An integrated framework for improved Computer Science Education: Strategies, implementations, and results

Computer Science Education

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 59-83

  Soh, Leen Kiat ^a   Samal, Ashok ^a   Nugent, Gwen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958128012     PISSN: 08993408     EISSN: 17445175     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08993400701203782     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL). December 15 2003. DoD affirms SCORM'S role in training transformation [Press release] December 15, Retrieved May 12, 2004, from http://www.adlnet.org
2. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL). 2004. Sharable content object reference model (SCORM): 2004 overview Retrieved May 12, 2004, from http://www.adlnet.org/
3. Allan, V. H., and Kolesar, M. V., Teaching computer science: A problem solving approach that works. Proceedings of the Annual National Educational Computing Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED393878)
4. Anderson, R., and Roxa, T., Encouraging students in large classes. Proceedings of the 31st SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'2000). pp. 176–179. New York: ACM Press.
5. Bloom, B. S., 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book 1, Cognitive domain, New York: Longman.
6. Boster, F. J., Meyer, G. S., Roberto, A. J., and Inge, C. C., 2002. A report on the effect of the united streaming application on educational performance, Farmville, VA: Longwood University. Retrieved November 8, 2004 from http://caret.iste.org/index.cfm?StudyID=852&fuseaction=studySummary
7. Bradley, C., and Boyle, T., 2004. The design, development, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (4): 371–389.
8. Bruce, K. B., 2004. Controversy on how to teach CS 1: A discussion on the SIGCSE-members mailing list. The SIGCSE Bulletin, 36 (4): 29–34.
9. Cox, K., and Clark, D., 1998. The use of formative quizzes for deep learning. Computers and Education, 30 (3/4): 157–167.
10. Cross, J. H., Hendrix, T. D., and Barowski, L. A., Using the debugger as an integral part of teaching CS1. Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Edited by: Budny, D., and Bjedov, G., Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press. F1G-1-FIG-6
11. Dabbagh, N., Creating personal relevance through adapting an educational task, situationally to a learners individual needs. Proceedings of the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397787)
12. Doran, M. V., and Langan, D. D., A cognitive-based approach to introductory computer science courses: lessons learned. Proceedings of the 26th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'95). pp. 218–222. New York: ACM Press.
13. Gatfield, T., 1999. Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment and Evolution in Higher Education, 24 (4): 365–377.
14. Geitz, R., Concepts in the classroom, programming in the lab. Proceedings of the 25th SIGSE Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'94). pp. 164–168. New York: ACM Press.
15. Guzdial, M., and Soloway, E., 2002. Teaching the Nintendo generation to program. Communications of the ACM, 45 (4): 17–21.
16. Herrmann, N., Poppyack, J, Char, B, Zoski, P., Cera, C, Lass, R., Redesigning introductory computer programming using multilevel online modules for a mixed audience. Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Edited by: Grissom, S., Knox, D., Joyce, D., and Dann, W., pp. 196–200. New York: ACM Press.
17. Herrmann, N., Poppyack, J, Char, B., and Zoski, P., Assessment of a course redesign: Introductory computer programming using online modules. Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Edited by: Joyce, D., Knox, D., Dann, W., and Naps, T. L., pp. 66–70. New York: ACM Press.
18. Jensen, M., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T., 2002. Impact of positive interdependence during electronic quizzes on discourse and achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 95 (3): 161–166.
19. Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T., 1989. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research, Edina, MS: Interaction Books.
20. Koppi, T., and Lavitt, N., Institutional use of learning objects three years on lessons. ED-MEDIA 2003, Proceedings of Learning Objects Symposium: Lessons learned questions asked. Edited by: Duval, E., Hodgins, W., Rehak, D., and Robson, R., pp. 33–43. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Retrieved November 8, 2004, from http://www.aace.org/conf/edmedia/LO2003Symposium.pdf
21. Kumar, A. N., 2003. The effects of closed laboratory assignments in computer science I: an assessment. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18 (5): 40–48.
22. Lischner, R., Explorations: structured laboratory assignments for first-time programmers. Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'2001). pp. 154–158. New York: ACM Press.
23. Longmire, W., 2000. “ A primer on learning objects ”. In Learning Circuits: ASTD's Online Magazine about E-learning Retrieved November 25, 2003, from http://learningcircuits.org
24. Lang, J., Nugent, G., Samal, A., and Soh, L.- K., 2006. Implementing CS1 with embedded instructional research design in laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49 (1): 157–165.
25. Malinger, M., 1998. Collaborative learning across borders: Dealing with student resistance. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 9 (1): 53–68.
26. Mayer, R., 2001. Multimedia learning, New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, E., and Fernald, J., The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering. Edited by: Jacobs, A., and Titsworth, F., pp. 602–607. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
28. Nugent, G. C., 2005. The use of learning objects in K – 12: a public television perspective. Tech Trends, 49 (4): 61–66.
29. Nugent, G., Soh, L.- K., Samal, A., and Lang, J., 2006. A placement test for computer science: design, implementation, and analysis. Computer Science Education, 16 (1): 19–36.
30. Oliver, S. R., and Dalbey, J., A software development process laboratory for CS1 and CS2. Proceedings of the 25th SIGSE Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'94). pp. 169–173. New York: ACM Press.
31. Parker, B. C., and McGregor, J. D., A goal-oriented approach to laboratory development and implementation. Proceedings of the 26th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'95). pp. 92–96. New York: ACM Press.
32. Pasnik, S., and Nudell, H., 2003. PBS K-12 digital classroom pilot evaluation report, New York: Center for Children and Technology.
33. Pintrich, P. R., and DeGroot, E. V., 1990. Motivation and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1): 33–40.
34. Powers, K., A self-fulfilling prophecy: Online distance learning for introductory computing. Proceedings of the National Educational Computing Conference 1999. Washington, DC: ISTE. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432994)
35. Prey, J. C., Cooperative learning in an undergraduate computer science curriculum [Electronic version]. Proceedings of ASEE/IEEE 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference. Edited by: Bjedov, G., and Perry, J. B., (Session 3c23) (vol. 2, pp. 3c2.11-3c2.14). Retrieved November 8, 2004, from http://fie.engrng.pitt.edu/fie95/3c2/3c23/3c23.htm
36. Pugliese, L. C., 2002. The transformation of educational publishing: Emergence and growth of a teacher-centered, learning-object environment. Technos, 11 (3): 22–26.
37. Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T., 1995. Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65: 129–143.
38. Rebelsky, S., 2000. “ A web of resources for introductory computer science [Technical report] ”. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED445881)
39. Samal, A., Nugent, G., Soh, L.- K., Lang, J., and Person, S., 2005. “ Reinventing computer science curriculum at University of Nebraska ”. In Technology-based education: Bringing researchers and practitioners together, Edited by: PytlikZillig, L. M., Bodvarsson, M., and Bruning, R., 63–82. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. ch. 4
40. Schunk, D. H., 1981. Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: a self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73: 93–105.
41. Schunk, D. H., 1989. “ Self efficacy and cognitive skills learning ”. In Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions, Edited by: Ames, R., and Ames, C., 13–43. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42. Schunk, D. H., and Hanson, A. R., 1985. Peer models: Influence on children's self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77: 313–322.
43. Sturm, D., and Moroh, M., Encouraging enrollment and retention of women in computer science classes. Proceedings of the Annual National Educational Computing Conference. Washington, DC: ISTE. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396688)
44. Soh, L.- K., Samal, A., Person, S., Nugent, G., and Lang, J., Closed laboratories with embedded instructional research design for CS1. Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'2005). February23-27, St. Louis, MO. pp. 297–301.
45. Soh, L.- K., Samal, A., Person, S., Nugent, G., and Lang, J., Analyzing relationships between closed laboratory assignments and course activities in CS1. Proceedings of the 10th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE'2005). pp. 183–187. New York: ACM Press.
46. Thweatt, M., CS1 closed laboratory assignment vs. open laboratory assignment experiment. Proceedings of the 25th SIGSE Symposium on Computer Science Education. pp. 80–82. New York: ACM Press.
47. Urban-Lurain, M., and Weinshank, D. J., Mastering computing technology: A new approach for non-computer science majors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Quebec. April. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347917)
48. Wiley, D., 2000. Learning objects: Difficulties and opportunities [Online publication] Retrieved May 12, 2004, from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/articles.html
49. Williams, L. A., and Kessler, R. R., 2002. Pair programming illuminated, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
50. Weber-Wullf, D., Combating the code warrior: A different sort of programming instruction. Proceedings of the 5th annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. Edited by: Joyce, D., pp. 85–88. New York, NY: ACM Press.
51. Xenos, M., Pierrakeas, C., and Pintelas, P., 2002. A survey of student dropout rates and dropout causes concerning the students in the Course of Informatics of the Hellenic Open University. Computers and Education, 39 (4): 361–377.