Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1? An empirical comparison with a traditional approach

SIGCSE'10 - Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 500-504

  Hundhausen, Christopher ^a   Agrawal, Anukrati ^a   Fairbrother, Dana ^b   Trevisan, Michael ^b  

^a Washington State University   (United States)

^b WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Code inspection; CS1; Pedagogical code review; Peer review; Studio based learning and instruction

Indexed keywords

CODE INSPECTIONS; CODE REVIEW; COMPUTING COURSE; COMPUTING EDUCATION; CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS; EMPIRICAL COMPARISON; EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON; FINE ARTS; INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS; LEARNING OUTCOME; PEDAGOGICAL CODE REVIEW; PEER LEARNING; PEER REVIEW; SELF EFFICACY; SOFTWARE INDUSTRY; TRADITIONAL COURSE;

CODES (SYMBOLS); EDUCATION COMPUTING; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; INSPECTION; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; STUDIOS;

TEACHING;

EID: 77952113659     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1734263.1734432     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Anewalt, K. Using peer review as a vehicle for communication skill development and active learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 21, 2 (2005), 148-155.
2. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Worth, New York.
3. Docherty, M., Sutton, P., Brereton, M., and Kaplan, S. An innovative design and studio-based CS degree. In Proc. 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 2001, 233-237.
4. Faro, S. and Swan, K. An investigation of the efficacy of the studio model at the high school level. Journal of Educational Computing Research 35, 1 (2006), 45-59.
5. Gehringer, E. Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer science courses. In Proc. 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2001, 139-143.
6. Gehringer, E., Chinn, D., MArdis, M., and Perez-Quinones, M. Panel: Using peer review in teaching computing. In Proc. 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2005, 321-322. (Pubitemid 40821263)
7. Gilb, T. and Graham, D. Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1993.
8. Hundhausen, C., Agrawal, A., Fairbrother, D., and Trevisan, M. Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS 1 course: an empirical study. In Proc. 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 2009, 291-295.
9. Hundhausen, C., Narayanan, N., and Crosby, M. Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. In Proc. 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2008, 392-396.
10. Lackney, J. A History of the Studio-based Learning Model. 1999. http://www.edi.msstate.edu/studio.htm.
11. Lister, B. Next generation studio: A new model for interactive learning. 2001. http://www.ciue.rpi.edu/pdfs/nextGenStudio.pdf.
12. Lynch, K., Carbone, A., Jamieson, P., and Arnott, D. Adopting a studio-based education approach into information technology (poster session). Proc. Australasian conference on computing education, ACM New York, 2000, 254.
13. McKinney, J., McKinney, K., Franiuk, R., and Schweitzer, J. The college classroom as a community: Impact on student attitudes and learning. College Teaching 54, , 281-284.
14. Myneni, L., Ross, M., Hendrix, D., and Narayanan, N. Studio-based learning in CS2: An experience report. In Proc. 46th ACM southeast conference (ACM-SE 2008). ACM Press, New York, 2008, 253-255.
15. Pintrich, D., Smith, D., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI, 1991.
16. Reily, K., Finnerty, P.L., and Terveen, L. Two peers are better than one: aggregating peer reviews for computing assignments is surprisingly accurate. Proc. ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, ACM, New York, 2009, 115-124.
17. Reimer, Y. and Douglas, S. Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education 13, 3 (2003), 191-205.
18. Trivedi, A., Kar, D., and Patterson-McNeill, H. Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 18, 4 (2003), 30-37.
19. Trytten, D. A design for team peer code review. In Proc. 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2005, 455-459.
20. Wiegers, K. Improving quality with software inspections. Software Development 3, 4 (1995), 55-64.