谁会在CS1课程中尝试选修练习题?探索学习者代理促进掌握学习

Ashish Aggarwal, Neelima Puthanveetil, Christina Gardner-Mccune
{"title":"谁会在CS1课程中尝试选修练习题?探索学习者代理促进掌握学习","authors":"Ashish Aggarwal, Neelima Puthanveetil, Christina Gardner-Mccune","doi":"10.1145/3545945.3569854","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As enrollments in CS1 courses continue to rise, it has become essential for CS educators to support students with varying learning needs and prior programming experiences. Many experts have pointed to the use of mastery-based learning (MBL), which allows students to develop proficiency by engaging in formative practice problems at their own pace. However, less is known about the characteristics of students who use and benefit from such an approach. CS educators need strong evidence for whether formative practice helps to increase aggregate learning outcomes, especially among students who could gain the most from MBL. In this paper, we are interested in exploring the characteristics of students who engage with formative learning opportunities. We analyze data from 118 students enrolled in a CS1 course who were provided with weekly optional practice quizzes that contained multiple-choice and free-response questions. We used logistic regression to analyze who actually attempted these optional quizzes and found that while gender was not significant, students who do not have prior programming experience (PPE) were more likely to use optional practice than those with PPE. We also conducted a nonparametric two-sample analysis and found that students without PPE engage with optional practice questions to a higher level than students with PPE. Our findings explore the factors that may underpin students' agency and their academic behavior and performance. These results can inform educators on how to scaffold students' learning trajectories by accounting for expected group-based behavioral patterns while utilizing MBL in large CS1 courses.","PeriodicalId":371326,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1","volume":"2013 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Attempts Optional Practice Problems in a CS1 Course?: Exploring Learner Agency to Foster Mastery Learning\",\"authors\":\"Ashish Aggarwal, Neelima Puthanveetil, Christina Gardner-Mccune\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3545945.3569854\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As enrollments in CS1 courses continue to rise, it has become essential for CS educators to support students with varying learning needs and prior programming experiences. Many experts have pointed to the use of mastery-based learning (MBL), which allows students to develop proficiency by engaging in formative practice problems at their own pace. However, less is known about the characteristics of students who use and benefit from such an approach. CS educators need strong evidence for whether formative practice helps to increase aggregate learning outcomes, especially among students who could gain the most from MBL. In this paper, we are interested in exploring the characteristics of students who engage with formative learning opportunities. We analyze data from 118 students enrolled in a CS1 course who were provided with weekly optional practice quizzes that contained multiple-choice and free-response questions. We used logistic regression to analyze who actually attempted these optional quizzes and found that while gender was not significant, students who do not have prior programming experience (PPE) were more likely to use optional practice than those with PPE. We also conducted a nonparametric two-sample analysis and found that students without PPE engage with optional practice questions to a higher level than students with PPE. Our findings explore the factors that may underpin students' agency and their academic behavior and performance. These results can inform educators on how to scaffold students' learning trajectories by accounting for expected group-based behavioral patterns while utilizing MBL in large CS1 courses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":371326,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1\",\"volume\":\"2013 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569854\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569854","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着CS1课程的注册人数不断增加,CS教育者必须支持具有不同学习需求和先前编程经验的学生。许多专家指出,可以使用基于掌握的学习(MBL),这种方法可以让学生按照自己的节奏参与形成性练习问题,从而提高熟练程度。然而,使用这种方法并从中受益的学生的特点却鲜为人知。计算机科学教育者需要强有力的证据来证明形成性实践是否有助于提高总体学习成果,特别是那些可以从MBL中获益最多的学生。在本文中,我们感兴趣的是探索参与形成性学习机会的学生的特征。我们分析了118名参加CS1课程的学生的数据,这些学生每周都有包含多项选择和自由回答问题的可选练习测验。我们使用逻辑回归分析实际尝试这些可选测验的学生,发现虽然性别不显著,但没有先前编程经验(PPE)的学生比有PPE的学生更有可能使用可选练习。我们还进行了一项非参数双样本分析,发现没有PPE的学生比有PPE的学生对可选练习题的参与度更高。我们的研究结果探讨了可能支持学生代理和他们的学术行为和表现的因素。这些结果可以告诉教育工作者如何在大型CS1课程中使用MBL时,通过考虑预期的基于群体的行为模式来构建学生的学习轨迹。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Who Attempts Optional Practice Problems in a CS1 Course?: Exploring Learner Agency to Foster Mastery Learning
As enrollments in CS1 courses continue to rise, it has become essential for CS educators to support students with varying learning needs and prior programming experiences. Many experts have pointed to the use of mastery-based learning (MBL), which allows students to develop proficiency by engaging in formative practice problems at their own pace. However, less is known about the characteristics of students who use and benefit from such an approach. CS educators need strong evidence for whether formative practice helps to increase aggregate learning outcomes, especially among students who could gain the most from MBL. In this paper, we are interested in exploring the characteristics of students who engage with formative learning opportunities. We analyze data from 118 students enrolled in a CS1 course who were provided with weekly optional practice quizzes that contained multiple-choice and free-response questions. We used logistic regression to analyze who actually attempted these optional quizzes and found that while gender was not significant, students who do not have prior programming experience (PPE) were more likely to use optional practice than those with PPE. We also conducted a nonparametric two-sample analysis and found that students without PPE engage with optional practice questions to a higher level than students with PPE. Our findings explore the factors that may underpin students' agency and their academic behavior and performance. These results can inform educators on how to scaffold students' learning trajectories by accounting for expected group-based behavioral patterns while utilizing MBL in large CS1 courses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信