skip to main content
10.1145/2691352.2691359acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescsercConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Managing a large tertiary computer science class

Published:05 November 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

The organisation of a tertiary module shows prevalent problems when the size of the class increases. We present problems associated with large classes and investigate a number of proposed solutions. An attempt was made to address these difficulties in a presentation of a first-year module introducing programming with yearly student enrolment of approximately 500. We report on the different aspects of managing a large Computer Science class. The focus of the paper is on the infrastructure put in place to handle this large enrolment at a residential institution.

The impact of the efforts and attempted solutions has been observed over the past three years. It was evaluated using statistical methods to detect relationships between broad behaviours. Qualitative evaluation of student feedback and other observations are used to illustrate how the students experienced the course. The outcome can be used as guideline when planning similar courses to avoid some pitfalls that have been identified through this experience and consider the aspects we found useful.

References

  1. Kirsti M Ala-Mutka. 2005. A Survey of Automated Assessment Approaches for Programming Assignments. Computer Science Education 15, 2 (2005), 83--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. M. S. Balaji and Diganta Chakrabarti. 2010. Student Interactions in Online Discussion Forum: Empirical Research from 'Media Richness Theory' Perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning 9, 1 (2010), 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Best Practical Solutions INC. 2012. RT: Request Tracker. http://bestpractical.com/rt/. (2012). {Online} accessed 2012-08-28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrew Boake. 2008. Improving architectural design decisions. South African Computer Journal 41 (2008), 2--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. 2012. The teacher's job is to design learning experiences; not primarily to impart information. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--2. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. John A. Brownell and Harris A. Taylor. 1962. Theoretical Perspectives for Teaching Teams. The Phi Delta Kappan 43 (Jan 1962), 150--157.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jacob Cohen. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. James L. Cooper and Pamela Robinson. 2000. The Argument for Making Large Classes Seem Small. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 2000, 81 (2000), 5--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Jo Davies and Martin Graff. 2005. Performance in e-learning: online participation and student grades. British Journal of Educational Technology 36, 4 (2005), 657--663.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Paul E. Dickson. 2011. Using Undergraduate Teaching Assistants in a Small College Environment. Fortieth SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 9--12 March 2011 Dallas, Texas 42, 1 (2011), 75--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ronald M. Epstein. 2007. Assessment in Medical Education. New England Journal of Medicine 356, 20 (2007), 2108--2110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Donghui Feng, Erin Shaw, Jihie Kim, and Eduard Hovy. 2006. An Intelligent Discussion-bot for Answering Student Queries in Threaded Discussions. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 171--177. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1111449.1111488 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Michael F. Flanagan and David A. Ralston. 1983. Intra-Coordinated Team Teaching: Benefits for Both Students and Instructors. Teaching of Psychology 10, 2 (1983), 116--117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Frances Anne Freitas, Scott A. Myers, and Theodore A. Avtgis. 1998. Student perceptions of instructor immediacy in conventional and distributed learning classrooms. Communication Education 47, 4 (1998), 366--372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. A. Fuller, G. Awyzio, and P. McFarlane. 2001. Using WebCT to support team teaching. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 315--318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. T. Fuller and P. Ankomah. 2010. Teaching Large Classes: Enhancing Learning Through Technology. In EDULEARN10 Proceedings (2nd International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies). IATED, 910--914.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Sarah Grison, Steven G. Luke, Aya Shigeto, and Patrick D. K. Watson. 2011. Using Low-Stakes Repeated Testing Can Improve Student Learning: How (Some) Practice Makes Perfect. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/28605/Grison%20et%20al_Psycho%202011_FINAL.pdf?sequence=2. (November 2011). {Online} accessed 2012-09-03.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Neil Harris and Maria Sandor. 2008. Student views on participation and interaction in student centred online discussion forums. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? (ASCLITE08 Proceedings). ASCLITE, 400--404. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/harris.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Pat Jefferies, Frances Grodzinsky, and Joe Griffin. 2003. Advantages and Problems in Using Information Communication Technologies to Support the Teaching of a Multi-institutional Computer Ethics Course. Journal of Educational Media 28, 2 (2003), 191--202. http://0-www.informaworld.com.innopac.up.ac.za/10.1080/1358165032000165644Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Veselin Jungic, Deborah Kent, and Petra Menz. 2006. Teaching Large Math Classes: Three Instructors, One Experience. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 1, 1 (2006), 1--15. http://www.iejme.com/012006/d1.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Wouter Kool, Joseph T. McGuire, Zev B. Rosen, and Matthew M. Botvinick. 2010. Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 139, 4 (November 2010), 665--682. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020198Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. M. C. Maphalala. 2013. Understanding the Role of Mentor Teachers during Teaching Practice Session. International Journal of Educational Sciences 5, 2 (2013), 123--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Henry C. Morlock, William P. Gaeddert, Naomi B. McCormick, Matthew R. Merrens, Lary C. Shaffer, and Taher Zandi. 1988. A Rotational Format for Team Teaching Introductory Psychology. Teaching of Psychology 15, 3 (1988), 144--145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. David J. Nicol and Debra Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31, 2 (2006), 199--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Vreda Pieterse. 2013. Automated Assessment of Programming Assignments. In Proceedings of the 3rd Computer Science Education Research Conference on Computer Science Education Research (CSERC '13). Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Open Univ., Heerlen, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, Article 4, 12 pages. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2541917.2541921 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Vreda Pieterse and Isabel J. Van Rooyen. 2011. Student discussion forums: what is in it for them?. In Computer Science Education Research Conference (CSERC '11). Open Universiteit, Heerlen, Open Univ., Heerlen, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, 59--70. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2043594.2043599 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. H. W. Pretorius, A. A. Steyn, and R. D. Johnson. 2012. Pair teaching of ICT in higher education: a multi-perspective reflection. Research in Higher Education Journal 17 (September 2012), 1--12. http://0-search.proquest.com.innopac.up.ac.za/docview/1035289281?accountid=14717Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. SAinfo reporter. 2012. South Africa's universities. http://www.southafrica.info/about/education/universities.htm\#.UbitXfkwdyw\#ixzz2W1Wnb1cSAt. (July 2012). {Online} accessed 2013-06-12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Perry J Samson. 2010. Deliberate Engagement of Laptops in Large Lecture Classes to Improve Attentiveness and Engagement. Computers in Education 1, 2 (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Larry D. Spence. 2001. The Case against Teaching. Change 33, 6 (2001), 10--19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Yvonne Steinert and Linda S. Snell. 1999. Interactive lecturing: strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher 21, 1 (1999), 37--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Adeyinka Tella and Emmanuel Olusola Adu. 2014. An Assessment of the Undergraduates' Participation in the Online Discussion Forum. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5, 7 (2014). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n7p333Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Merrell E. Thompson. 1944. Learning as a function of the absolute and relative amounts of work. Journal of Experimental Psychology 34, 6 (December 1944), 506--515. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0056683Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Nicole E. Titus. 2013. A Review of Literature Investigating Coteaching Influences in Teacher Education Programs. Pennsylvania Teacher Educator 12 (2013), 11--23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Carol A. Twigg. 2003. Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review Magazine 38, 5 (September/October 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Yong Zhu and Bin Peng. 2009. Practical Education Research in Computer Science Based on Japan-Oriented Outsourcing Practice. International Conference on Scalable Computing and Communications Proceedings 8, 1 (2009), 480--484. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Managing a large tertiary computer science class

      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 Other conferences
        CSERC '14: Proceedings of the Computer Science Education Research Conference
        November 2014
        94 pages
        ISBN:9781450333474
        DOI:10.1145/2691352

        Copyright © 2014 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: 5 November 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate24of60submissions,40%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader