Advertisement

A blended learning course for playfully teaching programming concepts to school teachers

  • Fotis Lazarinis
  • Christoforos V. Karachristos
  • Elias C. Stavropoulos
  • Vassilios S. Verykios
Article

Abstract

In this paper we report our experiences from a University outreach program with primary and secondary education teachers of various specialties. Our goal was to improve the coding abilities of teachers through Scratch activities. The participants can in turn teach their students, multiplying that way the benefitted population. To increase the participation and the completion percentage, the activities are designed as a course in Moodle realized in discrete runs with manageable groups, in a blended learning approach. The educational material was a combination of learning objects with specific objectives, video material and try-out activities. The course has been completed by 559 teachers from various Greek districts, mainly of regional areas, with a high completion rate of 65%. The participants found the experience highly satisfying, interesting and agreed that they had been supported effectively throughout the process. In the paper we describe the rational of our approach, the design and implementation phases of the project, the outcomes and the main findings of the evaluation of the user opinions.

Keywords

Computer science education Computational thinking Multimedia learning Professional teacher development Scratch Blended learning MOOC 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Stavros Niarchos Foundation.

References

  1. Al Sabbagh, S., Gedawy, H., Alshikhabobakr, H., and Razak, S. (2017). Computing curriculum in middle schools: An experience report. Proceedings of the 22th ACM annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE 2017) 13–16. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Armoni, M. (2017). Computing in schools: On teaching problem-solving paradigms in K-12 education. ACM Inroads, 8(1), 30–32.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castro, B., Diaz, T., Gee, M., Justice, R., Kwan, D., Seshadri, P., and Dodds, S. (2016). MyCS at 5: Assessing a middle-years CS curriculum. In Proceedings of 47th technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE 2016) 558–563. New York,: ACM.Google Scholar
  4. Dee, H., Cufi, X., Milani, A., Marian, M. and Poggioni V. (2017). Playfully coding: Embedding computer science outreach in schools. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE '17) 176–181. New York,: ACM.Google Scholar
  5. Eriksson, T., Adawi, T., & Stöhr, C. (2017). Time is the bottleneck: A qualitative study exploring why learners drop out of MOOCs. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 29–133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9127-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Esteves, M., Fonseca, B., Morgado, L., & Martins, P. (2010). Improving teaching and learning of computer programming through the use of the second life virtual world. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 624–637.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01056.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). What Computational Thinking is. Journal of Information Technology Research, 9(3), v–viii.Google Scholar
  8. Gkontzis, A. F., Karachristos, C. V., Lazarinis, F., Stavropoulos, E.C., and Verykios, V.S. (2017a) Assessing Student Performance by Learning Analytics Dashboards. In Proc. of ICODL2017, SECTION A: theoretical papers, original research and scientific articles 9(6B):101–115. Greece: Athens.Google Scholar
  9. Gkontzis, A.F., Panagiotakopoulos, C. T., Stavropoulos, E. C. and Verykios, V.S. (2017b). A Holistic View on Academic Wide Data through Learning Analytics Dashboards. In Proc. of the online, open and flexible higher education conference 2017 (EADTU annual conference 2017) pp. 12–27.Google Scholar
  10. Guo, P.J., Reinecke, K. (2014). Demographic differences in how students navigate through moocs. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on learning@ scale conference (L@S 2014) 21–30. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Ho, A., Chuang, I., Reich, J., Coleman, C., Whitehall, J., Northcutt, C., Williams, J., Hansen, J., Lopez, G., & Peterson, R. (2015). HarvardX and MITx: Two years of open online courses. Cambridge: HarvardX.Google Scholar
  12. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lamprou, A., Repenning, A., and Escherle, N. (2017). The Solothurn project — Bringing computer science education to primary schools in Switzerland. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE '17) 218–223. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Onah, Daniel F. O., Sinclair, J., and Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout rates of massive open online courses: Behavioural patterns. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on education and new learning technologies, barcelona (EDULEARN14) 5825–5834. Spain.Google Scholar
  17. Rodger, S. H., Hayes, J., Lezin, G., Qin, H., Nelson, D., Tucker, R., Lopez, M., Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Slater, D. (2009). Engaging middle school teachers and students with Alice in a diverse set of subjects. SIGCSE Bull., 41(1), 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sáez-López, J., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using 'Scratch' in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weintrop, D. and Wilensky, U. (2015). 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 199–208. Boston.Google Scholar
  20. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(1), 33–35.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zheng, S. Rosson, M.B., Shih, P.C., and J.M. Carroll. (2015). Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (CSCW’15) 1882–1895. New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fotis Lazarinis
    • 1
  • Christoforos V. Karachristos
    • 1
  • Elias C. Stavropoulos
    • 1
  • Vassilios S. Verykios
    • 1
  1. 1.Hellenic Open UniversityPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations