Skip to main content

An Active Learning Strategy for Programming Courses

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Mobile Technologies and Applications for the Internet of Things (IMCL 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 909))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The objective of this research is to employ a simple active learning strategy in conjunction with the principles of cognitive psychology to enhance student learning in an undergraduate programming course. The investigation was done for a first-year course in C++. The course was taught over a period of 13 weeks during which the instructor meets with the students for 4 h every week. Specifically, quantitative investigations were made in which the course was taught using the intervention- and reinforcement-based active learning method to a group of approximately 120 students. The two key components of these strategies include: (a) hands-on programming while teaching the concepts and (b) group debugging exercises. In the former, the students were taught concepts via collective coding exercises in the classroom as a part of active learning strategy. Additionally, to periodically recall and reinforce concepts, the following were done: (1) each new class begins with a group debugging exercise where the students collectively participate in debugging or constructing a program, requiring them to recall earlier concepts. (2) Weekly programming labs and assignments are assigned that the students must complete for a certain grade. The student learning is measured via assessments through two term tests and a comprehensive final exam. From these assessments, it has been found that the active learning strategy has benefitted the students in terms of their learning. Further, this is attributed to the effective reinforcement of the concepts as well as the intervention strategy employed in the classroom. The former was achieved via (a) practice, teaching/learning/communications with their peers inside the classroom and the latter via compulsory labs and assignments that the students undertook outside the classroom.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012. OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  2. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS). (2011). Global education digest 2011. Montreal: UIS.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wage, K. E., Buck, J. R., Wright, C. H. G., & Welch, T. B. (2005). The signals and systems concept inventory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(3), 448–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buck, J. R., & Wage, K. E. (2005). Active and cooperative learning in signal processing courses. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 22(2), 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Parente, J. M., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2001). Collaborative learning vs. lecture/discussion: Students’ reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., et al. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. Cell Biology Education, 6, 132–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sidhu, G., Srinivasan, S., & Centea, D. (2017, July 3–5). Implementation of a problem based learning environment for first year engineering mathematics. In Guerra, A., Rodriguez, F. J., Kolmos, A., & Reyes, I. P. (red.) (Eds.), PBL, social progress and sustainability. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag, 6th International Research Symposium on PBL (IRSPBL 2017), Bogota, Colombia (pp. 201–208).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Centea, D., & Srivavasan, S. (2015, July 6–9). Problem based learning in the conceptual design of hybrid electric vehicles—Development of a global network for PBL and engineering education. In Proceeding of the International Joint Conference on the Learner in Engineering Education (IJCLEE 2015), Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain (pp. 149–154) (full paper).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Centea, D., & Srinivasan, D. (2016). A comprehensive assessment strategy for a PBL environment. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences, 3(6), 364–372.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (1999). A guided inquiry general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 74(4), 570–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006). Effectiveness of challenge-based instruction in biomechanics. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316, 548–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Seymour, E., Hunter, A.-B., Laursen, S. L., & Diatonic, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88, 493–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Redish, E. F., Paul, J. M., & Steingberg, R. N. (1997). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 65, 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Murray, T. (1999). Authoring intelligent tutoring systems: An analysis of the state of the art. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10(98–129), 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improving learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332, 862–864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Butler, A. C., Marsh, E. J., Slavinsky, J. P., & Baraniuk, R. G. (2014). Integrating cognitive science and technology improves learning in a STEM classroom. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9256-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Centea, D., & Srinivasan, S. (2016). A comprehensive assessment strategy for a PBL environment. International Journal of Innovation and Research in Educational Sciences (IJIRES), 3(6). 2349-5219.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sidhu, G., & Srinivasan, S. (2018). An intervention-based active-learning strategy to enhance student performance in mathematics. International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (accepted).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Srinivasan, S., & Centea, D. (2015, July 6–9). Applicability of principles of cognitive science in active learning pedagogies. In Active Teachers—Active Students—Proceedings of the 13th Active Learning in Engineering Education Workshop (ALE), International Joint Conference on the Learner in Engineering Education (IJCLEE 2015), Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain (pp. 99–104).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sidhu, G., & Srinivasan, S. (2015). An intervention-based active learning strategy employing principles of cognitive psychology. In CEEA15, Proceedings of Canadian Engineering Education Associate (CCEA15) Conference, Hamilton, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Srinivasan, S., & Sidhu, G. (2014). Technology and intervention-based instruction for improved student learning. In ICEER2014 International Conference on Engineering Education and Research, Hamilton, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seshasai Srinivasan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Srinivasan, S., Centea, D. (2019). An Active Learning Strategy for Programming Courses. In: Auer, M., Tsiatsos, T. (eds) Mobile Technologies and Applications for the Internet of Things. IMCL 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 909. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11434-3_36

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics