Assessing the Effectiveness of Programmed Instruction and Collaborative Peer Tutoring in Teaching Java

International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE)

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 1-16

  Emurian, Henry H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

Author keywords

collaborative peer tutoring; interteaching; Java training; programmed instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 85001816325     PISSN: 15501876     EISSN: 15501337     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4018/jicte.2006040101     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
2. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.
3. Boyce, T. E., & Hineline, P. N. (2002). Interteaching: A strategy for enhancing the user-friendliness of behavioral arrangements in the college classroom. The Behavior Analyst, 25(2), 215–226.
4. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2005). Occupational outlook handbook, 2004–05 edition. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos110.htm
6. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon, & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
7. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
8. Davy, J., & Jenkins, T. (1999). Researchled innovation in teaching and learning computer programming. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSE Conference on Innovation (pp. 5–8). Retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=305786.305826
9. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
10. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.
11. Emurian, H. H. (2004). A programmed instruction tutoring system for JavaTM Consideration of learning performance and software self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(3), 423–459.
12. Emurian, H. H. (2005). Web-based programmed instruction: Evidence of rule-governed learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 893–915.
13. Emurian, H. H. (in press). A Web-based tutor for JavaTM Evidence of meaningful learning. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies.
14. Emurian, H. H., & Durham, A. G. (2001, May 20–23). A personalized system of instruction for teaching Java. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Managing Information Technology in a Global Economy, 2001 Information Resources Management Association International Conference (pp. 155–160), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
15. Emurian, H. H., & Durham, A. G. (2002, May 19–22). Enhanced learning on a programmed instruction tutoring system for JAVA. In M. Khosrow-Pour (Ed.), Issues and Trends of Information Technology Management in Contemporary Organizations, 2002 Information Resources Management Association International Conference (pp. 205–208), Seattle, Washington, USA. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
16. Emurian, H. H., & Durham, A. G. (2003). Computer-based tutoring systems: A behavioral approach. In J. A. Jacko, & A. Sears (Eds.), Handbook of humancomputer interaction (pp. 677–697). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
17. Emurian, H. H., Hu, X., Wang, J., & Durham, A. G. (2000). Learning Java: A programmed instruction approach using applets. Computers in Human Behavior, 16(4), 395–422.
18. Emurian, H. H., Wang, J., & Durham, A. G. (2003). Analysis of learner performance on a tutoring system for Java. In T. McGill (Ed.), Current issues in IT education (pp. 46–76). Hershey, PA: IRM Press.
19. Greer, R. D. (2002). Designing teaching strategies: An applied behavior analysis systems approach. New York: Academic Press.
20. Greer, R. D., & McDonough, S. H. (1999). Is the learn unit a fundamental measure of pedagogy? The Behavior Analyst, 22(1), 5–16.
21. Griffin M. M., & Griffin, B. W. (1998). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on achievement, selfefficacy, and test anxiety. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 298–311.
22. Heggestad, E. D., & Kanfer, R. (2005). The predictive validity of self-efficacy in training performance: Little more than past performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11(2), 8497.
23. Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203212.
24. Jehng, J.-C.J. (1997). The psycho-social processes and cognitive effects of peer-based collaborative interactions with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(1), 19–46.
25. Kelly, A. F. (2002). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3–4.
26. Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology. Volume II. Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
27. Rittschof, K. A., & Griffin, B. W. (2001). Reciprocal peer tutoring: Re-examining the value of a co-operative learning technique to college students and instructors. Educational Psychology, 21(3), 313–331.
28. Roberts, E. (2004). Resources to support the use of Java in introductory computer science. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 233–234), Norfolk, Virginia. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from http:// portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=971384
29. Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172.
30. Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.
31. Sandoval, W., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context: Introduction. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.
32. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.
33. Singer-Dudek, J., & Greer, R. D. (2005, Summer). A long-term analysis of the relationship between fluency and the training and maintenance of complex math skills. The Psychological Record, 55, 361–376.
34. Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.
35. Swezey, R. W., & Llaneras, R. E. (1997). Models in training and instruction. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 514–577). New York: Wiley.
36. Thomas, A., Benne, M. R., Marr, M. J., Thomas, E. W., & Hume, R. M. (2000). The evidence remains stable: the MBTI predicts attraction and attrition in an engineering program. Journal of Psychological Type, 55, 35–42.
37. Traynor, D., & Gibson, J. P. (2004). Towards the development of a cognitive model of programming: A software engineering approach. In Proceedings of the 16th Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http:// www.cs.may.ie/~dtraynor/papers/ PPIGarticle.pdf
38. U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence. Retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://www.excelgov.org/evi-dence
39. Williams, L. A., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair-programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 1925.
40. Williams, L. A., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Ferzli, M., & Miller, C. (2002). In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 197–212.
41. Wormley, D. (2003). Engineering education and the science and engineering workforce. In M. A. Fox (Ed.), Pan-organizational summit on the U.S. science and engineering workforce: Meeting summary (pp. 40–46). Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.