Abstract
Within the framework of MIT’s course 1.00: Introduction to Computers and Engineering Problem Solving, this paper describes an innovative project entitled: Studio 1.00 that integrates lectures with in-class demonstrations, active learning sessions, and on-task feedback, through the use of wireless laptop computers. This paper also describes a related evaluation study that investigated the effectiveness of different instructional strategies, comparing traditional teaching with two models of the studio format. Students’ learning outcomes, specifically, their final grades and conceptual understanding of computational methods and programming, were examined. Findings indicated that Studio-1.00, in both its extensive- and partial-active learning modes, enhanced students’ learning outcomes in Java programming. Comparing to the traditional courses, more students in the studio courses received “A” as their final grade and less failed. Moreover, students who regularly attended the active learning sessions were able to conceptualize programming principles better than their peers. We have also found two weaknesses in the teaching format of Studio-1.00 that can guide future versions of the course.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barak M., Dori Y. J. (2005) Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education 89(1):117–139
Barak M., Lipson A., Lerman S. (2006) Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 38(3):245–264
Barak, M., Harward, J., and Lerman, S. (2007). Studio-based learning via wireless notebooks: A case of a Java programming course. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 1(1):15–29
Barak M., Rafaeli S. (2004) Online question-posing and peer-assessment as means for Web-based knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 61:84–103
Benander A., Benander B., Sang J. (2004) Factors related to the difficulty of learning to program in java: An empirical study of non-novice programmers. Information and Software Technology 46(2):99–107
Bruner J. S. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Byrnes J. P. (1996) Cognitive Development and Learning in Instructional Context. Allyn and Bacon Press, Boston
Carey S. (1985) Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Cummings K., Marx J., Thornton R., Kuhl D. (1999) Evaluating innovations in studio physics. Physics Educational Research, American Journal of Physics Suppl. 67:S38–S45
Dori Y. J., Barak M., Adir N. (2003) A Web-based chemistry course as a means to foster freshmen learning. Journal of Chemical Education 80:1084–1092
Dori Y. J., Belcher J. W. (2005a) How does technology-enabled active learning affect students’ understanding of scientific concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(2):243–279
Dori Y. J., Belcher J. W. (2005b) Learning electromagnetism with visualizations and active learning. In: Gilbert J. K. (eds) Visualization in Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 187–216
Dori Y. J., Belcher J. W., Bessette M., Danziger M., McKinney A., Hult E. (2003) Technology for active learning. Materials Today 6(12):44–49
Felton M., Kuhn D. (2001) The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes 32:135–153
Foulds, R. A., Bergen, M., and Mantilla, B. A. (2003). Integrated biomedical engineering education using studio-based learning. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, July/August, pp. 92–100
Glinkowski, M., Hylan, J., and Lister, B. C. (1997). A new studio-based dynamic systems course: Does it really work? In Proceedings IEEE Conference on Multimedia, Engineering and Education, Philadelphia
Gobert J. D., Clement J. J. (1999) Effects of student-generated diagrams versus student-generated summaries on conceptual understanding of causal and dynamic knowledge in plate tectonics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36:39–53
Graesser A. C., Person N. K., Hu X. (2002) Improving comprehension through discourse processing. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89:33–44
Horstmann C. (2002) Big Java. New York, John Wiley & Sons
Hounshell P. B., Hill S., Swofford R. (2002) Using laptop computers to improve the performance of minority students: A pilot project. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11(1):101–103
Huffman D. (1997) Effect of explicit problem solving instruction on high school students’ problem-solving performance and conceptual understanding of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34:551–570
Johnson D. W., Johnson R. T., Smith K. A. (1998) Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, Interaction Book Company
Johnston R. B., Onwuegbuzie A. J. (2004) Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33:14–26
Mackinnon G. R., Vibert C. (2002) Judging the constructive impacts of communication technologies: A business education study. Education and Information Technologies 7(2):127–135
Marbach-Ad G., Sokolove P. G. (2002) The use of e-mail and in-class writing to facilitate student-instructor interaction in large-enrollment traditional and active learning classes. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11(2):109–119
Milne I., Rowe G. (2002) Difficulties in learning and teaching programming – Views of students and tutors. Education and Information Technologies 7:55–66
Novak J. (1988) Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education 15:77–101
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of Education and the Psychology of the Child (D. Coltman, Trans.). New York: Orion Press
She H. C. (2004) Fostering radical conceptual change through dual-situated learning model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41:142–164
Siegle D., Foster T. (2002) Notebook computers and multimedia and presentation software: their effect on student achievements in anatomy and physiology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34(1):29–37
Smith J., diSessa A., Roschelle J. (1993) Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2):115–163
Turbak F., Berg R. (2002) Robotic design studio: exploring the big ideas of engineering in a liberal arts environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11(3):237–253
Tyma P. (1998) Why are we using Java again? Communications of the ACM 41:38–42
von Glaserfeld E. (1995) Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning. London, Falmer Press
West L., Pines A. (1985) Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Orlando, FL, Academic Press
Wilson J. (1994) The CUPLE physics studio. The Physics Teacher 32:518–523
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express gratitude to the d’Arbeloff Fund for supporting this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix 1: Course 1.00/1.001 Survey
Appendix 1: Course 1.00/1.001 Survey
As part of our effort to improve the learning experience in Course1.00/1.001, we are asking you to complete this questionnaire. The questionnaire is for research purpose only.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barak, M., Harward, J., Kocur, G. et al. Transforming an Introductory Programming Course: From Lectures to Active Learning via Wireless Laptops. J Sci Educ Technol 16, 325–336 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9055-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9055-5