Scratch, a visual programming language, was used in many studies in computer science education. Most of them reported positive results by integrating Scratch into K-12 computer courses. However, the object-oriented concept, one of the important computational thinking skills, is not represented well in Scratch. Alice, another visual programming language, seems to have better illustration of the object-oriented concept for programming novices. To demonstrate effects of Alice and Scratch, we compared students' responses to both visual programming languages, especially for students with low performances, in an introductory programming course. The relationships among learning engagement, learning anxiety, and learning playfulness were explored. The results could be referred to by computer science instructors to select proper visual programming language for corrective instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonE. F.McLoughlinL. (2007). Critters in the classroom: A 3D computer-game-like tool for teaching programming to computer animation students. ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 educators program (p. 7). ACM.
2.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (2013). Imagining, creating, playing, sharing, reflecting: How online community supports young people as designers of interactive media. In LavigneN.MouzaC. (Eds.), Emerging technologies for the classroom: A learning sciences perspective (pp. 253–268). New York, NY: Springer.
3.
ChangC. K.BiswasG. (2011, June). Design engaging environment to foster computational thinking. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol. 2011, No. 1, pp. 2898–2902).
4.
ChangS. E. (2005). Computer anxiety and perception of task complexity in learning programming-related skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 713–728.
5.
ChiouG.-F.WuC.-C. (1997). A computer curriculum guideline for junior high schools in Taiwan: Its impacts, and issues. ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 25(1/2), 21–29.
6.
ConwayM.AudiaS.BurnetteT.CosgroveD.ChristiansenK. (2000, April). Alice: Lessons learned from building a 3D system for novices. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 486–493). ACM.
DannW. P.CooperS.PauschR. (2011). Learning to program with Alice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
FelleisenM.FindlerR. B.FlattM.KrishnamurthiS. (2004). The TeachScheme! project: Computing and programming for every student. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 55–77.
10.
FlanneryL. P.SilvermanB.KazakoffE. R.BersM. U.BontáP.ResnickM. (2013, June). Designing ScratchJr: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 1–10). ACM.
11.
HeY. Y.ChangC. K.LiuB. J. (2010). Teaching computer programming for freshmen: A study on using Scratch as remedial teaching. International Journal on Digital Learning Technology, 2(1), 11–32.
12.
JohnsgardK.McDonaldJ. (2008, April). Using Alice in overview courses to improve success rates in programming I. IEEE 21st Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (pp. 129–136). IEEE.
13.
KelleherC.PauschR.KieslerS. (2007, April). Storytelling Alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1455–1464). ACM.
14.
LeeY. J. (2011). Scratch: Multimedia programming environment for young gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 26–31.
15.
LehmannE. L.RomanoJ. P. (2005). Testing statistical hypotheses (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
16.
LinJ. C.LiY. L.HoR. G.LiC. C. (2007, October). Effects of guided collaboration on sixth graders' performance in logo programming. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference–Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports (pp. T1B–11). IEEE.
17.
LinJ. M.-C.YangM.-C. (2009). Analyzing student performance and attitudes toward textual versus iconic programming languages. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(1), 71–89.
18.
Meerbaum-SalantO.ArmoniM.Ben-AriM. M. (2010, August). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 69–76). ACM.
19.
PerkinsD. N.SalomonG. (1992). Transfer of learning. In International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
20.
ResnickM. (2007). All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition (pp. 1–6). ACM.
21.
VenkateshV. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
22.
WernerL.CampeS.DennerJ. (2012, February). Children learning computer science concepts via Alice game-programming. Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 427–432). ACM.
23.
WernerL.DennerJ.CampeS.KawamotoD. C. (2012, February). The Fairy Performance Assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 215–220). ACM.
24.
WingJ. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
