Mark Dixon 1

Student-Lecturer Interactions during First Year Computer Programming

Tutorials:

Mark DixonSchool of Computing & Mathematics

University of Plymouth, UK

Towards a model to help guide new lecturers

Mark Dixon 2

Introduction - Background• programming widely recognised

difficult to learn and teach

• recent student numbers increase– doubled 2 years ago

• PhD student teaching increased– need to maintain teaching quality

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 3

Introduction - Background• problem

– (students come with impression that computers are intelligent)

• cause– GCSE syllabus– Marketing– Films

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 4

Introduction - Aims• model of lab-tutorial

student-lecturer interaction– experienced lecturer behaviour?– student behaviour?– hazards, beneficial, inhibiting?

• passed onto new lecturers

• literature: limited observations of student-lecturer interactions in lab tutorials

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 5

Introduction - Objectives• How do we interact with students?

– how do we get inside their heads?– need explicit (evidence-based) model

• How do we pass this on to new lecturers?– need explicit strategy

• Teaching and Learning Courses– good for generic Learning Theory– very little / no discipline specific

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 6

Method: Overview• Develop initial model

– single lecturer's anecdotal experiences (over 15 years)

• Observational Study– participant observation &

audio recordings– during stage 1 programming

tutorials (in labs)– transcription of audio– QDA to identify

recurrent / key themes

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 7

Method: Observation Protocol1. Short Briefing (Investigators,

Aims, Process, Ethics)2. Consent Form to all students

indicate willingness -> fill in form3. Conduct tutorial normally

(location, duration, attendance, resources, content)

4. Students proceed with exercisesAsk for assistanceLecturer responds(if consent then audio record)

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 8

Initial Model: Questions, Understanding, Process

• provide student with minimum assistance, which enables them to solve problems themselves– by asking them questions

• focus on:– increasing student understanding,

not completing tasks / exercises– processes used to develop solutions,

not solutions themselves

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 9

Initial Model: Broken Code Panic• Students

– try code– code does not work– panic: delete code (BCP)– ask for help

• Lecturer– needs to see code that does not work– gives clue to student understanding

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 10

Initial Model: Error Message Panic• Students

– type in code– run code– error message appears– panic: frantically click to get rid of

error message (EMP)– ask for help

• Lecturer– don't panic– read message (cute fluffy friends)

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 11

Initial Model: Difficult Conceptsvar x;var y;

x = 3;x = 6;y = x + 2

L: What is x? S: It gives error, x can't be 3 and

6 at the same time.• Misunderstanding stuck

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 12

Initial Model: What vs. How S: Can you explain this code? L: Yes, it puts a zero in each

element of the array

• May give false impression– impressionist painting not sequential

• Domain vs. Program level [Pennington]

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 13

Initial Model: Computer Intelligence• Students

– perceive computer as intelligent– approach programming like

conversation with another person

– type code without understanding– believe computer understands– 5 lines not working, add 400

• Lecturer– reinforce idea of

mechanistic (stupid) computer

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 14

Initial Model: Task Focus S: Can you help me? L: Yes, what are you stuck on? S: How do you get it to … ? L: OK, which bit of code does …? S: [no response] L: OK, let's have a look at your code …

how does this work? S: [no response]

• Seemed to expect solution• Code seemed quite advanced, confusing,• Student could not explain code.• Eventually, admitted - did not understand it.• They typed it in, but other tutor guided them

(effectively told them what to write).

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 15

Initial Model: Cold Reading• Cold Reading

L: 'What is the value of k [Boolean]?'

S: 'True' [quick, confident]

L: 'Are you sure?'

S: 'False, I knew that!' [quick, defensive]

• student guessing, reading lecturer's response (words, tone, expression)

• inaccurate impression of student understanding

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 16

Initial Model: Guidelines• Lecturer

– do not touchstudent's keyboard or mouse(no 'little bit of magic')

– view as diagnostic process (identify conceptual sticking point) feedback

– different example for explanationsleave student to apply understanding to original problem

– don't let them use you as a resourceget (help) them to do it

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 17

Initial Model: Time Consuming• Once practiced

– 1:1 easy

• Very time consuming– difficult with large groups

• Risk – other students wait, get frustrated, leave / stop attending

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 18

Results: Direct Observation 1• Saw student struggling• offered help• they accepted.• Asked how much they understood• they said just the html.• Asked did they attend the lecture – no they didn’t.• Lecturer reacted neutrally to this.• They actually understood more than this

They had created another image, and copied the Main procedure (with the movement code) – changing it for the new image tag id.This did not work as there were now two Main procedures.

• Lecturer informed them that 'you can’t have two procedures with the same name, but you can add more code to the existing Main procedure – join them together'.

• Student did this – it worked

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 19

Results: Direct Observation 2S: Asks for help regarding SQL LIKE statementL1: Gets their SQL reference guide and looks it up, then

tells student what to typeS: What does the percent mean?L1: It's a wildcard character.S: Looks very confusedL1: Asks for help from L2L2: Percent means any characters. For example d% picks

things starting with d, and %z picks things ending with z.What would pick things starting with a and ending is s?

S: a%s [with confidence in their voices]

• L1 looks up, rather than Student

• 'wildcard character' technically correct, but did not help student

• L2 lay explanation with examples, and question

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 20

Results: Audio Transcripts– Session 1 (5 conversations)

(10m 23s, 2m 34s, 3m 45s, 3m 56s, 26m 3s).

– Session 2 (9 conversations) (6m 51s, 1m 44s, 41s, 1m 10s, 1m 33s, 11m 5s, 4m 44s, 3m 8s, 6m 49s).

– Session 3 (10 conversations) (3m 6s, 2m 9s, 1m, 11m 27s, 3m 16s, 50s, 1m 2s, 21m 30s, 1m 19s, 5m 28s).

– total 24 participants (out of 110)

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 21

Results: Audio Transcript 1S: 'but that doesn't work'

L: 'OK, when you say "It doesn't work"'

S: 'It runs, there are no errors, but there isn't a new record'

L: 'OK, right, how can we pause the program and see it internally'

S: 'debugger'

L: 'Yeah'

• Lecturer guiding learning by questioning

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 22

Conclusions / Literature• Strong History of Similar Approach

– Socratic Method(learning by questioning)

– Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)'You cannot teach a man anything;you can only help him find it within himself'

– Student-Centred Learning– Constructivism

• Assimilation vs. Accommodation

• limited concrete details– how this translates into programming tutorial

student-lecturer interactions– new lecturers

Introduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 23

Further work

• Looking for participantsIntroduction

Method

Model

Results

Conclusions

Mark Dixon 24

Driving, IT, and Computing

Driver Mechanic Designer

User IT Support Developeruse

technologyinstall + fixtechnology

create + buildinvent

technology

SchoolICT GCSE/A level

UniversityComputing Degrees

use car fix car invent car