retraining programs. The speakers will address the masters level retraining of college ...
Retraining of college faculty for computer science (Panel Session)
Proceedings of the 14th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science educationWilliam Mitchell, Moderator
This panel is convened so that the issues inherent in retraining strategies may be debated by representatives of the formal faculty retraining programs. The speakers will address the masters level retraining of college ...
Comments