Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3059009.3059046acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning Dimensions: Lessons from Field Studies

Published: 28 June 2017 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper, we describe work to investigate the creation of engaging programming learning experiences. Background research informed the design of four fieldwork studies involving a range of age groups to explore how programming tasks could best be framed to motivate learners. Our empirical findings from these four studies, described here, contributed to the design of a set of programming "Learning Dimensions" (LDs). The LDs provide educators with insights to support key design decisions for the creation of engaging programming learning experiences. This paper describes the background to the identification of these LDs and how they could address the design and delivery of highly engaging programming learning tasks. A web application has been authored to support educators in the application of the LDs to their lesson design.

References

[1]
Arduino {Online}. Available: http://www.arduino.cc {Accessed 2014}
[2]
Bagley, C.A. and Chou, C.C., 2007, June. Collaboration and the importance for novices in learning java computer programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39 (3), pp. 211--215).
[3]
Bare Conductive, 2014. Creative electronic tools -- Bare Conductive {Online}. Available: http://www.bareconductive.com {Accessed 2014}.
[4]
Beck, L.L., Chizhik, A.W. and McElroy, A.C., 2005, February. Cooperative learning techniques in CS1: design and experimental evaluation. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(1), pp. 470--474.
[5]
Brennan, K., Monroy-Hernández, A. and Resnick, M. 2010. Making projects, making friends: Online community as catalyst for interactive media creation. New directions for youth development, 2010(128), pp.75--83.
[6]
Cateté, V., Snider, E. and Barnes, T. 2016. Developing a Rubric for a Creative CS Principles Lab. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 290--295.
[7]
Cordova, D. I. and Lepper, M. R. 1996. Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), pp.715--730.
[8]
Good, J. and Robertson, J. 2006. CARSS: A framework for learner-centred design with children. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(4), pp.381--413.
[9]
Green, T.R.G. and Petre, M., 1996. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a "cognitive dimensions" framework. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 7(2), pp.131--174.
[10]
Hamer, J., Cutts, Q., Jackova, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., McCartney, R., Purchase, H., Riedesel, C., Saeli, M., Sanders, K. and Sheard, J. 2008. Contributing learner pedagogy. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(4), pp.194--212.
[11]
Lasserre, P. and Szostak, C., 2011. Effects of team-based learning on a CS1 course. ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 133--137.
[12]
Lego. 2010. LEGO Mindstorms {Online}. Available: http://mindstorms.lego.com/en-us/default.aspx {Accessed 2010}.
[13]
Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B. and Eastmond, E. 2010. The Scratch Programming Language and Environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), p.16.
[14]
Martin, C. 2017, PhD Thesis, University of Dundee.
[15]
Martin, C. and Hughes, J., 2011. Robot dance: Edutainment or engaging learning. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group Conference.
[16]
Nesta. 2014. Nesta {Online}. Available: http://www.nesta.org.uk {Accessed 2014}.
[17]
Nifty Assignments {Online}. Available: http://nifty.stanford.edu/ {Accessed 2016}
[18]
Oblinger, D. 2006. Learning spaces, EDUCAUSE Washington, DC
[19]
Pane, J.F. and Myers, B. A., 1996. Usability Issues in the Design of Novice Programming Systems. Human-Computer Interaction Institute Technical Report Carnegie Mellon University-HCII-96-101.
[20]
Perkins, D.N. and Martin, F. 1989. Fragile knowledge and neglected strategies in novice programmers. In first workshop on empirical studies of programmers on Empirical studies of programmers (pp. 213--229).
[21]
Petre, M. and Price, B. 2004. Using robotics to motivate "back door" learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), pp.147--158.
[22]
Petta, P., Pelachaud, C. and Cowie, R. 2011. Emotion-Oriented Systems. The Humaine Handbook, ISBN, pp.978--3.
[23]
Robins, A., Rountree, J. and Rountree, N. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), pp.137--172.
[24]
Sharp, H., Robinson, H. and Petre, M. 2009. The role of physical artefacts in agile software development: Two complementary perspectives. Interactive. Computing, 21, 108--116.
[25]
Soloway, E. and Spohrer, J.C 1989. Studying the Novice Programmer, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, L. Erlbaum Associates
[26]
http://sspog1.github.io/ LD web page {Online}.
[27]
Topping, K., 1998. Peer assessment between learners in colleges and universities. Review of educational Research, 68(3), pp.249--276.

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Designing Engaging Learning Experiences in ProgrammingComputers Supported Education10.1007/978-3-319-94640-5_12(221-245)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2018

Index Terms

  1. Learning Dimensions: Lessons from Field Studies

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ITiCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
    June 2017
    412 pages
    ISBN:9781450347044
    DOI:10.1145/3059009
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 28 June 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. learning dimensions
    2. motivation
    3. programming

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    ITiCSE '17
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    ITiCSE '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 56 of 175 submissions, 32%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

    Upcoming Conference

    ITiCSE '25
    Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
    June 27 - July 2, 2025
    Nijmegen , Netherlands

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
    Reflects downloads up to 31 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2018)Designing Engaging Learning Experiences in ProgrammingComputers Supported Education10.1007/978-3-319-94640-5_12(221-245)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2018

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media