Abstract
The traditional introduction to computer programming course delivers lectures that meticulously describe language components and the way they work combined with homework and laboratory drills. The challenge of teaching introductory programming courses is: the students do not know enough to work on interesting and challenging projects. As a result, they are assigned small structured (toy) problems that do not engage their curiosity and allow them to try on their own. This results in little motivation and poor learning. Large numbers of students fail, drop, or complete courses without learning to program. In contrast, this introductory class enables students to learn programming languages by designing and implementing a computer game. Two obstacles must be overcome to make this work. The first is the students’ anxiety when faced with a complex task they cannot do. The second issue is the menial and tedious practices they must undergo to master the tools required by the task. Imbedding structured problems within the requirements of a complex unstructured project helps resolve these issues. We describe this version of PBL using the pedagogical metaphor of the popular movie, the Karate Kid.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1987). Paradox of the active user. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Interfacing thought: Cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction (pp. 80–111). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Evensen, D. H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2000). Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Fischer, K. W., & Rose, L. T. (2001). Webs of skills: How students learn. Educational Leadership, 59(3), 6–12.
Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. The Teachers College Record, 19(4), 319–335.
Nater, S., Gallimore, R., Walton, B., & Sinegal, J. (2005). You haven’t taught until they have learned: John Wooden’s teaching principles and practices. Fitness Information Technology.
Ornish, D., Brown, S. E., Scherwitz, L. W., Billings, J. H., Ports, T. A., McLanahan, S. M., et al. (1990). Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The lifestyle heart trial. Lancet, 336(8708), 129–133.
Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Lynagh, M. C. (2005). Problem-based learning: a dissemination success story? Medical Journal of Australia, 183(5), 258.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning (Spring), 1(1), 9–20.
Schmidt, H. G., & Moust, J. H. C. (1995). What makes a tutor effective? A structural equations modeling approach to learning in problem-based curricula. Academic Medicine, 70(8), 708–714.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Translation newly rev. and edited ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fonseca, F., Spence, L. (2014). The Karate Kid Method of Problem Based Learning. In: Carroll, J. (eds) Innovative Practices in Teaching Information Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03656-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03656-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-03655-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-03656-4
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)