Towards a Blended Learning Approach to Teach a Theoretical

Computer Science Module

Leila Silva

and Leonor Barroca

Departamento de Computação, Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Av. Marechal Rondon, s/n, São Cristóvão-SE, Brasil

Faculty of Mathematics, Computing and Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, U.K.

Keywords: Blended Learning, Flipped Classroom, Theoretical Computer Science.

Abstract: Theoretical computer science is a difficult subject in the computer science curriculum. Innovations in

teaching and new pedagogic practices have been developing in the last decade but are still far from being

widely applied to computer science. We propose that the teaching of more challenging areas of computer

science can benefit from opportunities created by a blended approach of face-to-face with online teaching

and individual and group activities. We present the design of a Design and Analysis of Algorithms including

innovations in pedagogy, as flipped classroom, problem-based lectures and social learning.

1 INTRODUCTION

In Computer Science teaching, the more theoretical

modules have been known to be hard for students. In

1988, Robins (1988) reported his experience of

teaching theoretical modules in the University of

California: “theoretical computer science has an

awful reputation among undergraduates.... I have

heard many resentful undergraduates describe this

course using terms such as dry, boring, unmotivated,

contrived, impractical, and too abstract.

Interestingly, those very few students (usually those

who excel in the material) describe it as elegant,

challenging, practical, and stimulating.”. He also

reported that in a 50-student undergraduate class

there were 2 or 3 individuals that achieved near-

perfect scores. More than a decade later,

Hamäiläinen (2004) reported that at most a third of

the students that registered for a theoretical module

on computability would pass it. More recently,

Enström (2014) also mentions the challenge of

teaching theoretical computer science and reports

some experience of introducing more interactive

activities to improve the students’ understanding.

From the experience of the first author, in Brazil,

student grades in these modules are lower than in

other modules, and the dropout and failure rates are

usually the highest. In particular, at the Universidade

Federal de Sergipe (UFS), in average, 50% of the

students dropout or fail the theoretical modules. We

do not have statistical analysis to justify this

scenario, but many lecturers who teach these

modules attribute the cause for bad performance to

the poor mathematical background of students.

Despite the importance of theoretical computer

science in the curriculum, there are only a few

studies that apply innovations in pedagogy to this

area, in order to improve motivation, engagement

and performance of students. Recent studies include

Hamäiläinen (2004) using a problem-based approach

to teach computability, Enström and Khan (2010)

introducing lab exercices to teach NP-completeness

proofs and Chakraborty et al. (2011) reviewing the

main initiatives in the use of simulators to teach

automata theory. These works, however, do not

address the entire design of a theoretical module.

The popularization of the use of Information and

Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the last

decades allows for the exploitation of new

pedagogic practices, such as social learning, in

which students change their role away from

information consumers to start engaging in active

cooperation to produce knowledge (Brown and

Adler, 2008; Sharples et al., 2013).

The face-to-face (f2f) model of education has

incorporated some tools commonly used in distance

education, and blended learning has emerged as a

new trend in education. According to Garrison and

Vaughan (2008) blended learning is defined as, “the

thoughtful fusion of f2f and online learning

experiences. [..] f2f oral communication and online

written communication are optimally integrated such

319

Silva L. and Barroca L..

Towards a Blended Learning Approach to Teach a Theoretical Computer Science Module.

DOI: 10.5220/0005483103190324

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 319-324

ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3

 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

that the strengths of each are blended into a unique

learning experience congruent with the context and

intended educational purpose.” A module designed

to be blended may combine f2f classes, small and

large groups, self-directed learning, communication

between lecturer and students and between students

(Bath and Bourke, 2010). In general, it is possible to

blend time, place, resources and activities. For

example, a module may include f2f and video

lectures, online forums, small group tutorials on-

campus, online and f2f quizzes. Several works have

reported the positive effect of the use of blended

learning and ICT resources (e.g Dziuban et al., 2004;

Rovai and Jordan, 2004; Wang et al., 2008).

Teaching of computer science and, in particular, of

more theoretical areas could benefit from the

opportunities created by the use of blended learning.

We present the design of a theoretical computer

science module using blended learning. We detail

the approach which includes flipped classroom,

social learning and problem-based learning, and

show some illustrative artefacts. We intend to

evaluate our design to answer questions such as:

 How can blended learning help with

motivation and learning of theoretical

computer science subjects?

 Which methods, practices, tools and

resources can be used in a blended module

in theoretical computer science?

 Which is the role of social learning in the

learning of theoretical computer science?

 Which kinds of open educational resources

(OERs) can be used to improve motivation

and understanding of hard topics?

 What is the impact of using flipped

classroom vs. strictly f2f classes?

The paper is organised as follows: section 2

introduces the design approach used; section 3

introduces the proposed module in the context of the

computing curriculum at the UFS; section 4 reviews

related work, and section 5 presents the discussion

and directions for further research.

2 METHODS

We combine the approaches of Bath and Bourke

(2010) and Conole (2010). The former gives us the

process, within which the conceptual views

proposed by the later are elaborated in an interactive

and incremental way. The process comprises five

phases: planning, design, development,

implementation, review and improvement.

In the planning phase we define: aims and

learning objectives of the module, structure and

timetable, materials and resources, teaching and

learning activities (including communication and

collaboration between students and lecturer and

between students), teaching strategies (for example,

which part of the course should be online or f2f),

assessment, and student feedback.

In the design and development phases we detail

how learning objectives, teaching and learning

activities, and assessment are integrated to enable

the lecturer to judge constructive alignment (Biggs

and Tang, 2011). This means that we evaluate

whether resources and learning and teaching

activities support students achievement of the stated

learning objectives. We also judge if assessment is

consistent with the activities and objectives. We

decide on the resources to be used and on the

workload. We detail, for each learning objective,

which activities take place f2f and online and decide

on the balance of the types of activities undertaken

by students. We use Conole’s (2010) pedagogy

profile that defines the following types: assimilative

(attending and understanding contents), information

handling (gathering and classifying resources or

manipulating data), adaptive (using of modelling or

simulation software), communicative (dialogic

activities, such as group based discussions),

productive (construct an artefact) and experiential

(practising skills in a particular context or

undertaking an investigation).

For the implementation phase, when the module

is taught, we prepare a welcome orientation for

students explaining the blended approach used.

In the review and improvement phase we collect

and analyse feedback on different aspects of the

module (e.g. content, activities, assessments, etc).

This feedback provides an opportunity to review

different aspects of the module and to reflect on

improvements for future instantiations.

3 PROPOSED MODULE

3.1 Background

Design and Analysis of Algorithm is a second year

module of the BSc in Computer Science at UFS.

Until now the module has been offered strictly f2f,

with 50 hours of lectures and 10 hours of

assessment. It is expected that students engage in at

least six hours of extra-class reading and exercises

per week. Assessment comprises four tests and two

exams. The lecturer is assisted by at most two more

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

320

senior students, here called assistants, who have

passed this module with good grades. The size of the

classes ranges from 30 to 55 students each semester.

The success rate is around 50% or less. In general, in

a 0 to 10 scale, only up to 10% of the students who

pass the module have grades above 8; the majority

of grades range between 5.5 and 6.5. This scenario is

not common in other advanced modules, and even in

comparison with first years modules the success rate

is low.

Feedback questionnaires applied in some classes

reveal that most student complains are about the

difficulty of the subject, the need for more problem

solving classes, and for better integration between

the theoretical content and real world problems.

Students recognise that this module, unlike others,

requires continuous dedication to study and that it is

not possible to pass a theoretical module only

studying for the tests.

3.2 Module Design

In what follows we give an overview of the module

design, according to the approach described in

section 2.

3.2.1 The Planning Phase

An overview of the module is expressed by the

Module Map View (Conole, 2010). This artefact

enables lecturers to think about, and share, the

design of the module considering the following meta

aspects: Guidance & Support, Contents & Activities,

Reflexion & Demonstration and Communication &

Collaboration. Guidance & Support include some

elements such as module structure, timetable and

human resources. Contents & Activities include the

topics and activities of the module and the materials

used. Reflexion & Demonstration define how

internalization and reflection is carried out.

Communication & Collaboration list the techniques

and resources that support the interaction between

students and lecturer or between students. In

addition, a module summary and key words

indicating the pedagogical approach are provided at

the beginning of artefact. The Module Map View

has a worksheet format, but due to space restrictions,

here we present its content in a textual form.

Module Summary: 2

year course; 4 credits over 15

weeks; 5 blocks covered by 12 theoretical f2f

lectures, 11 theoretical on-line lectures, 10 problem

solving classes, 1 project guideline class, 4

assessment classes, 2 project presentation classes, 1

consolidation and feedback class.

Key Words: Blended Learning; Flipped Classroom.

Guidance & Support: module guide; study calendar;

study planner; VLE, Google, Google docs, social

learning tools, programming environments and

tools; one lecturer and two assistants.

Contents & Activities: Blocks - (1) Introduction to

Complexity Theory, (2) Searching and Sorting, (3)

String Processing, (4) Geometric Algorithms, (5)

Problems solved by Dynamic Programming and

Backtracking techniques; Activities - assimilative

(f2f and online lectures); communicative (problems

to discuss and solve in pairs or in group); productive

(problems to implement in group, presentation of

solutions); experiential (analyse and solve a real

problem applying studied algorithms); Resources -

books; lecture notes; lecture videos available in

VEDUCA (www.veduca.com.br); educational

resources from the Web; problems in programming

environments; learner-generated presentations.

Reflexion & Demonstration: Assessment -

assimilative (quizzes and tests), communicative and

productive (problems and project), experiential

(project); self-evaluation questions; feedback

questionnaire.

Communication & Collaboration: problem solving

in pairs; group discussion and implementation of

problems; group project; individual or tutor groups

led by lecturer and assistants; email and news trough

the VLE; chats between students and assistants

through social learning tools; online materials and

notes; f2f classes.

3.2.2 The Design and Development Phases

In this phase we use artefacts that relate the learning

objectives to the activities in the module. Here we

show some of these artefacts: the module flow gives

an overview of the sequence of the activities within

the module; the blended learning design worksheet,

adapted from (Bath and Bourke, 2010), shows the

learning objectives, how they are assessed, and the

teaching and learning activities and resources to

achieve those objectives; and the pedagogy profile

(Conole, 2010) shows the distribution and weight of

the different types of activities.

Module Flow

The module includes f2f and online lectures. F2f

lectures have two hours of duration and can either

consist of the explanation of a topic or be a problem

solving class. Online lectures explain a topic through

slides, commented with audio recordings. Each

problem solving class relies on the contents of

TowardsaBlendedLearningApproachtoTeachaTheoreticalComputerScienceModule

321

online lectures, implementing the flipped classroom

model, in such a way that the theory learned extra-

class is applied and discussed in f2f-classes.

The slides for each lecture (f2f and online) are

delivered to students in the VLE. These slides are

elaborated by the lecturer and may integrate OERs.

They may include also a list of recommended

exercises, chapter readings and selected articles.

Some videos available in VEDUCA may be

recommended. VEDUCA is a repository of video

lectures from well recognised universities translated

to Portuguese.

A variety of assessments is considered. To

stimulate continuous learning, quizzes are applied. A

quiz consists of short questions to test understanding

of the main concepts taught in the previous lecture.

To improve the link between theory and practice, a

supervised group project has been introduced. It

consists of finding and solving a real problem using

some of the algorithms learned in the module. Four

tests are applied; they test problem solving skills

using the techniques learned in the module.

The module is divided in five blocks. The first

provides the basis for the other blocks and requires

more mathematical background. Experience shows

that students need more interaction and support to

understand the topics of this block and to be

motivated for engaging in the module’s activities.

Therefore, the block is taught in f2f classes. Some

classes include quizzes, and a test is applied at the

end of the block. Guidelines about the project are

given to students at the end of the first block.

Blocks 2 to 5 are taught with lectures and

problem solving classes. As problem solving classes

require the knowledge of online lectures, students

are required to study the topics covered in online

lectures before attending problem solving classes.

These are designed in pairs, in such a way that the

solutions achieved in one class of a pair will be

discussed in the next class. In a problem solving

class the lecturer starts by clarifying any doubts

from the corresponding online lecture. After that, the

students answer a quiz, individually. Then, the

students are divided in groups of 4 and a different

problem is assigned to each group. Each group is

subdivided in pairs to work on a solution. Finally,

the whole group discusses the best solution in the

group. In this process, students are assisted by the

lecturer and assistants. The group is asked to

implement the solution outside the class and to

prepare a short presentation, using slides, to discuss

it in the next class, with all students and lecturer.

Students are also advised to solve the other groups’

problems before the next class, to take an active part

in the discussion of the different solutions. All

solutions will be available through the VLE after the

second class, for further discussion using social

learning tools. A test is applied at the end of blocks

2, 3 and 5. Students are required to develop their

project before the end of block 5. They have extra-

class support given by the lecturer and assistants for

the project. The project is presented after block 5.

Blended Learning Design Worksheet

Here we illustrate the content of the worksheet by

taking as example block 2, which is taught in a

flipped classroom approach and is a good

representative of the module design.

Example

Learning Objective: understanding and applying the

main sorting algorithms.

Ways of Assessing the Objective: f2f quizzes, pair

and group exercises in f2f classes and extra-class

activities, test. The purpose of the quizzes is to

check the understanding of the main concepts of the

sorting algorithms, whereas the ability of applying

these algorithms in diverse situations is verified in

exercises and block test.

Teaching Activities: a f2f class about a robust

sorting algorithm; online lectures about other sorting

algorithms; opportunities to discuss the main

difficulties from the online lectures in f2f classes;

problem solving f2f class about sorting algorithms;

recommended readings; a list of exercises for home

work; feedback on assessment and students’ work;

suggestions for online lectures on the subject from

platforms such as VEDUCA; preparation of the

assistants for the evaluation of students’ work.

Assistants play also a teaching role helping with:

tutoring students in chat rooms and f2f; preparing a

practical f2f class on the use of programming

environments; selecting problems to explore in

problem solving classes; helping the lecturer in

problem solving classes, and with marking.

Learning Activities: study the main sorting

algorithms, propose solutions for recommended

exercises, complete assessments, work in pairs and

in a group of 4 to solve and implement problems,

prepare a short presentation of solutions achieved,

discuss solutions of problems, watch videos about

the subject from other universities, access assistants,

lecturer and other students to clarify doubts.

Helpful Resources: books and OERs, programming

environments, VLE and social learning tools.

The Pedagogy Profile

The pedagogy profile (Figure 1) gives an overview

of the distribution of learning activities: assimilative,

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

322

information handling, adaptive, communicative,

productive and experiential. The balance between

productive and assimilative activities, shows the

integration between practical and theoretical

activities, one goal of the module conception.

Figure 1: The Pedagogy Profile.

3.2.3 The Implementation and Review and

Improvement Phases

The blended module proposed is under development

and will be implemented in the first semester of

2016. The authors are currently preparing the

module materials.

An experiment will be conducted to validate the

approach. The same content and similar assessment

will be applied in two classes, one following a

blended approach and the other a traditional

approach. We want to identify whether students

benefit from the innovations introduced. The

dropout rate and students’ grades, in each block and

in the whole module, will be compared.

A feedback questionnaire will be applied at the

end of each block and of the module, to measure

students’ satisfaction concerning various aspects of

the module. For example, we intend to analyse the

students perception of workload for each activity in

the pedagogy profile and the consistency between

assessment and learning objectives. We intend to use

feedback from the questionnaires to support future

iterations of the module.

4 RELATED WORK

Blended learning needs to be strategically planned to

be adopted in the whole curriculum or in a specific

module (Mortera-Gutiérrez, 2006; Oblinger, 2006).

However, there is no well-established procedure to

design a blended learning program (Oliver and

Trigwell, 2005) and different researchers have

suggested different approaches based on five

blending dimensions: online and offline learning,

self-paced and collaborative learning, structured and

unstructured learning, custom and off-the-shelf

content and prior and on demand support (Singh,

2003; Garisson and Vaughan, 2008; Dziuban et al.,

2004; Larson and Murray, 2008).

Blended learning is being used successfully in

several areas of higher education (see for example,

Dziuban et al., 2004; Rovai and Jordan, 2004;,

Holley and Dobson, 2008), as well as in training

programs (Moe and Rye, 2011). In Computer

Science, blended modules have been recently

experimented with. For example, Alonso et al.

(2011) report an experience of a blended module of

Program Development Models, in which the

approval rate is significantly higher than in the

strictly f2f module. Similar results have been

achieved by Deperliogli and Kose (2013), in the

context of Data Structures. Marin and Pascual Nieto

(2012) introduced a free-text score system to

encourage students to study core concepts of an

Operating System module after classes. Gannod et

al. (2008) adopted the flipped classroom approach in

the design of a Software Engineering module. Day

and Foley (2006) combined successfully video

lectures with f2f exercise classes in a module of

Human Computer Interaction. Nevertheless, we are

not aware of any blended learning approach to teach

Design and Analysis of Algorithms as proposed

here.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we propose the introduction of a

blended approach to the teaching of the module

Design and Analysis of Algorithms. In the design of

the module, we introduce some innovations in

pedagogy such as flipped classroom, social learning

and problem-based learning. OERs, such as video

lectures, are used to widen the learning

opportunities.

New materials are being identified/adapted/

prepared to help with more difficult topics. The

engagement of students in activities is stimulated by

the introduction of quizzes and problem solving

classes. The introduction of a supervised project is

intended to diminish the gap between theory and

practice. The problem solving classes and the

supervised project are intended to improve students’

collaboration and communication skills.

The proposed module is still under construction

and will be implemented in the first semester of

2016 at the UFS. We expect that the change in the

TowardsaBlendedLearningApproachtoTeachaTheoreticalComputerScienceModule

323

module’s dynamics, mixing online and f2f lectures,

introducing new forms of assessment and

opportunities for social learning will improve the

dropout rate and grades.

The immediate future work is to conduct an

experiment in order to compare the traditional and

the blended approaches in the learning of the same

module. As theoretical computer science is a

challenging subject, this case study should be

regarded as a proof of concept for the applicability

of blended learning. We also hope to contribute to

the introduction of pedagogic innovations in the

Computer Science curriculum.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was partially supported by the National

Institute of Science and Technology for Software

Engineering (INES), funded by CNPq, grant

573964/2008-4.

REFERENCES

Alonso, F., Manrique, D., Martinez, L., Vines, J M., 2011.

How Blended Learning Reduces Underachievement in

Higher Education: An Experience in Teaching

Computer Science. In IEEE Transactions on

Education, 54(3): 471-478.

Bath,D., Bourke, J., 2010. Getting Started with Blended

Learning. Griffith Institute for Higher Education.

Technical Report.

Biggs, J., Tang, C., 2011. Teaching for quality learning at

university (Society for Research in Higher Education),

The Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 4

Edition.

Brown, J. S., Adler, R. P., 2008. Minds on Fire: Open

Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. In

Educause Review, 43(1):16-32. Educause.

Chakraborty, P., Saxena, P.C., Katti, C.P., 2011, Fifty

Years of Automata Simulation. In ACM Inroads,

2(4):59-70.

Conole, G., 2010. Learning design- making practice

explicit. In ConnectEd Design Conference, 1-31.

Day, J. A., Foley, J. D., 2006. Evaluating a Web Lecture

Intervention in a Human Computer Interaction Course.

In IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(4): 420-431.

Deperliogli, O., Kose, U., 2013. The Efectiveness and

Experiences of Blended Learning Approaches to

Computer Programming Education, In Computer

Applications in Eng. Education, 21(2): 328-342.

Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., Moskal, P. D., 2004.

Blended Learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied

Research Bulletin.

Enström, E., Kann, V., 2010. Computer Lab Work on

Theory. In Proc. ITiCSE, 26-30.

Enström, E., 2014. On Difficult Topics in Theoretical

Computer Science Education, Doctoral Thesis, KTH

School of Computer Science and Communication,

Stockholm.

Gannod, G. C., Burge J. E., Helmick, M. T., 2008. Using

Inverted Classroom to Teach Software Engineering. In

Proc. of ICSE Conf., 777-786.

Garrison, D. R., Vaughan, N. D., 2008. Blended Learning

in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and

Guidelines. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 1

edition.

Hämäiläinen, W., 2004. Problem-based Learning of

Theoretical Computer Science. In 34

ASEE/IEEE

Frontiers in Education Conference, 20-23.

Holley, D., Dobson, C., 2008. Encouraging students

engagement in a blended learning environment: The

use of contemporary learning spaces. In Learning

Media and Technology, 33(2): 139-150.

Larson, R., Murray, M., 2008. Open educational resources

for blended learning in high schools: overcoming

impediments in developing countries, J Asynchronous

Learn Netw, 12(1): 1-19.

Marin, D. P., Pascual Nieto, I., 2012. A Case Study on the

Use of Blended Learning to Encourage Computer

Science Students to Study. In Journal Sci. Educ.

Technol., 21: 74-82.

Moe, C. E., Rye, S. A., 2011. Blended Learning:

communications, location and work-life practices.

Educational Media International, 48(3):165-178.

Mortera-Gutiérrez, F., 2006. Faculty best practices using

blended learning in e-learning and face-to-face

instruction. International Journal on Elearning,

ProQuest Education Journals, 5(3): 313-337.

Oblinger, D. G., 2006. Space as a change agent. In D. G.

Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 1.3). Educause e-

book.

Oliver, M., Trigwell, K., 2005. Can ‘blended learning’ be

redeemed? E-learning, 2 (1): 17-26.

Robins, G., 1988. Teaching Theoretical Computer Science

at the Undergraduate Level: Experiences,

Observations and Proposals to Improve the Status

Quo, Technical Report, UCLA CSD, vol. 880063.

Rovai, A. P., Jordan, H. M., 2004. Blended Learning and

Sense of Community: a Comparative Analysis with

Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses. In Int

Rev of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5(2).

Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R.,

Fitzgerald, E., Hirst, T., Gaved, M., Smith, J., 2013. In

Innovating Pedagogy. The Open University

Innovation Report 2.

Singh, H., 2003. Building effective blended learning

programs. Educ Technol Mag, 43(6):51-54.

Wang, F. L., Fong, J., Choy, M., Wong, T., 2008. Blended

Teaching and Learning of Computer Programming. In

Int. Conf. on Web-based Learning, LNCS 4823, 606-

617, Springer.

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

324