PRE2024 1 Group1:
| Name | Student Number | Study |
|---|---|---|
| Naomi Han | 0986672 | CS |
| Gijs Kruize | 1656882 | CS |
| Tom de Leeuw | 1893904 | PT |
| Morgan van Tilburg | 1557947 | EE |
Summary of papers week 1
An Evaluation Framework and Comparative Analysis of the Widely Used First Programming Languages[1]
This paper looks at a framework to assess the suitability of widely used first programming languages (FPLs), where they consider both technical and environmental factors. This study doesn’t find a perfect language that meets all their criteria. Their framework, however, can guide educators in making an informed decision about which FPL to pick.
Non-Native English Speakers Learning Computer Programming: Barriers, Desires, and Design Opportunities[2]
In this paper, the challenges of non-native English speakers in learning computer programming are described. They found that non-native English speakers struggle with reading and writing code, understanding technical materials, and simultaneously learning both English and programming. The paper recommends that a learner-centred approach be taken for these non-native speakers. This should incorporate bilingual programming tools, more visual aids, culturally neutral examples and simplified English.
Teaching Coding to Children: A Methodology for Kids 5+[3]
This paper talks about teaching kids how to code and which parts of coding are essential to learn first. There are already methods for learning kids programming like Scratch and Tynkers but these would lack comprehensive methodologies for effectively teaching fundamental coding concepts. The paper suggest to start the learning process with algorithms, loops and if-conditionals.
Transitioning from Block-Based to Text-Based Programming Languages[4]
This paper looks at what happens at the switch from block-based programming to text-based programming languages. It describes how block-based languages lower the barrier to learning programming since they eliminate syntax complexities. Transitioning from a block-based language to a text-based language comes with challenges like reduced confidence and incorrect programming habits. Which in return might discourage students from using syntax-heavy languages. They would recommend letting block-based programming languages have a form of automatic syntax placement so it would automatically teach syntax.
Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools[5]
This study follows 107 primary school students using a programming language called Scratch for 2 years. This research demonstrates that the implementation of creative computing showed that using a visual programming language (VPL) actively improves a student’s grasp of programming concepts, logic, and computational practices. It highlights that students effectively learned about sequences, loops, parallelism, and events in programming.
Reference list
- ↑ Farooq, M. S., Khan, S. A., Ahmad, F., Islam, S., & Abid, A. (2014). An evaluation framework and comparative analysis of the widely used first programming languages. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e88941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088941
- ↑ Guo, P. J. (2018). Non-Native English speakers learning computer programming. CHI ’18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173970
- ↑ Kaplancali, U. T. (2017). Teaching Coding to Children: A Methodology for Kids 5+. International Journal of Elementary Education, 6(4), 32. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijeedu.20170604.11
- ↑ Moors, L., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Denny, P. (2018). Transitioning from Block-Based to Text-Based Programming Languages. 2018 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE). https://doi.org/10.1109/latice.2018.000-5
- ↑ 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003