research-article

Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1?: an empirical comparison with a traditional approach

Authors:

Christopher Hundhausen,

Anukrati Agrawal,

Dana Fairbrother,

Michael TrevisanAuthors Info & Claims

SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

Pages 500 - 504

https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734432

Published: 10 March 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Given the increasing importance of communication, teamwork, and critical thinking skills in the computing profession, we believe there is good reason to provide students with increased opportunities to learn and practice those skills in undergraduate computing courses. Toward that end, we have been exploring studio-based instructional methods, which have been successfully employed in architecture and fine arts education for over a century. We have developed an adaptation of studio-based instruction for computing education called the pedagogical code review, which is modeled after the code inspection process used in the software industry. To evaluate its effectiveness, we carried out a quasi-experimental comparison of a "studio-based" CS 1 course with pedagogical code reviews and an identical "traditional" CS 1 course without pedagogical code reviews. We found no learning outcome differences between the two courses; however, we did observe two interesting attitudinal trends: (a) self-efficacy decreased more in the traditional course than in the studio-based course; and (b) peer learning decreased in the traditional course, but increased in the studio-based course. Additional questionnaire and interview data provide further evidence of the positive impact of studio-based instruction.

References

[1]

Anewalt, K. Using peer review as a vehicle for communication skill development and active learning. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 21, 2 (2005), 148--155.

Digital Library

[2]

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Worth, New York.

[3]

Docherty, M., Sutton, P., Brereton, M., and Kaplan, S. An innovative design and studio-based CS degree. In Proc. 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 2001, 233--237.

Digital Library

[4]

Faro, S. and Swan, K. An investigation of the efficacy of the studio model at the high school level. Journal of Educational Computing Research 35, 1 (2006), 45--59.

[5]

Gehringer, E. Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer science courses. In Proc. 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2001, 139--143.

Digital Library

[6]

Gehringer, E., Chinn, D., Mardis, M., and Perez-Quinones, M. Panel: Using peer review in teaching computing. In Proc. 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2005, 321--322.

Digital Library

[7]

Gilb, T. and Graham, D. Software Inspection. Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA, 1993.

Digital Library

[8]

Hundhausen, C., Agrawal, A., Fairbrother, D., and Trevisan, M. Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS 1 course: an empirical study. In Proc. 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 2009, 291--295.

Digital Library

[9]

Hundhausen, C., Narayanan, N., and Crosby, M. Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. In Proc. 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2008, 392--396.

Digital Library

[10]

Lackney, J. A History of the Studio-based Learning Model. 1999. http://www.edi.msstate.edu/studio.htm.

[11]

Lister, B. Next generation studio: A new model for interactive learning. 2001. http://www.ciue.rpi.edu/pdfs/nextGenStudio.pdf.

[12]

Lynch, K., Carbone, A., Jamieson, P., and Arnott, D. Adopting a studio-based education approach into information technology (poster session). Proc. Australasian conference on computing education, ACM New York, 2000, 254.

Digital Library

[13]

McKinney, J., McKinney, K., Franiuk, R., and Schweitzer, J. The college classroom as a community: Impact on student attitudes and learning. College Teaching 54, 281--284.

[14]

Myneni, L., Ross, M., Hendrix, D., and Narayanan, N. Studio-based learning in CS2: An experience report. In Proc. 46th ACM southeast conference (ACM-SE 2008). ACM Press, New York, 2008, 253--255.

Digital Library

[15]

Pintrich, D., Smith, D., Garcia, T., and McKeachie, W. A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI, 1991.

[16]

Reily, K., Finnerty, P. L., and Terveen, L. Two peers are better than one: aggregating peer reviews for computing assignments is surprisingly accurate. Proc. ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, ACM, New York, 2009, 115--124.

Digital Library

[17]

Reimer, Y. and Douglas, S. Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education 13, 3 (2003), 191--205.

[18]

Trivedi, A., Kar, D., and Patterson-McNeill, H. Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 18, 4 (2003), 30--37.

Digital Library

[19]

Trytten, D. A design for team peer code review. In Proc. 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM Press, New York, 2005, 455--459.

Digital Library

[20]

Wiegers, K. Improving quality with software inspections. Software Development 3, 4 (1995), 55--64.

Digital Library

Cited By

Indriasari TDenny PLuxton-Reilly ALottridge D(2023)Impacting the Submission Timing of Student Work Using GamificationProceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Compute Conference10.1145/3627217.3627218(7-12)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3627217.3627218
Ogata BOgawa M(2023)Augmented Cognition Instructional Design for Studio-Based LearningAugmented Cognition10.1007/978-3-031-35017-7_17(250-268)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35017-7_17
Indriasari TLuxton-Reilly ADenny P(2020)A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher EducationACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/340393520:3(1-25)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3403935
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1?: an empirical comparison with a traditional approach
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Model curricula

Recommendations

Online vs. face-to-face pedagogical code reviews: an empirical comparison
SIGCSE '11: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

Given the increased importance of communication, teamwork, and critical thinking skills in the computing profession, we have been exploring studio-based instructional methods, in which students develop solutions and iteratively refine them through ...
Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education
SIGCSE '08: Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education

While the demand for college graduates with computing skills continues to rise, such skills no longer equate to mere programming skills. Modern day computing jobs demand design, communication, and collaborative work skills as well. Since traditional ...
Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS 1 course: an empirical study
SIGCSE '09

Formal code inspections are employed by teams of professional software engineers to identify software defects and improve the quality of software. After reviewing a piece of code individually, members of an inspection team come together to log the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

March 2010

618 pages

ISBN:9781450300063

DOI:10.1145/1734263

General Chairs:
Gary Lewandowski
Xavier University
,
Steven Wolfman
University of British Columbia
,
Program Chairs:
Thomas J. Cortina
Carnegie Mellon University
,
Ellen L. Walker
Hiram College

Copyright © 2010 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]

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 March 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SIGCSE10

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

SIGCSE10: The 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 10 - 13, 2010

Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025

Sponsor:
sigcse

The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

February 26 - March 1, 2025

Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

32
Total Citations
View Citations
433
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)9
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 26 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Indriasari TDenny PLuxton-Reilly ALottridge D(2023)Impacting the Submission Timing of Student Work Using GamificationProceedings of the 16th Annual ACM India Compute Conference10.1145/3627217.3627218(7-12)Online publication date: 9-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3627217.3627218
Ogata BOgawa M(2023)Augmented Cognition Instructional Design for Studio-Based LearningAugmented Cognition10.1007/978-3-031-35017-7_17(250-268)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35017-7_17
Indriasari TLuxton-Reilly ADenny P(2020)A Review of Peer Code Review in Higher EducationACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/340393520:3(1-25)Online publication date: 9-Sep-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3403935
Prather JBecker BCraig MDenny PLoksa DMargulieux LRobins AMoskal AKo AMcCauley RRobins AKo A(2020)What Do We Think We Think We Are Doing?Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research10.1145/3372782.3406263(2-13)Online publication date: 10-Aug-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3372782.3406263
Litts BWidman SLui DWalker JKafai Y(2019)A Maker Studio Model for High School Classrooms: The Nature and Role of Critique in an Electronic Textiles Design ProjectTeachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education10.1177/016146811912100906121:9(1-34)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2019
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811912100906
Becker BQuille KHawthorne EPérez-Quiñones MHeckman SZhang J(2019)50 Years of CS1 at SIGCSEProceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education10.1145/3287324.3287432(338-344)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3287324.3287432
Simon BHundhausen CMcDowell CWerner LHu HKussmaul C(2019)Students As Teachers and CommunicatorsThe Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research10.1017/9781108654555.030(827-858)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2019
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.030
Carter AHundhausen COlivares D(2019)Leveraging the Integrated Development Environment for Learning AnalyticsThe Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research10.1017/9781108654555.024(679-706)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2019
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.024
(2019)The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research10.1017/9781108654555Online publication date: 15-Feb-2019
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555
Graesser AFiore SGreiff SAndrews-Todd JFoltz PHesse F(2018)Advancing the Science of Collaborative Problem SolvingPsychological Science in the Public Interest10.1177/152910061880824419:2(59-92)Online publication date: 29-Nov-2018
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618808244
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten