Peer instruction: A link to the exam

ITICSE 2014 - Proceedings of the 2014 Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Conference

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 255-260

  Zingaro, Daniel ^a   Porter, Leo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b SKIDMORE COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Clickers; Final exam; Peer instruction

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ENGINEERING RESEARCH;

ACTIVE LEARNING; CLICKERS; FINAL EXAM; GROUP DISCUSSIONS; PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES; PEER DISCUSSIONS; PEER INSTRUCTION; STUDENT RETENTION;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84904479969     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2591708.2591711     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Peer instruction for computer science. peerinstruction4cs.org, 2013.
2. J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen. Failure rates in introductory programming. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39:32-36, 2007.
3. 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.
4. P. Denny, A. Luxton-Reilly, and B. Simon. Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, pages 113-124, 2008.
5. S. Esper, B. Simon, and Q. Cutts. Exploratory homeworks: An active learning tool for textbook reading. In Proceedings of the Eighth international Workshop on Computing Education Research, 2012.
6. A. Kothiyal, R. Majumdar, S. Murthy, and S. Iyer. Effect of think-pair-share in a large cs1 class: 83% sustained engagement. In Proceedings of the Ninth international Workshop on Computing Education Research, 2013.
7. R. Lister, B. Simon, E. Thompson, J. L. Whalley, and C. Prasad. Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3):118-122, 2006.
8. K. Lockwood and R. Esselstein. The inverted classroom and the cs curriculum. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 113-118, 2013.
9. C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8):90-95, 2006.
10. 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, 2011.
11. L. Porter, C. Bailey-Lee, B. Simon, and D. Zingaro. Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In Proceedings of the Seventh international Workshop on Computing Education Research, 2011.
12. L. Porter, C. B. Lee, and B. Simon. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 177-182, 2013.
13. 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, 2013.
14. B. Simon, S. Esper, L. Porter, and Q. Cutts. Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, 2013.
15. 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, 2010.
16. 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, 2013.
17. M. Smith, W. Wood, K. Krauter, and J. Knight. Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(1):55-63, 2011.
18. A. Venables, G. Tan, and R. Lister. A closer look at tracing, explaining and code writing skills in the novice programmer. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop, pages 117-128, 2009.
19. D. Zingaro. Experience report: Peer instruction in remedial computer science. In Proceedings of the 22nd World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, pages 5030-5035, 2010.
20. D. Zingaro. Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, 2014.
21. 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, 2013.
22. D. Zingaro, A. Petersen, Y. Cherenkova, and O. Karpova. Facilitating code-writing in pi classes. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education, pages 585-590, 2013.
23. D. Zingaro and L. Porter. Peer instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers & Education, 71:87-96, 2014.