Active Learning and Active-Learning-Based Teaching Model - Guide to Teaching Computer Science: An Activity-Based Approach - page 21

In the first stage (Trigger), the instructor constructs and presents the trigger. As
mentioned earlier, a trigger must be designed very carefully as it constitutes the
basis for the entire model.
In the second stage (Activity), the instructor circulates between the different
groups working on the trigger, listens to their opinions, is sensitive to what they say,
and encourages them to deepen their thinking. When needed, the instructor guides
the students in their discussion. Though the guidance should encourage alternative
thinking approaches, the instructor is advised not to dictate any position.
In the third stage (Discussion), the instructor must act as a good listener and
be sensitive to crucial points suggested by the students. Specifically, the instructor
should encourage the students to explain why and how they developed their sug-
gestions, suggest exploring different options, foster reflection processes, all without
passing judgment on the students' opinions. Since well-designed triggers lead to
rich discussions and debates, instructors may, at this stage, find themselves navi-
gating through various disagreements. When needed, the instructor highlights the
important facets of each opinion and presents possible connections between differ-
ent ideas.
In the fourth stage (Summary), the instructor sums up the ideas presented dur-
ing the previous stages. This summary is organized logically so as to highlight the
main messages that were raised and discussed during the lesson. When needed,
the instructor adds ideas and clarifications that were not suggested by the students
themselves.
As mentioned before, the active-learning-based teaching model is used through-
out this Guide in many opportunities to support the construction process of the
prospective computer science teachers' professional conception as computer sci-
ence teachers.
References
Anderson R, Anderson R, Davis KM et al (2007) Supporting active learning and example based
instruction with classroom technology. SIGCSE'07, Covington, Kentucky, USA, pp 69-73
Ben Ari M (2001) Constructivism in computer science education. J Comput Math Sci Teach
20(1):45-73
Brooks MG, Brooks J (1999) The courage to be constructivist. Educ Leadersh 57(3):18-24
Confrey J (1995) A theory of intellectual development. Learn Math 15(2):36-45
Davis RB, Maher CA, Noddings N (eds) (1990) Constructivist views on the teaching and learn-
ing of mathematics. J Res in Math Educ. Monograph 4, Reston, VA: The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, Inc
Gehringer EF, Miller CS (2009) Student-generated active-learning exercises. SIGCSE'09, 3-7
March 2009, Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA, pp 81-85
Hazzan O, Lapidot T (2004) Construction of a professional perception in the “Methods of Teach-
ing Computer Science” course. Inroads—SIGCSE Bull 36(2):57-61
Kilpatrick J (1987) What constructivism might be in mathematics education. In: Bergeron JC, Her-
scovics N, Kieran C (eds) Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for the Psychology
of Mathematics Education (PME11), vol I, pp 3-27
Ludi S (2005) Active-learning activities that introduce students to software engineering fundamen-
tals. ITiCSE'05, Monte de Caparica, Portugal, pp 128-132