skip to main content
research-article

How Student Centered is the Computer Science Classroom? A Survey of College Faculty

Published:30 November 2017Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Paul Black and Dylan William. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy 8 Practice 5, 1, 7--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Catherine H. Crouch and Eric Mazur. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69, 9, 970--977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Richard M. Felder and Rebecca Brent. 2009. Active learning: An introduction. American Society for Quality Higher Education Brief, 2, 4, August.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Graham Gibbs and Claire Simpson. 2004. Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1, 3--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Scott Grissom. 2013. Introduction to special issue on alternatives to lecture in the computer science classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77, 1, 81--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jennifer K. Knight and William B. Wood. 2005. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education 4, 4, 298--310. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Nancy Kober. 2015. Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Scott E. Lewis. 2011. Retention and reform: An evaluation of peer-led team learning. Journal of Chemical Education 88, 6, 703--707. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Joel Michael. 2006. Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30, 4, 159--167. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Chris Rasmussen and Oh Nam Kwon. 2007. An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 26, 189--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. M. Mitchell Waldrop. 2015. Why we are teaching science wrong, and how to make it right. Nature 523, 7560, 272--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How Student Centered is the Computer Science Classroom? A Survey of College Faculty

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
      ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 18, Issue 1
      March 2018
      127 pages
      EISSN:1946-6226
      DOI:10.1145/3155324
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 30 November 2017
      • Revised: 1 August 2017
      • Accepted: 1 August 2017
      • Received: 1 April 2017
      Published in toce Volume 18, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader