Review of a Problems-First Approach to Programming

Review of a Problems-First Approach to First Year Undergraduate Programming - Springer: 



Gary J. Hill   


Published in Software Engineering Education Going Agile Part of the series Progress in IS pp 73-80

DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-29166-6_11

This paper, predominantly discusses the teaching of programming and problem solving to undergraduate first year computing students, using robots/robot simulators and visual programming to emulate the robot tasks. The needs to focus initial programming education on problem solving, prior to the teaching of programming syntax and software design methodology is also considered. The main vehicle for this approach is a robot/robot simulation programmed in Java, followed by the programming of a visual representation/simulation to develop programming skills.



References

1. 1.
   Beaumont, C., and Fox, C.: Learning programming: Enhancing quality through problem-based learning. In: Proceeding of 4th Annual Conference of the subject centre for Information and Computer Sciences of the Higher Education Academy (pp. 90-95). Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland: Higher Education Academy (2003).
2. 2.
   Hill G. J., Turner S.: Chapter 7:​ Problems First. In: Software Industry-Oriented Education Practices and Curriculum Development: Experiences and Lessons, M Hussey, X Xu & B Wu (Eds.), IGI Global, USA, pp 110-126, ISBN: 978-1-60960-797-5 (2011).
3. 3.
   Hill, G., Turner, S. J.: Problems first, second and third. In: International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education (IJQAETE). 3(3), pp. 88-109. 2155-496X (2014).
4. 4.
   Williams, A. B.: The qualitative impact of using Lego Mindstorms robot to teach computer engineering. In: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IEEE) Transactions on Education, 46, 206 (2003).
5. 5.
   Štuikys, V., Burbaitė, R., Damaševičius, R.: Teaching of Computer Science Topics Using Meta-Programming-Based GLOs and LEGO Robots. In: Informatics in Education - An International Journal (Vol12_1), pp125-142 (2013).
6. 6.
   Kariyawasam, K., A., Turner, S., Hill, G.: Is it Visual? The importance of a Problem Solving Module within a Computing course. In: Computer Education, Volume 10, Issue 166, May 2012, pp. 5-7, ISSN: 1672-5913 (2012).
7. 7.
   HEA-ICS Development Fund: HEA-ICS Development Fund [online] Available from: http://​www.​ics.​heacademy.​ac.​uk/​projects/​development-fund/​index.​php[Accessed: February 2015] (2015).
8. 8.
   HEA-ICS/Microsoft Innovative Teaching Fund: Developing problem-solving teaching materials based upon Microsoft Robotics Studio [online] Available from: http://​www.​ics.​heacademy.​ac.​uk/​projects/​development-fund/​fund_​details.​php?​id =​ 88 [Accessed February 2015] (2015).
9. 9.
   Adams, J. P., & Turner, S. J.: Problem Solving and Creativity for Undergraduate Engineers: process or product? In: International Conference on Innovation, Good Practice and Research in Engineering Education July 14-16, 2008, Loughborough, England, Higher Education Academy. 9781904804659 (2008).
10. 10.
    Adams, J., Turner, S., Kaczmarczyk, S., Picton, P., & Demian, P.: Problem solving and creativity for undergraduate engineers: Findings of an action research project involving robots. In: International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE 2008), Budapest, Hungary (2008).
11. 11.
    Turner S., Hill G. J.: Robots in Problem-Solving and Programming. In: 8th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, University of Southampton, 28th - 30th August 2007, pp 82-85 ISBN 0-978-0-9552005-7-1 (2007).
12. 12.
    Gallopoulos, E., Houstis, E., Rice, J. R.: Computer as Thinker/Doer. In: Problem-Solving Environments for Computational Science, IEEE Computational Science and Engineering pp 11-23 (1994).
13. 13.
    Houghton, W.: How can Learning and Teaching Theory assist Engineering Academics? [online] School of Engineering - University of Exeter. Available from: https://​www.​heacademy.​ac.​uk/​sites/​default/​files/​learning-teaching-theory.​pdf [Accessed: November 2015] (2004).
14. 14.
    Bloom, B. S. (Ed.): Taxonomy of educational objectives. In: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. White Plains, NY: Longman (1956).
15. 15.
    JICC5: Java & the Internet in the Computing Curriculum, Higher Education Academy (HEA) – Information and Computer Sciences (ICS) Conference, South Bank University, London, 22nd Jan, [online] Available from: http://​www.​ics.​heacademy.​ac.​uk/​events/​displayevent.​php?​id=​127[Accessed: February 2015] (2001).
16. 16.
    Computing Curricula: IEEE CS, ACM Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, IEEE Computer Society Press and ACM Press. [online] Available from http://​www.​acm.​org/​education/​curricula.​html [Accessed: February, 2015] (2001).
17. 17.
    Koulouri, T., Lauria, S., Macredie, R., D.: Teaching introductory programming: A quantitative evaluation of different approaches. In: ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 4, Article 26 (December 2014), 28 pages, DOI: http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​2662412 (2014).
18. 18.
    Turner S., Hill G. J.: The Inclusion of Robots Within The Teaching OF Problem Solving: Preliminary Results. In: 7th Annual Conference of the ICS HE Academy, Trinity College, Dublin, 29th - 31st August 2006, Proceedings pg 241-242 ISBN 0-9552005-3-9 (2006).
19. 19.
    Turner S., Hill G. J.: Robots within the teaching of Problem-Solving. In: ITALICS, HEA-ICS, Volume 7 Issue 1, June 2008, pp. 108-119, ISSN: 1473-7507 (2008).
20. 20.
    Turner S., Hill G. J.: Innovative Use of Robots and Graphical Programming in Software Education. In: Computer Education, Volume 9, May 2010, pp. 54-6, ISSN: 1672-5913 (2010).
21. 21.
    Turner S, Hill G, Adams: Robots in problem solving in programming. In: 9th 1-day Teaching of Programming Workshop, University of Bath, 6th April 2009 (2009).
22. 22.
    Gold. N.: Motivating Students in Software Engineering Group Projects: An Experience Report. In: Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 9(1), 10-19. DOI: 10.11120/ital.2010.09010010 (2010).
23. 23.
    Greenfoot: Teach and Learn Java Programming. [online] Available from http://​www.​greenfoot.​org/​ [Accessed: February 1, 2015] (2015).
24. 24.
    Microsoft: Microsoft robotics studio [online] Available from: http://​msdn2.​microsoft.​com/​en-us/​robotics/​aa731520.​aspx [Accessed: February 2015] (2006).
25. 25.
    Chickering, A. W., Gamson. Z. F.: Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. In: AAHE Bulletin 39:3-7. ED 282 491.6 pp. MF-01; PC-01 (1987).
26. 26.
    Savin-Baden, M. & Wilkie, K.: (eds) Challenging Research in Problem-based Learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press/SRHE (2004).

To read more go to: Review of a Problems-First Approach to First Year Undergraduate Programming - Springer


'via Blog this'

Posting on the site does not imply endorsement in any way, by the blog owner or any organisations the blog owner is associated with.


If you'd like to find out more about Computing at the University of Northampton go to: www.computing.northampton.ac.uk. All views and opinions are the author's and do not necessarily reflected those of any organisation they are associated withAll views are those of the author and should not be seen as the views of any organisation the author is associated with.

Problem-solving publications

Examples of work on problem-solving as part of computational thinking.

• Problems first second and third (Gary Hill, Scott J Turner), In International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education (IJQAETE), volume 3, pp. 88--109, 2014. [university repository]
• Greenfoot in problem solving and artificial intelligence (Scott J Turner), In 10th China-Europe International Symposium on Software Engineering Education (CEISEE), 2014. [university repository]
• • Junkbots (Scott J Turner), In Higher Education Academy Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (HEA STEM) Annual Learning and Teaching Conference 2013: Where Practice and Pedagogy Meet, 2013. [university repository]
• • Is it visual? The importance of a problem solving module within a computing course (K A Kariyawasam, Scott J Turner, Gary Hill), In Computer Education, volume 10, pp. 9--11, 2012. [university repository]
• • Problems first (Gary Hill, Scott J Turner), In Software Industry-Oriented Education Practices and Curriculum Development: Experiences and Lessons, Matthew Hussey, Bing Wu, Xu Xiaofei (eds.), IGI Global, Hershey Pa., pp. 110--126, 2011. [university repository]
  • Is it visual? Problem solving evaluation (K Kariyawasam, Scott J Turner), In Learning Global - Fourth Learning \& Teaching Conference, 2011. [university repository]
• • Innovative use of robots and graphical programming in software education (Scott J Turner, Gary Hill), In 6th China-Europe International Symposium on Software Industry Oriented Education (CEISIE2010), 2010. [university repository]
• • Robots in problem solving in programming (Scott J Turner, Gary Hill, Jonathan P Adams), In Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences 9th 1-day Teaching of Programming Workshop, 2009. [university repository] 
• • Problem solving and creativity for undergraduate computing and engineering students: the use of robots as a developmental tool (Jonathan P Adams, Scott J Turner), In Creating Contemporary Student Learning Environments, 2008.[university repository]
  • Robots and problem solving (Scott J Turner, Jonathan P Adams), In 9th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, Newtownabbey, pp. 16, 2008. [university repository]
  • Problem solving and creativity for undergraduate engineers: process or product? (Jonathan P Adams, Scott J Turner), InEE2008 - the International Conference on Innovation Good Practice and Research in Engineering Education Conference Proceedings, Higher Education Academy, Loughborough, 2008. [university repository]
  • Problem solving and creativity for undergraduate engineers: findings of an action research project involving robots(Jonathan P Adams, Scott J Turner, Stefan Kaczmarczyk, Philip Picton, P Demian), In International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEE 2008) - New Challenges in Engineering Education and Research in the 21st Century, International Network for Engineering Education \& Research (iNEER), 2008. [university repository]
  • Robotics within the teaching of problem-solving (Scott J Turner, Gary Hill), In ITALICS, volume 7, pp. 108--119, 2008.[university repository]
• • Developing problem-solving teaching materials based upon Microsoft Robotics Studio (Scott J Turner), In Innovative Teaching Development Fund Dissemination Day, 2007. [university repository]
  • Developing problem-solving teaching material based upon Microsoft Robotics Studio (Scott J Turner), In Proceedings of 8th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, Information and Computer Sciences (ICS) Subject Centre, Ulster, pp. 151, 2007. [university repository]
  • Innovative Teaching Development Fund project 2007 progress report. (Scott J Turner), In missing booktitle, 2007. [university repository]
  • Development Fund project 2006-2007 progress report. (Scott J Turner), In missing booktitle, 2007. [university repository]
  • Robots in problem-solving and programming (Scott J Turner, Gary Hill), In Proceedings of 8th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, Higher Education Academy Information and Computer Sciences Centre, Ulster, pp. 82--85, 2007. [university repository]
  • Improving problem solving and encouraging creativity in engineering undergraduates (Jonathan P Adams, Stefan Kaczmarczyk, Philip Picton, P Demian), In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education, Springer, New York, 2007. [university repository]
• • The inclusion of robots within the teaching of problem solving - preliminary results (Scott J Turner, Gary Hill), In 7th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, Hazel Steede (eds.), Higher Education Academy Subject Network for Information and Computer Sciences, Dublin, pp. 241--242, 2006. [university repository]

All views are those of the author and should not be seen as the views of any organisation the author is associated with.

Problems First, Second and Third

A paper has recently been published in International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education on problem-solving and programming by two members of the Department of Computing and Immersive Technologies, University of Northampton.

Problems First, Second and Third. 

Gary Hill and Scott Turner

Abstract
This paper considers the need to focus initial programming education on problem-solving, prior to the teaching of programming syntax and software design methodology. The main vehicle for this approach is simple Lego based robots programmed in Java, followed by the programming of a graphical representation/simulation to develop programming skills. Problem solving is not trivial (Beaumont and Fox, 2003) and is an important skill, central to computing and engineering. The paper extends the authors earlier research on problems first and problem solving (Hill and Turner, 2011) to further emphasise the importance of problem-solving, problem based learning and the benefits of both physical and visual solutions. An approach will be considered, illustrated with a series of problem-solving tasks that increase in complexity at each stage and give the students practice in attempting problem-solving approaches, as well as assisting them to learn from their mistakes. Some of the problems include ambiguities or are purposely ill-defined, to enable the student to resolve these as part of the process. The benefits to students will be discussed including students' statements that this approach, using robots, provides a method to visually and physically see the outcome of a problem. In addition, students report that the method improves their satisfaction with the course. The importance of linking the problem-solving robot activity and the programming assignment, whilst maintaining the visual nature of the problem, will be discussed, together with the comparison of this work with similar work reported by other authors relating to teaching programming using robots (Williams, 2003). In addition, limitations will be discussed relating to the access to the physical robots and the alternative attempts to simulate the robots using three options of, Microsoft Robotics Studio (MSRS), Lego Mindstorms and Greenfoot simulators.

• Hill, G. and Turner, S. J. (2014) Problems First, Second and Third. International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education (IJQAETE). 3(3), pp. 88-109. ISSN: 2155-496

To read a preview of the paper go to: http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=117560&ptid=91662&t=Problems%20First,%20Second%20and%20Third




If you'd like to find out more about Computing at the University of Northampton go to: www.computing.northampton.ac.uk. All views and opinions are the author's and do not necessarily reflected those of any organisation they are associated with

All views are those of the author and should not be seen as the views of any organisation the author is associated with.

Computational Thinking is for Everyone

Problem solving is not trivial (Beaumont and Fox, 2003).  In fact, if we think about Bloom’s Taxonomy’s (Bloom 1956) and the Cognitive Domain, problem-solving involves the high-level skills of synthesis, evaluation, analysis and applications, so perhaps it is not surprising that student’s often struggle in this area and with subjects based around problem-solving (such as programming). A much discussed and related area of Computational Thinking (Wing, 2006) has raised the profile of areas such as problem-solving, by highlighting the importance of “thinking like a computer scientist” (Wing 2006). The thought processes involved in being a computer scientist are more complicated than just being able to program, “Computational thinking is reformulating a seemingly difficult problem into one we know how to solve, perhaps by reduction, embedding, transformation, or simulation.” (Wing, 2006). The skills of computer scientists are applicable to a much wider range of areas or as Wing states: “One can major in computer science and go on to a career in medicine, law, business, politics, any type of science or engineering, and even the arts.” (Wing, 2006).

Characteristics of Computational Thinking (Wing 2006):

“Conceptualizing, not programming. Computer science is not computer programming. Thinking like a computer scientist means more than being able to program a computer. It requires thinking at multiple levels of abstraction;

Fundamental, not rote skill. A fundamental skill is something every human being must know to function in modern society. Rote means a mechanical routine. Ironically, not until computer science solves the AI Grand Challenge of making computers think like humans will thinking be rote;

A way that humans, not computers, think. Computational thinking is a way humans solve problems; it is not trying to get humans to think like computers. Computers are dull and boring; humans are clever and imaginative. We humans make computers exciting. Equipped with computing devices, we use our cleverness to tackle problems we would not dare take on before the age of computing and build systems with functionality limited only by our imaginations;

Complements and combines mathematical and engineering thinking. Computer science inherently draws on mathematical thinking, given that, like all sciences, its formal foundations rest on mathematics. Computer science inherently draws on engineering thinking, given that we build systems that interact with the real world. The constraints of the underlying computing device force co puter scientists to think computationally, not just mathematically. Being free to build virtual worlds enables us to engineer systems beyond the physical world;

Ideas, not artifacts. It’s not just the software and hardware artifacts we produce that will be physically present everywhere and touch our lives all the time, it will be the computational concepts we use to approach and solve problems, manage our daily lives, and communicate and interact with other people; and

For everyone, everywhere. Computational thinking will be a reality when it is so integral to human endeavors it disappears as an explicit philosophy.”(Wing 2006)

Carnegie Mellon now has a Centre of Computational Thinking 

Beaumont, C., & Fox, C. (2003). Learning Programming: Enhancing Quality Through Problem-Based Learning (pp. 90-95) 4th Annual Conference of the ICS HE Academy Galway: ICS.

Bloom, B., S. (ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the classification of educational goals – Handbook I: Cognitive Domain New York: McKay.

Wing, J. (2006). Computational Thinking, Communications of the ACM 49(3) 33

http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2010/10/exploring-computational-thinking.html

All views are those of the author and should not be seen as the views of any organisation the author is associated with.

Problem Solving with Robots in Computing

Scott Turner and Gary Hill from the Division of Computing an Immersive Technologies  of the University of Northampton UK,have been investigating teaching and developing problem solving skills as a first step developing programming skills through the use of LEGO-based robots and graphics based programming.


Work on problem-solving has been on-going in the School of Science and Technology (was School of Applied Sciences) for the last four years looking at the concept of teaching and developing problem-solving first, then programming. The main vehicle for developing the problem-solving skills has been LEGO Mindstorms robotics kits and series of gradually more challenging robot-based tasks.

Lawhead et al (2003) stated that robots “…provide entry level programming students with a physical model to visually demonstrate concepts” and “the most important benefit of using robots in teaching introductory courses is the focus provided on learning language independent, persistent truths about programming and programming techniques. Robots readily illustrate the idea of computation as interaction”. Synergies can be made with our work and those one on pre-object programming and simulation of robots for teaching programming as a visual approach to the teaching of the widely used programming language  Java.

The main benefits that the students stated of this approach was they  believe robots provide a method to visually and physically see the outcome of a problem. The approach taken the module has been visually-orientated. The appropriateness of this seems to be borne out by the student comments. Student satisfaction  for a module based around this approach is over 92%. One of the comments made was that the linking of the problem-solving robot task and the programming assignment was liked. This feedback is similar to that reported by other authors when teaching programming using robots (Williams et al, 2003).  There is enough scope in this approach to have different levels of complexity/functionality within an assignment task offering a basic ‘pass’ level for a particular task, but also the scope for those students that desire more of a challenge.


Reference
Lawhead PB, Bland CG, Barnes DJ, Duncan ME, Goldweber M, Hollingsworth RG,
Schep M (2003), A Road Map for Teaching Introductory Programming Using
LEGO Mindstorms Robots SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2): 191-201.
Williams AB (2003) The Qualitative Impact of Using LEGO MINDSTORMS Robot
to Teach Computer Engineering IEEE Trans. Educ. Vol. 46 pp 206.


Publications

• Turner S and Hill G (2010) "Innovative use of Robots and Graphical Programming in Software Education" Computer Education Ser. 117 No. 9 pp 54-57 ISSN: 1672-5913
• Turner S, Hill G, Adams J (2009) "Robots in problem solving in programming" 9th 1-day Teaching of Programming Workshop, University of Bath, 6th April 2009.  
• Turner S and Hill G(2008) "Robots within the Teaching of Problem-Solving" ITALICS vol. 7 No. 1 June 2008 pp 108-119 ISSN 1473-7507 
• Turner S and Adams J (2008) "Robots and Problem Solving" 9th Higher Education Academy-ICS Annual Conference, Liverpool Hope University, 26th August - 28th August 2008. pp. 14 ISBN 978-0-9559676-0-3. 
• Adams, J. and Turner, S., (2008) Problem Solving and Creativity for Undergraduate Computing and Engineering students: the use of robots as a development tool Creating Contemporary Student Learning Environments 2008, Northampton, UK. 
• Adams, J. and Turner, S., (2008) Problem Solving and Creativity for Undergraduate Engineers: process or product? International Conference on Innovation, Good Practice and Research in Engineering Education 2008, Loughborough, UK. 
• Adams, J., Turner, S., Kaczmarczyk, S., Picton, P. and Demian, P.,(2008). Problem Solving and Creativity for Undergraduate Engineers: findings of an action research project involving robots International Conference on Engineering Education ICEE 2008, Budapest, Hungary. 
• Turner S and Hill G(2007) Robots in Problem-Solving and Programming 8th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, University of Southampton, 28th - 30th August 2007, pp 82-85 ISBN 0-978-0-9552005-7-1 
• Turner S (2007) Developing problem-solving teaching material based upon Microsoft Robotics Studio. 8th Annual Conference of the Subject Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, University of Southampton, 28th - 30th August 2007 pp 151 ISBN 0-978-0-9552005-7-1 
• Turner S (2007) Developing problem-solving teaching materials based upon Microsoft Robotics Studio. Innovative Teaching Development Fund Dissemination Day 1st March 2007 Microsoft:London 
• Turner S and Hill G (2006) The Inclusion Of Robots Within The Teaching Of Problemsolving: Preliminary Results Proceedings of 7th Annual Conference of the ICS HE Academy Trinity College, Dublin, 29th - 31st August 2006 Proceedings pg 241-242 ISBN 0-9552005-3-9 

All views are those of the author and should not be seen as the views of any organisation the author is associated with.