Literature Review for

Extending Classroom Boundaries

Karen Griffith

Pepperdine University

There were two first year classes which were combined into one year two section.  The Academy curriculum is highly demanding and technical.  Often the only programming experience students arrive with is what was taught in the previous year of database design and SQL coding. 

In the past I have observed that students do not remain engaged in their study of java throughout the year.  Also, this particular class often seems to be off task and distracted by negative social interactions among their peers. 

I think there are several forces in play in this particular classroom that make for a less than desirable learning environment.  The first and foremost is the nature of teaching programming itself.  As when learning any new language, there is a large amount of vocabulary and foundational knowledge that needs to be understood before a student can fully participate in a “conversation”.  This is certainly the case with Java programming.  It takes months for a student to learn enough commands and syntax to be able to write a fully functional program – and even longer to include a graphical user interface.  It seems to me that the students’ impatience with learning the language is a function of society in general.  We live a fast food kind of lifestyle where everything is obtained quickly and we always go to the “No line No waiting” check out.  Learning to programming is like starting over or getting in the longest line where there are 10 people, three of which have returns and 4 have items with no price.  How can you know that staying in that line will be worth the wait?

Another factor at work in this particular classroom is the social context.  There seems to be some amount of animosity between several members of the class.  Since this class was fed by two separate first year classes.  Each group developed their own community and now that they are combined, the students are reticent about forming new relationships and teams.  The social context also includes the unusual dynamic of a predominantly male class.  Although I am not sure exactly what effect this is having on the general temperament of the class, I do feel it is a factor.

The final major issue I can see with my class is one that is common to many upper level classes that have a high percentage of senior students.  The year begins with much enthusiasm and interest, but it quickly wanes as the winter approaches.  College applications and transcripts have all been sent and much of the motivation to keep grades up in order to get into a chosen school is lost.  After winter break, students return in a lethargic state.  The ramp down to the end of the year continues until it bottoms out as spring break arrives.  Gone is the idea that a strong finish in high school will help a student do better in college.  The academy curriculum works in exactly the opposite direction.  It begins a steep ramp up for students at the semester mark and continues right until the last day of class and peaks when the Academy Exit exam is administered.

Flaws in the Structure of Highly Technical Learning

Often high level classes in the high school arena fail to engage students sufficiently to motivate them to continue their studies in high technical disciplines. In a book entitled “Problem Based Learning for Foundation Computer Science Courses” the authors assert that high school technical training fails on several levels.  The book says that students arrived in college or technical schools lacking the foundational concepts necessary to advance to the next level.  Also, secondary education fails to accurately portray technology careers and the soft skills needed to succeed in technical fields. A negative experience with lecture based courses discourages students from continuing their studies in higher education. (Barg, Fekete, Greening, Hollands, Kay, Kingston and Crawford, 1999)

Preparing students for careers in highly technical fields is a delicate matter. Many persons have previously constructed knowledge based on non-viable models from their own experiences. The study of computer programming and software deals with a very detailed model created by another person. (Mordechai 2001) It is the application of design principles to novel situations that can prove to be difficult given the individual nature of construction of knowledge by learners.  An instructor must insure that the model of computing derived by the learner is viable and relatively complete. 

For students who have constructed personal models with inconsistencies, instructors must question the student to carefully discover the theory the student is currently operating under in order to align the students’ model with that of a functioning programming structure.”(Ben-Ari , 2001)

Another factor that influences a computer science student’s learning environment is the collective set of  learning strategies they bring to the classroom. 

According to Meyer, Turner and Spencer in 1993

As reform movements for higher-level thinking, such as those proposed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(1989) and the National Education Goals panel(1994), become more common, teachers need to be able to predict how students will respond so that they can build in safeguards to nurture and protect thinking. (p. 518)

Students can assert a deep or surface strategy for studying. The deep learner wants understanding for the sake of integration into other areas.  Surface learners want the bare facts and concentrate on memorization for fear of failing.   This can lead to resistance on the part of surface learners who have not been accustomed to digging deep into a subject.  It may even cause them to avoid situations that could reveal error or cause frustration.  (Meyer, Turner and Spencer, 1997)

However, the learning approach is only one factor related to student learning; context in which learning occurs is also of primary importance. Research has shown that teachers or courses as perceived as effective and enthusiastic and allowing to choice of assignments and outcomes of learning were more likely to foster a deeper level of learning.  (Meyer, Turner and Spencer, 1997)

The Beginnings of a Solution

Motivating students to actively participate in knowledge acquisition and a more free market approach to selecting course work based on content rather than difficulty is a step in the right direction.  Educators must take the lead in assisting this cognitive development, not just in disseminating knowledge. 

Research on engaging learners as multimedia designers has had positive results in helping develop cognitive skills on a higher level.  Although the environment of choice is quite a bit more risky for teachers because they are less structured and defined, the rewards are also greater for students.   “Successful implementation depends on how such factors as the learners, the tasks, the context, the process, the coaches, and the outcome interact with each other. (Liu 2003 p.25)

Speaking more about choice for students in the curriculum, how much is enough?  Each classroom is unique, complete with teacher as well as student dynamics ultimate goal is for students to learn as much as possible in the given time period. Even considering the additional stress of individualizing instruction for students, “All parties concerned are satisfied and happy when students are able to execute a project that maximizes motivation, learning and technical prowess.” (Parker, Holcombe and Bell 1999 p.235)

 Beginning project based learning can be wrought with uncertainties for the instructor as well as student.  Dealing with open-ended outcomes can be difficult to grade.  Studies suggest projects that are not brought to full completing can still be a successful learning experience. In a perfect world, all projects would be a resounding success, but that should not be the only criteria on which a project is judged.  If a is not demanding enough, students don’t have to learn any new skills to be a “technical success”, therefore the original purpose of the project is thwarted. (Capon 1999)

Another facet towards a highly effective solution for fostering higher thinking skills is the emphasis of social interactions.  The process of thinking out loud in front of a community of learners helps promote discourse and critical analysis.

 “Collaborative learning strategies that extend past the structured modular time periods that free students to make inquiries and create without circular boundaries, when employed in a technology based classroom, are powerful cognitively-based tools for instruction.” (Demiranda and Folkestad, 2000)

Details of a Solution

The basic tenants of classroom as described above are a highly researched topic.  Some general characteristics of project base or action or situated learning are:

1.     Learner owns the learning process.  

2.     Learners think deeply to discover thoughts, truths or nuances hidden below the surface of the problem or project.

3.     Outcomes are not preconceived by the instructor.
(Lankard 1995)

Other authors suggest an approach more focused on the high school learner.   Doug Johnson (1999) suggests that good project based learning should have clear expectations and purpose, freedom of choice, relevancy to a student’s life, creativity, varied research and finally the presentation of findings to a concerned community.

To document the process, a comprehensive journal on the iterations of the project must be maintained.  Evidence of the development of the program into its current state is important as it shows ownership and authentic creation.  It is especially important to a project that may not be brought to full completion because the learning process is evident in the journal. (Jalloul, 2000)

Of paramount importance to the authentic project based process is the delivery of the product to a real customer.  Customer involvement stimulates a great deal more student motivation on a project as shown by surveys of students who participated in this type of learning.  Students report developing communication skills, team work skills, time management, prioritization skills, problem solving, project management and quality assurance skills as a result of completing client-led software projects.  (Parker, Holcombe and Bell, 1999)

Good project based learning does not necessarily have to solve a problem in the scientific community.  Community Service-based learning has also proven to be beneficial to both students and faculty.  Maintaining a larger circle of focus provides students with real world situations and helps instructors forge bonds between the community and the school system. (Crump 2002)

References

Meyer, D., & Turner, J. & Spencer, C. (1997).  Challenge in a mathematics classroom: students’ motivation and strategies in project based learning. The Elementary School Journal, Volume 97, Number 5, pages 501 to 521.

Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education.  Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Volume 10, issue 1, pages 45 – 73.

Parker, H., Holcombe, M., & Bell, A. (1999). Keeping our customers happy: myths and management issues in “Client-Led” student software projects. Computer Science Education, Volume 9, No. 3.  pp. 230 – 241.

Jalloul, G, (2000). Links: a framework for object-oriented software engineering. Computer Science Education Volume 10, No. 1, pp. 75 -93.

DeMiranda, M., Folkestad, J., (2000). Linking cognitive science theory and technology education practice:  a powerful connection not fully realized. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, Volume 37, Number 4, pp. 5 – 23.

Crump, J., (2002). Learning by doing: implementing community service-based learning. Journal of Geography, Volume 101 pp. 144 – 152.

Johnson, D., (1999). Important Research. Book Report 10 no3 96+ N/D, pp 1 – 2.

Lankard, B., (1995). New ways of learning in the workplace. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education Columbus Ohio, Digest No. 161, pages 6.

Liu, M. (2003). Enhancing learners’ cognitive skills through multimedia design. Interactive Learning Environments Volume 11, No. 1, pp 23- 39.

Capon, P. (1999). Maximizing learning outcomes of computer science projects. Computer Science Education, Volume 9, No. 3,  pp 184 – 199.