Active learning techniques such as think-pair-share exercises [1], pair programming [2], peer instruction [3], and flipped classrooms [4] have proven to increase student engagement [5]. These interventions have been used in introductory level courses, primarily to address broadening participation in large class sections [6]. What can be done to increase student interaction in asynchronous online classes?
In practice-based learning courses, the use of real-world, community-based projects may be an effective way to engage students with a meaningful problem while teaching them software engineering concepts [7]. Students often become more invested in their projects when they see that their products are more than simply a paper design. Real-world projects often require the creation of inter-disciplinary teams to complete them.
An important aspect of project-based education is the development of soft skills such as communication and team work. There are examples of courses that make use of project work to help students enhance their soft skills simultaneously with their product design skills [8]. Decker and Simkins [9] introduced the use of an extended role play approach in a game development process class where the students were not assessed solely on the artifacts they produced, but the processes by which they created their artifacts. Their role-play activities emphasize industry best practices for developing both technical and soft skills (project management, communication, marketing, and interdisciplinary design).
The project classes I teach are offered in-person on campus and paired with an online section that allows students to complete the course requirements asynchronously. I am a software engineer and team projects are essential to preparing students for their professional lives are they graduate. Learning to do group project work is valuable to students in every profession. The questions I need to answer when assigning group work are: 1) how to involve online students in project work and 2) how to assess the contributions of individual team members to the final project deliverables.
The answer to the first question is to require all project teams to have members from the in-person section of the class and the online section of the class. The reason for this is to help the online students keep up with the class activities that are relevant to completion of the project. Team sizes in my classes are usually 3 to 6 students. Each student team works out ways to communicate with group members outside of class. This would be necessary if every team member was an online student. The answer to the second question involves the use of peer review, peer evaluation, and peer teaching.
Peer review is the act of having classmates read what other students have created and responding to them in terms of its effectiveness. The reviewer finds the strengths and weaknesses of the draft deliverable and suggests strategies to improve the work product [10].
Peer evaluation is a collaborative learning strategy that asks students to reflect on contributions made by colleagues on group work. Peer evaluation encourages students to critically examine the work of peers and reflect on the quality of the work. Often involves the use of a detailed rubric or checklist as a guide [10].
Peer Instruction engages students during class through activities that require each student to apply the core concepts being presented, and then to explain those concepts to other students. Ideally, a class taught using peer instruction is divided into a series of short presentations followed by a related question which probes the understanding of the ideas just presented [11].
Peer instruction is easy to implement in online course delivery. In my senior design classes students need to examine twenty or more ethics and professional practice topics. Each student selects one of the topics from a list to research and present to the other students in the class. Online students complete this assignment by uploading a video of their presentation to Canvas. To make this an active learning exercise, students are assigned five or six presentations to peer review. The peer reviewers are asked to supply feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the video presentations assigned to them. The Canvas peer review facilities can be used to allow access to the students assigned as peer reviewers. This is an example of a Canvas rubric that might be used by the reviewers to supply feedback on the presenter’s video.
Peer reviews can also be used to supply feedback on draft documents or project prototypes prior to their final submission for grading by the instructor. It has been my experience that students need to be taught how to do feedback and that they will get better over time if rewarded for supplying meaningful feedback to content creators. I have occasionally had the document author’s (team or individual) send me the names of their useful reviewers. I typically award students two points for each useful review and one point for each ordinary review. This is an example of the Canvas peer review form that might be used to evaluate a draft game design document.
Peer evaluation is an important strategy to keep student team members honest about their contributions to team deliverables. It can be a simple system like having each student team member upload a document with anonymous ratings (0 = nothing and 5 = great) for each team member. I ask students to rate their own level of participation and supply a list of each team members contributions to the team deliverable. I average the scores for each person and give team members with low participation scores reduced grades on the team project.
For projects which include the delivery of a running software product I have the team meet and complete a set of timecards that document tasks completed by each team member. The final set timecards sent to Canvas reflect the team consensus. This is an example of a sample timecard that might be used for a generic software project.
In my game design 2 class I will have students grade the final game produced by each team with comments supplying feedback to the game authors. This is an example of this type of Canvas rubric.
I developed many of these peer review, evaluation, and teaching ideas for my in-person classes. I have used them successfully for more than ten years in my online classes as a way of increasing their engagement with the other students taking the same course.
- References
- [1] R. Kothiyal, Majumdar, S. Murthy, and S. Iyer, “Effect of think-pair-share in a large CS1 class: 83% sustained engagement,” Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on international computing education research (ICER ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2013, pp. 137-144. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2493394.2493408
- [2] M. Nagappan; L. Williams, M. Ferzli, E. Wiebe, K. Yang, C. Miller, and S. Balik, “Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming,” Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE ’03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2003, pp. 359-362. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/792548.612006
- [3] 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,” Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2016, pp. 358-363. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2839509.2844642
- [4] T. Greer, Q. Hao, M. Jing, and B. Barnes, “On the effects of active learning environments in computing education,” Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’19), February 27-March 2, 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6 pages. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3287324.3287345
- [5] S. Luster-Teasley, S.C. Hargrove-Leak, and C. Waters, “NSF TUES: Transforming undergraduate environmental engineering laboratories for sustainable engineering using the case studies in the sciences instructional method” Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Indianapolis, IN, June 2014, 10.18260/1-2–22873. https://peer.asee.org/22873
- [6] B. Hoffman, R. Morelli, and J. Rosato, “Student engagement is key to broadening participation in CS,” Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’19), February 27-March 2, 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3287324.3287438
- [7] J.A. Stone and E. Madigan, “Experiences with community-based projects for computing majors,” Journal of Computer. Science in the Colleges, Vol. 26, No.6, June 2011, pp.64-70. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/1968521.1968538
- [8] Y. Kharitonova, Y. Luo, and J. Park, “Redesigning a software development course as a preparation for a capstone,” Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’19), February 27-March 2, 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 7 pages. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3287324.3287498
- [9] A. Decker and D. Simkins, “Leveraging role play to explore the software and game development process,” Proceedings of 46th IEEE Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Erie, PA, October 2016, pp. S3F6-S3F10. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=77576
- [10] The Center for Advancing Teaching & Learning (CATL) at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, “Peer Evaluation and Peer Review” https://www.uwlax.edu/catl/guides/teaching-improvement-guide/how-can-i-improve/peer-evaluation/ [Accessed May 23, 2023].
- [11] C. Crouch & E. Mazur “Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results.” American journal of physics, 69(9), 970-977. https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article/69/9/970/310529/Peer-Instruction-Ten-years-of-experience-and