Using collaborative, modified peer led team learning to improve student success and retention in intro cs

ABSTRACT

It is common knowledge that enrollments in computer science have plummeted and educators are challenged to find ways to engage and promote success and retention of students while maintaining standards in introductory computer science courses. This study focuses on the implementation of a collaborative, modified peer-led team learning (PLTL) instructional approach in a large sized introductory computer science course. The site is a major southeastern university in the United States where all students are required to take one of three introductory computer science classes. The course version selected for this study specifically targets computer science majors and the study spans three years of data, and involves 591 students. Students who experienced the student-centered instruction and worked in small groups facilitated by a peer leader (treatment) in years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were compared with students who experienced a traditional recitation lecture section (control) in 2005-06. The content and the course owner was the same for all three years. Quantitative data analysis show marked and statistically significant improvements in student performance, for both male and female students. These findings suggest that using undergraduate leaders to implement a peer-led team learning model can be as effective in promoting achievement and retention in computer science education as it has shown to be in math and science classes over the past several years.

REFERENCES

• 1: Alexander, B. B., Burda, A. C., and Millar, S. B. A community approach to learning calculus: Fostering success for underrepresented ethnic minorities in an Emerging Scholars Program. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3, 145--159, 1997.
• 2: Alo, R., Beheshti, M., Fernandez, J., Gates, A. Ranjan, D. Work in Progress - Peer Led Team Learning Implementation in Computer Science. Proceedings of the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10-13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI.
• 3: Arendale, D. R. Understanding the supplemental instruction model. In Martin D.C. & Arendale D.R. (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning, Vol. 60, Supplemental instruction: Increasing achievement and retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass 2994.
• 4: Duncan, H. and Dick, T. Collaborative workshops and student academic performance in introductory college mathematics courses: A study of a Treisman model Math Excel Program. School Science and Mathematics, 100, 365--373, 2000.
• 5: Gafney, L. and Varma-Nelson, P. Evaluating Peer-Led Team Learning: A study of long-term effects on former workshop peer leaders. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 3, March, 535--539, 2007.
• 6: Garland, M. Treisman, U. The mathematics workshop model: An interview with Uri Treisman. Journal of Developmental Education, 16, 14--16, 18, 20, 22, 1993.
• 7: Gosser, D. K. and Roth, V. The Workshop chemistry project: Peer-led team learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 185--187, 1998.
• 8: Lockie, N. M. and Van Lanen, R. J. Supplemental Instruction for college chemistry courses; New Directions Teach. Learn. 60, 63, 1994.
• 9: Lundberg, M. A. Supplemental instruction in chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 145--155, 1990.
• 10: McCuen, S. Peer assisted learning project Update {and} New Beacon outcomes! Research briefs, Number 11, January 1996. Sacramento, CA: American River College (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 393 517) 1996.
• 11: NCWIT Promising Practices Sheet http://www.ncwit.org/images/practicefiles/PeerLedTeamLearning_RetainingWomenCollaborativeLearning_Practice.pdf .
• 12: Plecha, M. Influence of study group attendance and students' perceived helpfulness on expected grade. Oakland, MI: Oakland Community College (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 427 804) 1998.
• 13: Sommerlad, E. Informal Learning and Widening Participation: Literature Review, Report to UK Department for Education and Employment 1999.
• 14: Lave, J and Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge 1991.
• 15: Cullen, Joe Start-Trek meets Slackers: the impact of collaborative learning systems on school performance, Evaluation Development and Review Unit, the Tavistock Institute, London, UK, www.ll.unimaas.nl/euro-cscl/Papers/32.doc
• 16: Yamarik, Steven, Does Collaborative Learning Improve Student Learning Outcomes? Evidence from a New Experiment October 2004, http://ssrm.com/abstract=605864.
• 17: Henry M. Walker, Collaborative learning: a case study for CS1 at Grinnell College and Austin, Proceedings of the twenty-eighth SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.209-213, February 27-March 01, 1997, San Jose, California, United States

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Computer science education

Additional Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.2 Computer and Information Science Education
          Subjects: Curriculum

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Performance

Keywords:
collaborative learning, computer science education, cs 1/2, peer led team learning, retention, student success