Search for: All records

This WIP paper presents new research on exploratory learning, an educational technique that reverses the order of standard lecture-based instruction techniques. In exploratory learning, students are presented with a novel activity first, followed by instruction. Exploratory learning has been observed to benefit student learning in foundational math and science courses such as calculus, physics, and statistics; however, it has yet to be applied to engineering topics such as programming. In two studies, we tested the effectiveness of exploratory learning in the programming unit of a first-year undergraduate engineering course. We designed a new activity to help students learn about different python error types, ensuring that it would be suitable for exploration. Then we implemented two different orders (the traditional instruct-first versus exploratory learning’s explore-first) across the six sections of the course. In Study 1 (N=406), we did not detect a difference between the instruct-first and explore-first conditions. In Study 2 (N=411), we added more scaffolding to the activity. Students who received the traditional order of instruction followed by the activity scored significantly higher on the assessment. These findings contradict the exploratory learning benefits typically shown, shedding light on potential boundary conditions to this effect. 

This research work in progress research paper examines student perceptions after completing an exploratory learning lesson before instruction on an introductory programming concept. During exploratory learning activities, students explore a novel concept prior to instruction—the reverse of typical instruct-then-practice methods. Exploratory learning before instruction can help students activate prior knowledge, become aware of their knowledge gaps, and discern important problem features to improve conceptual understanding. Students in a first-year engineering course (N=402) learned about Python error messages in one of two conditions. In the explore-first condition, students completed a collaborative activity prior to instruction. In the instruct-first condition, students received instruction prior to the activity. Following the activity and instruction, students completed a survey to assess their perceptions of the activities. Survey items (e.g. cognitive load, self-efficacy, belonging, knowledge gaps) were chosen as potential factors that could explain learning outcomes between the two conditions. In prior work, we found higher posttest scores in the instruct-first compared to explore-first condition, contrary to the majority of previous studies. Cognitive load and knowledge gaps were higher in the explore-first condition than the instruct-first condition. Self-efficacy and competence were lower in the explore-first condition. No other significant differences were found. Exploring before instruction might disrupt learning and perceived efficacy and competence if the activity is too challenging, or if the instruction does not fully resolve gaps in students’ knowledge.