skip to main content
10.1145/3587102.3588846acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

The Impact of a Remote Live-Coding Pedagogy on Student Programming Processes, Grades, and Lecture Questions Asked

Published: 30 June 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Live coding---a pedagogical technique in which an instructor plans, writes, and executes code in front of a class---is generally considered a best practice when teaching programming. However, only a few studies have evaluated the effect of live coding on student learning in a controlled experiment and most of the literature relating to live coding identifies students' perceived benefits of live-coding examples. In order to empirically evaluate the impact of live coding, we designed a controlled experiment in a CS1 course taught in Python at a large public university. In the two remote lecture sections for the course, one was taught using live-coding examples and the other was taught using static-code examples. Throughout the term, we collected code snapshots from students' programming assignments, students' grades, and the questions that they asked during the remote lectures. We then applied a set of process-oriented programming metrics to students' programming data to compare students' adherence to effective programming processes in the two learning groups and categorized each question asked in lectures following an open-coding approach. Our results revealed a general lack of difference between the two groups across programming processes, grades, and lecture questions asked. However, our experiment uncovered minimal effects in favor of the live-coding group indicating improved programming processes but lower performance on assignments and grades. Our results suggest an overall insignificant impact of the style of presenting code examples, though we reflect on the threats to validity in our study that should be addressed in future work.

References

[1]
Amreen Bashir, Shahreen Bashir, Karan Rana, Peter Lambert, and Ann Vernallis. 2021. Post-COVID-19 Adaptations; the Shifts Towards Online Learning, Hybrid Course Delivery and the Implications for Biosciences Courses in the Higher Education Setting. Frontiers in Education, Vol. 6 (2021), 1--13. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.711619
[2]
Brett A. Becker. 2016. A New Metric to Quantify Repeated Compiler Errors for Novice Programmers. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Arequipa, Peru) (ITiCSE '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 296--301. https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899463
[3]
Jens Bennedsen and Michael E. Caspersen. 2005. Revealing the Programming Process. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (St. Louis, Missouri, USA) (SIGCSE '05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 186--190. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047413
[4]
Naomi R. Boyer, Sara Langevin, and Alessio Gaspar. 2008. Self Direction & Constructivism in Programming Education. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGITE Conference on Information Technology Education (Cincinnati, OH, USA) (SIGITE '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 89--94. https://doi.org/10.1145/1414558.1414585
[5]
Neil C. C. Brown and Greg Wilson. 2018. Ten quick tips for teaching programming. PLOS Computational Biology, Vol. 14, 4 (04 2018), 1--8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006023
[6]
Russel E. Bruhn and Philip J. Burton. 2003. An Approach to Teaching Java Using Computers. SIGCSE Bull., Vol. 35, 4 (Dec 2003), 94--99. https://doi.org/10.1145/960492.960537
[7]
Adam S. Carter, Christopher D. Hundhausen, and Olusola Adesope. 2015. The Normalized Programming State Model: Predicting Student Performance in Computing Courses Based on Programming Behavior. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (Omaha, Nebraska, USA) (ICER '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 141--150. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787710
[8]
Charis Charitsis, Chris Piech, and John C. Mitchell. 2022. Using NLP to Quantify Program Decomposition in CS1. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (New York City, NY, USA) (L@S '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 113--120. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491140.3528272
[9]
Edstem. 2023. Edstem. https://edstem.org/
[10]
David C. Funder and Daniel J. Ozer. 2019. Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, Vol. 2, 2 (2019), 156--168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
[11]
Gunnar Harboe, Jonas Minke, Ioana Ilea, and Elaine M. Huang. 2012. Computer Support for Collaborative Data Analysis: Augmenting Paper Affinity Diagrams. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Seattle, Washington, USA) (CSCW '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1179--1182. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145379
[12]
Winston Haynes. 2013. Holm's Method. Springer New York, New York, NY, 902--902. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--1--4419--9863--7_1214
[13]
Matthew C. Jadud. 2006. Methods and Tools for Exploring Novice Compilation Behaviour. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Canterbury, United Kingdom) (ICER '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 73--84. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151588.1151600
[14]
Ayaan M. Kazerouni, Stephen H. Edwards, and Clifford A. Shaffer. 2017. Quantifying Incremental Development Practices and Their Relationship to Procrastination. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (Tacoma, Washington, USA) (ICER '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 191--199. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106180
[15]
Ayaan M. Kazerouni, Clifford A. Shaffer, Stephen H. Edwards, and Francisco Servant. 2019. Assessing Incremental Testing Practices and Their Impact on Project Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Minneapolis, MN, USA) (SIGCSE '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 407--413. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287366
[16]
Michael Kölling and David J. Barnes. 2004. Enhancing Apprentice-Based Learning of Java. SIGCSE Bull., Vol. 36, 1 (mar 2004), 286--290. https://doi.org/10.1145/1028174.971403
[17]
Saskia le Cessie, Jelle J Goeman, and Olaf M Dekkers. 2020. Who is afraid of non-normal data? Choosing between parametric and non-parametric tests. European Journal of Endocrinology, Vol. 182, 2 (2020), E1 -- E3. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-19-0922
[18]
Nachiappan Nagappan, Laurie Williams, Miriam Ferzli, Eric Wiebe, Kai Yang, Carol Miller, and Suzanne Balik. 2003. Improving the CS1 Experience with Pair Programming. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Reno, Navada, USA) (SIGCSE '03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 359--362. https://doi.org/10.1145/611892.612006
[19]
John Paxton. 2002. Live Programming as a Lecture Technique. J. Comput. Sci. Coll., Vol. 18, 2 (dec 2002), 51--56.
[20]
Karl Pearson. 1900. X. On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Vol. 50, 302 (July 1900), 157--175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897
[21]
Harry O. Posten. 1984. Robustness of the Two-Sample T-Test. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 92--99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--94-009--6528--7_23
[22]
Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj, Pan Gu, Eda Zhang, Arokia Xavier Annie R, Jim Williams, Richard Halverson, and Jignesh M. Patel. 2020. Live-Coding vs Static Code Examples: Which is Better with Respect to Student Learning and Cognitive Load?. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Australasian Computing Education Conference (Melbourne, VIC, Australia) (ACE'20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 152--159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373165.3373182
[23]
Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj, Jignesh M. Patel, Richard Halverson, and Erica Rosenfeld Halverson. 2018. Role of Live-Coding in Learning Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3279720.3279725
[24]
Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj, Hanqi Zhang, Viren Abhyankar, Saswati Mukerjee, Eda Zhang, Jim Williams, Richard Halverson, and Jignesh M. Patel. 2019. Impact of Bilingual CS Education on Student Learning and Engagement in a Data Structures Course. In Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli, Finland) (Koli Calling '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 24, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364510.3364518
[25]
Marc J. Rubin. 2013. The Effectiveness of Live-Coding to Teach Introductory Programming. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Denver, Colorado, USA) (SIGCSE '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 651--656. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445388
[26]
Ana Selvaraj, Eda Zhang, Leo Porter, and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj. 2021. Live Coding: A Review of the Literature. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (Virtual Event, Germany) (ITiCSE '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 164--170. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456382
[27]
Anshul Shah, Michael Granado, Mrinal Sharma, John Driscoll, Leo Porter, William Griswold, and Adalbert Gerald Soosai Raj. 2023. Understanding and Measuring Incremental Development in CS1. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Toronto, ON, Canada) (SIGCSE '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569880
[28]
Stepik. 2023. Stepik. https://stepik.org/course/84164
[29]
Sheng-Rong Tan, Yu-Tzu Lin, and Jia-Sin Liou. 2016. Teaching by demonstration: programming instruction by using live-coding videos. In Proceedings of EdMedia Innovate Learning 2016. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1294--1298. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/173121
[30]
Maureen M. Villamor. 2020. A Review on Process-oriented Approaches for Analyzing Novice Solutions to Programming Problems. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, Vol. 15, 1 (Apr 2020), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-020-00130-y
[31]
Christopher Watson, Frederick W.B. Li, and Jamie L. Godwin. 2013. Predicting Performance in an Introductory Programming Course by Logging and Analyzing Student Programming Behavior. In 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. 319--323. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2013.99

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Comparing the Experiences of Live Coding versus Static Code Examples for Students and InstructorsProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653562(506-512)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2024)A Comparison of Student Behavioral Engagement in Traditional Live Coding and Active Live Coding LecturesProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653537(513-519)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2023)An Empirical Evaluation of Live Coding in CS1Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600122(476-494)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. The Impact of a Remote Live-Coding Pedagogy on Student Programming Processes, Grades, and Lecture Questions Asked

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ITiCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1
June 2023
694 pages
ISBN:9798400701382
DOI:10.1145/3587102
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 30 June 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. debugging
  2. grades
  3. incremental development
  4. lecture experience
  5. live coding
  6. programming processes

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • National Science Foundation

Conference

ITiCSE 2023
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)262
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)24
Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Comparing the Experiences of Live Coding versus Static Code Examples for Students and InstructorsProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653562(506-512)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2024)A Comparison of Student Behavioral Engagement in Traditional Live Coding and Active Live Coding LecturesProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653537(513-519)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
  • (2023)An Empirical Evaluation of Live Coding in CS1Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600122(476-494)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
  • (2023)Improving Students’ Programming Processes using Cognitive Apprenticeship MethodsProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 210.1145/3568812.3603458(102-106)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
  • (2023)Live Coding in the Classroom: Evaluating Its Impact on Student Performance Through ANOVA and ANCOVA2023 International Conference on Intelligent Education and Intelligent Research (IEIR)10.1109/IEIR59294.2023.10391259(1-6)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2023

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media