Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3446871.3469751acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Teachers’ Perspectives on Talk in the Programming Classroom : Language as a Mediator

Published: 17 August 2021 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Motivation. In education, classroom talk is a vital aspect of a lesson, and programming education is no exception. While the role of language and dialogue has been researched in depth in other school subjects, there has been less research in the programming context. Sociocultural theory highlights the importance of language as a mediator for learning, alongside other tools. Objectives. Drawing on sociocultural theory and models of dialogic education, the purpose of the study was to investigate the ways in which programming teachers use classroom talk to support learning, and to propose a model to frame our understanding of this element of programming lessons. Method. The qualitative study used phenomenological methodology to investigate and interpret teachers’ ‘lived experiences’ of classroom talk. Interviews were conducted with 20 primary and secondary computing teachers about the content and effect of classroom talk in programming lessons. The context of the study was PRIMM, a lesson structure which highlights the importance of talk around a shared programming artefact. Results. Analysis of data revealed four main themes: how talk occurs in the classroom setting, how questioning is used to facilitate talk, how students are encouraged to explain, and why teachers feel it is important for students to use correct vocabulary. Discussion. Building on research into models of dialogue in education and our findings we suggest a model to frame talk in the programming classroom. We discuss the contribution of PRIMM to our understanding of talk in programming lessons. More research is needed to validate the proposed model and to investigate the impact of classroom talk on learning outcomes in programming.

    Supplementary Material

    MP4 File (ICER21-fp134-11 mins.mp4)
    Presentation given at ICER 2021, plus intro

    References

    [1]
    Robin Alexander. 2006. Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. Dialogos, Cambridge.
    [2]
    Robin Alexander. 2013. Essays on pedagogy. Routledge.
    [3]
    Robin Alexander. 2018. Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education 33, 5 (2018), 561–598.
    [4]
    Fidaa S Abu Ali, Lubna Abushaikha, 2019. Hermeneutics in nursing studies: an integrative review. Open Journal of Nursing 9, 02 (2019), 137.
    [5]
    Ashok R Basawapatna, Alexander Repenning, Kyu Han Koh, and Hilarie Nickerson. 2013. The zones of proximal flow: guiding students through a space of computational thinking skills and challenges. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research. ACM, 67–74.
    [6]
    Jens Bennedsen and Ole Eriksen. 2006. Categorizing pedagogical patterns by teaching activities and pedagogical values. Computer Science Education 16, 2 (2006), 157–172.
    [7]
    Grant Braught, L Martin Eby, and Tim Wahls. 2008. The effects of pair-programming on individual programming skill. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 40, 1 (2008), 200–204.
    [8]
    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.
    [9]
    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597.
    [10]
    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2020. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?Qualitative research in psychology(2020), 1–25.
    [11]
    British Educational Research Association (BERA). 2018. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, Fourth Edition. https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018
    [12]
    Jerome Bruner. 1982. The language of education. Social Research 49, 4 (1982), 835–853.
    [13]
    Åsa Cajander, Mats Daniels, and Roger McDermott. 2012. On valuing peers: theories of learning and intercultural competence. Computer Science Education 22, 4 (2012), 319–342.
    [14]
    Kathleen Cotton. 1988. Classroom questioning. School improvement research series 5 (1988), 1–22.
    [15]
    John W Creswell. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications, Inc; Second Edition.
    [16]
    Ruiguo Cui and Peter Teo. 2020. Dialogic education for classroom teaching: a critical review. Language and Education 0, 0 (Oct. 2020), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2020.1837859
    [17]
    Lyn Dawes. 2004. Talk and learning in classroom science. International journal of science education 26, 6 (2004), 677–695.
    [18]
    Ira Diethelm and Juliana Goschler. 2015. Questions on spoken language and terminology for teaching computer science. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, ITICSE ’15. ACM, 21–26.
    [19]
    Ira Diethelm, Juliana Goschler, and Timo Lampe. 2018. Language and Computing. In Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School, Sue Sentance, Erik Barendsen, and Carsten Schulte (Eds.). 207–219.
    [20]
    Linda Finlay. 2012. Debating phenomenological methods. In Hermeneutic phenomenology in education. Brill Sense, 15–37.
    [21]
    Uwe Flick. 1998. An introduction to qualitative research. Sage Publications Limited.
    [22]
    Julie Frechette, Vasiliki Bitzas, Monique Aubry, Kelley Kilpatrick, and Mélanie Lavoie-Tremblay. 2020. Capturing lived experience: Methodological considerations for interpretive phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19 (2020), 1609406920907254.
    [23]
    Norm Friesen, Carina Henriksson, and Tone Saevi. 2012. Hermeneutic phenomenology in education: Method and practice. Vol. 4. Springer Science & Business Media.
    [24]
    Alexandra Funke, Katharina Geldreich, and Peter Hubwieser. 2017. Analysis of scratch projects of an introductory programming course for primary school students. In 2017 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON). IEEE, 1229–1236.
    [25]
    Thomas Groenewald. 2004. A phenomenological research design illustrated. International journal of qualitative methods 3, 1 (2004), 42–55.
    [26]
    Shuchi Grover, Nicholas Jackiw, and Patrik Lundh. 2019. Concepts before coding: non-programming interactives to advance learning of introductory programming concepts in middle school. Computer Science Education 29, 2-3 (2019), 106–135.
    [27]
    Egon G Guba. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Ectj 29, 2 (1981), 75–91.
    [28]
    Egon G Guba and Yvonna S Lincoln. 1982. Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. ECTJ 30, 4 (1982), 233–252.
    [29]
    C Lynn Hancock. 1995. Implementing the assessment standards for school mathematics: Enhancing mathematics learning with open-ended questions. The Mathematics Teacher 88, 6 (1995), 496–499.
    [30]
    Fredrik Heintz, Linda Mannila, Lars-Åke Nordén, Peter Parnes, and Björn Regnell. 2017. Introducing programming and digital competence in Swedish K-9 education. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives. Springer, 117–128.
    [31]
    Christine Howe, Sara Hennessy, Neil Mercer, Maria Vrikki, and Lisa Wheatley. 2019. Teacher–Student Dialogue During Classroom Teaching: Does It Really Impact on Student Outcomes?Journal of the Learning Sciences 28, 4-5 (Oct. 2019), 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1573730
    [32]
    Kerry E Howell. 2012. An introduction to the philosophy of methodology. Sage.
    [33]
    Maya Israel, Quentin M. Wherfel, Saadeddine Shehab, Oliver Melvin, and Todd Lash. 2017. Describing Elementary Students’ Interactions in K-5 Puzzle-based Computer Science Environments using the Collaborative Computing Observation Instrument (C-COI). In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research(ICER ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1145/3105726.3106167 00014.
    [34]
    Cruz Izu, Carsten Schulte, Ashish Aggarwal, Quintin Cutts, Rodrigo Duran, Mirela Gutica, Birte Heinemann, Eileen Kraemer, Violetta Lonati, Claudio Mirolo, 2019. Fostering program comprehension in novice programmers-learning activities and learning trajectories. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 27–52.
    [35]
    Nadia Kasto. 2016. Learning to Program: The development of knowledge in Novice Programmers. Ph.D. Dissertation. Auckland University of Technology.
    [36]
    Donna Kotsopoulos, Lisa Floyd, Steven Khan, Immaculate Kizito Namukasa, Sowmya Somanath, Jessica Weber, and Chris Yiu. 2017. A pedagogical framework for computational thinking. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education 3, 2 (2017), 154–171.
    [37]
    Alex Kozulin and Barbara Z Presseisen. 1995. Mediated learning experience and psychological tools: Vygotsky’s and Feuerstein’s perspectives in a study of student learning. Educational psychologist 30, 2 (1995), 67–75.
    [38]
    Udo Kuckartz. 2014. Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.
    [39]
    Susann M Laverty. 2003. Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International journal of qualitative methods 2, 3 (2003), 21–35.
    [40]
    Robert Law. 2020. A Pedagogical Approach to Teaching Game Programming: Using the PRIMM Approach. In European Conference on Games Based Learning. Academic Conferences International Limited, 816–XVI.
    [41]
    John Leach and Phil Scott. 2003. Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science & Education 12, 1 (2003), 91–113.
    [42]
    Irene Lee, Fred Martin, Jill Denner, Bob Coulter, Walter Allan, Jeri Erickson, Joyce Malyn-Smith, and Linda Werner. 2011. Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads 2, 1 (2011), 32.
    [43]
    Jay L Lemke. 1990. Talking science: Language, Learning, and Values. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ.
    [44]
    Constant Leung. 2005. Mathematical vocabulary: Fixers of knowledge or points of exploration?Language and Education 19, 2 (2005), 126–134.
    [45]
    Colleen M. Lewis. 2011. Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students?Computer Science Education 21, 2 (June 2011), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579805
    [46]
    Raymond Lister, Elizabeth S Adams, Sue Fitzgerald, William Fone, John Hamer, Morten Lindholm, Robert McCartney, Jan Erik Moström, Kate Sanders, Otto Seppälä, 2004. A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 36. ACM, 119–150.
    [47]
    Raymond Lister, Colin Fidge, and Donna Teague. 2009. Further Evidence of a Relationship Between Explaining, Tracing and Writing Skills in Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education(Paris, France) (ITiCSE ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 161–165.
    [48]
    Philip Machanick. 2007. A social construction approach to computer science education. Computer Science Education 17, 1 (March 2007), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400600971067
    [49]
    Lauren Margulieux, Brian Dorn, and Kristin Searle. 2019. Learning sciences for computing education. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Sally Fincher and Anthony V. Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 208–230.
    [50]
    Karl Maton and Yaegan Doran. 2021. Constellating science: How relations among ideas help build knowledge. Routledge (in press).
    [51]
    Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW(2019), 1–23.
    [52]
    Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Heather E. Bullock, and Julian Fernald. 2006. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun. ACM 49, 8 (2006), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/1145287.1145293
    [53]
    Neil Mercer. 1995. The Guided Construction of Knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Multilingual matters.
    [54]
    Neil Mercer and Claire Sams. 2006. Teaching Children How to Use Language to Solve Maths Problems. Language and Education 20, 6 (Nov. 2006), 507–528. https://doi.org/10.2167/le678.0 00416 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.2167/le678.0.
    [55]
    Neil Mercer and Rupert Wegerif. 1999. Is ‘exploratory talk’productive talk. Learning with computers: Analyzing productive interaction (1999), 79–101.
    [56]
    Sarah Michaels, Catherine O’Connor, and Lauren B Resnick. 2008. Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in philosophy and education 27, 4 (2008), 283–297.
    [57]
    Clark Moustakas. 1994. Phenomenological research methods. Sage publications.
    [58]
    Lorelli S. Nowell, Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules. 2017. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16, 1 (Dec. 2017), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 02780 Publisher: SAGE Publications Inc.
    [59]
    Martin Nystrand, Lawrence L. Wu, Adam Gamoran, Susie Zeiser, and Daniel A. Long. 2003. Questions in Time: Investigating the Structure and Dynamics of Unfolding Classroom Discourse. Discourse Processes 35, 2 (2003), 135–198. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950DP3502_3
    [60]
    Leo Porter, Cynthia Bailey Lee, Beth Simon, and Daniel Zingaro. 2011. Peer instruction: do students really learn from peer discussion in computing?. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research. ACM, 45–52. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2016923
    [61]
    Sharon M Ravitch and Nicole Mittenfelner Carl. 2019. Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
    [62]
    Paul J Riccomini, Gregory W Smith, Elizabeth M Hughes, and Karen M Fries. 2015. The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly 31, 3 (2015), 235–252.
    [63]
    Jean Jinsun Ryoo. 2013. Pedagogy Matters: Engaging Diverse Students as Community Researchers in Three Computer Science Classrooms. Ph.D. Dissertation. UCLA.
    [64]
    Carsten Schulte. 2008. Block Model: An Educational Model of Program Comprehension As a Tool for a Scholarly Approach to Teaching. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Computing Education Research (Sydney, Australia) (ICER ’08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 149–160.
    [65]
    Thomas A Schwandt 1994. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Handbook of qualitative research 1 (1994), 118–137.
    [66]
    Sue Sentance, Jane Waite, and Maria Kallia. 2019. Teachers’ Experiences of using PRIMM to Teach Programming in School. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 476–482.
    [67]
    Sue Sentance, Jane Waite, and Maria Kallia. 2019. Teaching computer programming with PRIMM: a sociocultural perspective. Computer Science Education 29, 2-3 (2019), 136–176.
    [68]
    Karim Shabani. 2016. Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’ professional development. Cogent Education 3, 1 (Nov. 2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1252177
    [69]
    Andrew Shenton. 2004. Strategies for Ensuring Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research Projects. Education for Information 22 (2004), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
    [70]
    John McHardy Sinclair and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford Univ Pr.
    [71]
    Art Sloan and Brian Bowe. 2014. Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity 48, 3 (2014), 1291–1303.
    [72]
    Josh Tenenberg and Maria Knobelsdorf. 2014. Out of our minds: a review of sociocultural cognition theory. Computer Science Education 24, 1 (Jan. 2014), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2013.869396
    [73]
    Jennifer Tsan, Collin F. Lynch, and Kristy Elizabeth Boyer. 2018. “Alright, what do we need?”: A study of young coders’ collaborative dialogue. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 17 (Sept. 2018), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.03.001 00019.
    [74]
    Jan Vahrenhold, Quintin Cutts, and Katrina Falkner. 2019. Schools (K–12). In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Sally A. Fincherand Anthony V.Editors Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, 547–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.019
    [75]
    Anne Venables, Grace Tan, and Raymond Lister. 2009. A Closer Look at Tracing, Explaining and Code Writing Skills in the Novice Programmer. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Computing Education Research Workshop (Berkeley, CA, USA) (ICER ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 117–128.
    [76]
    Lev S Vygotsky. 1962. Thought and word. In Studies in communication. Thought and Language, Lev S Vygotsky, E. Hanfmann, and G. Vakar (Eds.). MIT Press, 119–153.
    [77]
    Lev S Vygotsky. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [78]
    Lee S. Vygotsky. 1981. The Instrumental Method in Psychology. In The concept of activity in Soviet psychology, J. V Wertsch (Ed.). Armonk, NY, Sharpe.
    [79]
    Lev S Vygotsky. 1991. Genesis of the higher mental functions. Learning to think (1991), 32–41.
    [80]
    Aida Walqui. 2006. Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 9, 2(2006), 159–180.
    [81]
    James V Wertsch. 1996. Mediation. In Introduction to Vygotsky, Harry Daniels (Ed.). Routledge, 1–34.
    [82]
    James V Wertsch and Peeter Tulviste. 1992. LS Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology.Developmental psychology 28, 4 (1992), 548. 00552.
    [83]
    R Paul Wiegand, Anthony Bucci, Amruth N Kumar, Jennifer L Albert, and Alessio Gaspar. 2016. A data-driven analysis of informatively hard concepts in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, 370–375.
    [84]
    Ian Wilkinson and Kathryn Nelson. 2019. Role of Discussion in Reading Comprehension. In Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement: Schools Edition, John Hattie and Eric M Anderman (Eds.). Routledge, 231–237.
    [85]
    Jeffrey W Wimer, Carolyn S Ridenour, Kelli Thomas, and A William Place. 2001. Higher order teacher questioning of boys and girls in elementary mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research 95, 2 (2001), 84–92.
    [86]
    Pelin Yüksel and Soner Yıldırım. 2015. Theoretical frameworks, methods, and procedures for conducting phenomenological studies in educational settings. Turkish online journal of qualitative inquiry 6, 1 (2015), 1–20.
    [87]
    Daniel Zingaro. 2014. Peer Instruction Contributes to Self-efficacy in CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education(SIGCSE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538878

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Facilitating Programming Proficiency in Young Children: Strategies and Expert Insights2024 47th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO)10.1109/MIPRO60963.2024.10569764(577-582)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
    • (2023)How Do Computing Education Researchers Talk About Threats and Limitations?Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600114(381-396)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
    • (2023)Using a Sociological Lens to Investigate Computing Teachers’ Culturally Responsive Classroom PracticesProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600112(206-221)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ICER 2021: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
    August 2021
    451 pages
    ISBN:9781450383264
    DOI:10.1145/3446871
    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].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 17 August 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. K-12 computing education
    2. PRIMM
    3. dialogue
    4. programming
    5. sociocultural theory
    6. vocabulary

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    ICER 2021
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)108
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
    Reflects downloads up to 10 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Facilitating Programming Proficiency in Young Children: Strategies and Expert Insights2024 47th MIPRO ICT and Electronics Convention (MIPRO)10.1109/MIPRO60963.2024.10569764(577-582)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
    • (2023)How Do Computing Education Researchers Talk About Threats and Limitations?Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600114(381-396)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
    • (2023)Using a Sociological Lens to Investigate Computing Teachers’ Culturally Responsive Classroom PracticesProceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3568813.3600112(206-221)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
    • (2023)Case Study on the Terms Novice Programmers Use to Describe Code Snippets in JavaIEEE Transactions on Education10.1109/TE.2023.329025966:6(642-653)Online publication date: 19-Jul-2023
    • (2023)Culturally Relevant Areas of Opportunity for K-12 Computing Lessons2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343308(1-5)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media