Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 373–399 | Cite as

Students teach students: Alternative teaching in Greek secondary education

  • Anastasios Theodoropoulos
  • Angeliki Antoniou
  • George Lepouras


The students of a Greek junior high school collaborated to prepare the teaching material of a theoretical Computer Science (CS) course and then shared their understanding with other students. This study investigates two alternative teaching methods (collaborative learning and peer tutoring) and compares the learning results to the traditional learning context. A test was used to measure all participating students’ learning results and a questionnaire was distributed to record participant student attitudes towards the alternative teaching conditions. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate each aspect in terms of perceived knowledge, experience, satisfaction, diversity, oddness and interest. The analysis explores potential differences of students’ learning results between alternative and traditional teaching and also differences in the two aspects in relation to students’ preferences. Results provide evidence that active-learning methods can promote positive attitudinal shifts and improve skills in creativity, teamwork, collaboration and communication. Students perceived higher levels of learning than with traditional teaching. Finally in terms of students’ preferences, the majority wanted to have more courses taught with active-learning methods.


Secondary education Collaborative learning Peer tutoring Student collaboration Peer assessment Information and communication technologies 



The authors would like to thank the students, the CS teachers and the principal of the 3rd Junior High School of Tripolis for participating in this research. We would also like to thank the director of the Secondary Education of Arcadia prefecture for his valuable help.


  1. Aiken, R. M., Bessagnet, M. N., & Israel, J. (2005). Interaction and collaboration using an intelligent collaborative learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 10(1–2), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, W. L., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2000). A taxonomy for learning and teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Arapoglou, A., Mavoglou, C., Oikonomakos, E., & Greek, F. K. (2006). Computer Science A’, B’, C’ of high school; Student’s book (Greek Ministry of National Education and Religious Affairs). Athens: Pedagogical Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baran, B. (2010). Facebook as a formal instructional environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), E146–E149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, L., & Chizhik, A. (2013). Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Transactions on Computing Education, 13, 3(10).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, I., Admiral, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergmann J., & Sams A. (2012). Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day. United States of America: International Society for Technology in Education.Google Scholar
  9. Berry Jr. L. (1991). Collaborative Learning: A Program for Improving the Retention of Minority Students. U.S., Virginia: ERIC Digest 384323.Google Scholar
  10. Bloom, S. B., Engelhart, D. M., Furst, J. E., Hill, H. W., & Krathwohl, R. D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. London: Longman Group Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, A. J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.Google Scholar
  12. Bouras, C., & Paraskevas, M. (2003). Educational Information Society in Greece: The Greek School Network. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Association for Development of the Information Society, Lisbon, Portugal, 179–186.Google Scholar
  13. Cartwright, D., & Zander, F. A. (1953). Group dynamics: Research and theory. London: Tavistock Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  14. Chang, T. Y., & Chen, Y. T. (2009). Cooperative learning in E-learning: A peer assessment of student-centered using consistent fuzzy preference. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(4), 8342–8349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dagdilelis V. (2004). History in birth: The route of Informatics in Greek education. Greek. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on History of Education, Patras, Greece. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from
  16. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by “Collaborative Learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  17. Dimitriadis S. (2011). Computer education in the era of the Greek digital school. ACM’s CSTA Voice, 7(3),5. Found online at
  18. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures—Teaching for active learning. Bioscience, 47, 601–607. University of California Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engleberg, I. N., & Wynn, D. R. (2009). Working in groups (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Felder, M. R., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Felder, M. R., & Brent, R. (2003). Learning by doing. Chemical Engineering Education, 37(4), 282–283. North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
  23. Felder, N. R., Felder, M. R., Woods, R. D., Stice, E. J., & Rugarcia, A. (2000). The future of engineering education: Part 2. Teaching methods that work. Chemical Engineering Education, 34(1), 26–39.Google Scholar
  24. Gerlach J. M. (1994). Is this collaboration? New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994, 5–14. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219945903
  25. Gouli, E., Gogoulou, A., & Grigoriadou, M. (2008). Supporting self-, peer-, and collaborative-assessment in e-learning: The case of the Peer and Collaborative Assessment Environment (PECASSE). Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(4), 615–647.Google Scholar
  26. Grissom, S. (2013). Introduction to special issue on alternatives to lecture in the computer science classroom. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 13(3), 9.Google Scholar
  27. Informatics Europe & ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education. (2013). Retrieved online at 23 March 2014 at
  28. Johnson, W. D., & Johnson, T. R. (1986). Mainstreaming and cooperative learning strategies. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 553–61.Google Scholar
  29. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, A. P. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laws, P., Sokoloff, D., & Thornton, R. (1999). Promoting active learning using the results of physics education research. UniServe Science News, 13, 14–19.Google Scholar
  31. Lipponen L. (1999). The challenges for computer supported collaborative learning in elementary and secondary level: Finnish perspectives. In Hoadley, C. M. & Roschelle, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL ‘99), International Society of the Learning Sciences, 46.Google Scholar
  32. Lombardi M. M. (2007). Authentic Learning for the 21st Century: An Overview. Educause Learning Initiative, 1(2007), 1--12.Google Scholar
  33. McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne effect: A randomised, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McManus, M. M., & Aiken, R. M. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills with a group leader computer tutor. Education and Information Technologies, 1(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mellor, D., & Moore, K. A. (2013). The use of Likert scales with children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39, 369–79. jst079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Michael, J. A., & Modell, H. I. (2003). Active learning in secondary and college science classrooms a working model for helping the learner to learn. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Michel, N., Cater, J. J., & Varela, O. (2009). Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes. Human Resource Development Quartely, 20(4), 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ministry of Education, Continuing Learning and Religious Affairs. (2011a). Greek. New curriculum and instructions about the teaching of the Project at school. Athens, Greece: Ministry of Education, Continuing Learning and Religious Affairs. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from
  39. Ministry of Education, Continuing Learning and Religious Affairs. (2011b). Greek. Curriculum for the informatics literacy in high school. Athens, Greece: Ministry of Education, Continuing Learning and Religious Affairs. Retrieved September 9, 2013 from
  40. Panhellenic Union of Informatics Teachers (2012). Greek. Historical overview of the course of Informatics in Secondary Education. Athens, Greece: Panhellenic Union of Informatics Teachers. Retrieved online at March 2014 from
  41. Parham, J., Chinn, D., & Stevenson, D. E. (2009). Using Bloom’s taxonomy to code verbal protocols of students solving a data structure problem. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (ACM-SE 47) (p. 39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  42. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). P21 Framework Definitions for 21st Century Learning. Tucson, AZ: Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved March 9, 2013 from
  43. Ploetzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Preier, M., & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 103–121). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  44. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (2012). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  46. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, D. S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saavedra, R. A., & Opfer, D. V. (2012). Teaching and learning 21st century skills: Lessons from the learning sciences. Asia Society report—Partnership for global learning. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  48. Sarason, Y., & Banbury, C. (2004). Active learning facilitated by using a game-show format or who doesn’t want to be a millionaire? Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 509–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, L. B., & MacGregor, T. J. (1992). What is Collaborative Learning? In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, & V. Tinto (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education. University Park: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.Google Scholar
  50. Starr, W. C., Manaris, B., & Stalvey, H. R. (2008). Bloom’s taxonomy revisited: Specifying assessable learning objectives in computer science. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stephenson, C., Cooper, S., Owens, B. B., & Gal-Ezer, J. (2012). The new CSTA K-12 computer science standards. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE ‘12) (pp. 363–364). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  52. Terenzini, T. P., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas, J. (1972). The variation of memory with time for information appearing during a lecture. Studies in Adult Education, 4, 57–62.Google Scholar
  54. Topping, K., Smith, F. E., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whitman, A. N., & Fife, D. J. (1988). Peer teaching: To teach is to learn twice. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports (pp. 20036–1183). Washington, DC: The George Washington University.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson C., Sudol A. L., Stephenson C., & Stehlik M. (2010). Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K-12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. Technical report on behalf of Association for Computing Machinery and Computer Science Teachers Association. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from
  58. Wright, K. D., & Asmundson, G. J. (2003). Health anxiety in children: Development and psychometric properties of the Childhood Illness Attitude Scales. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 32(4), 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anastasios Theodoropoulos
    • 1
  • Angeliki Antoniou
    • 1
  • George Lepouras
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PeloponneseTripolisGreece

Personalised recommendations