Student Engagement during Virtual v.s. Face-To-Face Active Learning Activities in Three IT Courses
September 2022
Pages 150 - 156
Abstract
The post COVID-19 landscape of higher education has accelerated the adoption of flexible instructional modalities that blend online synchronous and in-person face-to-face teaching. Building a virtual active learning classroom that emphasizes higher-order thinking, problem-solving and collaborative programming through group work is particularly challenging. This study discusses active learning strategies in three IT courses delivered both in-person and virtually through online synchronous video-conference. Using various software tools and a dynamic breakout room strategy, we were able to create an effective virtual active learning environment. We also surveyed the students to measure two engagement factors - Value of Activity and Personal Effort, to compare their experiences in the virtual and face-to-face collaborations. The quantitative results showed no significant difference in either of the two factors between the two modalities. The qualitative results also confirmed that most students enjoy active learning in both settings, although some found in-person group work more interactive and fun.
References
[1]
Debarati Basu, Sarah Heckman, and Mary Lou Maher. 2021. Online Vs Face-to-Face Web-Development Course: Course Strategies, Learning, and Engagement. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Virtual Event, USA) (SIGCSE ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1191–1197. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432438
[2]
Matthew Boutell. 2017. Choosing Face-to-Face or Video-Based Instruction in a Mobile App Development Course. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(Seattle, Washington, USA) (SIGCSE ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017774
[3]
Tom Briggs. 2005. Techniques for Active Learning in CS Courses. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 21, 2 (Dec. 2005), 156–165.
[4]
Ricardo Caceffo, Guilherme Gama, and Rodolfo Azevedo. 2018. Exploring Active Learning Approaches to Computer Science Classes. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 922–927. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159585
[5]
Hyunsuk Chung, Siqu Long, Soyeon Caren Han, Shouvojit Sarker, Leonie Ellis, and Byeong Ho Kang. 2018. A Comparative Study of Online and Face-to-Face Embedded Systems Learning Course. In Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Computing Education Conference (Brisbane, Queensland, Australia) (ACE ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3160489.3160499
[6]
Michael E. Cotterell, Delaram Yazdansepas, and Bradley J. Barnes. 2020. Improving Student Sentiment of Active Learning in CS. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Virtual Event, New Zealand) (ICER ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 308. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372782.3408120
[7]
M.D. Dixson. 2015. Measuring Student Engagement in the Online Course: The Online Student Engagement Scale (OSE). Online Learning 19 (09 2015). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i4.561
[8]
Anca Doloc-Mihu and Cindy Robertson. 2020. Observing the Impact of Online Outreach Versus Face to Face Outreach. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (Virtual Event, USA) (SIGITE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368308.3415392
[9]
Joe Dumas. 2016. Online vs. Face-to-Face Student Performance in an Introduction to Operating Systems Course. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 32, 2 (Dec. 2016), 185–191.
[10]
Scott Freeman, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt, and Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 23(2014), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 arXiv:https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
[11]
Qiang Hao, Bradley Barnes, Ewan Wright, and Eunjung Kim. 2018. Effects of Active Learning Environments and Instructional Methods in Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 934–939. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159451
[12]
Jeongju Lee, Hae-Deok Song, and Ah Hong. 2019. Exploring Factors, and Indicators for Measuring Students’ Sustainable Engagement in e-Learning. Sustainability 11 (02 2019), 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11040985
[13]
Jeffrey J. McConnell. 1996. Active Learning and Its Use in Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education (Barcelona, Spain) (ITiCSE ’96). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 52–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/237466.237526
[14]
Joel J. Mintzes. 2020. From Constructivism to Active Learning in College Science. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_1
[15]
Marco Sbaraglia, Michael Lodi, Stefano Pio Zingaro, and Simone Martini. 2021. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of a Synchronous Online CS1. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 2(Virtual Event, Germany) (ITiCSE ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 660. https://doi.org/10.1145/3456565.3460075
[16]
Patrick Seeling and Jesse Eickholt. 2017. Levels of active learning in programming skill acquisition: From lecture to active learning rooms. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190525
[17]
Benjamin L. Wiggins, Sarah L. Eddy, Leah Wener-Fligner, Karen Freisem, Daniel Z. Grunspan, Elli J. Theobald, Jerry Timbrook, and Alison J. Crowe. 2017. ASPECT: A Survey to Assess Student Perspective of Engagement in an Active-Learning Classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education 16, 2 (2017), ar32. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0244 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-08-0244PMID: 28495936.
Index Terms
- Student Engagement during Virtual v.s. Face-To-Face Active Learning Activities in Three IT Courses
Recommendations
Students' Engagement in Collaborative Active Learning - Online v.s. Face-to-Face
SIGCSE 2022: Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2Teaching programming-intensive courses in a virtual space brings new opportunities for active learning and student engagement. This poster presents our experience in designing an online active learning environment in two programming-intensive courses ...
Students' perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning
The purpose of this study was to evaluate students' perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning in a Physical Geography undergraduate class. A convenience sample of 24 undergraduate students registered in a physical ...
Student engagement in massive open online courses
Completion rates in massive open online courses MOOCs are disturbingly low. Existing analysis has focused on patterns of resource access and prediction of drop-out using learning analytics. In contrast, the effectiveness of teaching programs in ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © 2022 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 the author(s) 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
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 21 September 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
SIGITE '22
Sponsor:
SIGITE '22: The 23rd Annual Conference on Information Technology Education
September 21 - 24, 2022
IL, Chicago, USA
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 176 of 429 submissions, 41%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 94Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)38
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format