|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Programming; Information Technology; Computer Science Education; Interviews; Student Surveys; Teaching Methods; College Faculty; College Students; Student Attitudes; Cultural Differences; Learning Theories; Cultural Context; Developing Nations; Culturally Relevant Education; Comparative Education; College Curriculum; Curriculum Development; Student Motivation; Barriers; Curriculum Implementation; Instructional Design; Statistical Analysis
Abstract:
Programming education is a widely researched and intensely discussed topic. The literature proposes a broad variety of pedagogical viewpoints, practical approaches, learning theories, motivational vehicles, and other elements of the learning situation. However, little effort has been put on understanding cultural and contextual differences in pedagogy of programming. Pedagogical literature shows that educational design should account for differences in the ways of learning and teaching between industrialized and developing countries. However, the nature and implications of those differences are hitherto unclear. Using group interviews and quantitative surveys, we identified several crucial elements for contextualizing programming education. Our results reveal that students are facing many similar challenges to students in the west: they often lack deep level learning skills and problem-solving skills, which are required for learning computer programming, and, secondly, that from the students' viewpoint the standard learning environment does not offer enough support for gaining the requisite development. With inadequate support students may resort to surface learning and may adopt extrinsic sources of motivation. Learning is also hindered by many contextually unique factors, such as unfamiliar pedagogical approaches, language problems, and cultural differences. Our analysis suggests that challenges can be minimized by increasing the number of practical exercises, by carefully selecting between guided and minimally guided environments, by rigorously monitoring student progress, and by providing students timely help, repetitive exercises, clear guidelines, and emotional support. (Contains 1 table.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
 Show
 Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
 Help |
 Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Dissertations/Theses - Doctoral Dissertations |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
College Curriculum; Educational Strategies; Information Literacy; Program Effectiveness; Lifelong Learning; State Colleges; Delphi Technique; Librarians; Mixed Methods Research; Library Instruction; Information Seeking; Library Skills; Educational Technology; Computer Assisted Instruction; Evaluation Methods; Student Evaluation; Expertise; College Libraries; Librarian Teacher Cooperation
Abstract:
An emphasis on instruction has been growing in libraries as a result of the cumbersome amount of information that is produced and available globally. This, coupled with the growing diverse student populations and the demand for higher education, has created the need for students entering the workforce who can think critically, adapt quickly and effortlessly to change, solve problems, and connect previous knowledge with new concepts in order to create meaningful solutions and relationships that are important to lifelong learning. The purpose of this mixed-method study included the following areas: to explore current information about literacy instructional strategies and the use of 21st century technology used for instruction in postsecondary academic libraries; secondly, to explore assessment practices used to assess student understanding and information literacy learning outcomes; and finally, to better understand expert librarians' perceptions of how to improve the processes and technology that will enhance learning. This study applied the Delphi Technique utilizing 21 expert librarian panelists in a Southeastern state college system. Results of this study indicated that current practices and perceptions of expert librarians for information literacy instruction and assessment are currently traditionally based on independent one-shot face-to-face information literacy sessions, credit-bearing courses, or face-to-face orientations for instruction and assessment. Online instructional strategies and assessment practices were rated as important themes, but were not ranked as top or second to the top priority for current practices. In addition, results of the study inferred that librarians and faculty must work together to build relationships for better information literacy integration into the college curriculum. Expanding information literacy instruction and assessment into the college curriculum and utilizing 21st century technology tools so that all students learn to be information literate in a progressive learning environment will better prepare college students for global communication, the workforce, and lifelong learning. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2012-02-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
|
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Community Colleges; Remedial Instruction; English Instruction; Remedial Reading; Writing Instruction; College Curriculum; Grouping (Instructional Purposes); Outcomes of Education; College Faculty; Teacher Collaboration; Teaching Methods; Academic Support Services; Student Recruitment; Enrollment; Program Implementation; Demonstration Programs; Student Experience; Differences; Experimental Groups; Control Groups; Costs; Financial Support
Abstract:
Across the United States, community colleges offer millions of students an open-access, low-cost postsecondary education. However, of the students who enroll in community college hoping to earn a credential or transfer to a four-year institution, only about half achieve their goal within six years. For students who enter college needing developmental (remedial) education in reading, writing, or math, this rate is even lower. Learning communities, in which cohorts of students enroll in two or more linked courses together, are often employed to improve these students' success. In addition to linking courses, learning communities often incorporate other components, such as faculty collaboration, shared assignments and curricula, and connections to student support services. Merced College in California and The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) each developed learning communities designed to boost the academic success of their developmental English students. These colleges are two of the six in the National Center for Postsecondary Research's (NCPR) Learning Communities Demonstration, in which random assignment evaluations are being used to determine the impacts of learning communities on student success. At Merced, learning communities linked developmental English courses with a variety of other courses at the developmental and college levels. At CCBC, learning communities linked developmental English with a range of college-level courses and a weekly one-hour Master Learner session designed to support curricular integration and student learning. The key findings presented in this report are: (1) Both Merced and CCBC implemented relatively advanced learning communities. A strong cohort experience was provided to students, and other aspects of the learning communities model were implemented with variation at each college. On average, the colleges succeeded in providing program group students with an experience that was substantially different from the experience of their control group counterparts; (2) At Merced, learning communities students attempted and earned significantly more developmental English credits than students in the control group during the program semester. At the end of the subsequent semester, they had passed significantly more English courses than their control group counterparts; (3) At CCBC, there were no meaningful impacts on students' credit attempts or progress in developmental English; and (4) On average, neither college's learning communities program had an impact on college registration in the postprogram semester, or on cumulative credits earned. NCPR has now presented findings from all six colleges in the demonstration. They show that when one-semester learning communities have impacts, they tend to be concentrated in the semester in which students are enrolled in the program. The evidence to date suggests that one-semester learning communities programs by themselves are typically not sufficient to boost reenrollment or increase credit accumulation. However, this is not the final report on the demonstration; in 2012, NCPR will release a report that synthesizes the findings across all of the colleges studied and includes an additional semester of student follow-up at each college. Supplementary table and figures are appended. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 11 tables, 9 figures and 1 box.) [This paper was written with Amanda Grossman. References for the executive summary are included. For "Learning Communities for Students in Developmental English: Impact Studies at Merced College and the Community College of Baltimore County. Executive Summary," see ED529250.]
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
 ERIC
Full Text (1233K)
|
|
