Christopher D.
Hundhausen
Washington State University
School of Elec. Eng. and Comp. Sci.
Hari Narayanan. N
Auburn University
Computer Science & Software Engineering
Martha E. Crosby
University of Hawaii
Communication & Information Sciences
Challenge:
I wonder if other teachers who have agreed to adopt the approach will obtain adequate training. I wonder whether "the culture of review" advocated by the approach will be accepted by computer science students, who are not used to giving and receiving peer feedback.
CISE Pathways to Revitalized Undergraduate Computing Education
Broadening Studio- Based Learning in Computing Education
This CPATH collaborative project between Washington State University, Auburn University, and the University of Hawaii extends and evaluates the use of studio-based instruction in undergraduate computing
courses and builds regional
communities of practice at universities geographically close to the three funded institutions. The studio method, adapted from
standard pedagogy in architecture
education, actively engages
students in collaborative, design-
oriented learning. The method emphasizes learning activities in which students construct personally-meaningful representations of computing concepts under study and present the representations to their instructors and peers for feedback using the concept of design criticisms.
Success Story:
Auburn University computing students have enthusiastically embraced studio-based learning in CS 2. Here are illustrative verbatim quotes from student emails: "When I took COMP 1210 [CS 1], I was excited going into it, but came out feeling like I was hit by a train. So I switched to hardware. Don't ask me how, but I ended up back in Software Eng, and I was really dreading taking COMP 2210 [CS 2]. I know I started out rough on the first test and GLA's. But I honestly feel like I learned a lot of information. I also want to Thank you for making me reach outside my limitation and to stretch my brain. But I know there is a lot more to learn, and after taking your class, I'm enthusiastic about learning it. So, I'll make this short and just say Thank You, for rekindling my enthusiasm about Java and software engineering in general." "I just wanted to say what a pleasure it was to work on A5. It's really given me a respect for the studio program and some of my peers in the class. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you, because in my last two CS classes at KSU, the assignments
were not challenging or stimulating in the least. These [studio] assignments this semester have provided a
great opportunity for growth and learning. I'm really glad that I came to Auburn this semester and that I had to take your class." Washington State University's approach to studio-based instruction for lower-division computing courses involves the "pedagogical code review" (PCR). Based on the formal code inspection process commonly used in the software industry, PCRs have small teams of students first review each other’s code individually, and then come together as a team both to log issues (defects and improvements) that they encountered, and to identify additional issues as a team. An empirical comparison of face-to-face PCRs conducted with an Online Studio-Based Learning Environment against face-to-face PCRs conducted with pen- and-paper found that technology support greatly improved the organization of the code reviews and access to pedagogically relevant information, sped up the code review process by 37%, and facilitated greater collaboration within student teams. At the University of Hawaii at Manoa, an introductory computing course for majors and non-majors offered in the studio format has seen significantly increased enrollment and
improved student understanding and retention of computing concepts.
Pedagogic Approach:
Our current and future evaluations of the pedagogy will address four key questions:
RQ1. Do students learn better in studio-based instruction than in traditional instruction?
RQ2. Are students able to better transfer and apply the knowledge learned through the studio-based approach in future courses?
RQ3. Are students more engaged, invested and motivated in studio-based classrooms?
RQ4. What are the long term impacts of this approach in terms of persistence in the undergraduate program and future plans for computing careers?
To address these questions, we are offering two or three consecutive courses from a set of four
undergraduate computing courses (pre-CS1, CS1, CS2 and CS3) in alternating studio and traditional formats over the next two years at each participating university, and undertaking the following data collection, comparison and evaluation activities. To address RQ1, we have developed a common pre- and post-test instrument, specific to each course, to assess the learning of key computing concepts and skills in each course. We will also use course-specific assignment and exam scores to track student progress in each consecutive course sequence. Collection of these data will allow us to systematically compare student learning in traditional and studio-based courses within and across institutions. To address RQ2, we will compare the performance in subsequent courses of students who take previous courses in the traditional and studio-based formats. We will also compare failure and dropout rates in each course vis-à-vis current and previous exposure to studio-based and traditional formats.
To address RQ3, we will track the attitudes, engagement, motivation and future plans of students in the
consecutive courses at each university through both pre and post surveys (at the start and end of each course in each semester), and interviews of selected students. These data should reveal immediate and long-term affective impact of traditional vs. studio-based instruction. To address RQ4, we will track retention by looking at the number of students who take all courses in a sequence, and the number of students who subsequently remain in the computing program, at each of the participating institutions.