Peer Instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1

SIGCSE 2014 - Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 373-378

  Zingaro, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Classroom response; Clickers; CS1; Out comes; Peer instruction

Indexed keywords

TEACHING;

CLASSROOM RESPONSE; CLICKERS; CS1; OUT-COMES; PEER INSTRUCTION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84899723142     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2538862.2538878     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (29)

1. A. Bandura. Self-ecacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2):191-215, 1977.
2. J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. An investigation of potential success factors for an introductory model-driven programming course. In Proceedings of the rst international workshop on Computing education research, pages 155-163. ACM, 2005.
3. J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. Failure rates in introductory programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39:32-36, 2007.
4. P. Byrne and G. Lyons. Thee ect of student attributes on success in programming.SIGCSE Bulletin, 33:49-52, 2001.
5. M. T. H. Chi. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for di erentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1):73-105, 2009.
6. 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, College Park, MD, USA, 2007.
7. S. Dehnadi, R. Bornat, and R. Adams. Meta-analysis of the eect of consistency on success in early learning of programming. In 21st Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, 2009.
8. G. E. Evans and M. G. Simkin. What best predicts computer prociency? Communications of the ACM, 32:1322-1327, 1989.
9. A. Fisher, J. Margolis, and F. Miller. Undergraduate women in computer science: experience, motivation and culture. SIGCSE Bulletin, 29:106-110, 1997.
10. D. Hagan and S. Markham. Does it help to have some programming experience before beginning a computing degree program? SIGCSE Bulletin, 32:25-28, 2000.
11. E. Holden and E. Weeden. The impact of prior experience in an information technology programming course sequence. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Information technology curriculum, pages 41-46. ACM, 2003.
12. M. A. Hudak and D. E. Anderson. Formal operations and learning style predict success in statistics and computer science courses. Teaching of Psychology, 17(4):231-234, 1990.
13. T. Jenkins. The motivation of students of programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3):53-56, 2001.
14. J. Margolis and A. Fisher. Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.
15. M. Morrison and T. S. Newman. A study of the impact of student background and preparedness on outcomes in CS I.SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(1):179-183, 2001.
16. A. Petersen, M. Craig, and D. Zingaro. Reviewing CS1 exam question content. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 631-636. ACM, 2011.
17. 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 Proceedings of the 16th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, pages 138-142. ACM, 2011.
18. L. Porter, C. Bailey-Lee, B. Simon, and D. Zingaro. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? InProceedings of the Seventh international Workshop on Computing Education Research. ACM, 2011.
19. L. Porter, C. B. Lee, and B. Simon. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. InProceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 177-182. ACM, 2013.
20. L. Porter and B. Simon. Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 165-170. ACM, 2013.
21. V. Ramalingam, D. LaBelle, and S. Wiedenbeck. Self-ecacy and mental models in learning to program.SIGCSE Bulletin, 36:171-175, 2004.
22. V. Ramalingam and S. Wiedenbeck. Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-ecacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-ecacy.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19:365-379, 1998.
23. A. Robins. Learning edge momentum: A new account of outcomes.Computer Science Education, 20(1):37-71, 2010.
24. B. Simon, S. Esper, L. Porter, and Q. Cutts. Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom. InProceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Computing Education Research. ACM, 2013.
25. B. Simon, M. Kohanfars, J. Lee, K. Tamayo, and Q. Cutts. Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. In Proceedings of the 41st SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 341-345. ACM, 2010.
26. B. Simon, J. Parris, and J. Spacco. How we teach impacts student learning: peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 41-46. ACM, 2013.
27. P. Ventura. On the origins of programmers: Identifying predictors of success for an objects rst CS1. PhD thesis, SUNY at Bualo, 2003.
28. D. Zingaro, C. Bailey-Lee, and L. Porter. Peer instruction in computing: The role of reading quizzes. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 47-52. ACM, 2013.
29. D. Zingaro, A. Petersen, and M. Craig. Stepping up to integrative questions on CS1 exams. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 253-258. ACM, 2012.