Comparing the Experiences of Live Coding versus Static Code Examples for Students and Instructors

被引:2
作者
Watkins, Andrea [1 ]
Miller, Craig S. [2 ]
Settle, Amber [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[2] DePaul Univ, Chicago, IL USA
来源
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2024 CONFERENCE INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION, VOL 1, ITICSE 2024 | 2024年
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
cognitive load; engagement; live coding; object-oriented programming; static code examples; COGNITIVE-LOAD; WORKED-EXAMPLES;
D O I
10.1145/3649217.3653562
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Introductory programming courses can be taught in a variety of ways, including live coding, where instructors write code in real-time in front of students, or static code examples, where pre-prepared code is explained to students. While previous studies have compared live coding and static coding and their impacts on student assessment and cognitive load in large lecture environments, we present our experiences in a single lab session, highlighting student engagement differences. After presenting the same material to groups of students through a live-coding presentation and a static code presentation, we reflect on the observable differences in student engagement through an established framework of cognitive engagement. Additionally, we compare pre-surveys, post-tests, and cognitive load surveys from both groups. While our findings did not result in significant differences in student assessments, our experience highlighted differences between live and static code presentations. Live coding presentations can often take up to twice as long as static code presentations. Students may tend to ask more questions in live coding presentations, suggesting live coding provides instructors and students with more opportunities for further discussion. Live coding may also provide the instructor with additional opportunities to discuss other concepts that may not have been included in a pre-prepared presentation.
引用
收藏
页码:506 / 512
页数:7
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] Learning programming via worked-examples: Relation of learning styles to cognitive load
    Abdul-Rahman, Siti-Soraya
    du Boulay, Benedict
    [J]. COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2014, 30 : 286 - 298
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1994, LEARN INSTRUCTION, DOI [10.1016/0959-4752, DOI 10.1016/0959-4752, 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5]
  • [3] Cognitive Load Theory in the Context of Teaching and Learning Computer Programming: A Systematic Literature Review
    Berssanette, Joao Henrique
    de Francisco, Antonio Carlos
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, 2022, 65 (03) : 440 - 449
  • [4] Scaffolded Live Coding: A Hybrid Pedagogical Approach for Enhanced Teaching of Coding Skills
    Chattopadhyay, Ankur
    Ryan, Drew
    Pockrandt, James
    [J]. 2022 IEEE FRONTIERS IN EDUCATION CONFERENCE, FIE, 2022,
  • [5] The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes
    Chi, Michelene T. H.
    Wylie, Ruth
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 2014, 49 (04) : 219 - 243
  • [6] Towards a Common Instrument for Measuring Prior Programming Knowledge
    Duran, Rodrigo
    Rybicki, Jan-Mikael
    Hellas, Arto
    Suoranta, Sanna
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2019 ACM CONFERENCE ON INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION (ITICSE '19), 2019, : 443 - 449
  • [7] What is the relationship between mental workload factors and cognitive load types?
    Galy, Edith
    Cariou, Magali
    Melan, Claudine
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2012, 83 (03) : 269 - 275
  • [8] Hoffman B, 2019, SIGCSE '19: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 50TH ACM TECHNICAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION, P1123
  • [9] Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load
    Leppink, Jimmie
    Paas, Fred
    Van der Vleuten, Cees P. M.
    Van Gog, Tamara
    Van Merrinboer, Jeroen J. G.
    [J]. BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2013, 45 (04) : 1058 - 1072
  • [10] Metzger K.J., 2020, College Teaching, V68, P150, DOI DOI 10.1080/87567555.2020.1768357