research-article

Factors Affecting the Adoption of Peer Instruction in Computing Courses

Authors:

Dennis Bouvier,

Ellie Lovellette,

Jacqueline Chetty,

Stan Kurkovsky,

Jia WanAuthors Info & Claims

CompEd-WGR '19: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Global Computing Education

Pages 1 - 25

https://doi.org/10.1145/3372262.3375396

Published: 18 December 2019 Publication History

Abstract

Peer Instruction (PI) as defined by Mazur, and variations on this pedagogic technique, have been in use in computing courses for about a decade. Despite dozens of educational research publications documenting positive learning effects, improved retention, student acceptance, and effectiveness for large classes; PI does not appear to be widely adopted for computing courses. This paper reports on a three-way investigation into this apparent contradiction. First, the authors reflect on their own adoption, practice, experience, and abandonment of the use of PI in computing courses. Second, we surveyed the literature regarding the use of PI in computing courses and present a summary of the research findings, variations, and extensions to PI used in computing courses. Third, a survey of computing instructors was conducted to gauge the attitude toward PI in computing courses. To add context, this report considers publications documenting usage of PI in STEM courses, and the adoption of other pedagogic techniques in computing. Particular effort was made to identify the reasons computing instructors don't adopt PI. This report also includes advice to instructors considering adopting PI in computing courses.

References

[1]

Orit Avidov-Ungar, Becky Leshem, Adva Margaliot, and Etty Grobgeld. 2018. Faculty Use of the Active Learning Classroom: Barriers and Facilitators. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research 17 (2018), 485--504.

[2]

Sara 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 11, 4 (2012), 339--346. https://doi.org/10.1187/ cbe.12-09-0163

[3]

Paul Carter. 2012. An Experience Report: On the Use of Multimedia Preinstruction and Just-in-time Teaching in a CS1 Course. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 361--366. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157244

[4]

J. D. Chase and Edward G. Okie. 2000. Combining Cooperative Learning and Peer Instruction in Introductory Computer Science. SIGCSE Bull. 32, 1 (March 2000), 372--376. https://doi.org/10.1145/331795.331888

Digital Library

[5]

Catherine H Crouch and Eric Mazur. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American journal of physics 69, 9 (2001), 970--977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249

[6]

Quintin Cutts, Sarah Esper, Marlena Fecho, Stephen R. Foster, and Beth Simon. 2012. The Abstraction Transition Taxonomy: Developing Desired Learning Outcomes Through the Lens of Situated Cognition. In Proceedings of the NinthAnnual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 63--70. https://doi.org/10.1145/2361276. 2361290

Digital Library

[7]

Pranita Deshpande, Cynthia B Lee, and Irfan Ahmed. 2019. Evaluation of Peer Instruction for Cybersecurity Education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 720--725. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287403

Digital Library

[8]

Jesse Eickholt. 2018. Barriers to Active Learning for Computer Science Faculty (submitted 7 Aug 2018). (08 2018). https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.02426

[9]

Sarah Esper. 2014. A Discussion on Adopting Peer Instruction in a Course Focused on Risk Management. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 29, 4 (April 2014), 175--182. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2591468.2591496

Digital Library

[10]

Richard M. Felder and Rebecca Brent. 1996. Navigating the Bumpy Road to Student-Centered Instruction. College Teaching 44, 2 (1996), 43--47. https: //doi.org/10.1080/87567555.1996.9933425

[11]

Davide Fossati and Mark Guzdial. 2011. The use of evidence in the change making process of computer science educators. In SIGCSE. 685--690.

[12]

Tyler Greer, Qiang Hao, Mengguo Jing, and Bradley Barnes. 2019. On the Effects of Active Learning Environments in Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 267--272. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287345

Digital Library

[13]

Charles Henderson, Melissa Dancy, and Magdalena Niewiadomska-Bugaj. 2012. Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8 (Jul 2012), 020104. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020104

[14]

Christopher Lynnly Hovey, Lecia Barker, and Vaughan Nagy. 2019. Survey Results on Why CS Faculty Adopt New Teaching Practices. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 483--489. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287420

Digital Library

[15]

William Johnson, Irfan Ahmed, Vassil Roussev, and Cynthia B Lee. 2017. Peer Instruction for Digital Forensics. In 2017 {USENIX} Workshop on Advances in Security Education ({ASE} 17). Vancouver, BC.

[16]

William E Johnson, Allison Luzader, Irfan Ahmed, Vassil Roussev, Golden G Richard III, and Cynthia B Lee. 2016. Development of peer instruction questions for cybersecurity education. In 2016 {USENIX} Workshop on Advances in Security Education ({ASE} 16). {USENIX} Association, Austin, TX. https://www.usenix. org/conference/ase16/workshop-program/presentation/johnson

[17]

Jack Kinne, Eric Misner, Adam S. Carter, and Sharon M. Tuttle. 2018. Evaluating the Efficacy of Clicker-based Peer Instruction Across Multiple Courses at a Single Institution. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 34, 1 (Oct. 2018), 164--170. http://dl.acm.org/ citation.cfm?id=3280489.3280516

[18]

B. Kitchenham and S Charters. 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering.

[19]

Nathaniel Lasry, Elizabeth Charles, Chris Whittaker, and Michael Lautman. 2009. When Talking Is Better Than Staying Quiet. AIP Conference Proceedings 1179, 1 (2009), 181--184. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3266709

[20]

Cynthia Bailey Lee. 2013. Experience Report: CS1 in MATLAB for Non-majors, with Media Computation and Peer Instruction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 35--40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445214

Digital Library

[21]

Vicki Lind. 2008. High Quality Professional Development: An Investigation of the Supports for and Barriers to Professional Development in Arts Education. International Journal of Education the Arts 8 (01 2008).

[22]

Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Simon, Ibrahim Albluwi, Brett A. Becker, Michail Giannakos, Amruth N. Kumar, Linda Ott, James Paterson, Michael James Scott, Judy Sheard, and Claudia Szabo. 2018. Introductory Programming: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE 2018 Companion). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 55--106. https://doi.org/10.1145/3293881.3295779

Digital Library

[23]

Eric Mazur and Robert C Hilborn. 1997. Peer instruction: A user's manual. Vol. 5. Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.

[24]

R. P. Medeiros, G. L. Ramalho, and T. P. Falcão. 2019. A Systematic Literature Review on Teaching and Learning Introductory Programming in Higher Education. IEEE Transactions on Education 62, 2 (May 2019), 77--90. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2864133

Digital Library

[25]

Bin Peng. 2017. Experience Report: Peer Instruction in Java Programming Course in a Small Department. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 32, 5 (May 2017), 111--117. http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3069621.3069648

[26]

Leo Porter, Cynthia Bailey Lee, and Beth Simon. 2013. Halving Fail Rates Using Peer Instruction: A Study of Four Computer Science Courses. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 177--182. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445250

Digital Library

[27]

Leo Porter, Cynthia Bailey Lee, Beth Simon, Quintin Cutts, and Daniel Zingaro. 2011. Experience Report: A Multi-classroom Report on the Value of Peer Instruction. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 138--142. https://doi.org/10.1145/1999747.1999788

Digital Library

[28]

Leo Porter, Cynthia Bailey Lee, Beth Simon, and Daniel Zingaro. 2011. Peer Instruction: Do Students Really Learn from Peer Discussion in Computing?. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 45--52. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2016911.2016923

Digital Library

[29]

Leo Porter, Dennis Bouvier, Quintin Cutts, Scott Grissom, Cynthia Lee, Robert McCartney, Daniel Zingaro, and Beth Simon. 2016. A Multi-institutional Study of Peer Instruction in Introductory Computing. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 358--363. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844642

Digital Library

[30]

Leo Porter, Dennis Bouvier, Quintin Cutts, Scott Grissom, Cynthia Lee, Robert McCartney, Daniel Zingaro, and Beth Simon. 2016. A Multi-institutional Study of Peer Instruction in Introductory Computing. ACM Inroads 7, 2 (May 2016), 76--81. https://doi.org/10.1145/2938142

Digital Library

[31]

Leo Porter, Saturnino Garcia, John Glick, Andrew Matusiewicz, and Cynthia Taylor. 2013. Peer Instruction in Computer Science at Small Liberal Arts Colleges. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 129--134. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2465587

Digital Library

[32]

Leo Porter and Beth Simon. 2013. Retaining Nearly One-third More Majors with a Trio of Instructional Best Practices in CS1. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 165--170. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445248

Digital Library

[33]

Leo Porter and Daniel Zingaro. 2014. Importance of Early Performance in CS1: Two Conflicting Assessment Stories. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 295--300. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538912

Digital Library

[34]

Beth A. Quinn. 2018. EngageCSEdu: The Beautiful Noise of Peer Instruction: An Interview with Beth Simon. ACM Inroads 9, 2 (April 2018), 19--21. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3194243

Digital Library

[35]

Everett M Rogers. 2010. Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.

[36]

Zaynab Sabagh and Alenoush Saroyan. 2014. Professors' Perceived Barriers and Incentives for Teaching Improvement. International Education Research 2 (09 2014), 18--40. https://doi.org/10.12735/ier.v2i3p18

[37]

Kate Sanders, Marzieh Ahmadzadeh, Tony Clear, Stephen H Edwards, Mikey Goldweber, Chris Johnson, Raymond Lister, RobertMcCartney, Elizabeth Patitsas, and Jaime Spacco. 2013. The Canterbury QuestionBank: building a repository of multiple-choice CS1 and CS2 questions. In Proceedings of the ITiCSE working group reports conference on Innovation and technology in computer science educationworking group reports. ACM, 33--52.

Digital Library

[38]

Beth Simon and Quintin Cutts. 2012. How to implement a peer instructiondesigned CS principles course. ACM Inroads 3, 2 (June 2012), 72--74. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2189835.2189858

Digital Library

[39]

Beth Simon and Quintin Cutts. 2012. Peer Instruction: A Teaching Method to Foster Deep Understanding. Commun. ACM 55, 2 (Feb. 2012), 27--29. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2076450.2076459

[40]

Beth Simon, Sarah Esper, Leo Porter, and Quintin Cutts. 2013. Student Experience in a Student-centered Peer Instruction Classroom. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 129--136. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2493394.2493407

Digital Library

[41]

Beth Simon, Michael Kohanfars, Jeff Lee, Karen Tamayo, and Quintin Cutts. 2010. Experience Report: Peer Instruction in Introductory Computing. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 341--345. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734381

Digital Library

[42]

Beth Simon, Julian Parris, and Jaime Spacco. 2013. How We Teach Impacts Student Learning: Peer Instruction vs. Lecture in CS0. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 41--46. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445215

Digital Library

[43]

Dennis Sunal, Jeanelle Hodges, Cynthia Sunal, KevinW. Whitaker, L Michael Freeman, Leo Edwards, Ronald A. Johnston, and Michael Odell. 2010. Teaching Science in Higher Education: Faculty Professional Development and Barriers to Change. School Science and Mathematics 101 (03 2010), 246--257. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1949--8594.2001.tb18027.x

[44]

Chandra Turpen, Melissa Dancy, and Charles Henderson. 2010. Faculty perspectives on using peer instruction: A national study. In AIP conference proceedings, Vol. 1289. AIP, 325--328. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3515235

[45]

Chandra Turpen, Melissa Dancy, and Charles Henderson. 2016. Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors' use of Peer Instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12 (Feb 2016), 010116. Issue 1. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010116

[46]

Trisha Vickrey, Kaitlyn Rosploch, Reihaneh Rahmanian, Matthew Pilarz, and Marilyne Nicole Olivia Stains. 2015. Research-Based Implementation of Peer Instruction: A Literature Review. In CBE life sciences education. https://doi.org/ 10.1187/cbe.14--11-0198

[47]

Kevin C. Webb and Cynthia Taylor. 2014. Developing a Pre- and Post-course Concept Inventory to Gauge Operating Systems Learning. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '14).ACM, New York, NY, USA, 103--108. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538886

[48]

Daniel Zingaro. 2014. Peer Instruction Contributes to Self-efficacy in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 373--378. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2538862.2538878

Digital Library

[49]

Daniel Zingaro and Leo Porter. 2014. Peer Instruction: A Link to the Exam. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 255--260. https://doi.org/10. 1145/2591708.2591711

Digital Library

[50]

Daniel Zingaro and Leo Porter. 2014. Peer Instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers Education 71 (2014), 87--96. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.015

Digital Library

[51]

Daniel Zingaro, Leo Porter, Quintin Cutts, John Glick, Joe Hummel, Cynthia Lee, and Jaime Spacco. 2015. Supporting New Adopters to Peer Instruction in Computing. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 710--710. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2678287

[52]

Daniel Zingaro, Leo Porter, Quintin Cutts, John Glick, Joe Hummel, Cynthia Lee, and Jaime Spacco. 2016. Peer Instruction in Computing: A Focus on Student Learning. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 714--714. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844690

Digital Library

[53]

Daniel Zingaro, Leo Porter, Beth Simon, and John Glick. 2011. Peer Instruction in the CS Classroom: A Hands-on Introduction: Conference Tutorial. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 26, 4 (April 2011), 218--218. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1953573. 1953609

Cited By

Tang XWong SPu KChen XYang YChen Y(2024)VizGroup: An AI-assisted Event-driven System for Collaborative Programming Learning AnalyticsProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676347(1-22)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654777.3676347
Gu XEricson BWu ZStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Supporting Instructors Adoption of Peer InstructionProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3626253.3635530(1662-1663)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626253.3635530
Brown NXie BSarder EFiesler CWiese E(2023)Teaching Ethics in Computing: A Systematic Literature Review of ACM Computer Science Education PublicationsACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/363468524:1(1-36)Online publication date: 27-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3634685
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Factors Affecting the Adoption of Peer Instruction in Computing Courses
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs
        Computer science education

Recommendations

Student experience in a student-centered peer instruction classroom
ICER '13: Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research

Although studies have shown Peer Instruction (PI) in computing courses to be beneficial for learning and retention, study of the student experience has been limited to attitudinal survey results. This study provides a preliminary evaluation of student ...
Peer instruction in computing: the role of reading quizzes
SIGCSE '13: Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

Peer Instruction has recently gained interest in computing as an effective active learning pedagogy. The general focus of PI research has been on the in-class portion of PI: multiple choice questions and group discussion. Here, our focus is the reading ...
Peer instruction: a link to the exam
ITiCSE '14: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education

In computer science, the active learning pedagogical practice of Peer Instruction (PI) has been shown to improve final exam performance, reduce student failure rates, and improve student retention. PI consists of two major parts: group discussion and ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CompEd-WGR '19: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Global Computing Education

December 2019

30 pages

ISBN:9781450370868

DOI:10.1145/3372262

General Chair:
Judy Sheard
Monash University, Australia

Copyright © 2019 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 ACM 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: 18 December 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

CompEd '19

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

CompEd '19: ACM Global Computing Education Conference 2019

May 17 - 19, 2019

Chengdu,Sichuan, China

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 33 of 100 submissions, 33%

Upcoming Conference

CompEd '25

Sponsor:
sigcse

ACM Global Computing Education Conference 2025

October 21 - 25, 2025

Gaborone , Botswana

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
235
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)34
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Tang XWong SPu KChen XYang YChen Y(2024)VizGroup: An AI-assisted Event-driven System for Collaborative Programming Learning AnalyticsProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology10.1145/3654777.3676347(1-22)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3654777.3676347
Gu XEricson BWu ZStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Supporting Instructors Adoption of Peer InstructionProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3626253.3635530(1662-1663)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626253.3635530
Brown NXie BSarder EFiesler CWiese E(2023)Teaching Ethics in Computing: A Systematic Literature Review of ACM Computer Science Education PublicationsACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/363468524:1(1-36)Online publication date: 27-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3634685
Hafeez MKarki ARadwan YSaha AZavaleta Bernuy A(2023)Evaluating the Efficacy and Impacts of Remote Pair Programming for Introductory Computer Science StudentsProceedings of the 25th Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education10.1145/3593342.3593351(1-7)Online publication date: 4-May-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593342.3593351
Ericson BGu XPatel SPadiyath A(2023)Peer+: A Tool to Support Peer Instruction in Interactive EbooksProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 210.1145/3568812.3603489(48-49)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568812.3603489
Hovey CBunde DButler ZTaylor CDoyle MStephenson BDorn BSoh LBattestilli L(2023)How Do I Get People to Use My Ideas?Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3545945.3569779(841-847)Online publication date: 2-Mar-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3545945.3569779
Ericson BHaynes-Magyar CBecker BQuille KLaakso MBarendsen ESimon (2022)Adaptive Parsons Problems as Active Learning Activities During LectureProceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 110.1145/3502718.3524808(290-296)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3502718.3524808
Oleson AXie BSalac JEverson JKivuva FKo A(2022)A Decade of Demographics in Computing Education Research: A Critical Review of Trends in Collection, Reporting, and UseProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3501385.3543967(323-343)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3501385.3543967
Margulieux LDenny PCunningham KDeutsch MShapiro B(2021)When Wrong is Right: The Instructional Power of Multiple ConceptionsProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research10.1145/3446871.3469750(184-197)Online publication date: 16-Aug-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3446871.3469750
Salguero AMcAuley JSimon BPorter LRobins AMoskal AKo AMcCauley RRobins AKo A(2020)A Longitudinal Evaluation of a Best Practices CS1Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research10.1145/3372782.3406274(182-193)Online publication date: 10-Aug-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3372782.3406274

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 Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents