Students' Perceptions of Peer Teaching in a Coding Course

Year 2019, , 257 - 268, 30.12.2019

Fırat Sarsar , Tutaleni İ. Asino Wilmon Brown

https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.623469

Abstract

Mobile learning in education has evolved over the last decade and a half. Associated with this evolution is the increased popularity of teaching how to code using mobile technologies. Then again, finding alternative methods to teach coding, such as peer teaching, might affect learning. Peer teaching is a reciprocal learning relationship between peers. This mixed method case study aimed to explore students’ perceptions of peer teaching in an mLearning coding course. Twentysix participant learners, and three peer teachers, voluntarily participated in the study for six weeks. 77% of participants found that learning from their peers was fun, satisfying and more informative than they expected. However, 42% of participants highlighted that they did not have enough confidence to peer-teach the material they learned during the peer teaching process. Thus, it is important to design a teaching process which considers culture, students' expectations, and students' needs, because those factors affect the learning process.

Keywords

Mobile learning, coding, culture, peer teaching

Öğrencilerin Kodlama Dersinde Akran Eğitimine Yönelik Algıları

Abstract

Eğitimde mobil öğrenme yeni bir kavram olmasa da mobil cihazların çeşitliliği ve yeniliği ile devamlı gelişen bir alan haline gelmektedir. Bu bağlamda mobil cihazları üzerinden kod yazılması ve dersin bir aracı olarak kullanılması üzerine eğitim araştırmaları bulunmaktadır. Bu araştırma akran öğrenmesiyle mobil cihazlar üzerinden kodlama eğitimi verilmesini amaçlayan bir çalışmasıdır. Bu 6 hafta süren araştırmaya gönüllü 26 katılımcı ve 3 akran eğitimcisi katılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre katılımcıların %77’i akran öğrenmesini eğlenceli, tatmin edici ve beklentilerin üzerinde bilgi aktarımı geçekleştirdiğini vurgularken, %42’ si akran eğitiminin veren akranlarına karşı bilgi konusunda güven sağlayamadıklarını belirtmiştir. Akran öğretiminin önemli olduğu vurgulanan sonuçlar ışığında akran öğretim sürecinin iyi ve etkili tasarlanması ve kültürel farklılıkların etkilerinin de dikkate alınması önemlidir.

Keywords

Mobil öğrenme, kodlama, kültür, akran öğretimi

References

• Abbott, J., & Ryan, T. (1999). Constructing knowledge, reconstructing schooling. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 66-69.
• Addis, E., Quardokus, K., Bassham, D., Becraft, P., Boury, N., Cofman, C., & ... Powell-Cofman, J. (2013). Implementing pedagogical change in introductory biology courses through the use of faculty learning communities. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(2), 22-29.
• Asino, T. I. & Grant, M. (2014). Walking the walk or just talk? An exploration of faculty members’ student-centeredness in the field of instructional design & technology – Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Annual Conference, Jacksonville, Florida, 4th – 8th November 2014.
• Barthell, J., Chen, W., Endicott, B., Hughes, C., Radke, W., Simmons, C., & Wilson, G. (2013). Encouraging and sustaining a culture of student-centered research at a predominantly undergraduate institution. Council On Undergraduate Research Quarterly, 34(1), 41-47.
• Bou Cohen, R., Boud, D., & Sampson, J. (2001). Dealing with problems encountered in assessment of peer learning. Learning together: peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge Farmer. Ecclestone, K.(2001). I know a, 2. 301-313.
• Crescente, M. L., & Lee, D. (2011). Critical issues of m-learning: design models, adoption processes, and future trends. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 28(2), 111-123.
• Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. Handbook of mobile learning. 3-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203118764.
• Farrington, I. (1991). Student-centred learning: rhetoric and reality? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 15(3), 16–21.
• Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
• Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (2000). Technology and student-centered learning in higher education: Issues and practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 12(1), 3-30.
• Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional science, 25(3), 167-202.
• Hirumi, A. (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCenTRLE): Operationalizing constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10(4), 497-537. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.
• Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. Theoretical foundations of learning environments, 89-121.
• Kawu, H. (2017). Effects of virtual laboratory on achievement levels and gender of secondary school chemistry students in individualized and collaborative settings in Minna, Nigeria. The Online Journal of New Horizons in Education, 7(1), 86.
• Kitchenham, A. D. (2010). Mixed methods in case study research. AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E (toim.) Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA, 1, 561-563.
• Klemenčič, M. (2015). What is student agency? An ontological exploration in the context of research on student engagement. In M. Klemenčič, S. Bergan, & R. Primožič. (Eds.), Student Engagement in Europe: Society, Higher Education and Student Governance. Council of Europe Higher Education Series, 20, 11–29.
• Laskin, A. V., & Avena, J. (2015). Introduction of mobile media into formal classroom learning environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 70(3), 276-285. Lea,
• S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students' attitudes to student-centred learning: beyond ‘educational bulimia’?. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321-334.
• Leinonen, T., Keune, A., Veermans, M. and Toikkanen, T. (2016). Mobile apps for reflection in learning: A design research in K-12 education. Br J Educ Technol, 47, 184–202. DOI:10.1111/bjet.12224
• Looi, C. K., Wong, L. H., So, H. J., Seow, P., Toh, Y., Chen, W. et al. (2009). Anatomy of a mobilized lesson: learning my way. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1120–113. Manyama, M., Stafford, R., Mazyala, E., Lukanima, A., Magele, N., Kidenya, B. R., ... & Kauki, J. (2016). Improving gross anatomy learning using reciprocal peer teaching. BMC medical education, 16(1), 95.
• Meschitti, V. (2018). Can peer learning support doctoral education? Evidence from an ethnography of a research team. Studies in Higher Education, 1-13.
• Navaridas, F., Santiago, R., & Tourón, J. (2013). Opinions from teachers in the Fresno area of Central California regarding the influence of mobile technology on their students’ learning.
• Nielsen, S. G., Johansen, G. G., & Jørgensen, H. (2018). Peer learning in instrumental practicing. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 339.
• Ott, T., Magnusson, A. G., Weilenmann, A., & af Segerstad, Y. H. (2018). “It must not disturb, it’s as simple as that”: Students’ voices on mobile phones in the infrastructure for learning in Swedish upper secondary school. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 517-536.
• Roschelle, J. & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: how wireless handhelds may change computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1, 145–168.
• Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational researcher, 20(3), 2-9.
• Sarsar, F. (2014). The Effectiveness of Emotional Motivational Feedback Messages.
• Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers & Education, 34, 177-193
• Sharples, M., du Boulay, B., Jeffery, N., Teather, D., & Teather, B. (1996). Interactive display of typicality and similarity using multiple correspondence. In Proceedings of HCI 96 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 162-167.
• Sokoloff, D. R., & Thornton, R. K. (1997). Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment. In AIP Conference Proceedings. 1061-1074
• Thomas, K., & Muñoz, M. A. (2016). Hold the phone! High school students' perceptions of mobile phone integration in the classroom. American Secondary Education, 44(3), 19-37.
• Tuomi, P., Multisilta, J., Saarikoski, P., & Suominen, J. (2018). Coding skills as a success factor for a society. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 419-434.
• Tzuriel, D., & Caspi, R. (2017). Intervention for peer mediation and mother-child interaction: The effects on children’s mediated learning strategies and cognitive modifiability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 302-323.
• Valk, J. H., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 117-140.
• Wampold, Bruce E., John C. Wright, Paul H. Williams, Susan B. Millar, Steve A. Koscuik, and Debra L. Penberthy. (1998). A novel strategy for assessing the effects of curriculum reform on student competence. Journal of Chemical Education 75(8), 986.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, Calif: Sage Publications.
• Young, P. A. (2008). The culture based model: A framework for designers and visual id languages. In Handbook of visual languages for instructional design: Theories and practices (pp. 52-74). IGI Global.