Perceptions of Informatics Teachers Regarding the Use of Block and Text Programming Environments



Abstract Views
427

Downloads
370

Citations

Share

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

Submitted Mar 1, 2018
Published Mar 8, 2018
10.24018/ejeng.2018.0.CIE.638

Abstract viewed = 427 times

Table of Contents

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

In this paper we investigate teachers’ perceptions regarding the use of block and text programming environments in the class. The survey targets teachers of informatics in primary and secondary schools in Greece and attempts to answer research questions regarding the suggested duration of block-based programming practice and the difficulty of students’ transition from block-based to text-based programming. In contrast to the majority of research works that consider students’ opinions, in this paper we investigate the perceptions of their teachers and take advantage of their experience on the taught subject. Although the curriculum mandated by the Ministry of Education provides no specific directive, teachers agreed that block-based environments are appropriate introductory tools to programming. One of the primary tasks of this work was to determine the recommended age for students to move from block-based to text-based programming. The analysis of the collected data clearly indicated a specific age for this transition: teachers believe that students in primary school and the lower secondary school (ICSED levels 1 and 2 respectively) should use a block-based programming environment and should be introduced to text-based programming during the upper secondary school (ICSED level 3), after the age of 14. The findings of this study can be useful when designing new Informatics curricula for the secondary education, all-over the world.
Keywords: Block-Based Programming Text-Based Programming Age Transition Teachers’ Perception Curriculum.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. 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, 2017, pp. 91–99.
     Google Scholar
  2. J. Chetty, and G. Barlow-Jones, “Bridging the Gap: the Role of Mediated Transfer for Computer Programming,” in International Proceedings of Computer Science & Information Technology, 2012, p. 43.
     Google Scholar
  3. 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 . ACM., 2015, pp. 29–38.
     Google Scholar
  4. D. Weintrop, “Comparing Text-based, Blocks-based, and Hybrid Blocks/Text Programming Tools,” in Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM., 2015, pp. 283–284.
     Google Scholar
  5. N. C. C. Brown, M. Kolling, and A. Altadmri, “Position paper: Lack of keyboard support cripples block-based programming,” in 2015 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (Blocks and Beyond), 2015, pp. 59–61.
     Google Scholar
  6. F. McKay and M. Kölling, “Predictive modelling for HCI problems in novice program editors,” in Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference. British Computer Society, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  7. E. Kanidis, M. Karaliopoulou, and G. Menounou, “Students perceptions on software environments used for programming introduction,” in Proceedings 8th Conference on Informatics in Education.CIE, 2016, pp. 303–313.
     Google Scholar
  8. D. Parsons, and P. Haden, “Programming osmosis: Knowledge transfer from imperative to visual programming environments,” in Procedings of The Twentieth Annual NACCQ Conference, 2007, pp. 209–215.
     Google Scholar
  9. D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky, “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. ACM., 2015, pp. 199–208.
     Google Scholar
  10. D. Weintrop and U. Wilensky, “Bringing Blocks-based Programming into High School Computer Science Classrooms,” in Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Washington DC, USA., 2016.
     Google Scholar
  11. B. DiSalvo, “Graphical qualities of educational technology: Using drag-and-drop and text-based programs for introductory computer science,” IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 12–15, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  12. M. Armoni, O. Meerbaum-Salant, and M. Ben-Ari, “From scratch to ‘real’ programming,” ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, p. 25, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  13. U. Wolz, H. H. Leitner, D. J. Malan, and J. Maloney, “Starting with scratch in CS 1,” ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 2–3, 2009.
     Google Scholar
  14. A. Wagner, J. Gray, J. Corley, and D. Wolber, “Using app inventor in a K-12 summer camp,” in Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM., pp. 621–626.
     Google Scholar
  15. M. Dorling and D. White., “Scratch: A way to logo and python,” in Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 2015, pp. 191–196.
     Google Scholar
  16. D. N. Perkins & G. Salomon, “Teaching for transfer. Educational leadership,” Educ. Leadersh., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 1988.
     Google Scholar
  17. Department for Education, “National Curriculum from September 2014, Retrieved December 15 2016 from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-curriculum.,” 2013.
     Google Scholar
  18. N. C. Brown, S. Sentance, T. Crick, and S. Humphreys, “Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools,” ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 14, no. 2, p. 9, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  19. M. Saeli, J. Perrenet, W. M. Jochems, and B. Zwaneveld et al, “Teaching programming in secondary school: a pedagogical content knowledge perspective,” Informatics Educ., vol. 10, no. 1, 2011.
     Google Scholar
  20. DEPPS - APS Informatics, “Interdisciplinary Unified Education Course Framework and the new Curricula. Educational Institute. Retrieved December 15, 2016 from http://www.pi-schools.gr/programs/depps/,” 2003.
     Google Scholar
  21. C. Robson and K. McCartan, Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings.
     Google Scholar
  22. L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, “Research methods in education,” in Routledge., 2013.
     Google Scholar
  23. I. Apostolakis, & M. 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.,” Stat. Rev., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 3–25, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  24. I. Apostolakis, A. Kastania, & C. Pierakou, “Statistical Data Processing in Health Sector,” 2003.
     Google Scholar
  25. I. Apostolakis and M. Stamouli, Askiseis ipologistikis statistikis stin igeia (teyxos A). Papazisis Pub., 2007.
     Google Scholar
  26. S. Iyer, F. Khan, S. Murthy, V. Chitta, M. Baru, and U. Vishwanathan, “CMC: A Model Computer Science Curriculum for K-12 Schools.,” 2013.
     Google Scholar
  27. K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee, “K-12 Computer Science Framework. Technical Report.ACM, New York, NY, USA.,” 2017. [Online]. Available: https://k12cs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/K–12-Computer-Science-Framework.pdf.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)