For CS Educators, by CS Educators: An Exploratory Analysis of Issues and Recommendations for Online Teaching in Computer Science
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Related Work
2.1. Remote Teaching/Learning in General
2.2. Computer Science Remote Teaching/Learning
3. Methodology
3.1. Data Analysis
3.2. Privacy & Ethics of Internet Research
4. Dataset Details
5. Results
- -
- Topic 1: Platform Recommendation
- -
- Topic 2: Q&A Management;
- -
- Topic 3: Grading/Evaluation of Coding Assignments and Exams;
- -
- Topic 4: Academic Dishonesty Prevention;
- -
- Topic 5: Alternative to In-Person Pair Programming;
- -
- Topic 6: Feedback Mechanism.
5.1. Topic 1: Platform Recommendation (N = 7)
5.1.1. Platform Recommendation for Sharing Course Material
5.1.2. Platform Recommendation for Conducting Online Classes/Meetings/Group Work
5.2. Topic 2: Q&A Management (N = 4)
- To begin with, users suggested keeping her lectures short, for example, 10 min, and providing regular feedback to students through quizzes after each session.
- Second, she was advised to use Zoom, where she can divert all student questions to a chat window. She can scan the questions at the end of the lecture and can provide answers without interrupting the lecture session.
- Third, it was also suggested to follow a flipped classroom approach. Instead of creating all video lectures on her own, she can use shorter videos available online and ask students to view them before coming to a classroom. She can then use the lecture session more like a Q&A session rather than as a regular lecture session.
- Fourth, she was advised to make her course completely asynchronous. She can provide videos to the students and can create student and professor groups. Anyone can ask or answer the question in the group. This will decrease the burden on the lecturer for answering each question.
- Fifth, she can get help from a teaching assistant (TA) who can answer questions while she continues with the lecture.
5.3. Topic 3: Grading/Evaluation of Coding Assignments and Exams (N = 5)
- Use of PDF Annotator Tools: She was advised to convert code to a PDF format and then use PDF readers, e.g., Acrobat Reader16,PDF Xchange viewer pro17, preview App (Mac)18, Microsoft OneNote19, and a keyboard or a mouse to provide comments. She was also advised to use smart devices such as a tablet computer with a pen that will help in drawing, scribbling, and writing on the student’s code. Tools such as speedgrader20 and Xournal21 which are specialized for grading were also recommended.
- Test Scripts and Code Review Tools: For a large class, manually checking code and providing feedback can be a tedious and a very time-consuming task. Hence, it is recommended to use more automated approaches such as automated testing tools or code review tools. These days automated test cases can be easily written in various programming languages such as Java. The educator can upload the test cases, and students can provide the results of those test cases after executing the program on their machine. Similarly, there are various code review tools available. For example, a code review tool integrated into Github22 is suggested.
- Live Code Share: Live code share can also be used to interact with the actual code base of the students and to provide them feedback on their code using tools such as Visual Studio Live Code Share23. This method can be used to give feedback at the points in the code where the students start to deviate from the actual requirement of the assignment. One educator suggested providing feedback in bullet points and conducting an online meeting with each student at the same time.
- Batch Scanner: Batch scanning is another option where the educator can grade the hard copy of transcripts and can use a batch scanning tool to convert it to a PDF to share it with the students. The educator can use a tool such as Pyzbar24 to assign QR codes to the graded sheets so that it is easier for the machine to recognize the student to whom the assignment/exam belongs.
5.4. Topic 4: Academic Dishonesty Prevention (N = 11)
- Specialized Tools: Some educators supported use of specialized tools to prevent online cheating in exams, for example, respondus lockdown browser25 and exam.net, Blackboard. Therespondus lockdown browser is a browser specifically designed to prevent online cheating. In this browser, the assessment is open on full screen. The student cannot open any other browser window, and features such as screen sharing, remote desktop, and virtual machine are disabled. Exam.net26 is another specialized tool suggested for conducting exams. This tool allows the teacher to set up the exam by typing the questions in it. They can also grant permission for tools allowed in the exam and can select security levels in the browser.Some educators suggested using existing software such as Moodle, Google Forms, and Microsoft Forms along with Zoom for conducting the exam. One educator suggested that if there is no specialized tool available, the educator can ask all the students to share their screens with the teacher and turn on their mics. The teacher can record the entire session so that students should be aware that if they cheat they will be noticed.
- Use of Plagiarism Detection Tools: Some educators suggested the use of plagiarism detection tools such as TurnitIn27 for detecting code or reporting similarity to identify whether the submitted work is copied or original.
- Generating a Set of Questions: Usually, educators give the same questions to all students in an exam. In this case, educators suggested using multiple questions in the exam and randomly assigning each student the questions. The easier approach suggested was to create three questions and randomly assign the question to each student. Hence, in that case, there will be less probability that the student and their friend will get the same question in the exam. Hence, it is not possible to prevent cheating in an online exam.
- -
- One educator shared their experience about using Blackboard for generating basic programming questions using the feature ‘calculated formula’. She shared that she is able to create some basic programming questions using this feature, for example, sequential assignment, logical operator, decision statement, etc. She also mentioned that Blackboard does not fully support the creation of such assignments, and she is struggling to create questions related to some areas of programming, for example, modulus operator, looping operator, etc.
- -
- Changing Nature of Exam: Some educators suggested changing the nature of the exam.
- -
- For example, instead of traditional exams, use group projects, assignments, oral presentations, etc., to assess the performance of the students. They say that in many studies it was found that project-based learning is more effective for most learners, especially, learners belonging to under-represented groups.
- -
- Educators suggested that group-based assessments are helpful in building skills such as teamwork, and interaction with other team members. Such skills are more useful in later stages of life (when students will join the workplace). Hence, it is more important to develop and test these skills and move to more authentic forms of assessment.
- Concept-Based Questions: One of the educators suggested not using questions that can be directly copied to an IDE but rather to go for questions that check the understanding of the given topic. For example, questions such as which algorithm is most suitable in a given scenario?
- Ethics/Honour Code Reminder: Some educators suggested reminding the student about moral values/ethics before attempting the exam. One of the educators shared the link of an experiment done by Dan on two student groups [28], where one group signed the honour code before the exam. In this experiment, it was found that the students who signed the honour code before the exam did not cheat.
- Impossible to Prevent Cheating: Some educators claim that if a student wants to cheat in an online environment, they can easily cheat, for example, using multiple screens and team viewer. There can be someone else in the room who can type the exam.
5.5. Topic 5: Alternative to In-Person Pair Programming (N = 4)
- Other Tools: Zoom.us is suggested. The tools allow the person to share the screen with another team member, and the other team member can use a mouse and keyboard to edit the code.
5.6. Topic 6: Feedback Mechanism (Identifying the Problems That Students Are Facing) (N = 3)
- Follow-Up Questionnaire: Give the students a questionnaire/Google form to fill in their feedback. Based on the feedback received, ask a follow-up question. For example, if a student said ‘this did not work’, the next question can be ‘what did you try?’ or ‘paste the code that did not work’.
- Distribution of Course-Related Handouts at the Beginning of the Semester: Educators suggested providing handouts to the students at the beginning of the semester. These handouts should explain to them the best practices about how to ask a question. This can help students ask good questions and share more details about their progress. However, other educators raised a concern that handouts or material given at the beginning of the course are often ignored by the students because they are overwhelmed by the information provided at the time.
6. Discussion
6.1. Remote Teaching Issues Applicable to All Educators
- -
- During the pandemic, all educators were confused about which platform to choose for online teaching, Q&A management, and feedback. Several great recommendations are uncovered in this study. For example, for the platform, the educators recommended first identifying the goal of why you would want to use the platform. Github, MSteams, Moodle, Google Classroom, etc., are suggested for sharing course material, whereas Blackboard, notebowl, Zoom, Discord, etc., are suggested for online classes/meetings. There was a trade-off regarding the use of Discord. Its informal interface can be useful in recreating the feel of a live lecture, but the inability to share a screen can make it difficult to use in some courses.
- -
- For Q&A management of an online class, it is suggested to have multiple lecturers (or TAs) present, one lecturing and the other answering questions. If it is not possible to have more than one lecturer (or TA), then the lecturer can choose to answer all the questions in the end, or she can use a flipped classroom-based approach where she can share the videos before the lecture, and the lecture session can be used as a Q&A session. Additionally, she can create a group/forum for the students where anyone can ask or answer questions.
- -
- Academic dishonesty prevention is one of the biggest challenges of online exams. Several solutions, such as the use of specialized tools (or browsers), concept-based questions, multiple questions, project-based learning, use of ethics, etc., are suggested. All these solutions are suitable and require further exploration in the context of online teaching.
- -
- In an online teaching environment, there is much less interaction between the student and the teacher. Hence, it becomes difficult for the teacher to find out which areas students are struggling with. In this context, the educators suggested having online forms with follow-up questions to find out details of which topics the student is having difficulty with. Additionally, the educator can give some guidance at the beginning of the course about “how to ask good questions in the course”.
6.2. Remote Teaching Issues Applicable Only to CS Educators
- -
- Finding a suitable platform for taking online classes or sharing course material is a general concern of all educators. However, we noticed that CS educators have additional needs. For example, sharing code assignments or code examples is an issue. Coding assignments may need formatting/styling requirements or support for unit testing which is not supported in many tools. Hence, CS educators should be careful when choosing a specific platform if the course is related to programming.
- -
- Evaluating/grading programming assignments and exams is one of the biggest challenges faced by CS educators in an online environment. Several suggestions are provided in this direction, for example, the use of test scripts, code review tools, PDF annotation tools, etc. However, it should be noted that all CS educators or students may not have the skills to handle these tools. Hence, appropriate training is required for both students and educators before using such tools.
- -
- Academic dishonesty prevention is a general concern as we have already discussed in the previous subsection. However, for programming assignments/exams this problem is much more severe because it is quite easy to cheat. Students can easily copy and paste the code and change variable names, etc. The recommendations provided by the educators such as the use of specialized tools, project-based learning, conceptual questions, etc., can be used by CS educators to overcome this challenge. However, as we mentioned earlier, more research is needed in this direction.
- -
- Pair programming is an important technique used in software development and is important if students get familiar with it at an early stage. How to simulate pair programming in an online environment is a unique challenge that is faced by CS educators. Several recommendations such as tools that allow sharing of the screen (with mouse and keyboard control) and specialized IDE are provided to help simulate pair programming.
6.3. Implications for Various Stakeholders
- -
- CS Educators: Educators often use the online tool recommended by the university. The COVID-19 pandemic started suddenly, and universities did not have time to explore multiple tools. Hence, most universities adapted their current tools for online teaching. However, the tools recommended by the universities might not match the requirements of all educators. After reading this paper, the educators will have knowledge about the various tools available for online classes, meetings, exams, etc. Hence, they may recommend the universities invest in tools that are more suitable for them.
- -
- Universities: This study can be helpful to universities in several ways. First, universities often adopt one tool for online teaching that is used by all the lecturers. However, this study reveals that different lecturers may have different needs, especially CS educators because they have to conduct online labs and online coding exams. Hence, different tools may be needed by the educators based on the type of subjects they are teaching (refer to Section 5). Second, universities should consider providing more resources to teachers during online teaching. Conducting Q&A during online classes can be a challenging task, and if students’ questions are not resolved appropriately, it can cause dissatisfaction among the students. Hence, universities should consider assigning TAs or more than one lecturer during Q&A sessions. Third, universities should consider providing training related to advanced features of various tools. The lecturer may explore the advanced features of the tools on their own, but it can result in lots of time wasted. Advanced training, such as how to generate a set of programming questions in blackboard, code review, test case generation, etc., can be quite beneficial to educators. Fourth, universities also need to provide appropriate hardware and software tools to educators. For example, equipment such as laptops, tablets, cameras, pentab, PDF annotators, etc, may be needed by the educators.
- -
- Research Community: This study is important for the research community in several ways. First, this study indicates that more studies are needed to understand the issues faced by CS educators in online teaching. As noted in Section 5, different issues are faced during classes (lectures), Q&A sessions, labs, and exams. Hence, there is a need to understand the unique issues faced during each of them and recommendations about them and to provide appropriate solutions to the educators. Second, there is a need to understand whether advanced programming concepts such as pair programming which used to happen offline can be replaced in the online setting. Does their efficacy remain the same in the online environment as well? If not, then appropriate tools need to be designed (refer to Section 5.5). Third, academic dishonesty during online lab exams is one of the major issues discussed by educators in our study (refer to Section 5.4 ). More research is needed to develop tools that can prevent cheating in online lab exams. Some suggestions for tools such as ’respondus lockdown browser’ are given. There is a need to explore the effectiveness of such tools.
6.4. Implications for Future Research
- -
- Platform Selection: Traditionally, educators were reliant on whiteboards, marker pens, and PowerPoint to teach students. After the shift to online teaching, there are now several tools available to lecturers, with each tool having its strengths and weaknesses. We found that educators need help and training in using these online tools, such as Gsuite, office365, Google hangout Meets, Teams, Piazza, etc. It is important that universities carefully choose tools matching the needs of the educators. More research is needed about which tools are suitable for general classes and theory or programming courses, or do we need to consider a more formal or informal approach towards online classes.
- -
- Q&A in Live Lecture: Managing Q&A in live lectures is a difficult task. Hence, universities need to think of assigning multiple lecturers in the same course or providing TA support to the lecturer to help in managing Q&A in the live lectures.
- -
- Evaluation of Coding Exams: Online evaluation of coding exams is quite challenging. With the issue of academic dishonesty, the issue is further escalated. Hence, there is a need for more in-depth research on how to support educators in grading coding exams. If educators are using code review tools or automated test scripts, then appropriate training is required for students and educators.
- -
- Advance Programming Concepts: Teaching advanced programming/debugging concepts such as Pair programming can be quite challenging in an online environment. There is a need to develop tools that can make learning such advanced concepts in an online environment easier.
7. Conclusions
8. Limitations
- Followup Questions with the Participants: In this paper, we present an exploratory study of issues related to CS educators in online teaching. We analysed Q&A from an online website; hence, we were not able to complete any follow-up questions to the users. To overcome these shortcomings, we used the suggestions given in the literature [30] for conducting online qualitative research. We used multiple investigators or peer debriefing to create categories from the given data. This method is also used by other researchers [22] while conducting online qualitative research.
- Number of Questions Analyzed: In this paper, we consider nine questions for detailed analysis. This is a very small number to yield any conclusion about online issues faced by CS educators. However, Table 1 shows the statistical details about the selected questions. These nine questions received 49 upvotes (i.e., score), 3825 views, 33 answers, and 40 comments. Hence, these questions have quite a large audience, and analysis of these questions can provide important insights about online teaching from CS educators’ perspectives. We plan to extend this study by conducting a survey of CS educators about online teaching.
- Background of the CS Educators in This Paper: The CSEd SE website is created for CS educators. However, there are no strict rules defined about the background of the users. Anyone can ask a question or answer a question on the website. Hence, it is difficult to identify whether the person who is asking the questions is a CS educator or not. However, the quality of the questions and answers is moderated by the senior members who are experts in the domain. The low-quality questions and answers are either edited or deleted from the websites. The users of the website are given the choice of how much personal information they want to disclose on the website. For our study, we analyzed the public profiles of the users. Nine unique users asked the questions. Two users who asked these were university professors, one was a high school teacher, and one was a software engineer, and details about the other users were not available. In the future, we plan to expand this study by conducting an in-depth survey of CS educators having varied backgrounds to obtain more knowledge about online teaching issues.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Arruda, E.P. Educação remota emergencial: Elementos para políticas públicas na educação brasileira em tempos de COVID-19. Emrede-Rev. Educação Distância 2020, 7, 257–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gov.UK. Government Sets Out Next Steps for Living with COVID. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-next-steps-for-living-with-covid (accessed on 11 April 2022).
- France 24 Chinese City Locks Down, Shanghai Shuts Schools as COVID Spikes. Available online: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220311-chinese-city-locks-down-shanghai-shuts-schools-as-covid-spikes (accessed on 11 April 2022).
- Kissler, S.M.; Tedijanto, C.; Goldstein, E.; Grad, Y.H.; Lipsitch, M. Projecting the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 through the postpandemic period. Science 2020, 368, 860–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Insidegovernment. What Is the Impact of COVID-19 on Education? Available online: https://blog.insidegovernment.co.uk/schools/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-education#:~:text=Education%20has%20been%20hit%20particularly,the%20world’s%20total%20enrolled%20learners (accessed on 11 April 2022).
- Baker, M. Industrial actions in schools: Strikes and student achievement. Can. J. Econ. Can. D’économique 2013, 46, 1014–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belot, M.; Webbink, D. Do teacher strikes harm educational attainment of students? Labour 2010, 24, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guangul, F.M.; Suhail, A.H.; Khalit, M.I.; Khidhir, B.A. Challenges of remote assessment in higher education in the context of COVID-19: A case study of Middle East College. Educ. Assessment, Eval. Account. 2020, 32, 519–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karber, D.J. Comparisons and contrasts in traditional versus on-line teaching in management. High. Educ. Eur. 2001, 26, 533–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leech, N.L.; Gullett, S.; Howland Cummings, M.; Haug, C. Challenges of remote teaching for K-12 teachers during COVID-19. J. Educ. Leadersh. Action 2020, 7, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Ferri, F.; Grifoni, P.; Guzzo, T. Online learning and emergency remote teaching: Opportunities and challenges in emergency situations. Societies 2020, 10, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nation, U. Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and Beyond. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2022).
- Crick, T.; Knight, C.; Watermeyer, R.; Goodall, J. The impact of COVID-19 and “Emergency Remote Teaching” on the UK computer science education community. In Proceedings of the United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research Conference, Glasgow, UK, 3–4 September 2020; pp. 31–37. [Google Scholar]
- de Deus, W.S.; Fioravanti, M.L.; de Oliveira, C.D.; Barbosa, E.F. Emergency remote computer science education in brazil during the covid-19 pandemic: Impacts and strategies. Rev. Bras. Informática na Educação 2020, 28, 1032–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubwieser, P.; Giannakos, M.N.; Berges, M.; Brinda, T.; Diethelm, I.; Magenheim, J.; Pal, Y.; Jackova, J.; Jasute, E. A global snapshot of computer science education in K-12 schools. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports, Vilnius, Lithuania, 4–8 July 2015; pp. 65–83. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, N.C.; Sentance, S.; Crick, T.; Humphreys, S. Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 2014, 14, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Royal Society (Great Britain). Shut Down or Restart?: The Way Forward for Computing in UK Schools; Royal Society: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Caspersen, M.E.; Gal-Ezer, J.; McGettrick, A.; Nardelli, E. Informatics for all the Strategy; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- European Education Area. What Is the Digital Education Action Plan? Available online: https://education.ec.europa.eu/focus-topics/digital-education/action-plan (accessed on 29 July 2022).
- U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. Employment Projects. 2017. Available online: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2022).
- Stack Exchange Inc. Introduction. Available online: https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/ (accessed on 31 March 2022).
- Moudgalya, S.K.; Rich, K.M.; Yadav, A.; Koehler, M.J. Computer science educators stack exchange: Perceptions of equity and gender diversity in computer science. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 27 February–2 March 2019; pp. 1197–1203. [Google Scholar]
- YeckehZaare, I.; Grot, G.; Dimovski, I.; Pollock, K.; Fox, E. Another Victim of COVID-19: Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, Providence, RI, USA, 2–5 March 2022; pp. 913–919. [Google Scholar]
- Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- nytimes. As Computer Coding Classes Swell, So Does Cheating. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/29/us/computer-science-cheating.html (accessed on 31 March 2022).
- Zavala, L.; Mendoza, B. On the use of semantic-based aig to automatically generate programming exercises. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Baltimore, MD, USA, 21–24 February 2018; pp. 14–19. [Google Scholar]
- Radošević, D.; Orehovački, T.; Stapić, Z. Automatic on-line generation of student’s exercises in teaching programming. In Proceedings of the Radošević, D., Orehovački, T., Stapić, Z: “Automatic On-line Generation of Students Exercises in Teaching Programming”, Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, CECIIS, Varaždin, Croatia, 22–24 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ariely, D. Our Buggy Moral Code. Available online: https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_our_buggy_moral_code?language=en (accessed on 31 March 2022).
- Pavin Ivanec, T. The Lack of Academic Social Interactions and Students’ Learning Difficulties during COVID-19 Faculty Lockdowns in Croatia: The Mediating Role of the Perceived Sense of Life Disruption Caused by the Pandemic and the Adjustment to Online Studying. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerber, H.R.; Abrams, S.S.; Curwood, J.S.; Magnifico, A.M. Conducting Qualitative Research of Learning in Online Spaces; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
S.No | QId | Score | View Count | Answer Count | Comment Count |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 6278 | 4 | 74 | 3 | 2 |
2 | 6471 | 9 | 2296 | 5 | 16 |
3 | 6231 | 14 | 581 | 7 | 6 |
4 | 6234 | 5 | 179 | 4 | 0 |
5 | 6236 | 6 | 329 | 2 | 1 |
6 | 6242 | 2 | 110 | 4 | 13 |
7 | 6251 | 1 | 75 | 3 | 1 |
8 | 6294 | 4 | 119 | 3 | 1 |
9 | 6645 | 4 | 62 | 2 | 0 |
Sum | 49 | 3825 | 33 | 40 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lal, S.; Mourya, R. For CS Educators, by CS Educators: An Exploratory Analysis of Issues and Recommendations for Online Teaching in Computer Science. Societies 2022, 12, 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12040116
Lal S, Mourya R. For CS Educators, by CS Educators: An Exploratory Analysis of Issues and Recommendations for Online Teaching in Computer Science. Societies. 2022; 12(4):116. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12040116
Chicago/Turabian StyleLal, Sangeeta, and Rahul Mourya. 2022. "For CS Educators, by CS Educators: An Exploratory Analysis of Issues and Recommendations for Online Teaching in Computer Science" Societies 12, no. 4: 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12040116
APA StyleLal, S., & Mourya, R. (2022). For CS Educators, by CS Educators: An Exploratory Analysis of Issues and Recommendations for Online Teaching in Computer Science. Societies, 12(4), 116. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12040116