research-article

Impact of Class Size on Student Evaluations for Traditional and Peer Instruction Classrooms

Authors:

Soohyun Nam Liao,

William G. Griswold,

Leo PorterAuthors Info & Claims

SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Pages 375 - 380

https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017764

Published: 08 March 2017 Publication History

Abstract

As student enrollments in computer science increase, there is a growing need for pedagogies that scale. Recent evidence has shown Peer Instruction (PI) to be an effective in-class pedagogy that reports high student satisfaction even with large classes. Yet, the question of the scalability of traditional lecture versus PI is largely unexplored. To explore this question, this work examines publicly available student evaluations of computer science courses across a wide range of class sizes (50--374 students) over a four year period. It first compares evaluations regardless of size and confirms prior work that PI classes are better appreciated by students than traditional lecture. It then examines how course evaluations change with class size and provides evidence that PI achieves a smaller decline in evaluations as class size increases.

References

[1]

D. Allen and K. Tanner. Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: seven strategies, from the simple to complex. CBE, 4(4), 2005.

[2]

T. Andrews, M. Leonard, C. Colgrove, and S. Kalinowski. Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE-Life Sci Educ, 10(4), 2011.

[3]

P. Blatchford. The Class Size Debate. 2003.

[4]

M. Borrego, J. E. Froyd, C. Henderson, and S. Cutler. Influence of engineering instructors' teaching and learning beliefs on pedagogies in engineering science courses. IJEE, 2013.

[5]

Course And Professor Evaluations. https://cape.ucsd.edu.

[6]

C. H. Crouch and E. Mazur. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. AJP, 69, 2001.

[7]

D. Ebert-May, C. Brewer, and S. Allred. Innovation in Large Lectures: Teaching for Active Learning. Bioscience, 47(9), Oct. 1997.

[8]

S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), June 2014.

[9]

G. J. Har tt and A. Tsui. An examination of class size reduction on teaching and learning processes: A theoretical perspective. BERA, 41(5), 2015.

[10]

D. A. Lake. Student performance and perceptions of a lecture-based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion. Physical Therapy, 81(3), 2001.

[11]

E. Lazowska, E. Roberts, and J. Kurose. Student Interest in Computer Science. 2014.

[12]

C. B. Lee. Experience report: Cs1 in matlab for non-majors, with media computation and peer instruction. SIGCSE, 2013.

Digital Library

[13]

C. B. Lee, S. Garcia, and L. Porter. Can peer instruction be effective in upper-division computer science courses? TOCE, 13(3), Aug. 2013.

Digital Library

[14]

D. J. Nicol and J. T. Boyle. Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), Aug. 2010.

[15]

Pandas. http://pandas.pydata.org.

[16]

L. Porter, C. Bailey Lee, and B. Simon. Halving fail rates using peer instruction: A study of four computer science courses. SIGCSE, 2013.

Digital Library

[17]

L. Porter, C. Bailey-Lee, B. Simon, Q. Cutts, and D. Zingaro. Experience report: A multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. ITiCSE, 2011.

Digital Library

[18]

L. Porter, D. Bouvier, Q. Cutts, S. Grissom, C. Lee, R. McCartney, D. Zingaro, and B. Simon. A multi-institutional study of peer instruction in introductory computing. ACM Inroads, 7(2), 2016.

Digital Library

[19]

L. Porter, S. Garcia, J. Glick, A. Matusiewicz, and C. Taylor. Peer instruction in computer science at small liberal arts colleges. ITiCSE, 2013.

Digital Library

[20]

L. Porter and B. Simon. Retaining nearly one-third more majors with a trio of instructional best practices in cs1. SIGCSE, 2013.

Digital Library

[21]

E. E. Prather, A. L. Rudolph, G. Brissenden, and W. M. Schlingman. A national study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy. Part I. The e ect of interactive instruction. AJP, 77(4), Apr. 2009.

[22]

M. Sahami and C. Piech. As CS Enrollments Grow, Are We Attracting Weaker Students? SIGCSE, 2016.

Digital Library

[23]

M. I. Shuster and R. Preszler. Introductory biology course reform: A tale of two courses. volume 8, 2014.

[24]

B. Simon, M. Kohanfars, J. Lee, K. Tamayo, and Q. Cutts. Experience report: Peer instruction in introductory computing. SIGCSE, 2010.

Digital Library

[25]

B. Simon, J. Parris, and J. Spacco. How we teach impacts student learning: Peer instruction vs. lecture in CS0. SIGCSE, 2013.

Digital Library

[26]

S. Zweben and B. Bizot. 2014 Taulbee Survey. 27(5), May 2015.

Cited By

Dziuban CMoskal PReiner ACohen ACarassas C(2023)Student Ratings: Skin in the Game and the Three-Body ProblemEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1311112413:11(1124)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111124
Gopal BCooper S(2022)Peer Instruction in Online Software Testing and Continuous Integration - A Replication Study2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET)10.1109/ICSE-SEET55299.2022.9794148(199-204)Online publication date: May-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET55299.2022.9794148
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
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Impact of Class Size on Student Evaluations for Traditional and Peer Instruction Classrooms
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education

Recommendations

Peer instruction in computer science at small liberal arts colleges
ITiCSE '13: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education

Peer Instruction (PI) has been shown to be successful at improving pass-rates and improving retention of majors in large classes at large research-intensive institutions. At these institutions, students have been shown to learn from peer discussion in ...
Peer Instruction in Computing: A Focus on Student Learning (Abstract Only)
SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education

Recent work in computing has converged on a collection of complementary findings suggesting the value of the Peer Instruction (PI) pedagogy. Compared to lecture, PI has been shown to decrease fail rates, increase final exam grades, and increase ...
Understanding the Impact of Peer Instruction in CS Principles Teacher Professional Development
In a nationwide initiative to increase computer science Education in K-12, many teachers were recruited to CS teaching positions but without adequate preparation, which can lead to lack of confidence and feelings of isolation [35, 54]. In response to ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 2017

838 pages

ISBN:9781450346986

DOI:10.1145/3017680

General Chairs:
Michael E. Caspersen
Aarhus University
,
Stephen H. Edwards
Virginia Tech
,
Program Chairs:
Tiffany Barnes
North Carolina State University
,
Daniel D. Garcia
University of California, Berkeley

Copyright © 2017 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 the author(s) 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: 08 March 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

SIGCSE '17

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

SIGCSE '17: The 48th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 8 - 11, 2017

Washington, Seattle, USA

Acceptance Rates

SIGCSE '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 105 of 348 submissions, 30%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025

Sponsor:
sigcse

The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

February 26 - March 1, 2025

Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
416
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)25
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Dziuban CMoskal PReiner ACohen ACarassas C(2023)Student Ratings: Skin in the Game and the Three-Body ProblemEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1311112413:11(1124)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111124
Gopal BCooper S(2022)Peer Instruction in Online Software Testing and Continuous Integration - A Replication Study2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET)10.1109/ICSE-SEET55299.2022.9794148(199-204)Online publication date: May-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEET55299.2022.9794148
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
Gopal BCooper S(2021)Peer Instruction in Online Synchronous Software Engineering - Findings from fine-grained clicker data2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637353(1-8)Online publication date: 13-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637353
Cao YPorter LLiao SOrd RScharlau BMcDermott RPears ASabin M(2019)Paper or Online?Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3304221.3319739(99-104)Online publication date: 2-Jul-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3304221.3319739
Greer THao QJing MBarnes BHawthorne EPérez-Quiñones MHeckman SZhang J(2019)On the Effects of Active Learning Environments in Computing EducationProceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education10.1145/3287324.3287345(267-272)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3287324.3287345
Bruce K(2018)Five big open questions in computing educationACM Inroads10.1145/32306979:4(77-80)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3230697
Taylor CSpacco JBunde DPetersen ALiao SPorter LPolycarpou IRead JAndreou PArmoni M(2018)A multi-institution exploration of peer instruction in practiceProceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3197091.3197144(308-313)Online publication date: 2-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3197091.3197144
Caceffo RGama GAzevedo RBarnes TGarcia DHawthorne EPérez-Quiñones M(2018)Exploring Active Learning Approaches to Computer Science ClassesProceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education10.1145/3159450.3159585(922-927)Online publication date: 21-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3159450.3159585

View Options

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