Instructional Design Principles Improve Learning about Computing: Making Measurable Progress


I have been eager to write this blog for months, but wanted to wait until both of the papers had been reviewed and accepted for publication. Now “ Sub goals Improve Performance in Computer Programming Construction Tasks” by Lauren Marguerite  Richard Castration  and Mark Guzdial has been accepted to the educational psychology conference EARLI SIG 6 & 7, and “Sub goal-Labeled Instructional Material Improves Performance and Transfer in Mobile Application Development” by the same authors have been accepted into ICER 2012. Richard Catrambone has developed a sub goal model of learning. The idea is to express instructions with explicit sub goals (“Here’s what you’re trying to achieve in the next three steps”) and that doing so helps students to develop a mental model of the process. He has shown that using sub goals in instruction can help with learning and improve transfer in domains like statistics. Will it work with CS? That’s what his student Lauren set out to find out.

She took a video that Barb had created to help teachers learn how to build apps with App Inventor. She then defined a set of sub goals that she felt captured the mental model of the process. She then ran 40 undergraduates through a process of receiving sub goal-based instruction, or not: In the first session, participants completed a demographic questionnaire, and then they had 40 minutes to study the first app‘s instructional material. Next, participants had 15 minutes to complete the first assessment task. In the second session, participants had 10 minutes to complete the second assessment task, which measured their retention. Then participants had 25 minutes to study the second app‘s instructional material followed by 25 minutes to complete the third assessment.

An example assessment task: Write the steps you would take to make the screen change colors depending on the orientation of the phone; specifically, the screen turns blue when the pitch is greater than 2 (hint: you’ll need to make an orientation sensor and use blocks from “Screen 1” in My Blocks). Here’s an example screenshot from one of Barb’s original videos, which is what the non-sub goal group would see:

 

This group would get text-based instruction that looked like this:

  1. Click on “My Blocks” to see the blocks for components you created.
  2. Click on “clap” and drag out a when clap.Touched block
  3. Click on “ clap Sound” and drag out call clap Sound.Play and connect it after when clap.Touched

The sub goal group would get a video that looks like this:

That’s it — a call out would appear for a few second to remind them of what sub goal they were on. Their text instructions looked a bit different:

Handle Events from My Blocks

  1. Click on “My Blocks” to see the blocks for components you created.
  2. Click on “clap” and drag out a when clap.Touched block

Set Output from My Blocks

  1. Click on “clapSound” and drag out call clapSound.Play and connect it after when clap.Touched

You’ll notice other educational psychology themes in here. We give them instructional material with a complete worked example. By calling out the mental model of the process explicitly, we reduce cognitive load associated with figuring out a mental model for themselves. (When you tell students to develop something, but don’t tell them how, you are making it harder for them.) Here’s a quote from one of the ICER 2012 reviewers (who recommended rejecting the paper): “From Figure 1, it seems that the “treatment” is close to trivial: writing headings every few lines. This is like saying that if you divide up a program into sections with a comment preceding each section or each section implemented as a method, then it is easier to recall the structure.”

Yes. Exactly. That’s the point. But this “trivial” treatment really made a difference!

  • The subgoal group attempted and completed successfully more parts (subgoals) of the assessment tasks and faster — all three of those (more subgoals attempted, more completed successfully, and time) were all statistically significant.
  • The subgoal group completed successfully more tasks on a retention task (which wasn’t the exact same task — they had to transfer knowledge) one week later, again statistically significantly.

But did the students really learn the mental model communicated by the subgoal labels, or did the chunking things into subgoals just make it easier to read and parse? Lauren ran a second experiment with 12 undergraduates, where she asked students to “talk-aloud” while they did the task. The groups were too small with the second experiment to show the same learning benefits, but all the trends were in the same direction. The subgoal group were still out-performing the non-subgoal groups, but what’s more they talked in subgoals! I find it amazing that she got these results from just one hour sessions. In one hour, Lauren’s video taught undergraduate students how to get something done in App Inventor, and they could remember and do something new with that knowledge a week later — better than a comparable group of Georgia Tech undergraduates seeing the SAME videos (with only callout differences) doing the SAME tasks. That is efficient learning.

Here’s a version of a challenge that I have made previously: Show me pedagogical techniques in computing education that have statistically significant impacts on performance, speed, and retention, and lead to developing a mental model of (even part of) a software development process. What’s in our toolkit? Where is our measurable progress? The CMU Cognitive Tutors count, but they were 20-30 years ago and (unfortunately) are not part of our CS education toolkit today. Alice and Scratch are tools — they are what to teach, not how to teach. Most of our strong results (like Pair Programming, Caspersen’s STREAMS, and Media Computation) are about changing practice in whole courses, mostly forundergraduates, over several weeks. Designing instruction around subgoals in order to communicate a mental model is a small, “trivial” tweak, that anyone can use no matter what they are teaching, with significant wins in terms of quality and efficiency. Instructional design principles could be used to make undergraduate courses better, but they’re even more critical when teaching adults, when teaching working professionals, when teaching high school teachers who have very little time. We need to re-think how we teach computing to cater to these new audiences. Lauren is showing us how to do that.

One of the Ed Psych reviewers wrote, “Does not break new ground theoretically, but provides additional evidence for existing theory using new tasks.” Yes. Exactly. This is no new invention from an instructional design perspective. It is simply mapping things that Richard has been doing for years into a computer science domain, into “new tasks.” And it was successful. Lauren is working with us this summer, and we will be trying it with high school teachers. Will it work the same as with GT undergraduates? I’m excited by these results — we’re already showing that the CSLearning4U approach of simply picking the low-hanging fruit from educational psychology can have a big impact on computing education quality and efficiency. (NSF CE21 funds CSLearning4U. Lauren’s work was supported by a Georgia Tech GVU/IPaT research grant. All the claims and opinions here are mine, not necessarily those of any of the founders.)

Deepa Singh
Business Developer
Web Site:-http://www.gyapti.com
Blog:- http://gyapti.blogspot.com
Email Id:-deepa.singh@soarlogic.com

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s