A Comparison of Student Behavioral Engagement in Traditional Live Coding and Active Live Coding Lectures

被引:4
作者
Shah, Anshul [1 ]
Alhumrani, Fatimah [1 ]
Griswold, William G. [1 ]
Porter, Leo [1 ]
Raj, Adalbert Gerald Soosai [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
来源
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2024 CONFERENCE INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION, VOL 1, ITICSE 2024 | 2024年
关键词
live coding; active learning; student behavioral engagement;
D O I
10.1145/3649217.3653537
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Live coding is a recommended teaching practice in which an instructor dynamically programs in front of students. However, findings related to students' engagement during live coding are mixed. Some works have reported that live coding seems to improve student engagement while others regard live coding as an activity in which students passively observe the instructor without asking questions or following along. Active live coding, in which students extend a live coding example and discuss with peers, incorporates active learning with the traditional live coding approach. We conducted a quasi-experimental study in which one section of an advanced introductory programming course was taught using active live coding (ALC) and the other was taught using traditional live coding (TLC). The goal of this work is to compare students' behavioral engagement in the two lectures using a classroom observation protocol called the Behavioral Engagement Related to Instruction (BERI) protocol. Our results from the 2,790 observations we collected indicate that traditional live coding engages only 65% of students, on average. However, we found a "persisting engagement" effect of active live coding, where students were significantly more engaged in the traditional live coding components of a lecture up to 20 minutes after the active live coding component. Notably, the two lecture groups performed similarly on the Post-Lecture Questions, which were administered after each lecture as a review of the lecture material. Therefore, our results indicate an improved student engagement due to active live coding, but do not show a corresponding improvement in conceptual knowledge.
引用
收藏
页码:513 / 519
页数:7
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
Aggarwal A., 2022, P 22 KOL CALL INT C, P1, DOI [10.1145/3564721.3564740, DOI 10.1145/3564721.3564740]
[2]  
Akpur U., 2021, English Language Teaching Educational Journal, V4, P148, DOI DOI 10.12928/ELTEJ.V4I2.3551
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2015, J Coll Sci Teach, DOI DOI 10.2505/4/JCST15_044_06_83
[4]   Ten quick tips for teaching programming [J].
Brown, Neil C. C. ;
Wilson, Greg .
PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY, 2018, 14 (04)
[5]  
Bruhn R. E., 2003, SIGCSE Bulletin, V35, P94, DOI 10.1145/960492.960537
[6]  
Chinn Donald, 2010, P 12 AUSTR C COMP ED, V103, P53
[7]  
Collins A., 1991, Am Educator, V15, P6, DOI DOI 10.1007/S10833-009-9107-0
[8]  
Dey R., 2018, Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining, P1, DOI [DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7131-2_110195, 10.1007/978-1-4614-7163-9_110195-1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-7163-9_110195-1, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-7131-2110195]
[9]  
Edstem, 2023, Edstem
[10]   School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence [J].
Fredricks, JA ;
Blumenfeld, PC ;
Paris, AH .
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 2004, 74 (01) :59-109