short-paper

Complex Online Material Development in CS Courses

Authors:

Lassi Haaranen,

Giacomo Mariani,

Peter Sormunen,

Teemu LehtinenAuthors Info & Claims

Koli Calling '20: Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

Article No.: 26, Pages 1 - 5

https://doi.org/10.1145/3428029.3428053

Published: 22 November 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Computer Science (CS) education has a tradition of using online materials to teach courses, whether as a part of a course or having fully online courses. Commonly, the materials to present the subject matter are not just static objects like text or images but also contain automatically assessed exercises and other interactive content. This makes the course systems inherently tied to teaching – limiting pedagogical approaches, types of exercises, and available functionality. Increasingly, CS courses utilize multiple systems to handle various learning and course management related activities. The use of multiple systems brings about traditional software engineering problems, such as development, integration, maintenance, and testing. We present two small studies (case study and interviews) to highlight the issues in developing and running modern online CS courses. Based on these two studies we argue that online courses should be developed with a stronger software engineering approach considering the development process and tools. In addition, we define the term Complex Online Learning Material (COLM) to foster discussion and further research into improving instructor practices in online education.

References

[1]

A+ LMS. 2020. A+ LMS The extendable learning management system. https://apluslms.github.io/Accessed: 2020-06-15.

[2]

Kamla Ali Al-Busaidi and Hafedh Al-Shihi. 2012. Key factors to instructors’ satisfaction of learning management systems in blended learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 24, 1 (2012), 18–39. Publisher: Springer.

[3]

Ibrahim Almarashdeh. 2016. Sharing instructors experience of learning management system: A technology perspective of user satisfaction in distance learning course. Computers in Human Behavior 63 (2016), 249–255. Publisher: Elsevier.

Digital Library

[4]

Peter Brusilovsky, Stephen Edwards, Amruth Kumar, Lauri Malmi, Luciana Benotti, Duane Buck, Petri Ihantola, Rikki Prince, Teemu Sirkiä, Sergey Sosnovsky, and others. 2014. Increasing adoption of smart learning content for computer science education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference. 31–57.

Digital Library

[5]

Isaac Chuang and Andrew Ho. 2016. HarvardX and MITx: Four years of open online courses–fall 2012-summer 2016. Available at SSRN 2889436(2016).

[6]

Hamish Coates, Richard James, and Gabrielle Baldwin. 2005. A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary education and management 11 (2005), 19–36.

[7]

IMS Global Learning Consortium. 2010. Learning Tools Interoperability. http://www.imsglobal.org/toolsinteroperability2.cfm. Accessed 2020-10-12.

[8]

Christian Dalsgaard. 2006. Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-learning 9, 2 (2006).

[9]

John Daniel. 2012. Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. Journal of interactive Media in education 2012, 3 (2012). Publisher: Ubiquity Press.

[10]

Aracele Garcia de Oliveira Fassbinder, Marcelo Fassbinder, Ellen Francine Barbosa, and George D Magoulas. 2017. Massive open online courses in software engineering education. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). IEEE, 1–9.

Digital Library

[11]

Ryann K Ellis. 2009. Field guide to learning management systems. ASTD learning circuits(2009), 1–8.

[12]

Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco, María Luisa Sein-Echaluce, and Francisco José García-Peñalvo. 2016. From massive access to cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 13, 1(2016), 24. Publisher: Springer.

[13]

Antonio Fini. 2009. The technological dimension of a massive open online course: The case of the CCK08 course tools. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 10, 5(2009).

[14]

Francisco J García-Peñalvo, Ángel Fidalgo-Blanco, and María Luisa Sein-Echaluce. 2018. An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: Disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telematics and Informatics 35, 4 (2018), 1018–1030.

[15]

Phil Hill. 2017. Academic LMS Market Share: A view across four global regions. https://eliterate.us/academic-lms-market-share-view-across-four-global-regionsAccessed: Feb 2020.

[16]

Ville Karavirta, Petri Ihantola, and Teemu Koskinen. 2013. Service-oriented approach to improve interoperability of e-learning systems. In 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE, 341–345.

Digital Library

[17]

Alexander McAuley, Bonnie Stewart, George Siemens, and Dave Cormier. 2010. The MOOC model for digital practice. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s “Knowledge Synthesis Grants on the Digital Economy(2010).

[18]

Tanya J McGill and Jane E Klobas. 2009. A task–technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education 52, 2 (2009), 496–508.

Digital Library

[19]

Rolin Moe. 2015. The brief & expansive history (and future) of the MOOC: Why two divergent models share the same name. Current issues in emerging elearning 2, 1 (2015), 2.

[20]

Martin Pärtel, Matti Luukkainen, Arto Vihavainen, and Thomas Vikberg. 2013. Test my code. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 2 5, 3-4(2013), 271–283.

[21]

Teemu Sirkiä and Lassi Haaranen. 2017. Improving online learning activity interoperability with acos server. Software: Practice and Experience 47, 11 (2017), 1657–1676.

[22]

Thomas Staubitz, Hauke Klement, Jan Renz, Ralf Teusner, and Christoph Meinel. 2015. Towards practical programming exercises and automated assessment in Massive Open Online Courses. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE). IEEE, 23–30.

[23]

The Finnish Institute of Technology (FITech). 2020. Studies. https://fitech.io/en/studies/ Accessed: 2020-10-12.

Cited By

Haaranen LAhrenberg LHellas A(2023)Decades of Striving for Pedagogical and Technological AlignmentProceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3631802.3631809(1-8)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631802.3631809
Lehtinen THaaranen LLeinonen J(2023)Automated Questionnaires About Students’ JavaScript Programs: Towards Gauging Novice Programming ProcessesProceedings of the 25th Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3576123.3576129(49-58)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3576123.3576129
Osorio-Saez EEryilmaz NSandoval-Hernandez A(2021)Parents’ Acceptance of Educational Technology: Lessons From Around the WorldFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2021.71943012Online publication date: 30-Aug-2021
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719430

Recommendations

Implementation and Outcomes of a Three-Pronged Approach to Professional Development for CS Principles
SIGCSE '16: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education

One of the greatest challenges in broadening participation in computer science is teacher preparation, as few middle and high school teachers have a formal background in computing. Further, without a credentialing program, there are limited ways to ...
From Professional Development to the Classroom: Findings from CS K-12 Teachers
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

The CS for All initiative places increased emphasis on the need to prepare K-12 teachers of computer science (CS). Professional development (PD) programs continue to be an essential mechanism for preparing in-service teachers who have little formal ...
Five Years of Graduate CS Education Online and at Scale
CompEd '19: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education

In 2014, Georgia Tech launched an online campus for its Master of Science in Computer Science program. The degree, equal in stature and accreditation to its on-campus counterpart, offered a notably lower cost of attendance. Its design emphasized ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

Koli Calling '20: Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

November 2020

295 pages

ISBN:9781450389211

DOI:10.1145/3428029

Editors:
Nick Falkner
University of Adelaide, Australia
,
Otto Seppala
Aalto University, Finland

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

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 the author(s) 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].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 November 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

Koli Calling '20

Koli Calling '20: 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

November 19 - 22, 2020

Koli, Finland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
136
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)21
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 26 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Haaranen LAhrenberg LHellas A(2023)Decades of Striving for Pedagogical and Technological AlignmentProceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3631802.3631809(1-8)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631802.3631809
Lehtinen THaaranen LLeinonen J(2023)Automated Questionnaires About Students’ JavaScript Programs: Towards Gauging Novice Programming ProcessesProceedings of the 25th Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3576123.3576129(49-58)Online publication date: 30-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3576123.3576129
Osorio-Saez EEryilmaz NSandoval-Hernandez A(2021)Parents’ Acceptance of Educational Technology: Lessons From Around the WorldFrontiers in Psychology10.3389/fpsyg.2021.71943012Online publication date: 30-Aug-2021
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719430

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten