skip to main content
10.1145/1734263.1734432acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1?: an empirical comparison with a traditional approach

Published:10 March 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

Given the increasing importance of communication, teamwork, and critical thinking skills in the computing profession, we believe there is good reason to provide students with increased opportunities to learn and practice those skills in undergraduate computing courses. Toward that end, we have been exploring studio-based instructional methods, which have been successfully employed in architecture and fine arts education for over a century. We have developed an adaptation of studio-based instruction for computing education called the pedagogical code review, which is modeled after the code inspection process used in the software industry. To evaluate its effectiveness, we carried out a quasi-experimental comparison of a "studio-based" CS 1 course with pedagogical code reviews and an identical "traditional" CS 1 course without pedagogical code reviews. We found no learning outcome differences between the two courses; however, we did observe two interesting attitudinal trends: (a) self-efficacy decreased more in the traditional course than in the studio-based course; and (b) peer learning decreased in the traditional course, but increased in the studio-based course. Additional questionnaire and interview data provide further evidence of the positive impact of studio-based instruction.

References

  1. Anewalt, K. Using peer review as a vehicle for communication skill development and active learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 21, 2 (2005), 148--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Worth, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Docherty, M., Sutton, P., Brereton, M., and Kaplan, S. An innovative design and studio-based CS degree. In Proc. 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 2001, 233--237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Faro, S. and Swan, K. An investigation of the efficacy of the studio model at the high school level. Journal of Educational Computing Research 35, 1 (2006), 45--59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Gehringer, E. Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer science courses. In Proc. 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2001, 139--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Gehringer, E., Chinn, D., Mardis, M., and Perez-Quinones, M. Panel: Using peer review in teaching computing. In Proc. 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2005, 321--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Gilb, T. and Graham, D. Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Hundhausen, C., Agrawal, A., Fairbrother, D., and Trevisan, M. Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS 1 course: an empirical study. In Proc. 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 2009, 291--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hundhausen, C., Narayanan, N., and Crosby, M. Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. In Proc. 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2008, 392--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Lackney, J. A History of the Studio-based Learning Model. 1999. http://www.edi.msstate.edu/studio.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Lister, B. Next generation studio: A new model for interactive learning. 2001. http://www.ciue.rpi.edu/pdfs/nextGenStudio.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Lynch, K., Carbone, A., Jamieson, P., and Arnott, D. Adopting a studio-based education approach into information technology (poster session). Proc. Australasian conference on computing education, ACM New York, 2000, 254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. McKinney, J., McKinney, K., Franiuk, R., and Schweitzer, J. The college classroom as a community: Impact on student attitudes and learning. College Teaching 54, 281--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Myneni, L., Ross, M., Hendrix, D., and Narayanan, N. Studio-based learning in CS2: An experience report. In Proc. 46th ACM southeast conference (ACM-SE 2008). ACM Press, New York, 2008, 253--255. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Pintrich, D., Smith, D., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Reily, K., Finnerty, P. L., and Terveen, L. Two peers are better than one: aggregating peer reviews for computing assignments is surprisingly accurate. Proc. ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, ACM, New York, 2009, 115--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Reimer, Y. and Douglas, S. Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education 13, 3 (2003), 191--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Trivedi, A., Kar, D., and Patterson-McNeill, H. Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 18, 4 (2003), 30--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Trytten, D. A design for team peer code review. In Proc. 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2005, 455--459. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Wiegers, K. Improving quality with software inspections. Software Development 3, 4 (1995), 55--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1?: an empirical comparison with a traditional approach

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education
      March 2010
      618 pages
      ISBN:9781450300063
      DOI:10.1145/1734263

      Copyright © 2010 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 10 March 2010

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,595of4,542submissions,35%

      Upcoming Conference

      SIGCSE Virtual 2024
      SIGCSE Virtual 2024: ACM Virtual Global Computing Education Conference
      November 30 - December 1, 2024
      Virtual Event , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader