Michal Armoni
Mordechai Ben-Ari
Abstract
Computer science (CS) activities for young students are widely used, particularly visual programming environments. We investigated the use of the Scratch environment for teaching CS concepts to middle school students. In a previous article [Meerbaum-Salant et al. 2013], we reported on the extent to which the CS concepts were successfully learned. In this article, we look at the transition from studying CS with the visual Scratch environment in middle school to studying CS with a professional textual programming language (C# or Java) in secondary school. We found that the programming knowledge and experience of students who had learned Scratch greatly facilitated learning the more advanced material in secondary school: less time was needed to learn new topics, there were fewer learning difficulties, and they achieved higher cognitive levels of understanding of most concepts (although at the end of the teaching process, there were no significant differences in achievements compared to students who had not studied Scratch). Furthermore, there was increased enrollment in CS classes, and students were observed to display higher levels of motivation and self-efficacy. This research justifies teaching CS in general and visual programming in particular in middle schools.
- Lorin W. Anderson, David R. Krathwohl, Peter W. Airasian, Kathleen A. Cruikshank, Richard E. Mayer, Paul R. Pintrich, James Raths, and Merlin C. Wittrock. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Addison Wesley Longman, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Michal Armoni, Tamar Benaya, David Ginat, and Ela Zur. 2010. Didactics of introduction to computer science in high school. In Teaching Fundamental Concepts of Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5941. Springer, 36--48. DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-11376-5_5 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tim Bell, Ian H. Witten, and Michael Fellows. 2005. Computer Science Unplugged. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://csunplugged.com/.Google Scholar
- Ronit Ben-Bassat Levy, Mordechai Ben-Ari, and Pekka A. Uronen. 2003. The Jeliot 2000 program animation system. Computers and Education 40, 1, 1--15. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John B. Biggs and Kevin F. Collis. 1982. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Jerome S. Bruner. 1960. The Process of Education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Jerome S. Bruner. 1966. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Lori Carter. 2006. Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don't choose to major in computer science. SIGCSE Bulletin 38, 1, 27--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Curzon and Peter W. McOwan. 2008. Engaging with computer science through magic shows. SIGCSE Bulletin 40, 3, 179--183. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wanda Dann, Stephen Cooper, and Randy Pausch. 2009. Learning to Program with Alice (2nd ed.). Pearson. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wanda Dann, Dennis Cosgrove, Don Slater, Dave Culyba, and Stephen Cooper. 2012. Mediated transfer: Alice 3 to Java. In Proceedings of the 43rd SIGCSE Symposium. ACM, New York, NY, 141--146. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Elena Delgado-Rico, Hugo Carretero-Dios, and Willibald Ruch. 2012. Content validity evidences in test development: An applied perspective. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 12, 3, 449--460.Google Scholar
- Allison Druin and James Hendler (Eds.). 2000. Robots for Kids: Exploring New Technologies for Learning. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Judith Gal-Ezer, Catriel Beeri, David Harel, and Amiram Yehudai. 1995. A high-school program in computer science. Computer 28, 10, 73--80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jens Gallenbacher. 2008. Abenteur Informatik. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.abenteuer-informatik.de/.Google Scholar
- Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 1975. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
- Evelyn Jacob. 1998. Clarifying qualitative research: A focus on traditions. Educational Researcher 17, 1, 16--24.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Burke Johnson and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33, 7, 14--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys 37, 2, 83--137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Päivi Kinnunen and Lauri Malmi. 2006. Why students drop out CS1 course? In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Computing Education Research. 97--108. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David J. Malan and Henry H. Leitner. 2007. Scratch for budding computer scientists. SIGCSE Bulletin 39, 1, 223--227. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jane Margolis and Allan Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Orni Meerbaum-Salant, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2011. Habits of programming in Scratch. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 168--172. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Orni Meerbaum-Salant, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2013. Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education 23, 3, 239--264.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Orna Muller. 2005. Pattern oriented instruction and the enhancement of analogical reasoning. In Proceedings of the 1st International Computing Education Research Workshop. ACM, New York, NY, 57--67. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Seymour Papert. 2002. Hard Fun. Retrieved November 24, 2014, from http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html.Google Scholar
- Roy D. Pea. 1986. Language-independent conceptual “Bugs” in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2, 1, 25--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Yasmin Kafai. 2009. Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM 52, 11, 60--67. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rivka Taub, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2012. CS Unplugged and middle-school students’ views, attitudes, and intentions regarding CS. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 12, 2, Article No. 8. DOI:10.1145/2160547.2160551. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ursula Wolz, Henry H. Leitner, David J. Malan, and John Maloney. 2009. Starting with Scratch in CS1. SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 1, 2--3. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- From Scratch to “Real” Programming
Recommendations
Assessment of computer science learning in a scratch-based outreach program
SIGCSE '13: Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science educationMany institutions have created and deployed outreach programs for middle school students with the goal of increasing the number and diversity of students who later pursue careers in computer science. While these programs have been shown to increase ...
Undergraduates Teach Game Programming Using Scratch
A new class at the University of Washington Bothell trains undergraduate computer science majors to teach coding concepts to middle school students using the game-programming language Scratch.
Programming in School: Look Back to Move Forward
Special Issue on Computing Education in (K-12) SchoolsIn this article, the development of the Swedish informatics curriculum during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s is studied and described. The study’s design is inspired by the curriculum theory presented by Lindensjö and Lundgren [2000], who suggest using the ...
Comments