{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02650602409638554, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004016064257028112, 'mean_word_length': 4.822429906542056, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Peer instruction contributes to self-efficacy in CS1

Recent work in computing suggests that Peer Instruction (PI) is a valuable interactive learning pedagogy: it lowers fail rates, increases retention, and is enjoyed by students and instructors alike. While these findings are promising, they are somewhat incidental if our goal is to understand whether PI is "better" than lecture in terms of student outcomes. Only one recent study in computing has made such a comparison, finding that PI students outperform traditionally-taught students on a CS0 final exam. That work was conducted in a CS0, where the same instructor taught both courses, and where the only outcome measure was final exam grade. Here, I offer a study that complements their work in two ways. First, I argue for and measure self-efficacy as a valued outcome, in addition to that of final exam grade. Second, I offer an inter-instructor CS1 study, whose biases differ from those of intra-instructor studies. I find evidence that PI significantly increases self-efficacy and suggestively increases exam scores compared to a traditional lecture-based CS1 class. I note validity concerns of such an in-situ study and offer a synthesis of this work with the extant PI literature.