Susan Reardon
Abstract
This article describes how smartphones, studio-based learning, and extensive scaffolding were used in combination in the teaching of a freshman Introduction to Programming course. To reduce cognitive overload, a phased approach was followed in introducing programming concepts and development environments, beginning with the visual programming environment Scratch and culminating with Java development for Android smartphones. Studio-based learning, a pedagogical approach long established in the fields of architecture and design education, was used as the basis for a collaborative social constructivist—and constructionist—approach to learning. Smartphones offered students the potential to develop applications for a context that is both immediate and clearly relevant to the ways in which they utilize and interact with technology.
The research was carried out over three full academic years and included 53 student participants. An exploratory case study methodology was used to investigate the efficacy of the approach in helping to overcome the barriers faced by novice programmers. The findings indicate that the approach has merit. The students were motivated and engaged by the learning experience and were able to develop sophisticated applications that incorporated images, sound, arrays, and event handling. There is evidence that aspects of the studio-based learning approach, such as the scope that it gave students to innovate and the open feedback during student presentations, provided a learning environment that was motivating. Overall, the combination of smartphones, studio-based learning, and appropriate scaffolding offers an effective way to teach introductory programming courses.
- C. Alvarez, C. Brown, and M. Nussbaum. 2011. Comparative study of netbooks and tablet PCs for fostering face-to-face collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 2, 834--844. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- M. Barak, J. Harward, and S. Lerman. 2007. Studio-based learning via wireless notebooks: A case of a Java programming course. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 1, 1, 15--29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Bruner. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- J. A. Centra, G. R. E. Board, and N. Princeton. 1977. How Universities Evaluate Faculty Performance: A Survey of Department Heads. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- J. A. Centra and N. B. Gaubatz. 2005. Student Perceptions of Learning and Instructional Effectiveness in College Courses. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- G. Clinton and L. Rieber. 2010. The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development 58, 755--780.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. A. Cohen. 1981. Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research 51, 3, 281--309.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Creswell. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
- J. Creswell. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Sage.Google Scholar
- J. Creswell. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Pearson.Google Scholar
- M. Docherty, P. Sutton, M. Brereton, and S. Kaplan. 2001. An innovative design and studio-based CS degree. In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 233--237. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. A. Feldman. 1989. The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies. Research in Higher Education 30, 6, 583--645.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Forte and M. Guzdial. 2004. Computers for communication, not calculation: Media as a motivation and context for learning. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Forte and M. Guzdial. 2005. Motivation and nonmajors in computer science: Identifying discrete audiences for introductory courses. IEEE Transactions on Education 48, 248--253. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. W. Frey. 1978. A two-dimensional analysis of student ratings of instruction. Research in Higher Education 9, 1, 69--91.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Hendrix, L. Myneni, H. Narayanan, and M. Ross. 2010. Implementing studio-based learning in CS2. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 505--509. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Hmelo-Silver. 2004. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review 16, 3, 235--266.Google Scholar
- C. Hundhausen, A. Agrawal, and P. Agarwal. 2013. Talking about code: Integrating pedagogical code reviews into early computing courses. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 3, 14. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Hundhausen, A. Agrawal, D. Fairbrother, and M. Trevisan. 2009. Integrating pedagogical code reviews into a CS 1 course: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 291--295. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Hundhausen, A. Agrawal, D. Fairbrother, and M. Trevisan. 2010. Does studio-based instruction work in CS 1? An empirical comparison with a traditional approach. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 291--295. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Hundhausen, N. Narayanan, and M. Crosby. 2008. Exploring studio-based instructional models for computing education. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 392--396. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. C. Jiau, J. C. Chen, and K.-F. Ssu. 2009. Enhancing self-motivation in learning programming using game-based simulation and metrics. IEEE Transactions on Education 52, 555--562. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Kelleher and R. Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys 37, 2, 83--137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Kelleher and R. Pausch. 2007. Using storytelling to motivate programming. Communications of the ACM 50, 7, 64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Kurkovsky. 2009a. Can mobile game development foster student interest in computer science? In Proceedings of the 2009 International IEEE Consumer Electronics Society's Games Innovations Conference (ICE-GIC’09). 92--100.Google Scholar
- S. Kurkovsky. 2009b. Engaging students through mobile game development. SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 1, 44--48. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Q. Mahmoud. 2008. Integrating mobile devices into the computer science curriculum. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE’08).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Q. Mahmoud, T. Ngo, R. Niazi, P. Popowicz, R. Sydoryshyn, M. Wilks, and D. Dietz. 2009. An academic kit for integrating mobile devices into the CS curriculum. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 40--44. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. J. Malan and H. H. Leitner. 2007. Scratch for budding computer scientists. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 223--227. Google ScholarDigital Library
- H. W. Marsh. 1987. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research 11, 3, 253--388.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Moreno and R. Mayer. 2007. Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review 19, 3, 309--326.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Myneni, M. Ross, D. Hendrix, and N. Narayanan. 2008. Studio-based learning in CS2: An experience report. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Southeast Regional Conference (ACM-SE’08). ACM, New York, NY, 253--255. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. J. O’Grady. 2012. Practical problem-based learning in computing education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 12, 3, 10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Papert and I. Harel (Eds.). 1991. Situating constructionism. In Constructionism. Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1--11.Google Scholar
- M. Q. Patton. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage.Google Scholar
- H. Pereira, G. Zebende, and M. Moret. 2010. Learning computer programming: Implementing a fractal in a Turing machine. Computers and Education 55, 2, 767--776. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Prince and R. Felder. 2007. The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching 36, 5, 14.Google Scholar
- M. Resnick, J. Maloney, A. Monroy-Hernández, N. Rusk, E. Eastmond, K. Brennan, A. Millner, E. Rosenbaum, J. Silver, B. Silverman, and Y. Kafai. 2009. Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM 52, 11, 60--67. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education 13, 2, 137--172.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Ryoo, F. Fonseca, and D. Janzen. 2008. Teaching object-oriented software engineering through problem-based learning in the context of game design. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET’08). 137--144. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Spertus, M. L. Chang, P. Gestwicki, and D. Wolber. 2010. Novel approaches to CS 0 with app inventor for Android. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 325--326. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Sweller, J. J. Van Merrienboer, and F. G. Paas. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10, 3, 251--296.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. J. Van Merrienboer and J. Sweller. 2005. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review 17, 2, 147--177.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Vygotski. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- L. E. Winslow. 1996. Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. SIGCSE Bulletin 28, 3, 17--22. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Yin. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Smartphones, Studio-Based Learning, and Scaffolding: Helping Novices Learn to Program
Recommendations
Developing a problem-based learning simulation: An economics unit on trade
This article argues that the merger of simulations and problem-based learning (PBL) can enhance both active-learning strategies. Simulations benefit by using a PBL framework to promote student-directed learning and problem-solving skills to explain a ...
Scaffolding individual and collaborative game-based learning in learning performance and intrinsic motivation
Although the proponents of game-based learning argue that educational games engage students and afford better learning outcomes, the impact of educational games on motivation and learning performance is still unclear. Research suggested that the ...
Scaffolding game-based learning
One of the central challenges of integrating game-based learning in school settings is helping learners make the connections between the knowledge learned in the game and the knowledge learned at school, while maintaining a high level of engagement with ...
Comments