skip to main content
10.1145/3501709.3544296acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
abstract

Digitally Supported Introductory University Teaching in Computer Science Considering Heterogeneous Groups

Published:07 August 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

In large introductory Computer Science (CS) courses at universities, lecturers are often confronted with a high heterogeneity among the students. To improve the teaching a course concept on the basis on Flipped Classroom was designed among other CS1-related research on different levels. An active exercise was evaluated with mixed methods and further developed, which supplemented digital interactive materials as a basis. Involving project work, different schedules for mandatory tasks were tried out resulting in increasing periods. A gamification concept was developed to further support motivation. Additional research was done on the students’ views on the course, the meaning and impact of Frustration Tolerance in the context of CS studies and on the level of designing digital learning materials containing programming examples.

References

  1. J. Bergmann and A. Sams. 2012. Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. International Society for Technology in Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jennifer Campbell, Diane Horton, Michelle Craig, and Paul Gries. 2014. Evaluating an Inverted CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (SIGCSE ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538943Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. European Social Survey. 2014. ESS Round 7 Translation Guidelines. http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/round7/methods/ESS7_translation_guidelines.pdf. London: ESS ERIC Headquarters, Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London, last accessed on 15.02.2022.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Hossein Hakimzadeh, Raman Adaikkalavan, and Robert Batzinger. 2011. Successful Implementation of an Active Learning Laboratory in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 39th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services (San Diego, California, USA) (SIGUCCS ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2070364.2070386Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Neil Harrington. 2005. The Frustration Discomfort Scale: development and psychometric properties. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 12 (09 2005), 374 – 387. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.465Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Mark Hodges. 2019. Flipping One Day Each Week in a Smaller CS1 Course: An Experience Report. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 34, 7 (April 2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Diane Horton, Michelle Craig, Jennifer Campbell, Paul Gries, and Daniel Zingaro. 2014. Comparing Outcomes in Inverted and Traditional CS1. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (Uppsala, Sweden) (ITiCSE ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591752Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Tony Jenkins. 2002. On the difficulty of learning to program. In 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Anette Kolmos. 1996. Reflections on Project Work and Problem-based Learning. European Journal of Engineering Education 21, 2 (1996), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043799608923397Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Clifton L. Kussmaul. 2008. Scaffolding for Multiple Assignment Projects in CS1 and CS2. In Companion to the 23rd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (Nashville, TN, USA) (OOPSLA Companion ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1449814.1449890Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Maureen Lage, Glenn Platt, and Michael Treglia. 2000. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. Journal of Economic Education 31 (12 2000). https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Celine Latulipe, N. Bruce Long, and Carlos E. Seminario. 2015. Structuring Flipped Classes with Lightweight Teams and Gamification. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Kansas City, Missouri, USA) (SIGCSE ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677240Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Elisaweta Ossovski, Daniel Kalbreyer, Laura Hembrock, and Michael Brinkmeier. 2021. Cooperative Gamification in a Computer Science Introductory Module. In Proceedings of the 10th Computer Science Education Research Conference (Virtual Event, Netherlands) (CSERC ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1145/3507923.3507953Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Saquib Razak. 2013. A Case for Course Capstone Projects in CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Denver, Colorado, USA) (SIGCSE ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445398Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. C. P. Rosiene and J. A. Rosiene. 2019. To Flip or Not to Flip: Experiences with a Hybrid Approach. In 2019 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Namita Sarawagi. 2014. A Flipped CS0 Classroom: Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to Algorithmic Thinking. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 29, 6 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Rolf Schulmeister and Christiane Metzger. 2011. Der Workload im Bachelor. Zeitbudget und Studierverhalten. Eine empirische Studie.Waxmann, Münster.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Richard Wicentowski and Tia Newhall. 2005. Using Image Processing Projects to Teach CS1 Topics. SIGCSE Bull. 37, 1 (Feb. 2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1047124.1047445Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

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
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ICER '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 2
    August 2022
    57 pages
    ISBN:9781450391955
    DOI:10.1145/3501709

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 7 August 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate189of803submissions,24%

    Upcoming Conference

    ICER 2024
    ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
    August 13 - 15, 2024
    Melbourne , VIC , Australia
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)25
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format