远程实时编程教学法对学生编程过程、成绩和课堂提问的影响

Anshul Shah, Vardhan Agarwal, Michael Granado, J. Driscoll, Emma Hogan, Leo Porter, W. Griswold, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj
{"title":"远程实时编程教学法对学生编程过程、成绩和课堂提问的影响","authors":"Anshul Shah, Vardhan Agarwal, Michael Granado, J. Driscoll, Emma Hogan, Leo Porter, W. Griswold, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj","doi":"10.1145/3587102.3588846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Live coding---a pedagogical technique in which an instructor plans, writes, and executes code in front of a class---is generally considered a best practice when teaching programming. However, only a few studies have evaluated the effect of live coding on student learning in a controlled experiment and most of the literature relating to live coding identifies students' perceived benefits of live-coding examples. In order to empirically evaluate the impact of live coding, we designed a controlled experiment in a CS1 course taught in Python at a large public university. In the two remote lecture sections for the course, one was taught using live-coding examples and the other was taught using static-code examples. Throughout the term, we collected code snapshots from students' programming assignments, students' grades, and the questions that they asked during the remote lectures. We then applied a set of process-oriented programming metrics to students' programming data to compare students' adherence to effective programming processes in the two learning groups and categorized each question asked in lectures following an open-coding approach. Our results revealed a general lack of difference between the two groups across programming processes, grades, and lecture questions asked. However, our experiment uncovered minimal effects in favor of the live-coding group indicating improved programming processes but lower performance on assignments and grades. Our results suggest an overall insignificant impact of the style of presenting code examples, though we reflect on the threats to validity in our study that should be addressed in future work.","PeriodicalId":410890,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Impact of a Remote Live-Coding Pedagogy on Student Programming Processes, Grades, and Lecture Questions Asked\",\"authors\":\"Anshul Shah, Vardhan Agarwal, Michael Granado, J. Driscoll, Emma Hogan, Leo Porter, W. Griswold, Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3587102.3588846\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Live coding---a pedagogical technique in which an instructor plans, writes, and executes code in front of a class---is generally considered a best practice when teaching programming. However, only a few studies have evaluated the effect of live coding on student learning in a controlled experiment and most of the literature relating to live coding identifies students' perceived benefits of live-coding examples. In order to empirically evaluate the impact of live coding, we designed a controlled experiment in a CS1 course taught in Python at a large public university. In the two remote lecture sections for the course, one was taught using live-coding examples and the other was taught using static-code examples. Throughout the term, we collected code snapshots from students' programming assignments, students' grades, and the questions that they asked during the remote lectures. We then applied a set of process-oriented programming metrics to students' programming data to compare students' adherence to effective programming processes in the two learning groups and categorized each question asked in lectures following an open-coding approach. Our results revealed a general lack of difference between the two groups across programming processes, grades, and lecture questions asked. However, our experiment uncovered minimal effects in favor of the live-coding group indicating improved programming processes but lower performance on assignments and grades. Our results suggest an overall insignificant impact of the style of presenting code examples, though we reflect on the threats to validity in our study that should be addressed in future work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":410890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588846\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3587102.3588846","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

现场编程——一种教学技术,讲师在全班面前计划、编写和执行代码——通常被认为是教授编程的最佳实践。然而,只有少数研究在对照实验中评估了实时编码对学生学习的影响,大多数与实时编码相关的文献都确定了学生对实时编码示例的感知益处。为了经验性地评估实时编码的影响,我们在一所大型公立大学用Python教授的CS1课程中设计了一个对照实验。在本课程的两个远程讲座部分中,一个是使用实时编码示例,另一个是使用静态代码示例。整个学期,我们从学生的编程作业、学生的成绩和他们在远程讲座中提出的问题中收集代码快照。然后,我们将一组面向过程的编程指标应用于学生的编程数据,以比较学生在两个学习小组中对有效编程过程的遵守情况,并根据开放编码方法对讲座中提出的每个问题进行分类。我们的研究结果显示,两组学生在编程过程、成绩和课堂提问方面基本没有差异。然而,我们的实验揭示了支持实时编码组的最小影响,表明改进了编程过程,但降低了作业和成绩的表现。我们的结果表明,呈现代码示例的风格总体上影响不大,尽管我们在研究中反映了有效性的威胁,这些威胁应该在未来的工作中得到解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Impact of a Remote Live-Coding Pedagogy on Student Programming Processes, Grades, and Lecture Questions Asked
Live coding---a pedagogical technique in which an instructor plans, writes, and executes code in front of a class---is generally considered a best practice when teaching programming. However, only a few studies have evaluated the effect of live coding on student learning in a controlled experiment and most of the literature relating to live coding identifies students' perceived benefits of live-coding examples. In order to empirically evaluate the impact of live coding, we designed a controlled experiment in a CS1 course taught in Python at a large public university. In the two remote lecture sections for the course, one was taught using live-coding examples and the other was taught using static-code examples. Throughout the term, we collected code snapshots from students' programming assignments, students' grades, and the questions that they asked during the remote lectures. We then applied a set of process-oriented programming metrics to students' programming data to compare students' adherence to effective programming processes in the two learning groups and categorized each question asked in lectures following an open-coding approach. Our results revealed a general lack of difference between the two groups across programming processes, grades, and lecture questions asked. However, our experiment uncovered minimal effects in favor of the live-coding group indicating improved programming processes but lower performance on assignments and grades. Our results suggest an overall insignificant impact of the style of presenting code examples, though we reflect on the threats to validity in our study that should be addressed in future work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Automatic Problem Generation for CTF-Style Assessments in IT Forensics Courses The Value of Time Extensions in Identifying Students Abilities Studied Questions in Data Structures and Algorithms Assessments Exploring CS1 Student's Notions of Code Quality Pseudocode vs. Compile-and-Run Prompts: Comparing Measures of Student Programming Ability in CS1 and CS2
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1