Designing and Developing a New Learning Environment for Teaching Introductory Programming: Change for Effect Dianne Hagan Software Development Department Monash University Caulfield
Judy Sheard Software Development Department Monash University Caulfield
Ian Macdonald Monash University Education Faculty Clayton
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Abstract A collaborative research project between the Education Faculty and the Department of Software Development at Monash University resulted in a redesign of the structure and content of the first year programming subjects, in order to improve the teaching and learning of first year computer programming. A new kind of class was added, to encourage students to discuss the lecture content away from computers. The syllabus and assignments were chosen to try to increase students’ motivation and interest, and the lectures were redesigned in accordance with educational theory. Educational techniques that had been found effective in secondary school teaching were modified and used successfully. Tutors were trained in teaching principles and techniques, and classes and students were monitored to judge the effectiveness of the changes. The World Wide Web was used to interest the students, disseminate information and solicit feedback about the effectiveness of the changes. Student results at the end of the first year showed a significant increase in the percentage of students who did very well, compared with the previous two years.
1 The need for change In 1994, within the Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, concerns were raised about high failure rates, low retention rates and general dissatisfaction of first year programming students. To effect improvements, some changes were needed, but it was difficult to be sure of exactly
what to do.
2 A collaborative investigation During 1994 and 1995 a collaborative project between the Faculty of Computing and Information Technology and the Faculty of Education performed a detailed study of first year programming subjects within the Software Development and Computer Science departments (the two departments that expressed most interest and volunteered to participate). The education experts on the project team observed lectures and tutorial classes. A group of randomly selected first year programming students were interviewed in depth several times throughout one semester. Many tutors and all the subject lecturers were interviewed. The findings of this investigation and a set of recommendations were detailed in a report written at the end of 1995.
This project produced some surprising and challenging insights into the teaching of introductory programming. As a result, a decision was made at the beginning of 1996 to overhaul completely the two first year programming subjects in the Department of Software Development, in order to create a new and improved learning environment for the students. These subjects are offered twice per year, the first time to the main body of students and the second time mostly to students who have previously failed plus a small mid-year intake of new students. The first semester subject typically has about 400 students in the first group, including about 60 parttime evening students, and about 80 in the repeat group. The second semester subject typically has about 350 students in the main group, including about 40 evening students, and about 100 in the repeat group. For the major offerings, approximately 18 tutors are selected from permanent staff, postgraduate and Honours students, and exstudents employed in industry. The lecturers in these subjects always take at least one tutorial group so that they can see how the students are coping with the material.
3 Staff training and support A three-day tutor training program was specially designed. All first year lecturers and tutors attended this course which was run by the Education Faculty members of the project team and addressed many of the teaching and learning issues highlighted in the report. Short training courses for tutors had been presented in previous years by various professional development groups within the university; however, they were never more than half a day in length and were very general in focus. This was the first time a course was specifically designed for the teaching of introductory programming. A survey of tutors after the course indicated that the training course was considered by most, both experienced and inexperienced, to be very worthwhile, as most of them had no formal qualifications in teaching. Ongoing reinforcement of ideas introduced in this training course was provided during the semester in the form of weekly tutors’ meetings. An education expert was always in attendance, giving independent opinions and advice on educational issues. These meetings also provided a forum for sharing experiences and exchanging ideas in a positive, nonthreatening atmosphere. Problems were sorted out, issues discussed and decisions taken as a group. This gave everyone a feeling of ownership in the subject and a strong team spirit developed amongst the tutors. A survey of the tutors at the end of the year showed that they felt that the extra time spent attending the tutors’ meetings provided them with valuable support and they appreciated being included in some of the decision processes. Almost all teaching staff in the department were involved in tutoring a first year programming subject. Enthusiasm was high, with everyone feeling part of a team. This was evidenced by the increase in email between tutors on matters relating to these subjects.
4 Changing the subject format Significant changes were made to the format of the two subjects. The duration of each of the first year subjects is a thirteen week semester. Students previously had attended one two-hour lecture and one two-hour tutorial (lab) class per week. It was decided to divide the two-hour lecture into two separate one-hour lectures. The Education members of the team felt that it was unrealistic to expect students to pay attention for a two hour stretch. The same lecturer taught both first and second semester subjects, providing students with a smooth transition between them In addition to the two-hour lab class, a one-hour discussion class was introduced. To help foster a
strong bond between a group of students and their tutor, students had the same tutor for both lab and discussion classes. In the discussion class, students were encouraged to discuss and consolidate material introduced in lectures, without the constant distraction of computers. This type of class had been tried before but had not been very popular with students. However, this time it was a success. Much effort was put into the planning of these classes; special exercises and activities were designed to interest and engage students. Surveys indicate that these classes were a factor in improved student performance. Extra effort was put into creating a secure learning situation for students in the lab and discussion classes. Icebreaker activities were used in the first class to help the students feel at ease with each other and with their tutor. We have many international students and, at the beginning of first year, everything is strange to them. Many come from cultures and education systems that expect students to be passive learners. Discussion class activities were designed to encourage student participation and exploration of concepts. Innovative activities such as role plays were used with great success. Most were done as small group exercises; this helped students who were reluctant to participate in front of the whole class. Tutors asked open-ended questions aimed at promoting discussion. Students were urged to ask questions and share ideas. Tutors encouraged students to answer other students’ questions, and tried not to provide answers themselves. Soon the focus shifted away from the tutor as the central figure in the classroom. Students communicated ideas with each other rather than relying on the tutor for all the answers. In some classes, lively debates amongst students ensued. This atmosphere of participation and sharing of ideas in the discussion class was also fostered and evident in the lab classes. This new learning environment showed benefits beyond the classroom. The sharing and discussion amongst students and tutors continued via email and various facilities provided for students on the World Wide Web home page for the subjects (e.g., newsgroup discussions, anonymous feedback) [1]. The World Wide Web was used in addition to email surveys of randomly selected students and classroom observations by Education staff to monitor the success of the changes. This is described in detail in [5]. A help desk was set up to assist students with programming problems outside class time for three hours each day. All tutors in these subjects were
rostered to provide this service. This replaced the time that these tutors would previously have been required to make available to their own students for private consultation. As a result, tutors and lecturers found demands on their time for student consultation to be very much reduced overall, and the students were happier as there was almost always someone on duty who knew their subjects and what was expected of them, rather than just knowing the programming language they were learning. This system has since been adopted for many other subjects in the department. Some changes needed to be made to the presentation of the subject content. This could have been done in a minor way; however, the subject lecturer, in consultation with the Education team members, decided that a complete rewrite of the subjects would be done. A planning team of two Education staff and two programming lecturers (the lead lecturer and another who lectures the repeat subjects in alternate semesters) was formed to work on this task. It was difficult to know how well this team would work together with the two different areas of expertise. However, a high level of mutual trust was quickly established. The Education people were willing to learn and understand the programming domain and it was valuable for the programming lecturers to have the expert educational input. The planning sessions began before first semester. Initially they were concerned with the overall subject structure and the “big ideas” that the lecturers wanted the students to gain from the course. According to Ian Mitchell (one of the education experts), in order to increase student interest, the subject must contain challenge, variety, shared ownership and at least one of relevance to current work and importance to the future. The assignments were chosen to fit in with these guidelines. Significant changes were made to the way topics were presented, based on accepted educational principles. The planning team met throughout each semester for two hours per week to discuss the lecture for the following week. When planning each lecture, the focus was on questions such as: •
How does this relate to the aims of the subject overall?
•
What are the big ideas to be communicated in this lecture?
•
Do the students really need to know this? Do they really need to know it now? If not, omit it. Otherwise, if the relevance is not obvious, how
can we create a need to know? •
What links can be made to prior knowledge, other subjects, real life, etc.?
An iterative approach was taken to topics, whereby rather than present one lecture that completely covered a particular concept (e.g. selection), the concept would be introduced in one lecture, then expanded upon in other lectures a little at a time. This allows students time to become familiar with a technique before having to immerse themselves in the details of its use. In first semester, the activities and exercises for the discussion and lab classes were also planned. In second semester, these class activities were often planned in the tutor meetings, in order to increase the sense of ownership among the tutors. These activities included modifications of many techniques that had proved successful in secondary school teaching, such as “predict-observe-explain”, “mimics”, role plays and grids [2],[3]. The ideas and constructive criticisms contributed by the Education team members were enormously helpful, as were their valuable advice about course design and innovative ideas for course presentation and teaching materials. The four members of the planning team were enthusiastic about the task and developed a strong team spirit.
5 Conclusion - effects of the changes The changes made to first year programming have resulted in a new and improved learning environment for the students. All the changes are considered to have been successful. The teaching staff and students have responded well to the different subject format and class activities and have given positive feedback both informally and in surveys. No data on classroom interactions was collected prior to 1996, but monitoring of discussion groups and lab sessions by Education staff during 1996 showed a significant increase between first and second semester in behaviour that is considered indicative of good teaching and learning, e.g. the amount of “on task” student talk and interaction between students [4].
