The Impact of Group Discussion and Formation on Student Performance: An Experience Report in a Large CS1 Course

Overview

• The paper examines the impact of group discussion and formation on student performance in a large CS1 (introductory computer science) course.
• It explores how different group mechanisms, such as peer instruction and collaborative learning, affect student learning outcomes.
• The study was conducted in a real-world educational setting, providing practical insights for instructors and researchers.

Plain English Explanation

The researchers wanted to understand how having students work together in groups affects their performance in an introductory computer science course. They looked at different ways of forming and structuring these groups, such as allowing students to choose their own groups versus randomly assigning them. The researchers also studied the impact of having students discuss the material and teach each other (a technique called "peer instruction") versus just working individually.

By observing what happened in a real college-level computer science course, the researchers were able to see how these different group-based approaches affected the students' learning and performance on tests and assignments. This provides practical guidance for instructors on how to structure group work to support student success in introductory programming courses.

Technical Explanation

The study was conducted in a large CS1 course with over 500 students. The researchers randomly assigned students to one of two conditions:

1. Discussion Groups: Students worked in small groups during class to discuss and solve programming problems.
2. Individual Work: Students worked alone on programming tasks during class.

Within the Discussion Groups condition, the researchers further manipulated how the groups were formed:

• Student-Formed Groups: Students chose their own group members.
• Instructor-Formed Groups: The instructor randomly assigned students to groups.

The researchers measured student performance through exam scores, assignment grades, and a standardized programming assessment. They also collected survey data on students' perceptions of the group work.

The results showed that students in the Discussion Groups condition, regardless of how the groups were formed, outperformed those in the Individual Work condition on nearly all performance measures. However, there were no significant differences between the Student-Formed and Instructor-Formed groups.

These findings suggest that engaging students in peer discussion and collaborative problem-solving can be an effective instructional approach in large introductory computer science courses, even when the groups are randomly assigned by the instructor.

Critical Analysis

The study provides valuable insights into the potential benefits of incorporating group work and peer instruction in large CS1 courses. However, there are a few limitations to consider:

1. Lack of Process Measures: The study did not examine the specific group dynamics or process within the Discussion Groups, such as the quality of discussions or how students divided tasks. This makes it difficult to determine the mechanisms underlying the performance benefits.

2. Potential Confounding Factors: The study did not control for other instructional factors, such as the content coverage or teaching methods used in the two conditions. These differences could have also contributed to the performance differences.

3. Generalizability: The study was conducted in a single CS1 course at one institution. Replicating the findings in different contexts and subject areas would strengthen the generalizability of the results.

4. Long-Term Effects: The study only measured short-term performance outcomes. It would be valuable to investigate the longer-term impact of group-based instruction on student learning and retention in computer science.

Despite these limitations, the study provides a strong foundation for further research on the role of group mechanisms in supporting student learning in large introductory STEM courses.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the potential benefits of incorporating group-based instruction and peer discussion in large CS1 courses. By engaging students in collaborative problem-solving, instructors can improve student performance on a range of measures, including exam scores and programming assessments.

The findings suggest that the specific mechanism for forming groups (student-selected vs. instructor-assigned) may be less important than providing opportunities for peer interaction and discussion. This provides instructors with flexibility in designing group-based activities to support student learning in introductory computer science courses.

Overall, this study contributes to the growing body of research on the benefits of active, collaborative learning approaches in STEM education, with practical implications for instructors seeking to enhance student engagement and performance in their classrooms.