Abstract
In the paper we reflect on how our design research approach in the current development allows us to study the increasing cognitive complexity of different levels of control which pupils conduct when they program Emil, a virtual character on the screen. In our earlier work we outlined conceptual framework for primary programming, which recognised three different levels of control: (a) direct manipulation, (b) direct control and (c) computational control (i.e. programming) an actor. In the present research we managed to get deeper into the complexity of control by identifying four instead of three of its levels. Based on our close collaboration with three design schools we have also found that it is more productive to project and analyse learning progression of pupils connected with control within two-dimensional grid, where the first dimension is control itself and the second explores the way how the control is represented. Along this dimension we have identified five distinct levels of representation: (a) none, (b) as internal record, (c) as external record, (d) as internal plan for future behaviour, and finally (e) as external plan for future behaviour. In our paper we explain the grid of control by presenting selected tasks from different environments of Emil, our new approach to educational programming for Year 3 pupils.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Here we borrow from [2] the dimensions of their computational thinking framework, however as we explained in [3] we prefer to broaden the dimension of computational concepts into computational constructs, i.e. concepts plus associated computational procedures (e.g. a sequence of steps as a concept and acting it, interpreting, filling in a missing step, comparing two sequences, modifying a sequence etc. as some of related computational procedures); and also, we consider control – the way how pupils give orders to a sprite or a programmable toy – to be one of the key Brennan’s and Resnick’s computational practices.
- 2.
Aged 5 to 10.
- 3.
By suitable steps we mean gradations of tasks which support all pupils in exploring these constructs and practices and constructing their true and sustainable understanding. We strive to do so despite the fact these concepts and practices are often wrongly considered trivial.
- 4.
We deliberately narrowed Blackwell’s view from all non-professional programmers to pupils.
- 5.
With occasional deflections, see our comment on controlling Bee-Bots later in the paper.
- 6.
There is a deflection though from basic direct drive strategy in Bee-Bots. If we want to give it a single command then run it, we have to press an arrow key, then press GO, then before the following command is pressed, Clear the memory. Otherwise the next command would be added at the end of the previously recorded steps. This makes direct drive with Bee-Bots less straightforward and we in our Bee-Bot pedagogy recommend advancing from direct manipulation to incremental recording of the program, as described above.
- 7.
Although we consider it developmentally appropriate affordance of Bee-Bots.
- 8.
Note that such dragging (we call it ‘meta dragging’) is in Scratch indicated by a shadow rim around a sprite.
- 9.
Having analysed and explored many alternatives.
- 10.
In its current, not final state as this is on-going process. We comment on this issue in the closing remarks.
- 11.
We refer to them as the design schools, see more details in [11].
- 12.
Currently the lessons are already run by the class teachers themselves, with our continuous support.
- 13.
i.e. planning its future behaviour.
- 14.
As a preparation for later perciving programs to be objects to think about and think with.
- 15.
Including Scratch, as explained in 2.2 How we control in Scratch.
- 16.
Blackwell does not distinguish between direct manipulation and direct control.
- 17.
Which in the case of virtual actor would correspond to what we call ‘meta dragging’ by mouse.
- 18.
Which regularly led to modifying or reorganizing the tasks, adding new ones and removing others, transforming a task into a whole new unit of tasks.
- 19.
We sometimes refer to this as ‘meta dragging’.
- 20.
with several constraints, which pupils will eventually discover by exploring – no diagonal clicks are allowed, no clicks behind a missing possition and several other constraints.
- 21.
As we discuss later, the second dimension gives different categorisation of the tasks then the control dimension by itself. When we use both dimensions in one grid, see Fig. 6, each of the resulting 20 combinations (positions) has a meaningful interpretation in educational programming.
- 22.
In [11] we refer to it more precisely as a pre-construct.
- 23.
To start in October 2018.
References
Ackermann, E.: Programming for the natives: what is it? What’s in it for the kids? In: Proceedings of Constructionism: Theory, Practice and Impact, Athens, 10 p. (2012). [CD-ROM]
Brennan, K., Resnick, M.: New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, (2012)
Kalas, I., Benton, L.: Defining procedures in early computing education. In: Tatnall, A., Webb, M. (eds.) WCCE 2017. IAICT, vol. 515, pp. 567–578. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74310-3_57
Benton, L., Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., Noss, R.: Bridging primary programming and mathematics: some findings of design research in England. Digit. Exp. Math. Educ. 3(2), 115–138 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0028-x
Papert, S.: Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, Inc., New York (1980)
Blackwell, A.F.: What is programming? In: 14th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pp. 204–218 (2002)
Clayson, J.: A Computational Eye: Visual Modelling with Python. Deep Springs College, Bishop (2015)
Kalas, I.: On the road to sustainable primary programming. In: Proceedings of the Constructionism in Action: Constructionism, pp. 184–191. Suksapattana Foundation, Bangkok, (2016)
Kalas, I.: Recognizing the potential of ICT in early childhood education. Analytical survey, 148 p. UNESCO IITE, Moscow (2010)
Moravcik, M., Pekarova, J., Kalas, I. Digital technologies at preschool: class scenarios. In: Proceedings of 9th WCCE: IFIP World Conference on Computers in Education, Bento Goncalves, 10 p. (2009). [CD-ROM]
Kalas, I.: Programming in lower primary years: design principles and powerful ideas. Submitted to Constructionism, Vilnius, (2018)
Benton, L., Saunders, P., Kalas, I., Hoyles, C., Noss, R.: Designing for learning mathematics through programming: a case study of pupils engaging with place value. Int. J. Child Comput. Interact. 16, 68–76 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.12.004
diSessa, A.A., Cobb, P.: Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. J. Learn. Sci. 13, 77–103 (2004)
Nieveen, N., Folmer, E.: Formative evaluation in educational design research. In: Plomp, T., Nieveen, N. (eds.) Educational Design Research, pp. 152–169. SLO – Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (2013)
Moravcik, M., Kalas, I.: Developing software for early childhood education. In: Addressing educational challenges: the role of ICT. In: IFIP Working Conference, Manchester, 12 p. MMU (2012). [CD-ROM]
Shneiderman, B.: Direct manipulation: a step beyond programming languages. Computer 16(8), 57–69 (1983)
Sherugar, S.M., Budiu, R.: Direct manipulation: definition. NN/g (2016). www.nngroup.com/articles/direct-manipulation. Accessed 31 May 2018
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Indicia, non-for-profit organisation funding our project, all the teachers and pupils from our design schools for their invaluable contributions to the design and development of Emil intervention, and Celia Hoyles, Richard Noss and James Clayson for exciting discussions about the issue of control in educational programming.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kalas, I., Blaho, A., Moravcik, M. (2018). Exploring Control in Early Computing Education. In: Pozdniakov, S., Dagienė, V. (eds) Informatics in Schools. Fundamentals of Computer Science and Software Engineering. ISSEP 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11169. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02750-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02750-6_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02749-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02750-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)