Transforming Traditional Courses Through Web 2.0 Philosophy: The Case of an Introductory Programming Course

Year 2019, Volume: 5, 39 - 54, 14.10.2019

Hakan Tüzün

Abstract

In this study, the use of ubiquitous Internet tools utilized in an undergraduate introductory computer programming course at a large state university in Turkey are examined. Course web space, blogs, discussion board, e-mail, and personal web pages were among the Internet tools utilized by the participants of the course. The framework for using these tools has been conceived as “Learning Programming 2.0,” which was inspired and shaped by “Web 2.0” principles and practices conceptualized by Tim O’Reilly. Web 2.0 characterizes second generation Internet services, such as wikis, blogs, and other tools that encourage interaction and participation through the Internet. Essentially, Web 2.0 framework includes not only the tools, but also a set of principles for using these tools such as harnessing collective intelligence or providing rich user experiences. In this sense, the focus of the study is not on the tools, but the pedagogical principles followed to transform the course, the impact of these principles on the context, and implementation problems. Although the Learning Programming 2.0 framework puts extra load on the shoulders of facilitators, it is concluded that this approach contributes to formation of a learning context in which learning programming is meaningful, effective, and life-long for learners. 

Keywords

programming and programming languages, improving classroom teaching, postsecondary education, teaching/learning strategies, pedagogical issues

References

• Beise, C., Myers, M., VanBrackle, L., & Chevli-Saroq, N. (2003). An examination of age, race, and sex as predictors of success in the first programming course. Journal of Informatics Education and Research, 5(1), 51-64.
• Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Smith, C.P., & Davis, D. (2013). Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 564-599.
• Bishop-Clark, C., Courte, J., & Howard, E.V. (2006). Programming in pairs with alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 213-228.
• Boyle, T., Bradley, C., Chalk, P., Jones, R., & Pickard, P. (2003). Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), 165-178.
• Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y.B. (2010). Programming & storytelling: Opportunities for learning about coding & composition. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 348-351), Barcelona, Spain.
• Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• de Raadt, M. (2007). A review of Australasian investigations into problem solving and the novice programmer. Computer Science Education, 17(3), 201-213.
• DuBoulay, B. (1989). Some difficulties of learning to program. In E. Soloway & J.C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer (pp. 283-299). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum Associates.
• European Schoolnet (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding -Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Retrieved July 20, 2019 from http://www.eun.org/resources/detail?publicationID=661.
• Ge, X., Thomas, M.K., & Greene, B.A. (2006). Technology-rich ethnography for examining the transition to authentic problem-solving in a high school computer programming class. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(4), 319-352.
• Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
• Green, T.R.G. (1990). Programming languages as information structures. In J.M. Hoc, T.R.G. Green, R. Samurcay, & D.J. Gillmore (Eds.), Psychology of programming (pp. 117-137). London: Academic Press.
• Gries, D. (2006). What have we not learned about teaching programming?. Computer, 39(10), 81-82.
• Kalelioğlu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Doğan, D. (2017). Teaching how to think like a programmer: Emerging insights. In H. Özçınar, G. Wong, & H.T. Öztürk (Eds.), Teaching Computational Thinking in Primary Education (pp. 18-35). Hershey, PA: IGI Global Publishing.
• Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83-137.
• Malik, A.M. (2000). On the perils of programming. Communications of the ACM, 43(12), 95-97.
• May, C. (2005). Deploy every 30 minutes: Redux, retrieved June 29, 2007 from http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk:80/chrismay/tag/flickr.
• Nasa facts and figures. (2019). Retrieved July 20, 2019, from https://www.nasa.gov/feature/facts-and-figures.
• O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software, retrieved June 29, 2007 from http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228.
• Panell, C. (2003). Teaching computer programming as a language. Techdirections, 62(8), 26-27.
• Perkins, D.N., Hancock, C., Hobbs, R., Martin, F., & Simmons, R. (1989). Conditions of learning in novice programmers. In E. Soloway & J.C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer (pp. 261-279). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum Associates.
• Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172.
• Saygıner, Ş., & Tüzün, H. (2018). Programlama eğitimi üzerine bir inceleme: Yaşanan zorluklar, mevcut uygulamalar ve güncel yaklaşımlar. In B. Akkoyunlu, A. İşman, & H. F. Odabaşı (Eds.), Eğitim Teknolojileri Okumaları 2018 (pp. 693-710). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Leaning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Winslow, L.E. (1996). Programming pedagogy-a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17-22.
• Zin, A.M., Idris, S., & Subramaniam, N.K. (2006). Implementing virtual pair programming in e-learning environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(2), 113-117.