Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1655–1676 | Cite as

ViLLE – collaborative education tool: Designing and utilizing an exercise-based learning environment

  • Mikko-Jussi Laakso
  • Erkki Kaila
  • Teemu RajalaEmail author


Automatically assessed exercises with immediate feedback can be a powerful tool for enhancing the effectiveness of education. In this article, we discuss the design and implementation of a collaborative learning tool called ViLLE. The design is based on experiences gathered from a previously developed and thoroughly researched visualization tool. Based on our earlier results and current educational theories, we developed four design principles upon which ViLLE is constructed. ViLLE includes various different exercise types which were designed to assist in the learning of computer science, mathematics and other subjects. It also supports different learning and teaching methods, such as pair programming and peer review. To justify the development of a new environment, we present four diverse case studies where ViLLE was utilized successfully: programming education, high school matriculation exam, elementary school mathematics and student counseling at university level. The results obtained from the studies seem to confirm that ViLLE can be used effectively to enhance student motivation and to improve student performance in various heterogeneous educational setups.


Computer uses in Education Education Learning technologies Learning analytics 


  1. Álvarez, A., Martín, M., Fernández-Castro, I., & Urretavizcaya, M. (2013). Blending traditional teaching methods with learning environments: Experience, cyclical evaluation process and impact with MAgAdI. Computers & Education, 68, 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Ari, M. (2001). Program visualization in theory and practice. Informatik/Informatique, 2, 8–11.Google Scholar
  3. Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N., & Backus, D. (2006). The Blackboard Learning System: the be all and end all in educational instruction? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35(3), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruner, J. S. (1979). On knowing: essays for the left hand. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cole, J., & Foster, H. (2008). Using Moodle: Teaching with the popular open source course management system (2nd ed.). Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media Inc.Google Scholar
  6. Epstein, M. L., Epstein, B. B., & Brosvic, G. M. (2001). Immediate feedback during academic testing. Psychological Reports, 88(3), 889–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grönroos, M. (2014). The Book of Vaadin: Vaadin 7 Edition-4th Revision. Turku, Finland: Vaadin Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Hadjerrouit, S. (1998). Java as first programming language: a critical evaluation. SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(2), 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herrington, J., & Standen, P. (1999). Moving from an instructivist to a constructivist multimedia learning environment. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA) 1999, 19–24 June 1999, Seattle, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  10. Holvitie, J., Rajala, T., Haavisto, R., Kaila, E., Laakso, M.-J., & Salakoski, T. (2012). Breaking the programming language barrier: Using program visualizations to transfer programming knowledge in one programming language to another. IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 116–120, 2012 I.E. 12th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.Google Scholar
  11. Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2002). A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13, 259–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson, D. (1991). Using software tools to automate the assessment of student programs. Computers & Education, 17(2), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: Good for some, not so good for others. Educational Studies, 29(4), 337–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jung, J., Kim, K., Shin, D., & Park, J. (2011). FlowWiki: A wiki based platform for ad hoc ollaborative workflows. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(1), 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaila, E., Rajala, T., Laakso, M.-J., & Salakoski, T. (2009). Effects, experiences and feedback from studies of a program visualization tool. Informatics in Education, 8(1), 17–34.Google Scholar
  16. Kaila, E., Rajala, T., Laakso, M. J., Linden, R., Kurvinen, E., Karavirta, V., & Salakoski, T. (2015). Comparing student performance between traditional and technologically enhanced programming course. In D. D’Souza & K. Falkner (Eds.), Proceedings 17th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE) (pp. 147–154). Sydney: ACS.Google Scholar
  17. Kurvinen, E., Lindén, R., Rajala, T., Kaila, E., Laakso, M.-J., & Salakoski, T. (2012). Computer-assisted learning in primary school mathematics using ViLLE education tool. 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, November 15th to 18th, 2012, Tahko, Finland.Google Scholar
  18. Laakso, M.-J. (2010). Promoting programming learning. engagement, automatic assessment with immediate feedback in visualizations. TUCS Dissertations no 131.Google Scholar
  19. Lopez-Morteo, G., & López, G. (2007). Computer support for learning mathematics: A learning environment based on recreational learning objects. Computers & Education, 48(4), 618–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Machado, M., & Tao, E. (2007). Blackboard vs. Moodle: Comparing user experience of learning management systems. 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference: global engineering: knowledge without borders, opportunities without passports, Milwaukee, WI, USA, October 10–13, 2007.Google Scholar
  22. Malmi, L., Karavirta, V., Korhonen, A., Nikander, J., Seppälä, O., & Silvasti, P. (2004). Visual algorithm simulation exercise system with automatic assessment: TRAKLA2. Informatics in Education, 3(2), 267–288.Google Scholar
  23. McIver, L., & Conway, D. (1996). Seven deadly sins of introductory programming language design, Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Software Engineering: Education and Practice (SE:EP '96), January 24–27, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. Moons, J., & De Backer, C. (2013). The design and pilot evaluation of an interactive learning environment for introductory programming influenced by cognitive load theory and constructivism. Computers & Education, 60, 368–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, V., Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C., Korhonen, A., Malmi, L., McNally, M., Rodger, S., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2002). Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. Working Group Reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 35(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc..Google Scholar
  27. Raitman, R., Augar, N., Zhou, W. (2005) Employing Wikis for online collaboration in the e-learning environment: Case Study. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information Technology and Applications (ICITA’05), Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  28. Rajala, T., Laakso, M.-J., Kaila, E., & Salakoski, T. (2008). Effectiveness of Program Visualization: A Case Study with the ViLLE Tool. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 7(IIP), 15–32.Google Scholar
  29. Rajala, T., Kaila, E., Laakso, M.-J., & Salakoski, T. (2009). Effects of collaboration in program visualization. Appeared in the Technology Enhanced Learning Conference 2009 (TELearn 2009), October 6 to 8, 2009, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  30. Tynjälä, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(5), 357–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1138–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yang, Y. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1202–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Future TechnologiesUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations