Abstract:

Finding a proper learning model that ensures good student performance and high retention has always been an important research area. We present a new teaching strategy called INstructor STudEnt collAborative Dynamic (INSTEAD) approach, based on a diverse collaboration between Instructor and Students. We used INSTEAD for teaching two Computer Science courses for one year: Programming Fundamentals (CS1) - for freshmen, and Software Engineering (SE1) - for seniors. Both courses are considered challenging as CS1 is the first course when freshmen are exposed at the college level and SE1 makes the connection with industrial software development. Teaching strategies that include in-class collaborative activities already exist, but what makes INSTEAD unique is that the collaboration exists at all levels: before, during, and after class. In addition, the collaboration takes place between Instructor and Students, but also from Student to Student.
INSTEAD is a teaching strategy with three components: a document specifying the course curriculum, a document specifying the expected learning outcomes, and a software product that assists Instructor in creating the teaching materials. The course curriculum and learning outcomes are elaborated by Instructor, reviewed and approved by the Curriculum Committee of our department. The learning outcomes support our program goals as addressed in the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and in the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools institutional effectiveness plans. The INSTEAD software component exploits the idea that the teaching materials are a result of collaboration between Instructor and Students until a general agreement is reached. Students formulate questions and comments to Instructor via email, online discussions, and consultation hours. The teaching materials are uploaded in a website available to Students.
At the beginning of the semester, Instructor asked Students to answer an entry survey to measure Students’ attitudes towards course preparation, confidence in the subject matter, and history of engagement in coursework. Instructor surveyed Students again at the end of the semester to find the measurable changes. After teaching CS1, 78% of Students thought that INSTEAD helped them solving assignments, and 72% thought that communication using INSTEAD was very important; 78% of them thought that INSTEAD required students to take more responsibility for learning; 94% of them thought that they are better prepared for the class due to INSTEAD.
After teaching SE1, 93% of Students thought that INSTEAD helped them with assignments and final project, and communication using INSTEAD was very important; 79% of Students thought that INSTEAD required students to take more responsibility for learning; all Students thought that they were better prepared for the class after using INSTEAD.
We had also compared scores of projects done in SE1 in Spring 2008 that did not use INSTEAD with those from SE1 in Spring 2009 that did use INSTEAD. The same Instructor taught SE1 for both semesters using the same rubric. The course grade average for the final exam in Spring 2008 was 3.83 on a scale 1:Poor, 2:Inadequate, 3:Acceptable, 4:Good, and 5:Superior. The course grade average for final exam in Spring 2009 was 4.71, indicating an improvement of 22.9%.
We conclude that INSTEAD met our expectations. The extra time Instructor and Students spent implementing INSTEAD in CS1 and SE1 was valuable.

Keywords:

Teaching Strategy, Collaborative Approach, Experiments.