比较在线学习方法对CS1学习效果的影响

M. Lee, Amy J. Ko
{"title":"比较在线学习方法对CS1学习效果的影响","authors":"M. Lee, Amy J. Ko","doi":"10.1145/2787622.2787709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"People are increasingly turning to online resources to learn to code. However, despite their prevalence, it is still unclear how successful these resources are at teaching CS1 programming concepts. Using a pretest-posttest study design, we measured the performance of 60 novices before and after they used one of the following, randomly assigned learning activities: 1) complete a Python course on a website called Codecademy, 2) play through and finish a debugging game called Gidget, or 3) use Gidget's puzzle designer to write programs from scratch. The pre- and post-test exams consisted of 24 multiple choice questions that were selected and validated based on data from 1,494 crowdsourced respondents. All 60 of our novices across the three conditions did poorly on the exams overall in both the pre-tests and post-tests (e.g., the best median post-test score was 50% correct). However, those completing the Codecademy course and those playing through the Gidget game showed over a 100% increase in correct answers when comparing their post-test exam scores to their pre-test exam scores. Those playing Gidget, however, achieved these same learning gains in half the time. This was in contrast to novices that used the puzzle designer, who did not show any measurable learning gains. All participants performed similarly within their own conditions, regardless of gender, age, or education. These findings suggest that discretionary online educational technologies can successfully teach novices introductory programming concepts (to a degree) within a few hours when explicitly guided by a curriculum.","PeriodicalId":394643,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research","volume":"110 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"110","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the Effectiveness of Online Learning Approaches on CS1 Learning Outcomes\",\"authors\":\"M. Lee, Amy J. Ko\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2787622.2787709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"People are increasingly turning to online resources to learn to code. However, despite their prevalence, it is still unclear how successful these resources are at teaching CS1 programming concepts. Using a pretest-posttest study design, we measured the performance of 60 novices before and after they used one of the following, randomly assigned learning activities: 1) complete a Python course on a website called Codecademy, 2) play through and finish a debugging game called Gidget, or 3) use Gidget's puzzle designer to write programs from scratch. The pre- and post-test exams consisted of 24 multiple choice questions that were selected and validated based on data from 1,494 crowdsourced respondents. All 60 of our novices across the three conditions did poorly on the exams overall in both the pre-tests and post-tests (e.g., the best median post-test score was 50% correct). However, those completing the Codecademy course and those playing through the Gidget game showed over a 100% increase in correct answers when comparing their post-test exam scores to their pre-test exam scores. Those playing Gidget, however, achieved these same learning gains in half the time. This was in contrast to novices that used the puzzle designer, who did not show any measurable learning gains. All participants performed similarly within their own conditions, regardless of gender, age, or education. These findings suggest that discretionary online educational technologies can successfully teach novices introductory programming concepts (to a degree) within a few hours when explicitly guided by a curriculum.\",\"PeriodicalId\":394643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"110\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787709\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 110

摘要

人们越来越多地转向在线资源来学习编程。然而,尽管它们很流行,但这些资源在教授CS1编程概念方面有多成功还不清楚。采用前测后测的研究设计,我们测量了60名新手在进行以下随机分配的学习活动前后的表现:1)在一个名为Codecademy的网站上完成Python课程,2)玩并完成一个名为Gidget的调试游戏,或者3)使用Gidget的益智游戏从头开始编写程序。测试前和测试后的考试包括24道选择题,这些选择题是根据1494名众包受访者的数据选出和验证的。在三种情况下,我们所有的60名新手在前测和后测中都表现不佳(例如,测试后的最佳中位数分数是50%)。然而,那些完成Codecademy课程的学生和那些玩Gidget游戏的学生在测试后的考试成绩与测试前的考试成绩相比,正确率提高了100%以上。然而,那些玩《Gidget》的人只花了一半的时间就取得了同样的学习成果。这与使用谜题设计师的新手形成鲜明对比,他们没有表现出任何可衡量的学习收获。无论性别、年龄或教育程度如何,所有参与者在各自条件下的表现都相似。这些发现表明,自由裁量的在线教育技术可以在课程的明确指导下,在几个小时内成功地(在一定程度上)教授新手入门编程概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the Effectiveness of Online Learning Approaches on CS1 Learning Outcomes
People are increasingly turning to online resources to learn to code. However, despite their prevalence, it is still unclear how successful these resources are at teaching CS1 programming concepts. Using a pretest-posttest study design, we measured the performance of 60 novices before and after they used one of the following, randomly assigned learning activities: 1) complete a Python course on a website called Codecademy, 2) play through and finish a debugging game called Gidget, or 3) use Gidget's puzzle designer to write programs from scratch. The pre- and post-test exams consisted of 24 multiple choice questions that were selected and validated based on data from 1,494 crowdsourced respondents. All 60 of our novices across the three conditions did poorly on the exams overall in both the pre-tests and post-tests (e.g., the best median post-test score was 50% correct). However, those completing the Codecademy course and those playing through the Gidget game showed over a 100% increase in correct answers when comparing their post-test exam scores to their pre-test exam scores. Those playing Gidget, however, achieved these same learning gains in half the time. This was in contrast to novices that used the puzzle designer, who did not show any measurable learning gains. All participants performed similarly within their own conditions, regardless of gender, age, or education. These findings suggest that discretionary online educational technologies can successfully teach novices introductory programming concepts (to a degree) within a few hours when explicitly guided by a curriculum.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信