Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation
Abstract
Cooperative learning is a well-known instructional technique that has been applied with a wide variety of subject matter and a broad spectrum of populations. This article briefly reviews the principles of cooperative learning, and describes how these principles were incorporated into a comprehensive set of cooperative learning activities for a CS1 course. In each activity, specific roles are assigned to group members in order to highlight important concepts and to enhance the overall functioning of the group. The group processing is followed by a whole-class debriefing led by the instructor, which works in tandem with the group activity to help students improve their understanding of the material. The effectiveness of these cooperative learning activities was assessed in a series of educational research studies which spanned three academic years and included two different instructors. The results of these studies show statistically significant benefits from the cooperative learning approach, both overall and for a broad range of subgroups of students. The article concludes with suggestions for faculty members who may want to use these cooperative learning activities in the classroom, or to develop their own activities along similar lines.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Pair programming facilitates knowledge sharing and deeper understanding and retention of programming concepts.
“As students work together, they engage in continuous dialogue, explaining their thought processes and strategies. This verbal articulation of ideas facilitates deeper understanding and retention of programming concepts (Beck & Chizhik, 2013).”
From The impact of AI-assisted pair programming on student motivation, programming anxiety, collaborative learning, and programming performance: a comparative study with traditional pair programming and individual approaches (2025) · cites this paper as Beck & Chizhik, 2013
Cites
Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context
Rogoff, B. (1990) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195059731.001.0001 · Cited by 4,709 · see citing works
Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups
Cohen, E. G. (1994) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543064001001 · Cited by 2,120 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fan, G., Liu, D., Zhang, R., & Pan, L. (2025) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-025-00537-3 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
“This verbal articulation of ideas facilitates deeper understanding and retention of programming concepts (Beck & Chizhik, 2013).”
Redesigning an Object-Oriented Programming Course
Kaila, E., Kurvinen, E., Lokkila, E., & Laakso, M.-J. (2016) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/2906362 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Beck, L., & Chizhik, A.
- Affiliations
- San Diego State University (US)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Computing Education
- Published
- 2013-08
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1-21
- ISSN
- 1946-6226 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2074428562
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 10.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Computing Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE-0442121)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
- Keywords
- cooperative learning, CS1, introductory computer science, group roles, teaching methods, student subgroups
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review