Please comment on the plan for the next edition.
- Learners can name, describe, and enact four teaching practices that are appropriate to use in programming workshops for adults, and give a pedagogical justification for each.
- Learners can explain why instructors should not introduce new pedagogical practices in a short workshop.
Just as domain expertise is often a matter of pattern recognition, teaching expertise often comes down to using good practices consistently. None of the practices described below are essential (except having a code of conduct), but each will improve lesson delivery.
An important part of making a class productive is to treat everyone with respect. We therefore strongly recommend that every group offering classes based on this material adopt a Code of Conduct like this one, and require people taking part in the class to abide by it.
We believe equally strongly that your actual programming classes should also have and enforce a Code of Conduct. Programming is a scary topic for many novices, and workshops are meant to be a judgment free space to learn and experiment. The behavior of the instructor and other participants may make more of an impression on a novice learner than any “technical” topic you teach.
If you do this, hosts should point people at it during registration, and instructors should remind attendees of it at the start of the workshop. The Code of Conduct doesn’t just tell everyone what the rules are: it tells them that there are rules, and that they can therefore expect a safe and welcoming learning experience.
If you are an instructor, and believe that someone in a workshop has violated the Code of Conduct, you may warn them, ask them to apologize, and/or expel them, depending on the severity of the violation and whether or not you believe it was intentional. Whatever you do:
Do it in front of witnesses. Most people will tone down their language and hostility in front of an audience, and having someone else present ensures that later discussion doesn’t degenerate into conflicting claims about who said what.
Contact the organizer or host of your class as soon as you can and describe what happened. Remember, a Code of Conduct is meaningless without a procedure for enforcing it.
A Code of Conduct cannot stop people from being offensive, any more than laws against theft stop people from stealing. What it can do is make expectations and consequences clear. In our experience, people rarely violate the Code of Conduct in person, though some are more likely to online, where they feel less inhibited. And remember, a Code of Conduct is not an infringement on free speech. People have a right to say what they think, but that doesn’t mean they have a right to speak wherever and whenever they want. If someone wishes to say something disparaging about someone else, they can go and find a space of their own in which to say it.
To begin your class, the instructors should give a brief introduction that will convey their capacity to teach the material, accessibility and approachability, desire for student success, and enthusiasm. Tailor your introduction to the students’ skill level so that you convey competence (without seeming too advanced) and demonstrate that you can relate to the students. Throughout the workshop, continually demonstrate that you are interested in student progress and that you are enthusiastic about the topics.
Students should also introduce themselves (preferably verbally). At the very least, everyone should add their name to the Etherpad, but it’s also good for everyone at a given site to know who all is in the group. Note: this can be done while setting up before the start of the class.
In a two-day class, have learners read the operations checklists as overnight homework and do their demotivational story just before lunch on day 2: it means day 2 starts with their questions (which wakes them up), and the demotivational story is a good lead-in to lunchtime discussion.
Programming workshops (and other kinds of classes) can be built around a set of independent exercises, develop a single extended example in stages, or use a mixed strategy. The main advantages of independent exercises are that people who fall behind can easily re-synchronize, and that lesson developers can add, remove, and rearrange material at will. A single extended example, on the other hand, will show learners how the bits and pieces they’re learning fit together: in educational parlance, it provides more opportunity for them to integrate their knowledge.
Whichever approach you take, learners should never start with a blank page (or screen), since they often find this intimidating or bewildering. Modifying existing code instead of writing new code from scratch doesn’t just give them structure: it is also more realistic. Keep in mind, however, that starter code may increase cognitive load, since learners can be distracted by trying to understand it all before they start their own work.
Many studies have shown that taking notes while learning improves retention [Aiken1975], [Bohay2011]. As discussed in Memory, this happens because taking notes forces you to organize and reflect on material as it’s coming in, which in turn increases the likelihood that you will transfer it to long-term memory in a usable way.
Our experience, and some recent research findings, lead us to believe that taking notes collaboratively helps learning even more [Orndorff2015], even though taking notes on a computer is generally less effective than taking notes using pen and paper [Mueller2014]. Taking notes collaboratively:
It allows people to compare what they think they’re hearing with what other people are hearing, which helps them fill in gaps and correct misconceptions right away.
It gives the more advanced learners in the class something useful to do. Rather than getting bored and checking Twitter during class, they often take the lead in recording what’s being said, which keeps them engaged, and allows less advanced learners to focus more of their attention on new material. Keeping the more advanced learners busy also helps the whole class stay engaged because boredom is infectious: if a handful of people start updating their Facebook profiles, the people around them will start checking out too.
The notes the learners take are usually more helpful to them than those the instructor would prepare in advance, since the learners are more likely to write down what they actually found new, rather than what the instructor predicted would be new.
Glancing at the notes as they’re being taken helps the instructor discover that the class didn’t hear something important, or misunderstood it.
We usually use Etherpad or Google Docs for collaborative note-taking. The former makes it easy to see who’s written what, while the latter scales better and allows people to add images to the notes. Whichever is chosen, classes also use it to share snippets of code and small datasets, and as a way for learners to show instructors their work (by copying and pasting it in).
Shared note-taking is almost always mentioned positively in post-workshop feedback. However, it’s also common for participants to report that they find it distracting, as it’s one more thing they have to keep an eye on. We believe the positives outweigh the negatives, but think that some careful controlled studies would tell us whether we’re right, and how to use it better.
If you are going to have a group take notes together, make a list of everyone’s name and paste it into the document each time you want every person to respond individually (e.g., to answer a question or contribute an exercise solution). This prevents the situation in which everyone is trying to edit the same couple of lines at the same time.
Most formal educational systems train people to treat all assessment as summative, i.e., to think of every interaction with a teacher as an evaluation, rather than as a chance to shape instruction. For example, we use a short pre-assessment questionnaire to profile learners before workshops to help instructors tune the pace and level of material. We send people this questionnaire out after they have registered rather than making it part of the sign-up process because when we did the latter, many people concluded that since they couldn’t answer all the questions, they shouldn’t enrol. We were therefore scaring off many of the people we most wanted to help.
Instead of asking people how easily they could complete specific tasks, we could just ask them to rate their knowledge of various subjects on a scale from 1 to 5. However, self-assessments of this kind are usually inaccurate because of the Dunning-Kruger effect: the less people know about a subject, the less accurate their estimate of their knowledge is.
That said, there are things we can do:
Before running a workshop, communicate its level clearly to everyone who’s thinking of signing up by listing the topics that will be covered and showing a few examples of exercises that people will be asked to complete.
Provide multiple exercises for each teaching episode so that more advanced learners don’t finish early and get bored.
Ask more advanced learners to help people next to them. They’ll learn from answering their peers’ questions (since it will force them to think about things in new ways).
The helpers and the instructor who aren’t teaching the particular episode should keep an eye out for learners who are falling behind and intervene early so that they don’t become frustrated and give up.
The most important thing is to accept that no class can possibly meet everyone’s individual needs. If the instructor slows down to accommodate two people who are struggling, the other 38 are not being well served. Equally, if she spends a few minutes talking about an advanced topic because two learners are bored, the 38 who don’t understand it will feel left out. All we can do is tell our learners what we’re doing and why, and hope that they’ll understand.
It’s important to design lessons with a particular audience in mind. It’s equally important to find out who’s in each specific audience, since this will influence how you introduce yourself, motivate topics, and pace the lessons. Before the start of a Software Carpentry instructor training class, we ask people to fill in a short questionnaire like the one below. It doesn’t tell us everything we might want to know, but it does give trainers a pretty clear idea of who they’re speaking to.
Give each learner two sticky notes of different colours, e.g., red and green. These can be held up for voting, but their real use is as status flags. If someone has completed an exercise and wants it checked, they put the green sticky note on their laptop; if they run into a problem and need help, they put up the red one. This is better than having people raise their hands because:
it’s more discreet (which means they’re more likely to actually do it),
they can keep working while their flag is raised, and
the instructor can quickly see from the front of the room what state the class is in.
Sometimes a red sticky involves a technical problem that takes a bit more time to solve. To prevent this issue from slowing down the whole class too much, you could use the occasion to take the small break you had planned to take a bit later, giving the helper(s) time to fix the problem.
Sticky notes can also be used to ensure that the instructor’s attention is fairly distributed. Have each learner write their name on a sticky note and put it on their laptop. Each time the instructor calls on them or answers one of their questions, their sticky note comes down. Once all the sticky notes are down, everyone puts theirs up again.
This technique makes it easy for the instructor to see who they haven’t spoken with recently, which in turn helps them avoid the unconscious trap of only interacting with the most extroverted of their learners. It also shows learners that attention is being distributed fairly, so that when they are called on, they won’t feel like they’re being picked on.
It’s often tempting to fix things for learners, but when you do, it can easily seem like magic (even if you narrate every step). Instead, talk your learners through whatever they need to do. It will take longer, but it’s more likely to stick.
Whenever someone asks a question in class, repeat it back to them before answering it to check that you’ve understood it, and to give people who might not have heard it a chance to do so. This is particularly important when presentations are being recorded or broadcast, since your microphone will usually not pick up what other people are saying. Repeating questions back also gives you a chance to redirect the question to something you’re more comfortable answering if need be…
We frequently use sticky notes as minute cards: before each break, learners take a minute to write one positive thing on the green sticky note (e.g., one thing they’ve learned that they think will be useful), and one thing they found too fast, too slow, confusing, or irrelevant on the red one. They can use the red sticky note for questions that haven’t yet been answered. While they are enjoying their coffee or lunch, the instructors review and cluster these to find patterns. It only takes a few minutes to see what learners are enjoying, what they still find confusing, what problems they’re having, and what questions are still unanswered.
We frequently ask for summary feedback at the end of each day. The instructors ask the learners to alternately give one positive and one negative point about the day, without repeating anything that has already been said. This requirement forces people to say things they otherwise might not: once all the “safe” feedback has been given, participants will start saying what they really think.
Minute cards are anonymous; the alternating up-and-down feedback is not. Each mode has its strengths and weaknesses, and by providing both, we hope to get the best of both worlds.
Pair programming is a software development practice in which two programmers share one computer. One person (called the driver) does the typing, while the other (called the navigator) offers comments and suggestions. The two switch roles several times per hour.
Pair programming is a good practice in real life, and also a good way to teach [Hannay2009], [Porter2013]. Partners can not only help each other out during the practical, but can also clarify each other’s misconceptions when the solution is presented, and discuss common research interests during breaks. To facilitate this, we strongly prefer flat (dinner-style) seating to banked (theater-style) seating; this also makes it easier for helpers to reach learners who need assistance.
When pair programming is used it’s important to put everyone in pairs, not just the learners who are struggling, so that no one feels singled out. It’s also useful to have people sit in new places (and hence pair with different partners) after each coffee or meal break. It’s also important to have people switch roles within each pair three or four times per hour, so that the stronger personality in each pair doesn’t dominate the session.
Confidence is Not Knowledge
The Dunning-Kruger Effect can easily come into play in pair programming: whoever thinks they know the most can dominate the session regardless of how much they actually know.
Instructors have mixed opinions on whether people should be required to change partners at regular intervals. On the one hand, it gives everyone a chance to gain new insights and make new friends. On the other, it is uncomfortable for introverts, and moving computers and power adapters to new desks several times a day is disruptive.
Research has shown that people learn more from demonstrations if they are asked to predict what’s going to happen [Miller2013]. Doing this fits naturally into live coding: after adding or changing a few lines of a program, ask someone what is going to happen when it’s run.
If you are live coding and your program doesn’t work, explain the symptoms to your learners. The underlying cause often then becomes clear; if it doesn’t, have them take turns suggesting things to try next. Be careful not to let one or two people dominate the discussion.
No matter how good a teacher is, she can only say one thing at a time. How then can she clear up many different misconceptions in a reasonable time?
The best solution developed so far is a technique called peer instruction. Originally created by Eric Mazur at Harvard, it has been studied extensively in a wide variety of contexts, including programming [Porter2013]. Peer instruction combines formative assessment with student discussion and looks something like this:
Give a brief introduction to the topic.
Give students a multiple choice question (MCQ) that probes for misconceptions (rather than simple factual knowledge).
Have all the students vote on their answers to the MCQ.
As [Avanti2013] shows, group discussion significantly improves students’ understanding because it forces them to clarify their thinking, which can be enough to call out gaps in reasoning. Re-polling the class then lets the instructor know if they can move on, or if further explanation is necessary. A final round of additional explanation and discussion after the correct answer is presented gives students one more chance to solidify their understanding.
Peer instruction is essentially a way to provide one-to-one mentorship in a scalable way. Despite this, we usually do not use it in either programming workshops or instructor training workshops because it takes people time to adapt to a new way of learning–time that we typically don’t have in our compressed two-day format.
Taking a Stand
Note that it is important to have learners record their votes so that they can’t change their minds afterward and rationalize it by making excuses to themselves like “I just misread the question”. Much of the value of peer instruction comes from the jarring experience of having their answer be wrong and having to think through the reasons why.
Adult learners tell us that it is important to them to leave programming workshops with their own machine set up to do real work. We therefore strongly recommend that instructors be prepared to teach on all three major platforms (Linux, Mac OS, and Windows), even though it would be simpler to require learners to use just one.
To aid in this, put detailed setup instructions for all three platforms on the workshop’s website, and email learners a couple of days before the workshop starts to remind them to do the setup. Even with this, a few people will always show up without the right software, either because their other commitments didn’t allow them to go through the setup or because they ran into problems. To detect this, have everyone run some simple command as soon as they arrive and show the instructors the result, and then have helpers and other learners assist people who have run into trouble.
If you have participants using several different operating systems, avoid using features which are OS-specific, and point out any that you do use. For example, some shell commands take different options on Mac OS than on Linux, while the “minimize window” controls and behavior on Windows are different from those on other platforms.
We have experimented with virtual machines (VMs) on learners’ computers to reduce installation problems, but those introduce problems of their own: older or smaller machines simply aren’t fast enough, and learners often struggle to switch back and forth between two different sets of keyboard shortcuts for things like copying and pasting.
Some instructors use VPS over SSH or web browser pages instead. This solve the installation issues, but makes us dependent on host institutions’ WiFi (which can be of highly variable quality), and has the issues mentioned above with things like keyboard shortcuts.
You may not have any control over the layout of the desks or tables in the room in which your programming workshop takes place, but if you do, we find it’s best to have:
all tables on the same level (rather than banked seating),
four people per table (so that each table can have two pairs if you choose to use pair programming), and
in-floor power outlets (so that you don’t have to run power cords across the floor that people can trip over).
Whatever layout you have, try to make sure the seats have good back support, since people are going to be in them for an extended period, and check that every seat has an unobstructed view of the screen.
Setting up your environment is just as important as setting up your learners’, but more involved. As well as having all the software that they need, and network access to the tool they’re using to take notes, you should also have a glass of water, or a cup of tea or coffee. This helps keep your throat lubricated (as discussed in the next section), but its real purpose is to give you an excuse to pause for a couple of seconds and think when someone asks a hard question or you lose track of what you were going to say next.
You will probably also want some whiteboard pens and a few of the other things described in the travel kit checklist.
If you talk all day to a room full of people, your throat gets raw because you are irritating the epithelial cells in your larynx and pharynx. This doesn’t just make you hoarse–it also makes you more vulnerable to infection (which is part of the reason people often come down with colds after teaching).
The best way to protect yourself against this is to keep your throat lined, and the best way to do that is to use cough drops early and often. The right ones will also help delay the onset of coffee breath, for which your learners will probably be grateful.
Think-pair-share is a lightweight technique that helps refine their ideas and compare them with others’. Each person starts by thinking individually about a question or problem and jotting down a few notes. Participants are then paired to explain their ideas to each another, and possibly to merge them or select the more interesting ones. Finally, a few pairs present their ideas to the whole group.
Think-pair-share works because, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde’s Lady Windermere, people often can’t know what they’re thinking until they’ve heard themselves say it. Pairing gives people new insight into their own thinking, and forces them to think through and resolve any gaps or contradictions before exposing their ideas to a larger group. We used think-pair-share in several of the challenges in our discussion of motivation.
Humor should be used sparingly when teaching: most jokes are less funny when written down, and become even less funny with each re-reading. Being spontaneously funny while teaching usually works better, but can easily go wrong: what’s a joke to your circle of friends may turn out to be a serious political issue to your audience. If you do make jokes when teaching, don’t make them at the expense of any group, or of anyone except possibly yourself.
Using the questionnaire shown earlier as a template, create a short questionnaire you could give learners before teaching a class of your own. What do you most want to know about their background?