research-article

Flipping and Blending—An Action Research Project on Improving a Functional Programming Course

Authors:

Ville Isomöttönen,

Ville TirronenAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 17, Issue 1

Article No.: 1, Pages 1 - 35

https://doi.org/10.1145/2934697

Published: 29 September 2016 Publication History

Abstract

This article reports on an action research project on improving a functional programming course by moving toward a practical and flexible study environment—flipped and blended classroom. Teaching the topic of functional programming was found to be troublesome using a traditional lectured course format. The need to increase students’ amount of practice emerged while subsequent challenges relating to students’ independent practical coursework were observed. Particular concerns relating to group work, learning materials, and the attribute of flexibility were investigated during the third action research cycle. The research cycle was analyzed using a qualitative survey on students’ views, teacher narrative, and students’ study activity data. By this third research cycle, we found that (i) the “call for explanation” is an apt conceptualization for supporting independent work, and in particular for the design of learning materials; (ii) use of student-selected groups that can be flexibly resized or even disbanded enables spontaneous peer support and can avoid frustration about group work; and (iii) students greatly appreciate the high degree of flexibility in the course arrangements but find that it causes them to slip from their goals. The project has improved our understanding of a successful implementation of the target course based on group work and learning materials in the context of independent study, while the attribute of flexibility revealed a contradiction that indicates the need for further action.

References

[1]

A. Amresh, A. R. Carberry, and J. Femiani. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of flipped classrooms for teaching CS1. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, 733--735.

[2]

Jennifer Attride-Stirling. 2001. Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research 1, 3 (2001), 385--405.

[3]

A. Bandura. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[4]

T. Bell, A. Cockburn, B. McKenzie, and J. Vargo. 2001. Flexible delivery damaging to learning? Lessons from the canterbury digital lectures project. University of Canterbury. Computer Science and Software Engineering. http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/517.

[5]

K. Bijlani, S. Chatterjee, and S. Anand. 2013. Concept maps for learning in a flipped classroom. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technology for Education (T4E). IEEE, 57--60.

Digital Library

[6]

Benjamin S. Bloom. 1968. Learning for mastery. Instruction and curriculum. Regional education laboratory for the carolina and virginia, topical papers and reprints, number 1. Evaluation Comment 1, 2 (1968), n2.

[7]

Phillip C. Candy. 1991. Self-Direction for Life-Long Learning: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. Jossey-Bass, San Franscisco, CA.

[8]

Wilfred Carr and Stephen Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. The Falmer Press, London.

[9]

Jennifer M. Case and Gregory Light. 2011. Emerging methodologies in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education 100, 1 (2011), 186--210.

[10]

Manuel M. T. Chakravarty and Gabriele Keller. 2004. The risks and benefits of teaching purely functional programming in first year. Journal of Functional Programming 14, 1 (2004), 113--123.

Digital Library

[11]

Chris Clack and Colin Myers. 1995. The dys-functional student. In Functional Programming Languages in Education, Pieter Hartel and Rinus Plasmeijer (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1022. Springer Berlin, 289--309.

Digital Library

[12]

Alison Clear and Tony Clear. 2014. Introductory programming and educational performance indicators—A mismatch. In Proceedings of the ITX New Zealand’s Conference of IT, M. Lopez and M. Verhaart (Eds.). CITRENZ, Hamilton, New Zealand, 123--128.

[13]

Tony Clear. 2004. Critical Enquiry in Computer Science Education. Taylor & Francis, London, Chapter 2, 101--125.

[14]

Tony Clear. 2010. A place for learning agreements in capstone computing courses? ACM Inroads 1, 4 (2010), 10--11.

Digital Library

[15]

Catherine H. Crouch and Eric Mazur. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics 69, 9 (2001), 970--977.

[16]

Katherine Cuthbert. 2001. Independent study and project work: Continuities or discontinuities. Teaching in Higher Education 6, 1 (2001), 69--84.

[17]

Andreas Fejes. 2006. Constructing the Adult Learning: A Governmentality Analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. Linköping Univeristy.

[18]

Jose Manuel Martins Ferreira. 2014. Flipped classrooms: From concept to reality using Google apps. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV). IEEE, 204--208.

[19]

Sally Fincher, Marian Petre, and Martyn Clark (Eds.). 2001. Computer Science Project Work: Principles and Pragmatics. Springer-Verlag, London.

Digital Library

[20]

J. H. Flavell. 1976. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In The Nature of Intelligence, L. B. Resnick (Ed.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 231--236.

[21]

Victor J. Friedman and Tim Rogers. 2009. There is nothing so theoretical as good action research. Action Research 7, 1 (2009), 31--47.

[22]

C. Furse. 2013. A busy professor’s guide to sanely flipping your classroom. In Proceedings of the Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium (APSURSI). IEEE, 2171--2172.

[23]

G. C. Gannod, J. E. Burge, and M. T. Helmick. 2008. Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’08). IEEE, 777--786.

Digital Library

[24]

Edward F. Gehringer and Barry W. Peddycord, III. 2013. The inverted-lecture model: A case study in computer architecture. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, 489--494.

Digital Library

[25]

Bill Genat. 2009. Building emergent situated knowledges in participatory action research. Action Research 7, 1 (2009), 101--115.

[26]

David George Glance, Martin Forsey, and Myles Riley. 2013. The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses. First Monday 18, 5 (2013).

[27]

B. G. Glaser. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press, San Francisco, CA.

[28]

Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

[29]

Davydd J. Greenwood and Morten Levin. 1998. Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

[30]

Gerald O. Grow. 1991. Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly 41, 3 (1991), 125--149.

[31]

S. Grundy. 1990. Three models of action research. In The Action Research Reader (third ed.), S. Kemmis and R. McTaggart (Eds.). Deakin University Press, Geelong, 353--364. Reprinted from Grundy, S. (1982), Three models of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(3), 23--34.

[32]

Dianne Hagan, Sylvia Tucker, and Jason Ceddia. 1999. Industrial experience projects: A balance of process and product. Computer Science Education 9, 3 (1999), 215--229.

[33]

Robert Harper. 2012. Practical Foundations for Programming Languages. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Digital Library

[34]

Annamari Heikkilä and Kirsti Lonka. 2006. Studying in higher education: Students’ approaches to learning, self-regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher Education 31, 1 (2006), 99--117.

[35]

Hannu L. T. Heikkinen, Rauno Huttunen, and Leena Syrjälä. 2007. Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research 15, 1 (2007), 5--19.

[36]

Teresa Henning. 2012. Writing professor as adult learner: An autoethnography of online professional development. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 16, 2 (2012), 9--26.

[37]

Kathryn Herr and Gary L. Anderson. 2005. The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

[38]

Ville Isomöttönen, Ville Tirronen, and Michael Cochez. 2013. Issues with a course that emphasizes self-direction. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’13). ACM, New York, 111--116.

Digital Library

[39]

Ville Isomöttönen and Ville Tirronen. 2013. Teaching programming by emphasizing self-direction: How did students react to active role required of them? Transactions in Computer Education 13, 2 (July 2013), 6:1--6:21.

Digital Library

[40]

S. Joosten, K. Berg, and G. V. D. Hoeven. 1993. Teaching functional programming to first-year students. Journal of Functional Programming 3, 1 (1993), 49--65.

[41]

S. Lakshminarayanan. 2012. Ruminating about MOOCs. Journal of the NUS Teaching Academy 2, 5 (2012), 223--227.

[42]

Kurt Lewin. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2, 4 (Nov. 1946), 34--46.

[43]

Sofie M. M. Loyens, Joshua Magda, and Remy M. J. P. Rikers. 2008. Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review 20, 4 (2008), 411--427.

[44]

T. Lucke, U. Keyssner, and P. Dunn. 2013. The use of a classroom response system to more effectively flip the classroom. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE, 491--495.

[45]

Fred G. Martin. 2012. Will massive open online courses change how we teach? Sharing recent experiences with an online course. Communications of the ACM 55, 8 (2012), 26--28.

Digital Library

[46]

Karl Maton and Rob Moore. 2010. Introduction: Coalitions of the Mind. Continuum, London, 1--13.

[47]

Mary J. Melrose. 2001. Maximazing the rigor of action research: Why would you want to? How could you? Field Methods 13, 2 (2001), 160--180.

[48]

Matthew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

[49]

Michael Grahame Moore. 1973. Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education XLIV, 12 (1973), 661--679.

[50]

Rob Moore. 2000. For knowledge: Tradition, progressivism and progress in education—Reconstructing the curriculum debate. Cambridge Journal of Education 30, 1 (2000), 17--36.

[51]

Ben Moseley and Peter Marks. 2006. Out of the tar pit. Software Practice Advancement (SPA) (2006). http://www.shaffner.us/cs/papers/tarpit.pdf.

[52]

B. A. Oakley, D. M. Hanna, Z. Kuzmyn, and R. M. Felder. 2007. Best practices involving teamwork in the classroom: Results from a survey of 6435 engineering student respondents. IEEE Transactions on Education 50, 3 (Aug. 2007), 266--272.

Digital Library

[53]

Russell T. Osguthorpe and Charles R. Graham. 2003. Blended learning environments: Definitions and directions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4, 3 (2003), 227--233.

[54]

Marian Petre and Mary Shaw. 2012. What’s the value proposition of distance education? ACM Inroads 3, 3 (Sept. 2012), 26--28.

Digital Library

[55]

Latha Poonamallee. 2009. Building grounded theory in action research through the interplay of subjective ontology and objective epistemology. Action Research 7, 1 (2009), 69--83.

[56]

Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 68--78.

[57]

Bernhard Schmitz and Bettina S. Wiese. 2006. New perspectives for the evaluation of training sessions in self-regulated learning: Time-series analyses of diary data. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31, 1 (2006), 64--96.

[58]

Heidrun Stoeger and Albert Ziegler. 2008. Evaluation of a classroom based training to improve self-regulation in time management tasks during homework activities with fourth graders. Metacognition and Learning 3, 3 (2008), 207--230.

[59]

John Sweller, Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer, and Fred G. W. C. Paas. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10, 3 (1998), 251--296.

[60]

Imogen Taylor and Hilary Burgess. 1995. Orientation to self-directed learning: Paradox or paradigm? Studies in Higher Education 20, 1 (1995), 87--98.

[61]

Ville Tirronen and Ville Isomöttönen. 2012. On the design of effective learning materials for supporting self-directed learning of programming. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, 74--82.

Digital Library

[62]

Ville Tirronen and Ville Isomöttönen. 2015. Teaching types with a cognitively effective worked example format. Journal of Functional Programming 25, e23 (2015), 16 pages.

[63]

Ville Tirronen, Samuel Uusi-Mäkelä, and Ville Isomöttönen. 2015. Understanding beginners’ mistakes with Haskell. Journal of Functional Programming 25, e11 (2015), 30 pages.

[64]

Marianne M. van den Hurk, Ineke H. A. P. Wolfhagen, Diana H. J. M. Dolmans, and Cees P. M. van der Vleuten. 1999. The impact of student-generated learning issues on individual study time and academic achievement. Medical Education 33 (1999), 808--814.

[65]

William M. Waite, Michele H. Jackson, Amer Diwan, and Paul M. Leonardi. 2004. Student culture vs group work in computer science. SIGCSE Bulletin 36, 1 (March 2004), 12--16.

Digital Library

[66]

Christopher Watson and Frederick W. B. Li. 2014. Failure rates in introductory programming revisited. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’14). ACM, New York, 39--44.

Digital Library

[67]

Barry J. Zimmerman. 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal 45, 1 (2008), 166--183. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909

[68]

B. J. Zimmerman and M. Campillo. 2003. Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In The Nature of Problem Solving, J. E. Davidson and R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, New York, 239.

Cited By

Giacaman NRoop PTerragni VDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)Evolving a Programming CS2 Course: A Decade-Long Experience ReportProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569831(507-513)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569831
Malmi LHellas AIhantola PIsomöttönen VJormanainen IKilamo TKnutas AKorhonen ALaakso MLópez-Pernas SPoranen TSalakoski TSuhonen J(2023)Computing Education Research in FinlandPast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_16(335-372)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_16
Salas-Rueda RCastañeda-Martínez REslava-Cervantes AAlvarado-Zamorano C(2022)Teachers’ Perception About MOOCs and ICT During the COVID-19 PandemicContemporary Educational Technology10.30935/cedtech/1147914:1(ep343)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11479
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Flipping and Blending—An Action Research Project on Improving a Functional Programming Course
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education

Recommendations

Flipping a college mathematics classroom: An action research project
Abstract
In this action research study, a flipped and non-flipped college-level mathematics classroom were compared. Participants in the flipped classroom watched video lessons outside of class and engaged in classwork problems during class. The non-...
Increasing teacher candidates' ways of interaction and levels of learning through action research in a blended course
Abstract
Within the scope of this research, efforts were exerted to increase teacher candidates' interaction ways through action research in a blended teaching profession course in higher education level. Teacher candidates participated in ...
Highlights
- Interaction and learning levels were analyzed during a blended learning course.
Flipping the classroom: is it for you?
SIGITE '13: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education

Technology is being used to enhance all types of educational experiences. Several new pedagogical methods have been developed that use technology to assist students in learning. This paper will discuss one of these methods - the flipped classroom. The ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 17, Issue 1

March 2017

126 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3003827

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2016 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].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 29 September 2016

Accepted: 01 May 2016

Revised: 01 March 2016

Received: 01 May 2015

Published in TOCE Volume 17, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

20
Total Citations
View Citations
820
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)38
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

Reflects downloads up to 22 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Giacaman NRoop PTerragni VDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)Evolving a Programming CS2 Course: A Decade-Long Experience ReportProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569831(507-513)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569831
Malmi LHellas AIhantola PIsomöttönen VJormanainen IKilamo TKnutas AKorhonen ALaakso MLópez-Pernas SPoranen TSalakoski TSuhonen J(2023)Computing Education Research in FinlandPast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_16(335-372)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_16
Salas-Rueda RCastañeda-Martínez REslava-Cervantes AAlvarado-Zamorano C(2022)Teachers’ Perception About MOOCs and ICT During the COVID-19 PandemicContemporary Educational Technology10.30935/cedtech/1147914:1(ep343)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11479
Lunn SSamary MHambrusch SYadav A(2022)Forging a Path: Faculty Interviews on the Present and Future of Computer Science Education in the United StatesACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/354658122:4(1-24)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3546581
Riese EBälter O(2022)A Qualitative Study of Experienced Course Coordinators’ Perspectives on Assessment in Introductory Programming Courses for Non-CS MajorsACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/351713422:4(1-29)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3517134
Vrieler TSalminen-Karlsson M(2022)A Sociocultural Perspective on Computer Science Capital and Its Pedagogical Implications in Computer Science EducationACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/348705222:4(1-23)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3487052
Loksa DMargulieux LBecker BCraig MDenny PPettit RPrather J(2022)Metacognition and Self-Regulation in Programming Education: Theories and Exemplars of UseACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/348705022:4(1-31)Online publication date: 15-Sep-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3487050
Yu JChang XLiu WHuan Z(2022)An online integrated programming platform to acquire students' behavior data for immediate feedback teachingComputer Applications in Engineering Education10.1002/cae.2259631:3(520-536)Online publication date: 25-Dec-2022
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22596
Gonçalves AFerreira DCampos DSilva U(2021)Regulation of Flipped Learning Activities in ProgrammingInternational Journal for Innovation Education and Research10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss8.32659:8(71-92)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2021
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss8.3265
Lorås MSindre GTrætteberg HAalberg T(2021)Study Behavior in Computing Education—A Systematic Literature ReviewACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/346912922:1(1-40)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3469129
Show More Cited By

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.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents