Keeping Mindful of Modality: A Comparison of Computer Science Education Resources for Learning
Authors: 
Michael J. Johnson, Rachel Baker-Ramos, 
Christopher Lynnly Hovey, Betsy DiSalvoAuthors Info & Claims
Michael J. Johnson, Rachel Baker-Ramos, Christopher Lynnly Hovey, Betsy DiSalvoAuthors Info & ClaimsArticle No.: 18, Pages 1 - 14
Abstract
Educators often use computer science education resources to enhance the learning process, which come with a variety of output modalities (e.g., audiovisual, tangible) and coding modalities (e.g., block-based, text-based). While these resources are typically evaluated for their applicability and impact on young populations, they are not often analyzed through a comparison of their coding and output modalities, nor as a whole to each other. In this paper, we conducted BridgeUP STEM, an afterschool CS course for high school women and gender non-conforming individuals aimed at developing their computational thinking skills and exposing them to coding and CS. We collected and analyzed interview data for 16 participants on their experiences within the course and attitudes towards various output and coding modalities. Throughout the study, the students’ reflections on their own learning revealed the affordances and drawbacks of each resource in terms of outputs the resources provided, feedback the students received, and how both affected the students’ troubleshooting. We present these findings and use them to provide recommendations for approaches to teaching computer science.
Supplementary Material
Appendix
- Download
- 257.28 KB
References
[1]
Jonny Austin, Howard Baker, Thomas Ball, James Devine, Joe Finney, Peli De Halleux, Steve Hodges, Michał Moskal, and Gareth Stockdale. 2020. The BBC Micro:Bit: From the U.K. to the World. Commun. ACM 63, 3 (feb 2020), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368856
[2]
Thomas Ball, Abhijith Chatra, Peli de Halleux, Steve Hodges, Michał Moskal, and Jacqueline Russell. 2019. Microsoft makecode: embedded programming for education, in blocks and typescript. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on SPLASH-E. 7–12.
[3]
Massimo Banzi and Michael Shiloh. 2022. Getting started with Arduino. Maker Media, Inc.
[4]
Titus Barik, Justin Smith, Kevin Lubick, Elisabeth Holmes, Jing Feng, Emerson Murphy-Hill, and Chris Parnin. 2017. Do developers read compiler error messages?. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 575–585.
[5]
Brett A. Becker, Paul Denny, Raymond Pettit, Durell Bouchard, Dennis J. Bouvier, Brian Harrington, Amir Kamil, Amey Karkare, Chris McDonald, Peter-Michael Osera, Janice L. Pearce, and James Prather. 2019. Compiler Error Messages Considered Unhelpful: The Landscape of Text-Based Programming Error Message Research. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (Aberdeen, Scotland Uk) (ITiCSE-WGR ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 177–210. https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372508
[6]
Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012. Thematic Analysis. APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. 2 (2012), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
[7]
Renata Burbaitė, Robertas Damaševičius, and Vytautas Štuikys. 2013. Using robots as learning objects for teaching computer science. In X world conference on computers in education. 101–110.
[8]
Paul Denny, James Prather, Brett A. Becker, Catherine Mooney, John Homer, Zachary C Albrecht, and Garrett B. Powell. 2021. On Designing Programming Error Messages for Novices: Readability and Its Constituent Factors. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 55, 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445696
[9]
Kayla DesPortes and Betsy DiSalvo. 2017. Where are the Glass-Boxes? Examining the Spectrum of Modularity in Physical Computing Hardware Tools. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 292–297.
[10]
Betsy DiSalvo. 2014. Graphical qualities of educational technology: Using drag-and-drop and text-based programs for introductory computer science. IEEE computer graphics and applications 34, 6 (2014), 12–15.
[11]
Shuchi Grover, Roy Pea, and Stephen Cooper. 2015. Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer science education 25, 2 (2015), 199–237.
[12]
Steve Hodges, Sue Sentance, Joe Finney, and Thomas Ball. 2020. Physical computing: A key element of modern computer science education. Computer 53, 4 (2020), 20–30.
[13]
IBM. 2021. IBM SkillsBuild - AI Foundations: A Collaboration of ISTE and IBM. https://students.yourlearning.ibm.com/activity/PLAN-B2125F145F0E?channelId=CNL_LCB_1596575854335
[14]
Filiz Kalelioglu and Sue Sentance. 2020. Teaching with physical computing in school: the case of the micro: bit. Education and Information Technologies 25, 4 (2020), 2577–2603.
[15]
Majeed Kazemitabaar, Viktar Chyhir, David Weintrop, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Scaffolding Progress: How Structured Editors Shape Novice Errors When Transitioning from Blocks to Text. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. 556–562.
[16]
Thomas Kluyver, Benjamin Ragan-Kelley, Fernando Pérez, Brian Granger, Matthias Bussonnier, Jonathan Frederic, Kyle Kelley, Jessica Hamrick, Jason Grout, Sylvain Corlay, Paul Ivanov, Damián Avila, Safia Abdalla, and Carol Willing. 2016. Jupyter Notebooks – a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, F. Loizides and B. Schmidt (Eds.). IOS Press, 87 – 90.
[17]
Tyler S Love. 2023. Examining middle school students’ attitudes toward computing after participating in a physical computing unit. Interactive Learning Environments (2023), 1–20.
[18]
Tyler S. Love and Reuben S. Asempapa. 2022. A screen-based or physical computing unit? Examining secondary students’ attitudes toward coding. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 34 (2022), 100543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100543
[19]
Brian Magerko, Jason Freeman, Tom Mcklin, Mike Reilly, Elise Livingston, Scott Mccoid, and Andrea Crews-Brown. 2016. EarSketch: A STEAM-Based Approach for Underrepresented Populations in High School Computer Science Education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 16, 4 (2016), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2886418
[20]
Makeblock. 2022. Makeblock. https://www.makeblock.com/
[21]
Paul Marshall. 2007. Do Tangible Interfaces Enhance Learning?. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) (TEI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004
[22]
Sandra Y Okita. 2014. The relative merits of transparency: Investigating situations that support the use of robotics in developing student learning adaptability across virtual and physical computing platforms. British Journal of Educational Technology 45, 5 (2014), 844–862.
[23]
Jin Pan. 2016. Performance Engineering of the StarLogo Nova Execution Engine. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[24]
Mareen Przybylla and Ralf Romeike. [n. d.]. Key Competences with Physical Computing. KEYCIT 2014 ([n. d.]), 351.
[25]
Aaron Rasheed Rababaah and Ahmad A Rabaa’i. 2018. Enhancing programming learning environment with physical computing and robotics: a case study of the American University of Kuwait. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies 9, 4 (2018), 323–346.
[26]
Mitchel Resnick. 2008. Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning & Leading with Technology 35, 4 (2008), 18–22.
[27]
Mitchel Resnick, Brad Myers, Kumiyo Nakakoji, Ben Shneiderman, Randy Pausch, Ted Selker, and Mike Eisenberg. 2005. Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. (2005).
[28]
Gabriela T Richard and Sagun Giri. 2019. Digital and physical fabrication as multimodal learning: Understanding youth computational thinking when making integrated systems through bidirectionally responsive design. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 19, 3 (2019), 1–35.
[29]
Raja Ridgway. 2018. Project GUTS. Science Scope 42, 3 (2018), 28–33.
[30]
Sue Sentance, Jane Waite, Lucy Yeomans, and Emily MacLeod. 2017. Teaching with Physical Computing Devices: The BBC Micro:Bit Initiative. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (Nijmegen, Netherlands) (WiPSCE ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137083
[31]
Ben Shneiderman, Catherine Plaisant, Maxine S Cohen, Steven Jacobs, Niklas Elmqvist, and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2016. Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson.
[32]
Jane Waite. 2017. Pedagogy in teaching computer science in schools: A literature review. London: Royal Society 253 (2017).
[33]
Christopher Watson, Frederick WB Li, and Jamie L Godwin. 2012. Bluefix: Using crowd-sourced feedback to support programming students in error diagnosis and repair. In Advances in Web-Based Learning-ICWL 2012: 11th International Conference, Sinaia, Romania, September 2-4, 2012. Proceedings 11. Springer, 228–239.
[34]
David Weintrop, Elham Beheshti, Michael Horn, Kai Orton, Kemi Jona, Laura Trouille, and Uri Wilensky. 2016. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of science education and technology 25, 1 (2016), 127–147.
[35]
David Weintrop and Uri Wilensky. 2015. To block or not to block, that is the question: students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children. 199–208.
[36]
David Weintrop and Uri Wilensky. 2017. Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 18, 1 (2017), 1–25.
[37]
Jeannette M Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33–35.
[38]
Yahboom. 2022. Yahboom micro:bit Robot Car. http://www.yahboom.net/study/Bitbot
Index Terms
- Keeping Mindful of Modality: A Comparison of Computer Science Education Resources for Learning
Recommendations
Computer Science Education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany—A Case Study
Special Issue II on Computer Science Education in K-12 SchoolsIn North-Rhine Westphalia, the most populated state in Germany, Computer Science (CS) has been taught in secondary schools since the early 1970s. This article provides an overview of the past and current situation of CS education in North-Rhine ...
Sharing computer science education ideas: Israeli-Russian collaboration
This article describes a unique Israeli-Russian project, in which Israeli high school computer science (CS) teachers promote curricular reform in the Russian region of Penza, based on the Israeli high school CS curriculum. The reform involves local ...
Integrating Computer Science in Elementary Education
SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2There is greater demand for Computer Science (CS) to be taught in elementary education as more states pass policies requiring it. Integrating CS into elementary education provides a viable avenue to teach CS to all students and can result in more ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2023
361 pages
Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 06 February 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
Koli Calling '23
Koli Calling '23: 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research
November 13 - 18, 2023
Koli, Finland
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 169Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)169
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)34
Reflects downloads up to 22 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatGet Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in