=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3076/paper05
|storemode=property
|title=Learning to Program - Programming to Learn: Technology Supporting Digital, Physical and Social Learning in Schools
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3076/ECTEL2021_DC_paper05.pdf
|volume=Vol-3076
|authors=Kristina Torine Litherland
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ectel/Litherland21
}}
==Learning to Program - Programming to Learn: Technology Supporting Digital, Physical and Social Learning in Schools==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3076/ECTEL2021_DC_paper05.pdf
Learning to Program - Programming to Learn: Technology
Supporting Digital, Physical and Social Learning in Schools
Kristina Litherland
University of Oslo, P.O Box 1092, Blindern, 0312 Oslo, Norway
Abstract
The purpose of this project is to provide a deeper understanding of programming pedagogic
practices by studying two cases of programming in school, providing two different entry points
to learning of and with computer programming. The cases represent two approaches to
technology enhanced learning of programming, namely screencasts and so-called
“makerspaces”, but also how programming as a technology itself may enhance learning. Using
qualitative research methods, my aim is to develop theory and practice related to programming
pedagogy. Preliminary results show that both screencasts and makerspaces are potentially
useful tools for learning programming, and that programming may be a useful learning tool in
itself. However, these findings need to be explored and refined further.
Keywords 1
Computer programming, interdisciplinarity, screencasts, makerspaces, socio-cultural
perspective
1. Introduction knowledge on how this is best done [2]. On the
other hand, programming may provide the
opportunity to engage students in
The autumn of 2020 marked the starting
interdisciplinary activities and problem solving
point of the new national curriculum in
in several subjects [3].
Norwegian primary and secondary education
The Nordic approach to programming in
(years 1 to 10), known as “the Renewal of
school, where programming is integrated into
Subjects” [1, author’s translation]. One of the
other subjects [4], is fundamentally different to
new aspects of the curriculum is the explicit
approaches seen in other Western countries’
inclusion of computer programming in several
educational systems where programming is
subjects, specifically mathematics, science,
organised as separate subjects (see e.g. [5]). The
music, and arts and craft; all of which are
new, Norwegian curriculum and the existing
mandatory subjects for all students. Computer
programming courses provide an opportunity to
programming has been an elective subject in
study programming for the subjects versus
Norwegian secondary schools since 2016, but
programming as a subject. One rationale for the
with the new curriculum, all students are
importance of learning how to program at a
obliged to learn to program as part of their
basic level is the idea that all members of
mathematics course so they can successfully
society need an understanding of the role of
use programming as a tool in both mathematics
programming in the digital world that
and other subjects. This provides several
surrounds us (e.g. what is an algorithm and how
challenges, but also some opportunities. One
can it be used to deliver personalised ads).
such challenge is that teachers must learn both
However, not all students need professional
computer programming and how to integrate it
knowledge on how to create industrial-strength
into their subjects, even though there is little
computer programs. In the Nordic countries,
Proceedings of the Doctoral Consortium of Sixteenth European
Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, September 20–21,
2021, Bolzano, Italy (online).
EMAIL: Kristina.litherland@iped.uio.no
ORCID: 0000-0001-9694-1291
©️ 2020 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
there is an emphasis on programming as a learning, which considers learning as
bridge between subject domains, e.g. fundamentally social [8]. A key concept of the
mathematics and natural science, and statistics sociocultural perspective is that tools mediate
and social science. learning. According to Vygotsky [8], language
The aim of this PhD-project is to provide a itself is the most powerful mediating tool, and
deeper understanding of programming researchers should therefore give attention to
pedagogic practices in Norwegian schools by language use when studying learning.
studying two cases providing two entry points. However, language is not the only tool involved
The cases represent different approaches to in learning computer programming; therefore,
technology enhanced learning of and with also other (computer mediated and non-
programming described in detail later in this computational) tools and artefacts will be
paper. Note that my project concerns both included as objects for analysis. Computer
learning of conceptual knowledge of programming is about creating code a computer
programming and other subjects, and how can read, which is a technological artefact.
technological tools can support this learning. I However, humans also read, modify, use, and
view programming skills themselves as write code, often based on other people’s code.
technological learning tools. I argue that this makes programming an
The PhD-project overall is guided by the inherently social activity, and that
following research question with two sub- programming should be treated as such. This
questions, which, when combined, will provide idea of sociality is in line with Vygotsky’s view
a basis for elaborating on the main research of learning.
question. How do computer programming Computer science (CS) education is a broad
classes and integrated subject/computing field and includes CS education at all levels in
classes compare as interdisciplinary learning the educational system: From elementary
arenas? school to higher education. Nygaard [9] claims
1. How does interactive screencast the term computer science is too narrow, as it
technology support digital and social places too much emphasis on the computer
learning practices in computer programming itself and does not cover all (e.g. social) aspects
classes? of the field. I choose to use the term
2. How are learning processes supported programming pedagogy, as using a verb
by programming as an intermediate tool (programming) makes the term more
between physical making and conceptual process/action oriented, to cover the field of
knowledge in a digital science classroom? teaching and learning to program in a wide
sense, including programming concepts,
Using a qualitative, primarily bottom-up practices and perspectives [10].
approach to explore my research questions, my This theoretical perspective will frame my
contribution will be to improve the analysis by providing a focal point on
understanding of the two approaches to knowledge development over cognitive
programming knowledge development in assessment. Potential findings relate to
Norwegian schools. Hence, the aim of the observed classroom episodes where the use of
project is not to make statistically generalizable tools (e.g. language, gestures, and digital tools)
claims, but to give reliable and valid are involved in this development. Since
perspectives of development processes programming in Norwegian schools is a new
observed within the cases at hand. I hope that phenomenon, there is a need to better
the project will reveal both challenges and understand what is happening during
opportunities that are relevant for developing programming classes/classes with
the field of programming pedagogy in school programming and what the potentials are.
further, and how technical tools are involved in
these processes. 3. Programming in school
2. Theoretical framework The idea of using programming in school is
not new and often dated to Seymour Papert’s
The theoretical framework for the project is 1980 book Mindstorms [3] and his concept of
grounded in the sociocultural perspective on “Turtle Geometry”. At the time, Papert and his
team at Massachusetts Institute of Technology a high focus on programming languages and
had recently developed a text-based environments, but not on what concepts, ideas,
programming language called Logo. Papert had or practices the learners are expected to know.
grand ideas about how children could learn In the Norwegian curriculum, concepts such as
mathematics and geometry hands-on, but also variables, loops and if-statements are
how they could learn to think, by using Logo mentioned explicitly, while a more basic
and constructing programs [11]. However, later concept such as sequencing is not. In addition,
research has criticised some of the claims by no practices, such as debugging, are included.
finding that a programmer’s knowledge and Lye and Koh [10] found that research on
experience does not always develop into computational concepts dominated over
cognitive/higher order skills (see e.g. [12]). computational practices (e.g. how students
Mitch Resnick, one of Papert’s students and solve programming problems), which again
leader of the team that developed the most well- dominated over computational perspectives
known block-based programming language (e.g. how students talk about what
used in education, Scratch, is a champion for an programming means to them or the society).
interest-driven approach as a programming Lye and Koh suggest that both teachers and
pedagogy [13]. Resnick’s idea is that children researchers should focus more on practices and
can develop what is often referred to as 21st perspectives.
century skills, such as creativity and Interestingly, from a Nordic perspective,
collaboration skills, through open ended there is little research on what concepts across
programming activities, which involve very fields (including, but not limited to
little upfront teaching. The success of this mathematics, natural science, arts and crafts,
approach, according to Resnick, relies on the and music) that are suitable to combine with
elimination of complicated programming programming, or whether the integration of
syntax, which is the aim of block-based programming with these fields is more a
programming. question of practice integration.
From Papert to Resnick the rationale has Modern programming pedagogy is
moved from being quite specific (mathematics influenced by several, sometimes competing,
and thinking) to talking about more general approaches to the topic of how programming
skills. The Nordic model of programming can should be taught [2]. One of the main questions
be placed somewhere between the two, as is how to structure programming classes.
programming is placed within subjects but are Sentance, Waite & Kallia [15] have identified
meant to develop both domain specific and that one of the most common ways is through
general skills. Waite [2] mentions traditional lecture style lessons, and also that
programming for the subject as a specific there are several issues with this teaching style.
context for programming that needs a specific Moving away from the lecture style approach
pedagogy. She uses as example the dilemma of gives way for more student-active approaches,
how to help students both connect and where students can be encouraged to talk and
differentiate between programming and the use other tools.
subject in question. One particular challenge in In the programming industry, using spoken
this regard is how symbols like punctuation language to debug code was popularised under
marks or equals signs are used in specific ways the term “rubber-duck debugging” back in 2000
in programming languages that are not [16]. Little research has been done in this field
necessarily compatible with other fields, such of “talking about code” and reading it aloud in
as mathematics. professional and educational settings. Based on
In recent years, a growing number of the premises of coding being a social activity
researchers have studied programming [9] and that language is one of the most
pedagogy. The nominal paper by Wing [6] in important tools for learning [8], this is a gap in
2006 is typically credited as the source of the the literature. Some work has been done,
current wave of programming in schools across however, and several researchers point to the
the world. As a result of this wave, the field of importance of using spoken language to bridge
programming in school has gotten an programming activities [10, 15, 17].
increasingly large mass of available tools and The few existing studies have promising
resources (see e.g. [14]). This is also results. In their research on what they call code
symptomatic for the field of research. There is phonology, Hermans, Swidan and Aivaloglou
[18] found that there was a correlation between 4. Research design and method
a student’s ability to read code consistently and
accurately out load and their general
This qualitative research project is based on
programming knowledge. Kluge et al. [19]
data from two cases that represent different
found that students could present their own
approaches to programming in Norwegian
code using screencasts and that the
schools. See Table 1 for reference. Both cases
presentations provided a more detailed
involve the empirical study of programming
perspective of the students’ understanding than
interventions in Norwegian schools, and follow
the code would on its own.
design-based research methodology [23].
Another student-active and interest driven
The first case is situated in the elective
approach is the use of makerspace methodology
programming subjects in Norwegian secondary
[20]. Makerspace methodology follows in the
and upper secondary school, and the purpose of
line of Papert’s learning theory, where students
the case to explore the first and main research
are thought to learn through the construction of
questions. We employed a digital tool called
physical and digital objects.
Scrimba, which is an instructional tool, a code
Throughout the past decades, we have seen
editor, a screen recording tool, and a learning
several ideas about what students can learn
management system, and, in our case, a
through programming. They include thinking
research data collection tool.
skills, subject specific and general skills, as
Students and teachers from six schools
well as to teach students about our “digital
participated in the intervention. We explore the
world”. However, most of the research on
making and use of screencasts (screen
programming is based on programming for the
recordings) in different ways, for example to
sake of programming, i.e. to educate
structure lessons and in assessment. The
professional developers. The Nordic approach
screencasts capture the students’ programming
assumes that programming can contribute to the
activities as a process, including how the
learning of other subjects. As is the case with
students describe and discuss their code.
many programming pedagogical topics in
The second case involves underachieving
school contexts, also the field of programming
gifted/talented students attending a natural
for the subjects is “underinvestigated” [17, p.
science class intervention where they
42]. One of the most known cases of such
incorporate programming and making in
research is on Logo and mathematics [21], but
science. The aim of this case is to explore the
there are some more recent examples.
second and main research questions. Potential
The project ScratchMaths has shown
participants are tested using the Wechsler
promising results in using Scratch to teach
Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) test, to
primary school children basic mathematics
identify students who can be defined as
skills [22]. In their approach, mathematical and
underachieving gifted/talented students, but
programming concepts were taught
this is not emphasised in my PhD project.
“simultaneously”, using subtle colour coding to
During the intervention, the students are
help students differentiate between the two
invited to make digital and physical
subjects and help them see the connections.
programmed artefacts with the aim of
This is an important point, as Mørch and
developing understanding of natural science
colleagues [20] found that students do not
concepts. Approximately 40 students
automatically connect programming concepts
participated in the first iteration, and more are
with the relevant school subject(s) if this is not
recruited for the second iteration, which is
explicitly pointed out to them.
starting during the autumn of 2021.
As presented in this section, the
As both research projects are design based
programming literature has several interesting
projects, I aim to contribute to both theory
lines of research. Since I am applying a
development and the development of
qualitative, explorative approach in this project,
pedagogical practices that are more “hands on”
and I am still at an early stage of my project, I
useful for the practice community.
prefer to keep an open mind as to what lines I
will pursue later based on the affordances of my
data.
Table 1 where cameras are placed so that we capture
Case comparison events on the students’ screens and the shared
Case 1 Case 2 physical space between the students and their
Student age 13-19 12-16 persons, enabling us to capture e.g. gestures and
Programming how the students potentially move the shared
Programming Programming laptop computer or other physical tools
as learning
rationale as subject between them. A table microphone ensures
tool
Elective good quality voice recordings.
Elective course for Interviews held individually and/or in
Context course in gifted groups using a semi-structured approach, may
school students provide a meta-cognitive perspective.
across schools The first case is formally concluded,
Main Interactive meaning no more data is collected. Data
Makerspace
pedagogical screencast collection in the second case started during the
technology
tools technology autumn of 2020, and there is available data
Video/audio from the pilot project that is relevant [20].
Video/audio
recordings in Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the
recordings in
classrooms, 2020/2021 academic year interventions in the
classrooms,
semi- second case were conducted digitally,
semi-
structures providing considerable challenges forcing all
Data structured
interviews, case participants to adapt. This has also affected
collection interviews,
screen my project and research questions. We have
screencasts
recordings started conducting the next iteration in a
from
from digital physically co-located classroom, which may
screencasting
classroom provide opportunities for comparing the
software
environment
iterations and cases on even more conceptual
N (students) 134 ~200
levels, which I have not started exploring as of
now.
4.1. Data collection
4.2. Data analysis
Data from both cases is/was collected using
participant observation, screen recordings and The data will be analysed using a qualitative
interviews. Observations are collected using approach. I will look at interactions themselves
field notes (meta-data), video cameras, (i.e. the contents and organisation of
microphones, and screen recording software. conversations and other social acts) using
This will enable me to capture both what the interaction analysis (IA) [24]. Typically, this
students are saying, with whom they are means to look for recurring and/or exceptional
talking, how they use their bodies/gestures to “episodes” and sequences of turn taking
communicate, what digital and physical objects contributing to meaning making, and
they are interacting with as well as what they organising them into themes that conceptualise
are constructing. It is vital that the students are the events in the episode [25]. However, as the
encouraged to interact and work together in students are interacting with digital and
order to capture these conversations. The physical tools and may be using gestures (both
student assignments are designed for working physically and digitally) to communicate, these
in pairs to assure that I may collect interaction actions are also considered parts of the
data, but in the first case, there are also students interaction to analyse. This is in line with a
who have worked alone and have recorded their Vygotskyan view on mediational tools as
own, individual screencast explanations. essential parts of learning processes.
In both cases, we used (or intend to use) a The primary data therefore consists of the
voice- and tool-focused approach to video video observations and screen recordings, as
recordings, informed by our theoretical these best capture the complex processes we are
perspective. This is achieved by a particular studying. The interviews are a secondary data
focus on the relative placement of video and source that may support or challenge what we
audio recording hardware in the classroom, observe in the classrooms.
As the two cases include relatively large researchers to ensure a level of inter-coder
amounts of data (tens of hours of video data), it reliability.
will be necessary to reduce the data to those that
are most relevant for the research questions. 5. Preliminary results and
This means that I will focus on data were the
students are actively engaged in programming, discussion
over episodes that are e.g. mainly teacher
oriented or where the students are engaged in In this section, I will briefly describe my
other types of activities. preliminary findings and discuss these and the
Both the cases are parts of larger research current state of the project. I will frame this
projects where other researchers employ discussion using the research questions, starting
several analytical tools and data sources to with the sub-questions and moving on to the
answer different research questions. My project main research question.
differs in that I employ the same analytical tools Sub-question 1: How does interactive
across the two cases. screencast technology support digital and
social learning practices in computer
programming classes?
4.3. Research quality In the first case, we are exploring
affordances of different modes of using
Although there is some overlap, the cases integrated screencast technology [19]. The
have distinct takes on programming in school. most promising results include how making
Instead of viewing this as mainly a challenge, screencast code presentations may create new
the cases provide an opportunity to investigate learning opportunities for the students, as
contrasting approaches to programming presented in our short-paper [26]. We have
pedagogy. observed episodes where students work
One challenge, particularly about collaboratively on developing code and how
generalisation to the general population of switching to a screencast recording “mode” of
students who are expected to learn working, e.g. creating a screencast as cultural
programming within the mandatory subjects tool, changed how they talked, edited and tested
following the new curriculum, is that the code. Recording a screencast is not simply a
participants do not represent “typical students” representation of a learning process, but is
in the Norwegian school, as they have all opted connected to particular cultural practices. This
in to take part in the elective programming interrelationship between activity framing, talk,
subjects. Furthermore, all the students in the code changes and other development actions
second case belong to the group of will be explored further, and is especially
underachieving gifted/talented students. This interesting for comparison with the case where
brings about some methodological challenges, another level of abstraction is added, namely
but also the opportunity to study programming the explicit goal of subject learning through
with students that are likely to be motivated. It programming.
is possible to assume the challenges we might Sub-question 2: How are learning processes
experience with the participants can be even supported by programming as an intermediate
bigger when programming is implemented in tool between physical making and conceptual
mandatory education for everyone. knowledge in a digital science classroom?
In the second case, the coronavirus Although the digital classroom of the Covid-
pandemic had a big impact on the first iteration 19 pandemic has caused several problems such
of the interventions. This has provided an as technical difficulties, students dropping out,
opportunity to study the learning of science and changes to the activities in the intervention,
concepts using digital tools such as “Microbits” we have seen signs of how programming may
and programming, in a digital classroom, but be a bridge between the individual, concrete,
there are challenges on how the data from the physical artefacts the students made, and the
digital iteration will compare with the second social and digital classrooms where interactions
round. and teaching took place. The students could not
One way we ensure the research quality in manipulate other students’ physical artefacts or
the complex case contexts, is by developing work together on creating common physical
codes and then viewing data separately as artefacts as they would in a physical classroom,
but they could share and manipulate code in the BETT2018 Steering Group (2018)
online classroom environment [27]. I will doi:10.17471/54007.
continue to explore the role of programming [5] N. C. Brown, S. Sentance, T. Crick, S.
and screen sharing practices as tools for Humphreys, Restart: The resurgence of
supporting the students’ learning. computer science in UK schools. ACM
Main research question: How do computer Transactions on Computing Education 14
programming classes and integrated (2014): 1–22.
subject/programming classes compare as [6] J. M. Wing, Computational thinking.
learning arenas? Communications of the ACM 49 (2006):
With this research question, I intend to 33–35.
compare the two approaches to programming [7] A. V. Aho. Computation and
(traditional approach, and Nordic approach), Computational Thinking. Ubiquity
and explore in what ways they differ and how symposium (2011) doi:
the interdisciplinarity of the Nordic approach is https://doi.org/10.1145/1922681.1922682
expressed through the students’ learning [8] L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society: The
processes, and how this differs from the development of higher psychological
traditional approach. processes. Harvard university press, 1980.
In some respects, the pandemic made the [9] K. Nygaard, Program development as a
cases more similar, as the collaboration social activity. In IFIP Congress (1986):
activities in both cases were, in large, mediated 189–198.
by what the students saw and did on the screen. [10] S. Y. Lye, J. H. L. Koh, Review on
Currently, data from the two cases are being teaching and learning of computational
analysed separately, but I intend to do a thinking through programming: What is
comparative analysis once I am more familiar next for K-12?. Computers in Human
with the separate data sets. Behavior, 41 (2014): 51–61.
Preliminary findings are mostly empirical, [11] I. E. Harel, S. E. Papert, Constructionism.
but with deeper analysis, I hope to develop Ablex Publishing, 1991.
these into more refined models or theories, that [12] R. E. Mayer, J. L. Dyck, W. Vilberg,
may contribute both to the research field of Learning to program and learning to think:
learning to program and programming to learn, what's the connection?. Communications
but also the practice of how and why. of the ACM 29 (1986): 605–610.
[13] M. Resnick, Lifelong kindergarten:
6. References Cultivating creativity through projects,
passion, peers, and play. MIT press, 2017.
[14] F. J. García-Peñalvo, J. Hughes, A. Rees,
[1] Norwegian directorate of Education, the,
I. Jormanainen, T. Toivonen, D. Reimann,
Nye læreplaner – grunnskolen og M. Tuul, M. Virnes, Evaluation of existing
gjennomgående fag vgo, 2019. URL: resources (study/analysis). Belgium:
https://www.udir.no/laring-og- TACCLE3 Consortium. 2016
trivsel/lareplanverket/Nye-lareplaner-i- doi:10.5281/zenodo.163112
grunnskolen-og-gjennomgaende-fag-vgo. [15] S. Sentance, J. Waite, M. Kallia, Teaching
[2] J. Waite, Pedagogy in teaching Computer computer programming with PRIMM: a
Science in Schools: A Literature Review, sociocultural perspective. Computer
2018. URL:
Science Education 29 (2019): 136–176.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/pr [16] A. Hunt, D. Thomas, The Pragmatic
ojects/computing-education/literature- Programmer. Boston: Addison-Wesley,
review-pedagogy-in-teaching.pdf 2000.
[3] S. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, [17] S. Grover, R. Pea, Computational thinking
computers, and powerful ideas. Basic in K–12: A review of the state of the field.
Books Inc, 1980. Educational researcher 42 (2013): 38–43.
[4] S. Bocconi, A. Chioccariello, J. Earp, The [18] F. Hermans, A. Swidan, E. Aivaloglou,
Nordic approach to introducing Code Phonology: an exploration into the
Computational Thinking and vocalization of code, in: Proceedings of
programming in compulsory education. the 26th Conference on Program
Report prepared for the Nordic@
Comprehension, 2018, pp. 308–311.
ACM.
[19] A. Kluge, K. T. Litherland, P. H. Borgen,
G. O. Langslet, Combining programming
with audio explanations, in: Proceedings
of the 11th International Conference on
Education Technology and Computers,
2019, pp. 155–159.
[20] A. I. Mørch, K. T. Litherland, R.
Andersen, End-User Development Goes to
School: Collaborative Learning with
Makerspaces in Subject Areas. In
International Symposium on End User
Development, 2019, pp. 200–208.
[21] I. E. Harel, S. E. Papert, Software design
as a learning environment, Interactive
learning environments 1 (1990): 1–32.
[22] L. Benton, P. Saunders, I. Kalas, C.
Hoyles, R. Noss, Designing for learning
mathematics through programming: A
case study of pupils engaging with place
value. International journal of child-
computer interaction 16 (2018): 68–76.
[23] S. Barab, K. Squire, Design-based
research: Putting a stake in the
ground. The journal of the learning
sciences 13 (2004): 1–14.
[24] B. Jordan, A. Henderson, Interaction
analysis: Foundations and practice, The
journal of the learning sciences 4 (1995):
39–103.
[25] V. Braun, V. Clarke, Using thematic
analysis in psychology. Qualitative
research in psychology 3 (2006): 77–101.
[26] K. Litherland, A. Kluge, A. I. Mørch,
Interactive Screencasts as Learning Tools
in Introductory Programming, in:
Proceedings of the 16th European
Conference on Technology Enhanced
Learning, 2021, pp. 342–346.
[27] R. Andersen, A.I. Mørch, K. T. Litherland,
Learning Domain Knowledge using
Block-Based Programming: Design-Based
Collaborative Learning, in: Proceedings of
the 8th International Symposium on End-
User Development, 2021, pp. 119–135.