Titterton et al 2010

Titterton, N., Lewis, C. M., & Clancy, M. (2010). Experiences with lab-centric instruction. Computer Science Education (Ed. Y. Ben-David Kolikant) 20(2), 79-102.  LINK

Lab-centric instruction emphasizes supervised, hands-on activities by substituting lab for lecture time. It combines a multitude of pedagogical techniques into the format of an extended, structured closed lab. We discuss the range of benefits for students, including increased staff interaction, frequent and varied self-assessments, integrated collaborative activities, and a systematic sequence of activities that gradually increases in difficulty. Instructors also benefit from a deeper window into student progress and understanding. We follow with discussion of our experiences in courses at U.C. Berkeley, and using data from some of these investigate the effects of lab-centric instruction on student learning, procrastination, and course pacing. We observe that the lab-centric format helped students on exams but hurt them on extended programming assignments, counter to our hypothesis. Additionally, we see no difference in self-ratings of procrastination and limited differences in ratings of course pace. We do find evidence that the students who choose to attend lab-centric courses are different in several important ways from students who choose to attend the same course in a non-lab-centric format.

Crutchfield et al 2011

Crutchfield, O. S., Harrison, C. D., Haas, G., Garcia, D. D., Humphreys, S. M., Lewis, C. M., & Khooshabeh, P. (2011). Berkeley Foundation for Opportunities in Information Technology (BFOIT): A Decade of Broadening Participation. Transactions on Computing Education.11(3). Article 15. 1-24. LINK

The Berkeley Foundation for Opportunities in Information Technology is a decade-old endeavor to expose pre-college young women and underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities to the fields of computer science and engineering, and prepare them for rigorous, university-level study. We have served more than 150 students, and graduated more than 65 seniors who have gone on to attend some of the top institutions in the country. Some of the lessons we have learned include the importance of sustained funding to support a continuing year-round program, world-class leaders and resources, and family and alumni involvement. In this article, we share the inner workings of our program, from its foundation during the dot-com heyday through today, in hopes that our best practices can be useful to others working toward the goal of broadening participation.

 

 

 

Lewis 2010

Lewis, C. M. (2011). Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? Computer Science Education. 21(2). 105-134. LINK

Abstract: This study investigates differences between collaboration methods in two summer enrichment classes for students entering the sixth grade. In one treatment, students used pair programming. In the other treatment, students engaged in frequent collaboration, but worked on their own computer. Students in the two treatments did not differ significantly in their performance on daily quizzes or responses to attitudinal survey questions. However, the students who worked on their own computer completed exercises more quickly than those using pair programming. This study compares two learning environments with high levels of collaboration to isolate aspects of pair programming that are and are not responsible for the reported success of educational research focused on pair programming. This study expands our understanding of pair programming by moving beyond simplistic comparisons of learning environments with and without collaboration and by extending pair programming research to elementary school students.