Peer instruction in computer science at small liberal arts colleges

Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 129-134

  Porter, Leo ^a   Garcia, Saturnino ^b   Glick, John ^b   Matusiewicz, Andrew ^a   Taylor, Cynthia ^c  

^a SKIDMORE COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO   (United States)

^c OBERLIN COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Active learning; Liberal arts colleges; Peer instruction

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE LEARNING; FACULTY USE; LIBERAL ARTS; PEER DISCUSSIONS; PEER INSTRUCTION; STUDENT LEARNING;

ENGINEERING RESEARCH; STUDENTS; SURVEYS; TEACHING;

SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

EID: 84881134730     PISSN: 1942647X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2462476.2465587     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69:970-977, 2001.
2. C. H. Crouch, J. Watkins, A. P. Fagen, and E. Mazur. Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. In E. F. Redish and P. J. Cooney, editors, Research-Based Reform of University Physics. American Association of Physics Teachers, 2007.
3. Q. Cutts, S. Esper, M. Fecho, S. R. Foster, and B. Simon. The abstraction transition taxonomy: Developing desired learning outcomes through the lens of situated cognition. In Proc. of ICER '12, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM.
4. Q. Cutts, S. Esper, and B. Simon. Computing as the 4th r: a general education approach to computing education. In Proc. of ICER '11, pages 133-138. ACM, 2011.
5. A. Forte and M. Guzdial. Motivation and nonmajors in computer science: identifying discrete audiences for introductory courses. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 48(2):248-253, 2005.
6. R. Hake. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American journal of Physics, 66:64, 1998.
7. N. Lasry, E. Mazur, and J. Watkins. Peer instruction: From harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76:1066-1069, 2008.
8. M. Martyn. Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30, No. 2:71-74, 2007.
9. C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. Bullock, and J. Fernald. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8):90-95, 2006.
10. L. Porter, C. Bailey-Lee, and B. Simon. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proc. of the 44th SIGCSE, 2013.
11. L. Porter, C. Bailey Lee, B. Simon, Q. Cutts, and D. Zingaro. Experience report: a multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In Proc. of ITiCSE '11, 2011.
12. L. Porter, C. Bailey-Lee, B. Simon, and D. Zingaro. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proc. of ICER '11, New York, NY, USA, 2011. ACM.
13. L. Porter and B. Simon. Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in cs1. In Proc. of the 44th SIGCSE, 2013.
14. B. Simon. Peer instruction for computer science. http:// peerinstruction4cs.org, 2012. [Online; accessed 1-Jan.-2013].
15. B. Simon, M. Kohanfars, J. Lee, K. Tamayo, and Q. Cutts. Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proc. of the 41st SIGCSE, pages 341-345, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
16. M. K. Smith, W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, and T. T. Su. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323:122-124, 2009.
17. J. Spacco, J. Parris, and B. Simon. How we teach impacts learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in cs0. In Proc. of the 44th SIGCSE, 2013.
18. D. Zingaro. Experience report: Peer instruction in remedial computer science. In In Proc. of Ed-Media 2010. AACE, 2010.
19. D. Zingaro, C. Lee, and L. Porter. Peer instruction in computing: the role of reading quizzes. In Proc. of the 44th SIGCSE, 2013.