Learning strategies sessions within the classroom in computing science university courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This abstract describes a research project being conducted at a Canadian university in core first year undergraduate Computing Science courses. We are investigating the impact of integrating learning strategies instruction within the regular lab time of these courses to aid students' learning. Our concern, shared by educators and academic advisors, is that some students entering post secondary studies are unfamiliar with effective learning and study strategies. Our sense is that students most needing this support are those with a low grade level average. However, providing learning strategies instruction to these students only may be stigmatizing and counterproductive. Likewise,integrating learning instruction into regular course time may increaseaccessibility and inclusieness for students who are reluctant toseek support even if needed. At the same time this integration may benefit any student, particularly if sessions are short enough. Universities commonly offer generic study skills courses.However, increasingly, and in line with our approach, educatorsare recommending including study strategies instruction within the context of regular academic courses. Some forms of suchintegration include supplemental instruction, adjunct courses anddiscipline-based study skills courses (references are not providedhere due to lack of space). In contrast to these programs, ourlearning sessions are held within regular classes and are tied to course topics. Also, students are required to apply conceptsreviewed during the learning session to course assignments. Aswell, sessions involve both the course instruction and sessionfacilitator allowing for rich discussions about the application of learning theory to course assignments. We describe a representative semester offering in which we have run this project in two courses, including two academic strategies sessions per course. The first session, Learning Strategies, was graded and built into the courses' timetables. A second session, also specifically offered to the students in the courses, addressed stress and time management issues, which appear to interfere in the students' learning process. The Learning Strategies session introduced students to Bloom's taxonomy of learning levels [1] and demonstrated how this model applies to the course topics. Bloom's taxonomy is particularly relevant to the courses selectedfor our study, requiring that students be capable of applying the whole range of learning levels in Bloom's model. As a follow-up, students were required to develop questions at specified Bloom's learning levels, which were selectively included in the course exam. A second component of the Learning Strategies session asked students to consider ways of adapting for tasks of iffering time demands: working outside of class on weekly assignments and writing time-pressured exams. The Stress and Time Management session was optional and did not provide course marks. This session dealt with signs of burn out, strategies to deal with it, and resources students can access to get support. In anonymous and voluntary questionnaires we surveyed students about the usefulness of integrating learning strategies instruction into their courses. In the semester described here there were 140 students in both courses; 59% of the students submitted the questionnaires, 77% attended a Learning Strategies session. Our analysis includes self-reported prior grade level, course commitment level average and level of motivation to attend learning sessions. Survey responses reveal that students who were most motivated to attend these sessions have relatively low prior grades: from C to B. This is in fact our intended audience: students who struggle to improve in their studies. Students with higher grade levels were not as interested. Other analysis showed that those students who have a higher course commitment level are more interested and find these types of sessions more useful. Many students responded that they want more time spent on this type of session and more practical learning advice. We also surveyed students about stress and time management. A much higher percentage of stressed students are found within those reporting intermediate prior grades. Very interestingly, those who declare the lowest commitment level proportionally report being the most stressed. Students assessing themselves lower in time management and study techniques also indicated having low levels of commitment to the course, suggesting that our intervention is worthwhile. So far we have implemented these sessions for three semesters and have analyzed the data from one semester only. However feedback from students and academic advisors confirms our preliminary results that this approach is very promising. Furthermore, our departments are currently considering applying our model to more courses. For the future, we will continue to investigate incorporating these and other learning activities into computing science courses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".