Students’ Perceptions on Using a Dual Modality Programming Environment



Abstract Views
432

Downloads
374

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Apr 29, 2019
Published Apr 29, 2019
10.24018/ejeng.2019.0.CIE.1292

Abstract viewed = 432 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

In this paper we investigate students’ outcomes regarding the use of a dual modality programming environment that combines both text mode and block mode in class. The survey targets students of the 3nd grade of Junior High School (Gymnasium) in Greece and attempts to answer research questions regarding their perceptions after a one year course using the programming environment Pencil Code. The analysis of the collected data clearly indicates that the vast majority of students have used both modes during their work. The students find the block mode easier than the text mode but prefer to modify or correct the code using the text mode. We also noticed significant correlations between the mode used and the students’ gender, their school grades and their future course choice. The findings of this study can be useful when redesigning new Informatics curricula for the secondary education.

Keywords: Computer Science Education, Dual Modality Programming Junior High School (Gymnasium) Pencil Code

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. diSessa, Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy, London: MIT Press, 2000.
     Google Scholar
  2. L. Mannila, M. Peltomäki and T. Salakoski, “What about a simple language? Analyzing the difficulties in learning to program,” Computer Science Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 211-227, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  3. M. Karaliopoulou, I. Apostolakis and E. Kanidis, “Perceptions of Informatics Teachers Regarding the Use of Block and Text Programming Environments,” European Journal of Engineering Research and Science-EJERS, Special Issue: CIE 2017, pp. 11-18, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  4. D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky, “Between a Block and a Typeface: Designing and Evaluating Hybrid Programming Environments,” in Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Stanford, California, USA, 2017a.
     Google Scholar
  5. D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky, “Comparing Block-Based and Text-Based Programming in High School Computer Science Classrooms,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1-25, 2017b.
     Google Scholar
  6. M. Karaliopoulou and E. Kanidis, “Comparison and combination of different software environments used for programming introduction,” in Proceedings 10th Panhellenic Conference of ICT Teachers, Nafplio, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  7. D. Bau and D. A. Bau, “A Preview of Pencil Code: A Tool for Developing Mastery of Programming,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Programming for Mobile & Touch, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  8. D. Bau, “Droplet, a blocks-based editor for text code,” Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 138-144, 2015
     Google Scholar
  9. M. Homer and J. Noble, “Combining tiled and textual views of code,” in 2014 Second IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT), Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  10. M. Homer and J. Noble, “Lessons in combining block-based and textual programming,” Journal of Visual Languages and Sentient Systems, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 22-39, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  11. D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky, “How block-based, text-based, and hybrid block/text modalities shape novice programming practices,” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  12. E. Kanidis, M. Karaliopoulou and G. Menounou, “Students perceptions on software environments used for programming introduction,” in 8th Conference on Informatics in Education, Piraeus, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  13. L. Moors and R. Sheehan, “Aiding the Transition from Novice to Traditional Programming Environments,” in Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Stanford, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  14. W. Robinson, “From scratch to patch: Easing the blocks-text transition,” in Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, Münster, Germany, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  15. F. J. Rodríguez, K. M. Price, J. Isaac, K. E. Boyer and C. Gardner-McCune, “How block categories affect learner satisfaction with a block-based programming interface,” in Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2017 IEEE Symposium, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  16. T. W. Price and T. Barnes, “Comparing textual and block interfaces in a novice programming environment,” in Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  17. T. W. Price and T. Barnes, “Comparing Textual and Block Interfaces in a Novice Programming Environment,” in Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  18. D. Bau, A. D. Bau, M. Dawson and S. C. Pickens, “Pencil code: block code for a text world,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  19. N. Brown, J. Mönig, A. Bau and D. Weintrop, “"Panel: Future directions of block-based programming,” in Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, 2016, p. 316.
     Google Scholar
  20. D. Bau, J. Gray, C. Kelleher, J. Sheldon and F. Turbak, “Learnable programming: blocks and beyond,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 72-80, June 2017.
     Google Scholar
  21. A. Boss, C. Stenson and J. Ruten, “Visual debugging technology with pencil code: Position paper,” in Blocks and Beyond Workshop (Blocks and Beyond), 2015 IEEE, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  22. H. Tsukamoto, Y. Takemura, Y. Oomori, I. Ikeda, H. Nagumo, A. Monden and K.-i. Matsumoto, “Textual vs. Visual Programming Languages in Programming Education for Primary Schoolchildren,” in IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Erie, PA, USA, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  23. D. Weintrop, “Blocks, text, and the space between: The role of representations in novice programming environments,” in IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2015.
     Google Scholar
  24. D. Weintrop, U.Wilensky, “Between a Block and a Typeface: Designing and Evaluating Hybrid Programming Environments”. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 183-192). Stanford, California, USA: ACM. (2017a).
     Google Scholar
  25. J. Blanchard, “Hybrid Environments: A Bridge from Blocks to Text,” in 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, Tacoma, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  26. N. C. Brown, M. Kölling και A. Altadmri, «Position paper: Lack of keyboard support cripples block-based programming, » σε Blocks and Beyond Workshop (Blocks and Beyond), 2015 IEEE, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  27. M. Kölling, N. C. Brown and A. Altadmri, “Frame-based editing: Easing the transition from blocks to text-based programming,” in Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  28. M. Q. Patton, Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.), Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.
     Google Scholar
  29. C. Robson and K. McCartan, Real World Research, John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  30. L. Cohen, L. Manion and K. Morrison, Research Methods in Education (In Greek), Athens: Metaixmio, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  31. I. Apostolakis and A. Stamouli, "Validity and reliability assessment of quantitative research questionnaires in health units: The case of a questionnaire concerning the evaluation of a nursing services management information system of a hospital," Statistical Review, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3-25, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  32. B. DiSalvo, “Graphical qualities of educational technology: Using drag-and-drop and text-based programs for introductory computer science,” IEEE computer graphics and applications, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 12-15, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  33. M. Armoni, O. Meerbaum-Salant and M. Ben-Ari, “From scratch to “real” programming,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), vol. 14, no. 4, p. 25, 2015.
     Google Scholar