The TuringLab Programming Environment - An Online Python Programming Environment for Challenge based Learning

Henry Miskin, Anandha Gopalan

Abstract

Computing has recently been introduced as a core subject in British schools, meaning that children need to learn computer programming. Teachers have to be prepared to be able to deliver the new curriculum, but many of them do not feel confident teaching it as they have no formal background in Computer Science. Also, when learning to programme, children need the correct environment and support to succeed. This paper presents TuringLab, an environment to assist teachers in delivering the practical elements of the computing curriculum, while also proving to be engaging and challenging for the children. Teachers can create programming challenges for their pupils and see how they are progressing (or struggling) during completion of the challenges. Students can undertake challenges in an engaging environment which displays a graphical output of their code and assists in understanding errors they may encounter. TuringLab has been used to teach children how to programme at a number of volunteer-led coding clubs. Children engaged well with TuringLab, and the volunteers, who acted as teachers in these sessions, found TuringLab an extremely valuable educational tool.

References

  1. Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia proposal: An education manifesto. Macmillan.
  2. Alzaghoul, A. F. (2012). The Implication of the Learning Theories on Implementing e-learning Courses. The Research Bulletin of Jordan ACM, 11(11):27-30.
  3. Anderson, T. (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University Press.
  4. Arkorful, V. and Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of elearning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, page 29.
  5. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., and Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment For Learning: Putting it into Practice. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  6. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Granada Learning.
  7. Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of Research on Strategies for Motivating Students to Learn. Educational Leadership, 5(2):40-48.
  8. Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: Developing appreciation for.. Educational psychologist, 34(2):75-85.
  9. Cellan-Jones, R. (2014). A computing revolution in schools. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology29010511. visited 2015-06-04.
  10. Computing at School (2015). Computing Teachers Call For More Training Amidst Concerns Pupils Know More Than Them. http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/index.php?id= current-news&post=quickstart-launch-2. visited 2015-06-04.
  11. Cooper, D. and Adams, K. (2007). Talk about assessment: Strategies and tools to improve learning. Thomson/Nelson.
  12. Deek, F. P. and McHugh, J. a. (1998). A Survey and Critical Analysis of Tools for Learning Programming. Computer Science Education, 8(2):130-178.
  13. Department for Education (2013). National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationalcurriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-ofstudy. visited 2015-06-04.
  14. EdSurge (2015). Teaching Kids to Code. https://www.edsurge.com/research/guides/teachingkids-to-code. visited 2015-10-14.
  15. Flanagan, J. (2013). 10 places in Britain where you can learn how to write computer code. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/14/ learn-how-to-code. visited 2015-08-27.
  16. Franklin, D., Conrad, P., Boe, B., and Nilsen, K. (2013). Assessment of computer science learning in a scratchbased outreach program. Proceeding of the 44th . . . .
  17. Gomes, A. and Mendes, A. J. N. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. International Conference on Engineering Education, pages 1-5.
  18. Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible Pedagogies: technologyenhanced learning.
  19. Gove, M. (2014). Michael Gove speaks about computing and education technology. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michaelgove-speaks-about-computing-and-educationtechnology. visited 2015-08-27.
  20. Grabinger, R. S. and Dunlap, J. C. (1995). Rich environments for active learning: a definition. Research in Learning Technology, 3(2).
  21. Hoc, J.-M. and Nguyen-Xuan, A. (1990). Language semantics, mental models and analogy. Psychology of programming, 10:139-156.
  22. Huffaker, D. a. and Calvert, S. L. (2003). the New Science of Learning: Active Learning, Metacognition, and Transfer of Knowledge in E-Learning Applications. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(3):325-334.
  23. Jones, S. P. (2015). Code to Joy. Times Education Supplement.
  24. Juris?evic?, M. (2010). Creativity in the Zone of Proximal Motivational Development. Facilitating effective student learning through teacher research and innovation, pages 415-429.
  25. Kelleher, C. and Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR).
  26. Keller, J. M. and Suzuki, K. (1988). Use of the ARCS Motivation Model in courseware design.
  27. Knight, J. (2008). The Assessment for Learning Strategy. Technical report, Depeartment for children, schools and families.
  28. Maloney, J., Burd, L., and Kafai, Y. (2004). Scratch: a sneak preview. Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing.
  29. Maloney, J., Peppler, K., and Kafai, Y. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. ACM SIGCSE . . . .
  30. Mödritscher, F. (2006). e-Learning Theories in Practice : A Comparison of three. Science And Technology, 0(0):3-18.
  31. OurICT (2015). Ten Resources for Teaching Computer Science. http://www.ourict.co.uk/teaching-computerscience/. visited 2015-08-22.
  32. Pearlman, B. (2009). Making 21st Century Schools Creating Learner-Centered Schoolplaces / Workplaces for a New Culture of Students at Work. Educational Technology, 49(5):14-19.
  33. Stergioulas, L. K. and Drenoyianni, H. (2011). Pursuing Digital Literacy in Compulsory Education, volume 43 of New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies. Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
  34. Twigg, C. A. (2002). Quality, cost and access: The case for redesign. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
  35. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  36. Walser, N. (2011). Spotlight on Technology in Education. Number 7 in Harvard Education Letter Spotlight. Harvard Educational Publishing Group.
  37. Wood, D. (1998). How children think and learn: The social context of cognitive development. Oxford: Blackwell.
  38. Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., and Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding Student Motivation, Behaviors and Perceptions in MOOCs. In ACM Conference
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Miskin H. and Gopalan A. (2016). The TuringLab Programming Environment - An Online Python Programming Environment for Challenge based Learning . In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-179-3, pages 103-113. DOI: 10.5220/0005802701030113


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu16,
author={Henry Miskin and Anandha Gopalan},
title={The TuringLab Programming Environment - An Online Python Programming Environment for Challenge based Learning},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,},
year={2016},
pages={103-113},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005802701030113},
isbn={978-989-758-179-3},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,
TI - The TuringLab Programming Environment - An Online Python Programming Environment for Challenge based Learning
SN - 978-989-758-179-3
AU - Miskin H.
AU - Gopalan A.
PY - 2016
SP - 103
EP - 113
DO - 10.5220/0005802701030113