CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
An impact comparison of two instructional scaffolding strategies employed in our programming laboratories: Employment of a supplemental teaching assistant versus employment of the pair programming methodology
Tác giả
Erdei R.; Springer J.A.; Whittinghill D.M.
Năm xuất bản
2017
Source title
Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE
Số trích dẫn
11
DOI
10.1109/FIE.2017.8190650
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
Instructional scaffolding is a well-researched, commonly-practiced educational technique whereby support is temporarily provided as an individual learns [1]. Grounded in constructivist teaching and learning theory, scaffolding historically referring to support provided by a teacher to a student. However, in the modern learning environment, instructors have access to a wide range of tools and techniques with which to help them scaffold learners [2]. This paper reports the findings of a design experiment comparing the employment of two instructional scaffolding strategies in reducing the impact of large laboratory class size on undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory computer programming course having a mandatory laboratory component. The design experiment compared the performance of students on programming procedural knowledge assessments as well as programming self-beliefs in two offerings of the course, each treated as a cohort, which differed in the instructional scaffolding strategy employed in the mandatory laboratory component. In one cohort, an undergraduate teaching assistant was used as a supplement to the laboratory instructor while students completed programming exercises in the laboratory component of the course. In the other cohort, a cooperative programming methodology known as pair programming was used as a supplement to the laboratory instructor while students completed programming exercises in the laboratory component of the course. Cohort composition, including school of study (e.g., Liberal Arts, Science, Technology, Engineering, Business, etc.), student classification (i.e., freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or other), gender ratio, and amount of prior programming experience, was comparable. Course content, administrative processes and assessment mechanisms (formative and summative) remained constant. Each student completed a summative assessment of programming procedural knowledge at weeks 7, 12, and 16 of the semester. Open ended feedback was solicited from each student via anonymous questionnaire during weeks 8 and 16 of the semester. Finally, each student completed a 19-item Likert-scale questionnaire investigating their self-beliefs on 5 constructs: debugging self-efficacy, programming self-concept, programming interest, programming anxiety, and programming aptitude mindset. The questionnaire employed to investigate self-beliefs is based on the Scott & Ghinea [3] instrument, modified for use in the specific context of the course. Our results indicate that the two scaffolding strategies provided comparable support to student learning during the first 12 weeks of the semester. However, during the last 4 weeks of the semester, the cohort scaffolded by a supplemental teaching assistant slightly outperformed the cohort scaffolded by employment of the pair programming methodology. This performance difference, though small, was statistically significant. Student programming self-beliefs, however, remained comparable between cohorts throughout the entire semester. Interestingly, the theme of 'immediacy of assistance' revealed itself during analysis of student open-ended feedback in both cohorts. These findings are considered using as lens Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development theoretical concept [4]. Implications are discussed for instructional practitioners considering employing these scaffoldings strategies in their own learning environments. © 2017 IEEE.
Từ khóa
Computer programming pedagogy; Cooperative learning; Instructional scaffolding; Pair programming; Programming self-beliefs; Undergraduate teaching assistant
Tài liệu tham khảo
Sawyer R.K., The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, pp. 11-12, (2006); Rosenshine B., Meister C., The use of scaffolds for teaching higher-level cognitive strategies, Educational Leadership, 49, 7, pp. 26-33, (1992); Scott M., Ghinea G., Measuring enrichment: The assembly and validation of an instrument to assess student self-beliefs in CS1, Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research, 2014, pp. 123-130, (2014); Vygotsky L., Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, (1978); Jenkins T., On the difficulty of learning to program, Proceedings for the 3rd Annual Conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, pp. 53-58, (2002); Hanks B., McDowell C., Draper D., Krnjajic M., Program quality with pair programming in CS1, Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 176-180, (2004); Robins A., Rountree J., Rountree N., Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion, Journal of Computer Science Education, 13, 2, pp. 137-172, (2003); Boyle T., Bradley C., Chalk P., Jones R., Pickard P., Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program, Journal of Educational Media, 28, 2-3, pp. 165-178, (2003); Bergin S., Reilly R., The influence of motivation and comfort-level on learning to program, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pp. 293-304, (2005); Bennedsen J., Caspersen M., Failure rates in introductory programming, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39, 2, pp. 32-36, (2007); Watson C., Li F., Failure rates in introductory programming revisited, Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 39-44, (2014); Erdei R., Whittinghill D., Springer J., Collaboration while programming: Observing student perceptions of pair programming in the classroom, Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, pp. 543-551, (2014); Wood D., Bruner J.S., Ross G., The role of tutoring in problem solving, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 2, pp. 89-100, (1976); Sharma P., Hannafin M., Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments, Interactive Learning Environments, 15, 1, pp. 27-46, (2007); Johnson D., Johnson R., Cooperation and the use of technology, Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, pp. 785-811, (2008); Bransford J., Brown A., Cocking R., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, (2000); Beck K., Andres C., Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, pp. 42-43, (2004); Arisholm B., Gallis H., Dyba T., Sjoberg D., Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33, 2, pp. 65-86, (2007); Kubiszyn T., Borich G., Educational Testing and Measurement: Classroom Application and Practice, pp. 186-188, (2004); Yelland N., Masters J., Rethinking scaffolding in the information age, Computers and Education, 48, 3, pp. 362-382, (2007)
Nơi xuất bản
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
Hình thức xuất bản
Conference paper
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus