The impact of instructor initiative on student learning: a tutoring study

ABSTRACT

In the quest to find instructional approaches that benefit student learning, engagement, and retention, evidence suggests providing students with hands-on practice is a worthwhile use of class time. This paper presents results from an exploratory study of two different instructional approaches that were encountered in a study of experienced human tutors working with novice computing students engaged in a programming exercise. No difference in average learning gains was found between a moderate approach, in which students were given control of problem solving nearly half the time, and a proactive approach in which the tutor took initiative nearly three-fourths of the time. Implications of this finding for fine-grained instructional strategy, as well as for broader classroom management decisions, are discussed. This paper also makes the case for the value of one-on-one tutoring studies as an exploratory research methodology for the comparative evaluation of computer science teaching strategies.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bloom, B. S. The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 6 (1984), 4--16.
• 2: Kristy Elizabeth Boyer , August A. Dwight , R. Taylor Fondren , Mladen A. Vouk , James C. Lester, A development environment for distributed synchronous collaborative programming, Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 30-July 02, 2008, Madrid, Spain
• 3: Kristy Elizabeth Boyer , Rachael S. Dwight , Carolyn S. Miller , C. Dianne Raubenheimer , Matthias F. Stallmann , Mladen A. Vouk, A case for smaller class size with integrated lab for introductory computer science, Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 07-11, 2007, Covington, Kentucky, USA
• 4: Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T. and Hausmann, R. G. Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 4 (2001), 471--533.
• 5: Mark G. Core , Johanna D. Moore , Claus Zinn, The role of initiative in tutorial dialogue, Proceedings of the tenth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, April 12-17, 2003, Budapest, Hungary [doi>10.3115/1067807.1067818]
• 6: Felder, R. M. and Brent, R. Learning by Doing. Chemical Engineering Education, 37, 4 (2003), 282--283.
• 7: Lucas Layman , Laurie Williams , Kelli Slaten, Note to self: make assignments meaningful, Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 07-11, 2007, Covington, Kentucky, USA
• 8: Charlie McDowell , Linda Werner , Heather Bullock , Julian Fernald, The effects of pair-programming on performance in an introductory programming course, Proceedings of the 33rd SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 27-March 03, 2002, Cincinnati, Kentucky
• 9: Nachiappan Nagappan , Laurie Williams , Miriam Ferzli , Eric Wiebe , Kai Yang , Carol Miller , Suzanne Balik, Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming, Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, February 19-23, 2003, Reno, Navada, USA
• 10: Noa Ragonis , Orit Hazzan, Tutoring model for promoting teaching skills of computer science prospective teachers, Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, June 30-July 02, 2008, Madrid, Spain

INDEX TERMS

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

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors

Keywords:
active learning, computing education research, problem solving, research study, teaching strategies, tutoring