Exposed! CS faculty caught lecturing in public a survey of instructional practices

Proceedings of the Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, ITiCSE

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 261-266

  Grissom, Scott ^a   McCauley, Renée ^b   Fitzgerald, Sue ^c   Murphy, Laurie ^d  

^a GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b School of Business   (United States)

^c METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d PACIFIC LUTHERAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Active learning; Evidence based instructional practices; Instructional practice; Instructor centered; Student centered

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; EDUCATION COMPUTING; SURVEYS; TEACHING;

ACTIVE LEARNING; CLASSROOM ACTIVITY; COMPUTER SCIENCE TEACHING; INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES; INSTRUCTOR-CENTERED; RESEARCH STUDIES; SCIENCE DISCIPLINES; STUDENT INTERACTIONS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 85018319074     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/3017680.3017702     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. Beck, L. and Chizhik, A. 2013. Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 3, Article 10.
2. Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., and Hall, T. S. 2010. Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education 99, 3, 185-207.
3. Eagan, M. K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Berdan, L. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., and Hurtado, S. 2014. Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013-2014 HERI Faculty Survey. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
4. Freeman, S., Eddy, S., McDonough, M., Smith, M., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 111, 23, 8410-8415.
5. Grissom, S. 2013. Introduction to special issue on alternatives to lecture in the computer science classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 3.
6. Hake, C. H., Hille Ris Lambers, J., Pitre, E., and Freeman, S. 2011. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332, 213-216.
7. Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., and Zander, C. 2011. Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education 21, 2 (June 2011), 135-173.
8. Henderson, C. and Dancy, M. 2009. Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research 5, 2, 1-9.
9. Henderson, C., Beach, A. L., and Finkelstein, N. 2011. Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48, 952-984.
10. Horwitz, S., Rodger, S. H., Biggers, M., Binkley, D., Kolin Frantz, C., Gundermann, D., Hambrusch, S., Huss-Lederman, S., Munson, E., Ryder, B., and Sweat, M. 2009. Using peer-led team learning to increase participation and success of under-represented groups in introductory computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 1, 163-167.
11. Kober, N. 2015. Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. National Academies Press.
12. Kussmaul, C. 2012. Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL) for computer science. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Raleigh, NC, USA, Feb 29 - Mar 3, 2012). SIGCSE '12. ACM, New York, NY, 373-378.
13. Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. 2006. Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics 74, 2, 118-122.
14. Macdonald, R. H., Manduca, C. A., Mogk, D. W., and Tewksbury, B. J. 2005. Teaching methods in undergraduate geoscience courses: Results of the 2004 On the Cutting Edge Survey of US faculty. Journal of Geoscience Education 53, 3, 237.
15. Michael, J. 2006. Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education 30, 4 (December 2006), 159-167. DOI=10.1152/advan.00053.2006.
16. PCAST - President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology. 2012. Engage To Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates With Degrees In Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The White House.
17. Porter, L., Bouvier, D., Cutts, Q., Grissom, S., Lee, C., McCartney, R., Zingaro, D., and Simon, B. 2016. A multi-institutional study of peer instruction in introductory computing. ACM Inroads 7, 2, 76-81.
18. Puleo, E., Zapka, J., White, M. J., Mouchawar, J., Somkin, C., and Taplin, S. 2002. Caffeine, cajoling, and other strategies to maximize clinician survey response rates. Evaluation and the Health Professions 25, 2, 169-184. Sage Publications.
19. Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., and Schweingruber, H. A. (eds) 2012. Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improving Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. National Academies Press.
20. The ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education. http://sigcse.org/sigcse/.
21. Waldrop, M. M. 2015. Why we are teaching science wrong, and how to make it right. Nature. 523, 7560, 272-274.
22. Walter, E. M., Henderson, C., Beach, A., and Williams, C. T. 2016. Introducing the Postsecondary Instructional Practices Survey (PIPS): A concise, interdisciplinary, and easy-to-score survey. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15.
23. Watkins, J. and Mazur, E. 2013. Retaining students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors. J College Science Teaching 42, 5, 36-41.