research-article

Improving TA Feedback on In-Class Coding Assignments for Introductory Computer Science

Authors:

Alistair WindsorAuthors Info & Claims

ITiCSE '22: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1

Pages 421 - 427

https://doi.org/10.1145/3502718.3524746

Published: 07 July 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Teaching assistants (TAs) for introductory computer science courses are most often responsible for providing feedback on student code. TAs, however, lack teaching experience and are rarely trained in how to give effective feedback that positively impacts student learning. The lack of training is particularly problematic when TAs are asked to give feedback in real time, e.g. during in-class coding exercises. We analyzed data from multiple semesters, where CS1 TAs and instructors provided written feedback on in-class coding exercises. Importantly, a very small percentage of feedback met our gold standard for high quality. This finding reveals a need for training TAs to provide more effective feedback in introductory programming courses.

References

[1]

Joe Michael Allen, Frank Vahid, Alex Edgcomb, Kelly Downey, and Kris Miller. 2019. An Analysis of Using Many Small Programs in CS1. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 585--591. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287466

Digital Library

[2]

Ann E Austin. 2002. Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The journal of higher education, Vol. 73, 1 (2002), 94--122.

[3]

Paul J Baker and Mary Zey-Ferrell. 1984. Local and cosmopolitan orientations of faculty: Implications for teaching. Teaching Sociology (1984), 82--106.

[4]

Judith Berman and Kelley M Skeff. 1988. Developing the motivation for improving university teaching. Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 12, 2 (1988), 114--125.

[5]

Michaela Borg. 2004. The apprenticeship of observation. ELT journal, Vol. 58, 3 (2004), 274--276.

[6]

Sara E Brownell and Kimberly D Tanner. 2012. Barriers to faculty pedagogical change: Lack of training, time, incentives, and? tensions with professional identity? CBE-Life Sciences Education, Vol. 11, 4 (2012), 339--346.

[7]

Deborah L Butler and Philip H Winne. 1995. Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of educational research, Vol. 65, 3 (1995), 245--281.

[8]

Kwangsu Cho and Christian D Schunn. 2007. Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, Vol. 48, 3 (2007), 409--426.

Digital Library

[9]

Milton D Cox. 2004. Introduction to faculty learning communities. New directions for teaching and learning, Vol. 2004, 97 (2004), 5--23.

[10]

Edward L Deci, Richard Koestner, and Richard M Ryan. 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological bulletin, Vol. 125, 6 (1999), 627.

[11]

Adrienne Decker, Phil Ventura, and Christopher Egert. 2006. Through the looking glass: reflections on using undergraduate teaching assistants in CS1. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. 46--50.

Digital Library

[12]

Jessica T DeCuir-Gunby, Patricia L Marshall, and Allison W McCulloch. 2011. Developing and using a codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field methods, Vol. 23, 2 (2011), 136--155.

[13]

Paul E Dickson, Toby Dragon, and Adam Lee. 2017. Using undergraduate teaching assistants in small classes. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education . 165--170.

Digital Library

[14]

Jessica Ellis, Jessica Deshler, and Natasha Speer. 2016. Supporting institutional change: A two-pronged approach related to graduate teaching assistant professional development. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. 1--7.

[15]

Peggy A Ertmer, Jennifer C Richardson, Brian Belland, Denise Camin, Patrick Connolly, Glen Coulthard, Kimfong Lei, and Christopher Mong. 2007. Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12, 2 (2007), 412--433.

[16]

Francisco J Estrada and Anya Tafliovich. 2017. Bridging the gap between desired and actual qualifications of teaching assistants: An experience report. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . 134--139.

Digital Library

[17]

James S Fairweather. 1993. Faculty reward structures: Toward institutional and professional homogenization. Research in higher education, Vol. 34, 5 (1993), 603--623.

[18]

Eureka Foong, Darren Gergle, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2017. Novice and Expert Sensemaking of Crowdsourced Design Feedback. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 1, CSCW (2017), 1--18.

Digital Library

[19]

David Gerritsen. 2018. A socio-technical approach to feedback and instructional development for teaching assistants. PhD diss., Carnegie Mellon University (2018).

[20]

Graham Gibbs and Claire Simpson. 2005. Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and teaching in higher education 1 (2005), 3--31.

[21]

Patricia L Hardré and Alicia O Burris. 2012. What contributes to teaching assistant development: differential responses to key design features. Instructional Science, Vol. 40, 1 (2012), 93--118.

[22]

John Hattie and Helen Timperley. 2007. The power of feedback. Review of educational research, Vol. 77, 1 (2007), 81--112.

[23]

Ngar-Fun Liu and David Carless. 2006. Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher education, Vol. 11, 3 (2006), 279--290.

[24]

Marsha Lovett, Oded Meyer, and Candace Thille. 2008. The Open Learning Initiative: Measuring the Effectiveness of the OLI Statistics Course in Accelerating Student Learning. Journal of Interactive Media in Education (2008).

[25]

Hans O Mauksch. 1986. Teaching within institutional values and structures. Teaching Sociology (1986), 40--49.

[26]

Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, CSCW (2019), 1--23.

Digital Library

[27]

David J Nicol and Debra Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, Vol. 31, 2 (2006), 199--218.

[28]

Christopher O'neal, Mary Wright, Constance Cook, Tom Perorazio, and Joel Purkiss. 2007. The impact of teaching assistants on student retention in the sciences: Lessons for TA training. Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. 36, 5 (2007), 24.

[29]

Vinhthuy Phan and Eric Hicks. 2018. Code4brownies: An active learning solution for teaching programming and problem solving in the classroom. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . 153--158.

Digital Library

[30]

Michael Prince. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, Vol. 93, 3 (2004), 223--231.

[31]

Joan M Sargeant, Karen V Mann, Cees P Van der Vleuten, and Job F Metsemakers. 2009. Reflection: a link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Advances in health sciences education, Vol. 14, 3 (2009), 399--410.

[32]

Jacqueline Smith. 2019. Learning-focused TA Training on a Budget. In Proceedings of the Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education. 1--2.

Digital Library

[33]

William W Wilen and Ambrose A Clegg Jr. 1986. Effective questions and questioning: A research review. Theory & Research in Social Education, Vol. 14, 2 (1986), 153--161.

[34]

Yu-Chun Grace Yen, Steven P Dow, Elizabeth Gerber, and Brian P Bailey. 2017. Listen to others, listen to yourself: Combining feedback review and reflection to improve iterative design. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. 158--170.

[35]

Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. 2019. ERNIE: Enhanced language representation with informative entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07129 (2019).

Cited By

Rocha HCosta ETedesco P(2023)Helping to provide adaptive feedback to novice programmers: a framework to assist the Teachers2023 18th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)10.23919/CISTI58278.2023.10212000(1-6)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI58278.2023.10212000
Joyse Barbosa Rocha Hde Barros Costa ECabral de Azevedo Restelli Tedesco P(2023)A Taxonomy to Assist TAs in Providing Adaptive Feedback to Novice Programmers2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343309(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343309
Wang KLawrence R(2023)Using Assignment Incentives to Reduce Student Procrastination and Encourage Code Review Interactions2023 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI)10.1109/CSCI62032.2023.00270(1628-1633)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI62032.2023.00270

Index Terms

Improving TA Feedback on In-Class Coding Assignments for Introductory Computer Science
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
    1. Computer-assisted instruction
    2. Interactive learning environments

Recommendations

A Practical Strategy for Training Graduate CS Teaching Assistants to Provide Effective Feedback
ITiCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1

Computer science (CS) relies heavily on teaching assistants (TAs) who are often untrained in CS pedagogy. Existing research on CS TA training typically studies American undergraduate TAs at high-resource universities, ignoring the many universities that ...
Updating Introductory Computer Science with Creative Computation
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

This paper reports on the results of a multi-year project in which we identified essential pedagogy and curriculum for teaching introductory computing courses focused on Creative Computation using Processing. The curriculum aligns with a traditional '...
Engaging Programming Assignments to Recruit and Retain CS0 Students: (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Many universities offer an optional CS0 course taken prior to traditional CS1 and CS2 courses. Students enrolling in CS0 represent a variety of programming experience levels and majors. To more successfully recruit students to CS0 and retain students as ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ITiCSE '22: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1

July 2022

686 pages

ISBN:9781450392013

DOI:10.1145/3502718

General Chairs:
Brett A. Becker
University College Dublin, Ireland
,
Keith Quille
Technological University Dublin, Ireland
,
Mikko-Jussi Laakso
University of Turku, Finland
,
Program Chairs:
Erik Barendsen
Radboud University & Open University, The Netherlands
,
Simon
Unaffiliated, Australia

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

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 July 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

ITiCSE 2022

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

ITiCSE 2022: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 8 - 13, 2022

Dublin, Ireland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
209
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)56
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

Reflects downloads up to 30 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Rocha HCosta ETedesco P(2023)Helping to provide adaptive feedback to novice programmers: a framework to assist the Teachers2023 18th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI)10.23919/CISTI58278.2023.10212000(1-6)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI58278.2023.10212000
Joyse Barbosa Rocha Hde Barros Costa ECabral de Azevedo Restelli Tedesco P(2023)A Taxonomy to Assist TAs in Providing Adaptive Feedback to Novice Programmers2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343309(1-9)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343309
Wang KLawrence R(2023)Using Assignment Incentives to Reduce Student Procrastination and Encourage Code Review Interactions2023 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI)10.1109/CSCI62032.2023.00270(1628-1633)Online publication date: 13-Dec-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI62032.2023.00270

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.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents