03012JournalEntry

An important and very contemporary issue in education is the debate between the idea of student centered vs. teacher led instruction. Student centered instruction is hands-on and activity based. Students learn by doing, moving from assignment to increasingly complex assignment, completing independent or group projects, research papers, experiments, etc. Teacher centered instruction is the traditional way of presenting content through lecture by the teacher. As a classroom technique, both have their merits. Student centered instruction emphasizes “learning” especially as a means to stimulate specific interest in specific topical areas, while teacher led instruction provides “expert” content from a knowledgeable source in a direct, delivered format. Either method has shortcomings as well. Student centered instruction requires a higher level of self-motivation while teacher-led instruction can generate a “distance” between teacher and student. Both require active participation to be effective.

In my computer science classes at SeaCoast High School, I have depended heavily on teacher-centered instruction. Like other technical subjects for example, chemistry, physics or calculus, the teaching of computer science involves presenting information, important concepts and theory that explain how components, seemingly unrelated, interact with each other and the world around them. The most direct way of presenting scientific material is through a didactic, teacher-controlled lecturing mode of information delivery. Advantages of this approach include the opportunity to simplify, summarize and annotate difficult subject matter with examples, stories, and anecdotes that help to illustrate or illuminate the material. Disadvantages often involve a shallow understanding or lack of conceptual or subject matter background that students bring to class, making it an ineffective technique to facilitate following along quickly for those less comfortable or familiar with the material.

As the school year progresses, I find that using this technique in this alternative setting is proving only marginally successful, effective for the serious student, but not so for the less interested student. I noticed this during a recent computer science class, the topic involved a look at the programming capabilities of a particular object in Small Basic, a computer language we are studying. With a screen of computer code displayed on the Smart Board, I presented an overview of the functionality of the Shapes object, explaining in detail the properties and methods available using PowerPoint slides and demonstrating their functionality by using SmallBasic itself. I then displayed a relatively simple lab exercise. During the lecture, I noticed the class struggling with attention and for the remaining 20 minutes, not being motivated enough to complete the lab on their own. So what's the problem? The class material was presented clearly, using visuals, demonstrated graphically, and reviewed. A model was displayed and a reasonable time frame was allotted.

Clearly, something needed to change. While I am unwilling to abandon my teacher-centric approach totally, I decided to inject more student-centered activities by creating a series of skill-building labs, including readings, exercises, and programs each slightly more complicated that would indicate demonstrated competency of the subject matter when completed. With this tool I could create a “blended” approach combining both teacher led and student centered instruction. At the beginning of each section, I would give a brief introduction then lead the students to research the topic further. Students could then work on labs, do exercises and code programs on their own. Once completed, we could discuss issues or difficulties.

By modifying my teaching methods, I anticipate increased success with helping students learn and retain important theory and principles, which, in turn, should generate more student interest in achieving results in computer programming class.