[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-30T04:57:29.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Pedagogic Approaches

from Systemic Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

By
Katrina Falkner  and
Judy Sheard
Edited by
Sally A. Fincher  and
Anthony V. Robins
Sally A. Fincher
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

The pedagogic approaches adopted within Computer Science education vary widely, both in terms of the adoption and adaptation of general pedagogic approaches and practices, and the development of pedagogic approaches that are specific to the Computer Science domain. In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on student-centred education approaches within Computer Science, as well as the adoption of technology-rich and technology-driven learning practice and environments. In this Chapter, we provide an brief survey of the development of common pedagogical approaches, and present an overview of the Computer Science scholarship and education research literature addressing the application of pedagogic approaches. We discuss exemplars and case studies of the use of these approaches within the Computer Science context, and the development of new approaches specific to our domain.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 445 - 480
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abad, C. L. (2008). Learning through creating learning objects: Experiences with a class project in a distributed systems course. In 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘08) (pp. 255–259). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Armellini, A., & Padilla Rodriguez, B. C. (2016). Are Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) pedagogically innovative? In Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 14(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephen, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Atkins, M. J. (1993). Theories of learning and multimedia: An overview. Research Papers in Education, 8(2), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atapattu, T., & Falkner, K. (2016). A framework for topic generation and labeling from MOOC discussions. In 3rd ACM Conference on Learning@Scale (L@S’2016) (pp. 201–204). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atapattu, T., Falkner, K., & Falkner, N. (2017). A comprehensive text analysis of lecture slides to generate concept maps. Computers & Education, 115, 96–113.Google Scholar
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20, 481–486.Google Scholar
Batista, A. L. F., Connolly, T., & Angotti, J. A. P. (2016). A framework for games-based construction learning: A text-based programming languages approach. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 815–823). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences International Ltd.Google Scholar
Battistella, P., & Gresse von Wangenheim, C. (2016). Games for teaching computing in higher education – A systematic review. IEEE Technology and Engineering Education, 1(3), 8–30.Google Scholar
Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2014). The Pedagogy of the Massive Open Online Course: The UK view. York, UK: The Higher Education Academy.Google Scholar
Beck, K. (2002). Test-Driven Development: By Example. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Beck, L., & Chizhik, A. (2013). Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(3), 10.Google Scholar
Ben-Ari, M. (1998). Constructivism in computer science education. In Joyce, D., , D. & Impagliazzo, J. (Eds.), 29th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘98) (pp. 257–261). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Bishop, J. L., & Verleger, M. A. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. ASEE National Conference, 30(9), 1–18.Google Scholar
Blanc, R., DeBuhr, L., & Martin, D. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle: The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 80–90.Google Scholar
Blank, D. (2006). Robots make computer science personal. Communications of the ACM, 9(12), 5–27.Google Scholar
Brady, C., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Anton, G., Rodriguez, S., & Wilensky, U. (2017). All roads lead to computing: making, participatory simulations, and social computing as pathways to computer science. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60(1), 59–66.Google Scholar
Buckley, M., Nordlinger, J., & Subramanian, D. (2008). Socially relevant computing. In 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘08) (pp. 347–351). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Buffardi, K., & Edwards, S. H. (2012). Impacts of teaching test-driven development to novice programmers. International Journal of Information and Computer Science, 1(6), 135–143.Google Scholar
Carbone, A., & Sheard, J. (2002). A studio-based teaching and learning model in IT: What do first year students think? In 7th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘02) (pp. 213–217) New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Ching, E., Chen, C. T., Chou, C. Y., Deng, Y. C., & Chan, T. W. (2005). A pilot study of computer supported learning by constructing instruction notes and peer expository instruction. In Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning: Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years! (CSCL) (pp. 63–67). Taipei, Taiwan: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
Clarke, D., Clear, T., Fisler, K., Hauswirth, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Politz, J. G., Tirronen, V., & Wrigstad, T. (2014). In-flow peer review. In Clear, A. & Lister, R. (Eds.), Working Group Reports of the 2014 Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (ITiCSE-WGR ‘14) (pp. 59–79). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2005). An On-Going Journey: Technology as a Learning Workbench. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar
Computing Research Association (2017). Generation CS: Computer Science Undergraduate Enrollments Surge Since 2006. Retrieved from https://cra.org/data/Generation-CS/Google Scholar
Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2003). Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. In 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘03) (pp. 191–195). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corral, J. M. R., Balcells, A. C., Estévez, A. M., Moreno, G. J., & Ramos, M. J. F. (2014). A game-based approach to the teaching of object-oriented programming languages. Computers & Education, 73, 83–92.Google Scholar
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.Google Scholar
Crescenzi, P., & Nocentini, C. (2007). Fully integrating algorithm visualization into a CS2 course: A two-year experience. In 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘07) (pp. 296–300). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
CSER (2017). A look at IT and Engineering Enrolments in Australia – Updated. Retrieved from: https://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/cser/2017/02/15/a-look-at-it-and-engineering-enrolments-in-australia-updated/Google Scholar
Cunningham, K., Blanchard, S., Ericson, B., & Guzdial, G. (2017). Using tracing and sketching to solve programming problems: Replicating and extending an analysis of what students draw. In 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 164–172). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Day, J. A., & Foley, J. D. (2006). Evaluating a web lecture intervention in a human–computer interaction course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4), 420–431.Google Scholar
Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Hamer, J. (2008). The PeerWise system of student contributed assessment questions. In Simon, & Hamilton, M. (Eds.), 10th conference on Australasian computing education – Volume 78 (ACE ‘08), Vol. 78 (pp. 69–74). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar
DesPortes, K., Anupam, A., Pathak, N., & DiSalvo, B. (2016). BitBlox: A redesign of the breadboard. In 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ‘16) (pp. 255–261). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Dragon, T., & Dickson, P. E. (2016). Memory diagrams: A consistent approach across concepts and languages. In 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ‘16) (pp. 546–551). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 57–73.Google Scholar
du Boulay, B., O’Shea, T., & Monk, J. (1981). The black box inside the glass box: Presenting computing concepts to novices. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 14(3), 237–249.Google Scholar
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Earl, S. E. (1986). Staff and peer assessment – Measuring an individual’s contribution to group performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(1), 60–69.Google Scholar
Ebert, M., & Ring, M. (2016). A presentation framework for programming in programing lectures. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON ‘16) (pp. 369–374). New York, NY: IEEE.Google Scholar
Edwards, S. H. (2004). Using software testing to move students from trial-and-error to reflection-in-action. In 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘04) (pp. 26–30). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Elgort, I., Smith, A., & Toland, J. (2008). Is Wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195–210.Google Scholar
Ernest, E. (1995). The one and the many. In Steffe, L. & Gale, J. (Eds.), Constructivism in Education (pp. 459–486). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ewing, J. M., Dowling, J. D., & Coutts, N. (1998). Learning using the World Wide Web: A collaborative learning event. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
Falkner, N. J. G., & Falkner, K. (2014). “Whither, badges?” or “wither, badges!”: A metastudy of badges in computer science education to clarify effects, significance and influence. In 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘14) (pp. 127–135). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Falkner, K., Falkner, N., Szabo, C., & Vivian, R. (2016). Applying validated pedagogy to MOOCs: An introductory programming course with media computation. In 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 326–331). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
Falkner, K., & Palmer, E. (2009). Developing authentic problem solving skills in introductory computing classes. In 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘09) (pp. 4–8). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkner, K., Vivian, R., Falkner, N., & Williams, S. (2017). Reflecting on three offerings of a community-centric MOOC for k-6 computer science teachers. In 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 195–200). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Findler, R. B., Clements, J., Flanagan, C., Flatt, M., Krishnamurthi, S., Steckler, P., & Felleisen, M. (2002). DrScheme: A programming environment for Scheme. Journal of. Functional Programming, 12(2), 159–182.Google Scholar
Firmin, S., Sheard, J., Carbone, A., & Hurst, J. (2012). An exploration of factors influencing tertiary IT educators’ pedagogies. In de Raadt, M. & Carbone, A. (Eds.), 14th Australasian Computing Education Conference – Volume 123 (ACE ‘12), Vol. 123 (pp. 157–166). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar
Fisher, A., & Margolis, J. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: The Carnegie Mellon experience. SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 79–83.Google Scholar
Geer, U., & Rudge, D. (2002). A review of research on constructivist-based strategies for large lecture science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(2). Retrieved from www.scholarlyexchange.org/ojs/index.php/EJSE/article/view/7701Google Scholar
Gehringer, E. F., & Miller, C. S. (2009). Student-generated active-learning exercises. In 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘09) (pp. 81–85). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Giannakos, M. N., Krogstie, J., & Chrisochoides, N. (2014). Reviewing the flipped classroom research: Reflections for computer science education. In Barendsen, E. & Dagiené, V. (Eds.), Computer Science Education Research Conference (CSERC ‘14) (pp. 23–29). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glance, D., Forsey, M., & Riley, M. (2013). The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday, 18(5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4350/3673Google Scholar
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2014). Promoting active learning & leveraging dashboards for curriculum assessment in an OpenEdX introductory CS course for middle school. In 1st ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference (L@S ‘14) (pp. 205–206). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Guo, P. J. (2013). Online python tutor: Embeddable web-based program visualization for cs education. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 579–584). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2013). Exploring hypotheses about media computation. In 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘13) (pp. 19–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Hamer, J., Cutts, Q., Jackova, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., McCartney, R., Purchase, H., Riedesel, C., Saeli, M., Sanders, K., & Sheard, J. (2008). Contributing student pedagogy. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4), 194–212.Google Scholar
Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Purchase, H. C., & Sheard, J. (2011). Tools for “contributing student learning”. ACM Inroads, 2(2), 78–91.Google Scholar
Hativa, N. (2000). Active learning during lectures. In Teaching for Effective Learning in Higher Education (pp. 87–110). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Hertz, M., & Jump, M. (2013). Trace-based teaching in early programming courses. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 561–566). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Higher Education Commission (2016). From Bricks to Clicks: The Potential of Data and Analytics in Higher Education. London, UK: Higher Education Commission.Google Scholar
Horton, D., & Craig, M. (2015). Drop, fail, pass, continue: Persistence in CS1 and beyond in traditional and inverted delivery. In 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 235–240). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Hundhausen, C. D., Agrawal, A., & Agarwal, P. (2013). Talking about code: Integrating pedagogical code reviews into early computing courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). 13(3), 14.Google Scholar
Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 13(3), 259–290.Google Scholar
Hundhausen, C. D., Narayanan, N. H., & Crosby, M. E. (2008). Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. In 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘08) (pp. 392–396). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Jonas, M. (2013). Group note taking in Mediawiki, a collaborative approach. In 14th Annual ACM SIGITE Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE ‘13) (pp. 131–132). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(3), 5–14.Google Scholar
Kaczmarczyk, L., Boutell, M., & Last, M. (2007). Challenging the advanced first-year student’s learning process through student presentations. In 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER ‘07) (pp. 17–26). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Kandiko, C. B., & Mawer, M. (2013). Student Expectations and Perceptions of Higher Education. London, UK: King’s Learning Institute.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.Google Scholar
Khan, N. Z., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2016). Is computing for social good the solution to closing the gender gap in computer science? In Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference (ACSW ‘16) (p. 17). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design Thinking for Education. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Kölling, M., & Barnes, D. J. (2004). Enhancing apprentice-based learning of Java. In 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘04) (pp. 286–290). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Kurtz, B. L., Fenwick, J. B., Tashakkori, R., Esmail, A., & Tate, S. R. (2014). Active learning during lecture using tablets. In 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘14) (pp. 121–126). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Lacher, L. L., & Lewis, M. C. (2015). The effectiveness of video quizzes in a flipped class. In 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 224–228). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. (2005). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, 4th edn. London, UK: The Architectural Press.Google Scholar
Lee, E., Shan, V., Beth, B., & Lin, C. (2014). A structured approach to teaching recursion using cargo-bot. In 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 59–66). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Leutenegger, S., & Edgington, J. (2007). A games first approach to teaching introductory programming. In 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘07) (pp. 115–118). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Lui, D., Anderson, E., Kafai, Y. B., & Jayathirtha, G. (2017). Learning by fixing and designing problems: A reconstruction kit for debugging e-textiles. In 7th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (FabLearn ‘17) (p. 6). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Lui, A. K., Ng, S. C., Cheung, Y. H. Y., & Gurung, P. (2010). Facilitating independent learning with Lego Mindstorms robots. ACM Inroads, 1(4), 49–53.Google Scholar
Lockwood, K., & Esselstein, R. (2013). The inverted classroom and the CS curriculum. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 113–118). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Lowyck, J., & Elen, J. (1993). Transitions in the theoretical foundation of instructional design. In Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.), Designing Environments for Constructive Learning (pp. 213–229). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lutteroth, C., & Luxton-Reilly, A. (2008). Flexible learning in CS2: A case study. In 21st Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (pp. 77–83). New Zealand: Computing and Information Technology Research and Education New Zealand (CITRENZ).Google Scholar
Luxton-Reilly, A., Bertinshaw, D., Denny, P., Plimmer, B., & Sheehan, R. (2012). The impact of question generation activities on performance. In 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘12) (pp. 391–396). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Luxton-Reilly, A., Plimmer, B., & Sheehan, R. (2010). StudySieve: A tool that supports constructive evaluation for free-response questions. In 11th International Conference of the NZ Chapter of the ACM Special Interest Group on Human-Computer Interaction (CHINZ ‘10) (pp. 65–68). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Maher, M. L., Latulipe, C., Lipford, H., & Rorrer, A. (2015). Flipped classroom strategies for CS education. In 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘15) (pp. 218–223). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1975). Different problem-solving competencies established in learning computer programming with and without meaningful models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(6), 725–734.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. E. (1976). Some conditions of meaningful learning for computer programming: Advance organizers and subject control of frame order. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 143–150.Google Scholar
Medel, P., & Pournaghshband, V. (2017). Eliminating gender bias in computer science education materials. In 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘17) (pp. 411–416). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Milligan, S. (2015). Crowd-sourced learning in MOOCs: learning analytics meets measurement theory. In 5th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK ‘15) (pp. 151–155). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Milligan, S., He, J., Bailey, J., Zhang, R., & Rubinstein, B. I. P. (2016). Validity: A framework for cross-disciplinary collaboration in mining indicators of learning from MOOC forums. In 6th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK ‘16) (pp. 546–547). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Moog, R. S. & Spencer, J. N. (Eds.) (2008). Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Morgan, M., Butler, M., Sinclair, J., Cross, G., Fraser, J., Jackova, J., & Thota, N. (2017). Understanding international benchmarks on student engagement: Awareness, research alignment and response from a computer science perspective. In 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘17) (pp. 383–384). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Moritz, S. H., & Blank, G. D. (2005). A design-first curriculum for teaching Java in a CS1 course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2), 89–93.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L., Xie, B., & Ko, A. J. (2017). Comprehension first: Evaluating a novel pedagogy and tutoring system for program tracing in CS1. In 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 2–11). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Nortcliffe, A. (2005). Student-driven module: promoting independent learning. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 42(3), 247–512.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Parsons, D., & Haden, P. (2006). Parson’s programming puzzles: a fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses. In Tolhurst, D. & Mann, S. (Eds.), 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education – Volume 52 (ACE ‘06) (pp. 157–163). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.Google Scholar
Pask, G. (1976). Conversation Theory, Applications in Education and Epistemology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Patitsas, E., Craig, M., & Easterbrook, S. (2016). How CS departments are managing the enrolment boom: Troubling implications for diversity. In Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing and Technology (RESPECT) (pp. 1–2). New York, NY: IEEE.Google Scholar
Paul, J. (2016). Test-driven approach in programming pedagogy. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 32(2), 53–60.Google Scholar
Perkins, D. N., Schwartz, S., & Simmons, R. (1990). Instructional strategies for the problems of novice programmers. In Meyer, R. E. (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: Multiple Research Perspectives (pp. 153–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Phillips, D., & Soltis, J. F. (2015). Perspectives on Learning, 5th edn. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1972). Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge (Vol. 105). London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Piccioni, M., Estler, C., & Meyer, B. (2014). SPOC-supported introduction to programming. In 19th Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 3–8). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Pirker, J., Riffnaller-Schiefer, M., & Gütl, C. (2014). Motivational active learning: engaging university students in computer science education. In 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 297–302). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Politz, J. G., Krishnamurthi, S., & Fisler, K. (2014). In-flow peer-review of tests in test-first programming. In 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘14) (pp. 11–18). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Pollock, L., & Harvey, T. (2011). Combining multiple pedagogies to boost learning and enthusiasm. In 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘11) (pp. 258–262). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Porter, L., & Simon, B. (2013). Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in CS1. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 165–170). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Portillo, J. A. P., & Campos, P. G. (2009). The jigsaw technique: Experiences teaching analysis class diagrams. In Mexican International Conference on Computer Science (pp. 289–293). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Pulimood, S. M., & Wolz, U. (2008). Problem solving in community: A necessary shift in cs pedagogy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 210–214.Google Scholar
Purchase, H. (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 341–352.Google Scholar
Preston, G., Phillips, R., Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Woo, K., & Green, D. (2010). Web-based lecture technologies: Highlighting the changing nature of teaching and learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 717–728.Google Scholar
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.Google Scholar
Ragonis, N., & Ben-Ari, M. (2005). A long-term investigation of the comprehension of OOP concepts by novices. Computational Science Education, 15(3), 203–221.Google Scholar
Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In Khan, B. H. (Ed.), Web-Based Instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
Reilly, M., Shen, H., Calder, P., & Duh, H. (2014). Towards a collaborative classroom through shared workspaces on mobile devices. In 28th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference on HCI 2014 – Sand, Sea and Sky – Holiday HCI (BCS-HCI ‘14) (pp. 335–340). London, UK: BCS.Google Scholar
Reza, S., & Baig, M. (2015). A study of inverted classroom pedagogy in computer science teaching. International Journal of Research Studies in Educational Technology, 4(2). Retrieved from www.learntechlib.org/p/151048/Google Scholar
Rich, L., Perry, H., & Guzdial, M. (2004). A CS1 course designed to address interests of women. SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 190–194.Google Scholar
Rizzardini, R. H., & Amado-Salvatierra, H. R. (2017). Full engagement educational framework: A practical experience for a MicroMaster. In 4th ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S ‘17) (pp. 145–146). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Rubin, M. J. (2013). The effectiveness of live-coding to teach introductory programming. In 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘13) (pp. 651–656). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & De Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82, 409–420.Google Scholar
Rudestam, K., & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (2010). The flourishing of adult online education: an overview. In Rudestam, K. & Schoenholtz-Read, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Online Learning, 2nd edn (pp. 1–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Rudman, P. (2002). Investigating Domain Information as Dynamic Support for the Learner During Spoken Conversations (PhD thesis). University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Salmon, G. (2004). E-Tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning, 2nd edn. Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis e-Library.Google Scholar
Sanders, K., Boustedt, J., Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., & Zander, C. (2017). Folk pedagogy: Nobody doesn’t like active learning. In 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘17) (pp. 145–154). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Schneider, B., & Blikstein, P. (2016). Flipping the flipped classroom: A study of the effectiveness of video lectures versus constructivist exploration using tangible user interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharples, M., de Roock, R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi, C-K., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M. & Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. The Open University.Google Scholar
Shulman, L. (2005). Pedagogies. Liberal Education, 91(2), 18–25.Google Scholar
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. In International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.Google Scholar
Siemens, G. (2012). MOOCs are really a platform. ELearnspace. Retrieved from www.elearnspace.org/blog/2012/07/25/moocs-are-really-a-platform/Google Scholar
Simon, B., & Cutts, Q. (2012). Peer instruction: A teaching method to foster deep understanding. Communications of the ACM, 55(2), 27–29.Google Scholar
Sirkiä, T. (2016). Combining parson’s problems with program visualization in CS1 context. In 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘16) (pp. 155–159). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Sirkiä, T., & Sorva, J. (2015). Tailoring animations of example programs. In 15th Koli Calling Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘15) (pp. 147–151). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71–82.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. E., & Cooper, R. (1999). Improving intergroup relations: Lessons learned from cooperative learning programs. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 647–663.Google Scholar
Smith, P. A., & Webb, G. I. (1995). Reinforcing a generic computer model for novice programmers. In 7th Australian Society for Computer in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference (ASCILITE ’95). Retrieved from www.ascilite.org/conferences/melbourne95/smtu_bak/papers/smith.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smith, J., Tessler, J., Kramer, E., & Lin, C. (2012). Using peer review to teach software testing. In 9th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER ‘12) (pp. 93–98). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Sonnentag, S. (1998). Expertise in professional software design: A process study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 703–715.Google Scholar
Sorva, J. (2013). Notional machines and introductory programming education. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(2), 8.Google Scholar
Sorva, J., Karavirta, V., & Malmi, L. (2013). A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(4), 15.Google Scholar
Sorva, J., & Sirkiä, T. (2010). UUhistle: A software tool for visual program simulation. In 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ‘10) (pp. 49–54). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, V., Butler-Purry, K. & Pedersen, S. (2008). Using video games to enhance learning in digital systems. In 2008 Conference on Future Play: Research, Play, Share (Future Play ‘08) (pp. 196–199). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Summet, J., Kumar, D., O’Hara, K., Walker, D., Ni, L., Blank, D., & Balch, T. (2009). Personalizing CS1 with robots. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 433–437.Google Scholar
Swan, K., Day, S., & Bogle, L. (2016). Metaphors for learning and MOOC pedagogies. In 3rd ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 125–128). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Tarimo, W. T., Deeb, F. A., & Hickey, T. J. (2015). A flipped classroom with and without computers. In International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 333–347). New York: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Titterton, N., Lewis, C. M., & Clancy, M. J. (2010). Experiences with lab-centric instruction. Computer Science Education, 20(2), 79–102.Google Scholar
Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1–12.Google Scholar
Umapathy, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of pair-programming in computer programming courses: Implications for educational practice. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 17(4), 16.Google Scholar
Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., Maloney, , , J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch – A discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 17.Google Scholar
Vassiliadis, B., Kameas, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2016). A closer look at MOOC’s adoption from a qualitative perspective. In 20th Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI ‘16) (p. 17). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Vickers, R., Cooper, G., Field, J., Thayne, M., Adams, R., & Lochrie, M. (2014). Social media and collaborative learning: Hello Scholr. In 18th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Media Business, Management, Content & Services (AcademicMindTrek ‘14) (pp. 103–109). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Vozniuk, A., Holzer, A., & Gillet, D. (2014). Peer assessment based on ratings in a social media course. In 4th International Conference on Learning Analytics And Knowledge (LAK ‘14) (pp. 133–137). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wakeling, D. (2008). A robot in every classroom: Robots and functional programming across the curriculum. In 2008 International Workshop on Functional and Declarative Programming in Education (FDPE ‘08) (pp. 51–60). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., & Baepler, P. (2011). Pedagogy and space: Empirical research on new learning environments. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 34(4). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ958727Google Scholar
Watson, C., & Li, F. W. B. (2014). Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE ‘14) (pp. 39–44). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker. 9(5). Retrieved from https://thesystemsthinker.com/communities-of-practice-learning-as-a-social-system/Google Scholar
Williams, L. (2000). The Collaborative Software Process (PhD dissertation). University of Utah.Google Scholar
Williams, L., & Kessler, R. (2002). Pair Programming Illuminated. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
Williams, L., McCrickard, D. S., Layman, L., & Hussein, K. (2008). Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom. In Melnik, G. & Poppendieck, M. (Eds.), Agile Conference (pp. 445–452). New York: IEEE Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×