An official website of the United States government
Many institutions use undergraduate teaching assistants (tutors) in their computing courses to help provide more resources to students. Because of the role tutors play in students' learning experiences, recent work in computing education has begun to explore student-tutor interactions through the tutor's perspective and through direct observation of the interactions. The results suggest that these interactions are cognitively challenging for tutors and may not be as beneficial for students' learning as one might hope. Given that many of these interactions may be unproductive, this work seeks to understand how student expectations of these sessions might be impacting the interactions' effectiveness. We interviewed 15 students in a CS2 course to learn about the expectations and desires that students have when they attend tutoring sessions. Our findings indicate that there is variation in what students consider a desired result from the interaction, that assignment deadlines affect students' expectations and desires for interactions, and that students do not always want what they believe is beneficial for their learning. We discuss implications for instructors and potential guidance for students and tutors to make tutoring sessions more effective.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on February 12, 2026
Undergraduate Computing Tutors' Perceptions of their Roles, Stressors, and Barriers to Effectiveness
Undergraduate teaching assistants (tutors) are commonly employed in computing courses to help students with programming assignments. Prior research in computing education has reported the benefits of tutoring both for students and for the tutors' own learning. In contrast, recent research that examined actual tutoring sessions has reported that these sessions may be less productive than one might hope, with tutors often just giving students the answers to their problems without trying to teach the underlying concepts. To better understand why tutors may be employing these suboptimal practices, we interviewed ten tutors across early computing courses in higher education to identify their perceived role in these sessions, what stressors and factors influence their ability to perform their job effectively, and what kinds of best practices they learned in their tutor training course. Tutors reported their roles around student learning, gauging student understanding, identifying or providing solutions to students, and providing socioemotional support. They reported their stressors around environmental factors (e.g., number of students waiting to be helped, preparation time, peer-tutor frustrations), internal influences, student behavior, student skill levels, and feeling the need to ''read a student's mind.'' Regarding their tutor training course, Tutors reported learning about interaction guidelines and procedures and question-based problem solving. We conclude by discussing how these results may contribute to the less-effective behaviors seen in prior research and potential ways to improve tutoring in computing courses.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10652656
- Publisher / Repository:
- ACM
- Date Published:
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1155 to 1161
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
As enrollments in computing courses have surged, the ratio of students to faculty has risen at many institutions. Along with many other large undergraduate programs, our institution has adapted to this challenge by hiring increasing numbers of undergraduate tutors to help students. In early computing courses, their role at our institution is primarily to help students with their programming assignments. Despite our institution offering a training course for tutors, we are concerned about the quality and nature of these student-tutor interactions. As instruction moved online due to COVID-19, this provided the unique opportunity to record all student-tutor interactions (among consenting participants) for research. In order to gain an understanding of the behaviors common in these interactions, we conducted an initial qualitative analysis using open coding followed by a quantitative analysis on those codes. Overall, we found that students are not generally receiving the instruction we might hope or expect from these sessions. Notably, tutors often simply give students the solution to the problem in their code without teaching them about the process of finding and correcting their own errors. These findings highlight the importance of tutoring sessions for learning in introductory courses and motivate remediation to make these sessions more productive.more » « less
-
Lischka, A. E.; Dyer, E. B.; Jones, R. S.; Lovett, J. N.; Strayer, J.; & Drown, S. (Ed.)Many higher education institutions in the United States provide mathematics tutoring services for undergraduate students. These informal learning experiences generally result in increased final course grades (Byerly & Rickard, 2018; Rickard & Mills, 2018; Xu et al., 2014) and improved student attitudes toward mathematics (Bressoud et al., 2015). In recent years, research has explored the beliefs and practices of undergraduate and, sometimes graduate, peer tutors, both prior to (Bjorkman, 2018; Johns, 2019; Pilgrim et al., 2020) and during the COVID19 pandemic (Gyampoh et al., 2020; Mullen et al., 2021; Van Maaren et al., 2021). Additionally, Burks and James (2019) proposed a framework for Mathematical Knowledge for Tutoring Undergraduate Mathematics adapted from Ball et al. (2008) Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching, highlighting the distinction between tutor and teacher. The current study builds on this body of work on tutors’ beliefs by focusing on mathematical sciences graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) who tutored in an online setting during the 2020-2021 academic year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, this study addresses the following research question: What were the mathematical teaching beliefs and practices of graduate student tutors participating in online tutoring sessions through the mathematics learning center (MLC) during the COVID-19 pandemic?more » « less
-
In an earlier work, the authors compared the writing style of Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) students in an “untutored” state to the writing style of “tutored” students, where the tutoring was provided by “generic” writing center tutors. The results of this study showed that aside from changes in the diction of the students’ work, there was little measurable improvement in the quality of student writing as measured by both the AAC&U VALUE Rubric and by the authors’ voice-development-style-diction method. The current work builds on the results of the previous work by providing training on a just-in-time basis for the writing center tutors. As with previous years, the students participating in the study were MET students in a last-semester capstone industrial design course. This course is organized around a series of open-ended industry-sponsored projects for which the students are expected to develop a solution to a mechanical engineering problem. The students work on the projects in teams of three or four students and complete the work over a two-semester sequence offered annually on a fall-spring basis. The assignment in the study was identical to that of previous years: an “analysis” report in which students are expected to apply content from previous courses to one aspect of the industry-sponsored design project. The present study will compare the results from three iterations of the study: the work of “untutored” students, i.e. those who did not received any writing center assistance whatsoever, those who tutored by “generic” writing center tutors, and lastly, the works of those tutored by tutors specifically trained in support of the specific intervention. In the two cases where tutor interaction occurred, it was required as a component of the course to ensure participation by the entire student cohort. In general, the interactions with the specially-trained tutors produced works with a more mature writing style on the part of the student as compared to those works produced by students who had interacted with the untrained tutors or no tutors at all. The work will also discuss survey data collected on the “generic” and specially-trained tutoring sessions and discuss the differences in the results. Preliminary results show that the specially-trained tutors reported pronounced levels of engagement in the tutoring session, as measured by student note-taking, student questions, student receptiveness to suggestions, and student desire to understand the reasoning behind the tutors’ suggestions. Specially-trained tutors also reported significantly higher levels of student interest suggestions about grammar, style, content, format, and citations. Overall, it is concluded that specific training for the tutors was most associated with increased levels of interaction between tutor and student. As the students in the final group (“trained tutors”) were told prior to the tutoring session that the tutors were “specially trained,” it remains to be determined if the increased interaction was due to better tutor preparation or a higher estimation of the value of the tutoring session on the part of the students receiving the tutoring. This is proposed as an extension to the current work.more » « less
-
In an earlier work, the authors compared the writing style of Mechanical Engineering Technology (MET) students in an “untutored” state to the writing style of “tutored” students, where the tutoring was provided by “generic” writing center tutors. The results of this study showed that aside from changes in the diction of the students’ work, there was little measurable improvement in the quality of student writing as measured by both the AAC&U VALUE Rubric and by the authors’ voice-development-style-diction method. The current work builds on the results of the previous work by providing training on a just-in-time basis for the writing center tutors. As with previous years, the students participating in the study were MET students in a last-semester capstone industrial design course. This course is organized around a series of open-ended industry-sponsored projects for which the students are expected to develop a solution to a mechanical engineering problem. The students work on the projects in teams of three or four students and complete the work over a two-semester sequence offered annually on a fall-spring basis. The assignment in the study was identical to that of previous years: an “analysis” report in which students are expected to apply content from previous courses to one aspect of the industry-sponsored design project. The present study will compare the results from three iterations of the study: the work of “untutored” students, i.e. those who did not received any writing center assistance whatsoever, those who tutored by “generic” writing center tutors, and lastly, the works of those tutored by tutors specifically trained in support of the specific intervention. In the two cases where tutor interaction occurred, it was required as a component of the course to ensure participation by the entire student cohort. In general, the interactions with the specially-trained tutors produced works with a more mature writing style on the part of the student as compared to those works produced by students who had interacted with the untrained tutors or no tutors at all. The work will also discuss survey data collected on the “generic” and specially-trained tutoring sessions and discuss the differences in the results. Preliminary results show that the specially-trained tutors reported pronounced levels of engagement in the tutoring session, as measured by student note-taking, student questions, student receptiveness to suggestions, and student desire to understand the reasoning behind the tutors’ suggestions. Specially-trained tutors also reported significantly higher levels of student interest suggestions about grammar, style, content, format, and citations. Overall, it is concluded that specific training for the tutors was most associated with increased levels of interaction between tutor and student. As the students in the final group (“trained tutors”) were told prior to the tutoring session that the tutors were “specially trained,” it remains to be determined if the increased interaction was due to better tutor preparation or a higher estimation of the value of the tutoring session on the part of the students receiving the tutoring. This is proposed as an extension to the current work.more » « less
