1 / 19

Outline

Van Gorp, Mark J.; Grissom, Scott . An Empirical Evaluation of Using Constructive Classroom Activities to Teach Introductory Programming. Computer Science Education 2001, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 247-260. Outline. Abstract Two fundamentally different theoretical models Three “C”

gary-rogers
Download Presentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Van Gorp, Mark J.; Grissom, Scott . An Empirical Evaluation of Using Constructive Classroom Activities to Teach Introductory Programming. Computer Science Education 2001, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 247-260

  2. Outline • Abstract • Two fundamentally different theoretical models • Three “C” • Constructivism in computer science education literature • Creating collaborative and constructive environments • Method • Results , discussion , Conclusion

  3. Abstract • This paper explores an alternative pedagogical approach that emphasizes constructive and collaborative learning in CS1 classrooms. • Compare the cognitive and affective differences of students whose instructors used activities such as these with students whose instructors maintained more traditional lecture environments. • A positive correlation was found between frequency and mean final exam scores.

  4. Two fundamentally different theoretical models-1 • Objectivism-Objectivists believe that learning often occurs when students listen to an instructor's explanation, engage in reinforced practice, and respond to external motivation (Fosnot, 1996; Skinner, 1953). • Often manifests itself in teacher-centered and teacher-controlled classrooms.

  5. Two fundamentally different theoretical models-2 • Constructivism-focus more on the learning and experiences of the student. • About previous experiences and considering alternative perspectives held by others (Bednar,Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1992). • Constructivist classrooms are often viewed as problem-solving environments

  6. Three C • Context-given problems  provide internal motivation • Construction-Activities  Construct knowledge • Collaboration-With their peersAids the knowledge construction and re-construction

  7. Constructivism in computer science education literature • Kim, Sharp, and Thompson (1998) have shown constructivist valuein mathematics reform. • Ramsey, Rada, and Acquah (1994) write that collaborative learning for computer science students can be effective when a well-formulated methodology for working exists. • Keeler and Anson (1995) found that cooperative learning enhanced learning performance and student retention in a computer literacy course. • Gorriz and Medina (2000) and McGrath(1990) note that girls in particular excel in those computing environments where learning is collaborative.

  8. CREATING COLLABORATIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE ENVIRONMENTS • Code Walkthroughs • Writing Code • Scaffolding • Code Debugging • Lecture Note Reconstruction

  9. Code Walkthroughs • Through existing code and predict the outputpractice and understand

  10. Writing Code • Have groups write code to solve a small problem.Groups are motivated to write a complete solution since they may be called to share their solution. • Assign one or two small problems for students to solve before coming to class.

  11. Scaffolding • Novices need additional support to solve a problem. • Give them code that solves a given problem.Scaffolding

  12. Code DebuggingAnd Lecture Note Reconstruction • Let students can contribute to finding errors. • Ask students to not take notes during a mini lecture( 15min ).have a few minutes to reconstruct an outline of the lecture from memory.help students improve their listening skills (Bonwell, 1996).

  13. 方法與程序 • 參與者：CS1 課程分成六班，各32位學生，由不同教學風格的老師任教。 • 時間安排：共15週，每週四次，每次一小時的講課和兩小時的實驗。 • 課程與要求：Java。學生必須完成6個程式設計專案、兩次期中考（相同範圍不一樣內容）、一次期末考（一樣的內容）。 • 對老師的要求：每個老師教學內容要一致，但教學風格可依自己的習慣。 • 學生上完課感覺建構活動的發生頻率與感受其課程對於自我的幫助性。課程結束前兩週要完成調查 • 考完期末考之後，老師們在一起評分。評分過程中學生姓名需遮住。因為期末成績都考同一份考卷，所以具有高可靠性 • 學生在課程結束後，還必須填態度問卷。 • 考慮WDF rate 。 (Chase & Okie, 2000)

  14. 結果 期末成績呈線性成長，與建構活動發生頻率有少許正向關係(p<0.05、N=147)

  15. 在Never(60.44)與Daily(94.11)兩組有很大的差異。這個差別不具統計顯著(p=0.146)。因此，我們不能根統計推論有建構性的活動的頻率確實解釋考試等級的差別。在Never(60.44)與Daily(94.11)兩組有很大的差異。這個差別不具統計顯著(p=0.146)。因此，我們不能根統計推論有建構性的活動的頻率確實解釋考試等級的差別。

  16. 無法看出在WDF rate與建構性活動的頻率有何相關

  17. 活動頻率與學生平均回應的感受沒有正相關

  18. 活動頻率與學生滿意度沒有正相關

  19. DISCUSSION • 研究結果使得我們無法推論任何期末考試得分與合作建構式活動的頻率相關可能活動設計不好(Slavin,1990)。 • 另一個失敗因數可能是我們給學生的專案作業相同。 • 教師在考試前出題,可能也造成失敗,應該由第三人設計題目。 • WDF rate並不適用在這個研究環境。 • 因為教室環境隨時在變化,所以很難做質的研究。 • 未來應該考慮學生的起點行為,性別學習能力與年齡。

More Related