Strategy

I created “mini-lab” projects connected to each server development unit that students could work on both during and outside of class. Each mini-lab included clear instructions, examples, and step-by-step guidance so students could move through the material more independently and revisit concepts as needed.

Instead of spending most class time on lectures or synchronous coding demonstrations, I shifted class time toward introducing projects, discussing progress, and responding to challenges students encountered while working. This created more opportunities for students to engage directly with the material, learn from each other’s questions, and contribute to the learning process as a class.

Publishing the mini-labs online also helped students who missed class stay connected to the course and continue participating in the learning process.

Documentation

Data from Marking Period 1 and Marking Period 2

Grade comparisons between marking periods show increased student participation, assignment completion, and confidence. One student improved from a 55 to an 85 after engaging more consistently during structured in-class work and collaborative project time. During the first semester, the student struggled to submit homework and notes on time, but the “learning by doing” approach allowed them to begin work in class and continue it independently at home. Over time, the student began asking more questions, troubleshooting problems independently, and occasionally teaching concepts to peers during project work.

Student Participation and Question Frequency During Lab-Based Instruction

This artifact tracks student participation and question-asking during selected class sessions. The data suggests that lab-based activities create more opportunities for engagement than traditional live-coding instruction because students encounter multiple entry points for participation and problem-solving. As students interpret instructions and troubleshoot independently, more natural questions emerge during class. The artifact also demonstrates how lab structures create additional opportunities for formative assessment and targeted mini-lessons that address gaps in student understanding.

Analysis

My strategy was effective in increasing student engagement and participation in the classroom. Students reported feeling more connected to the lessons because their participation directly shaped class discussions and activities. By connecting participation to formative assessments, I was able to continuously revise lesson materials and improve the experiential learning documents used during labs and projects.

Tracking participation patterns, such as students raising their hands, volunteering answers, and asking questions, helped me quickly identify which parts of the labs or instructional materials were confusing. This allowed me to pause instruction, provide mini-lessons, and clarify concepts in real time. Compared to traditional live-coding lessons, the lab-based structure created more entry points for participation and encouraged students to problem-solve collaboratively. As a result, students became more willing to troubleshoot independently, ask questions, and support peers during class activities.

One challenge I encountered was designing labs that clearly demonstrated the intended concepts. For example, in one lab students tested packet timing using HTTPS versus WebSockets, but the performance differences were too small to visualize effectively. As a result, students relied more on instructor explanation than on discovery through the activity itself. In the future, I would pilot and test labs beforehand to ensure that the expected outcomes are visible and aligned with the lesson goals. This would help reduce unnecessary cognitive load and strengthen the connection between experimentation, engagement, and conceptual understanding.