Designing Designer: The Evidence-Oriented Design Process of a Pedagogical Interactive Graphics Python Library
Pages 85 - 91
Abstract
As a solution to the challenge of motivating and retaining undergraduate introductory computer science students, game development and image manipulation are popular motivational contexts in introductory computer science (CS1) classrooms. However, there has been little research on how to empirically make the required code libraries friendly for novice learners. This work explores how novice preconceptions of vocabulary and code structure should affect Designer (https://krishols.github.io/designer), our new pedagogical interactive graphics Python library. Preconceptions were measured through two successive surveys. Survey responses were analyzed for differences between survey version and students' prior programming experience. Although specific preconceptions varied based on students' degrees of prior programming experience, students do tend to prefer simple vocabulary. Motivated to fill a gap in the libraries available for early Python education, these results were used to guide the development of Designer. Alongside the library, this work provides three successive CS1 lesson plans developed using the Use-Modify-Create lesson progression. Future work is in progress to measure and improve the usability of Designer and its resources through further collaboration with students, to ultimately create a truly novice friendly game and graphics API.
Supplementary Material
Designing Designer: The Evidence-Oriented Design Process of a Pedagogical Interactive Graphics Python Library presentation video. Includes problem, proposed solution, methodology, and how to get involved with Designer!
- Download
- 300.61 MB
References
[1]
Steve Olusegun Bada and Steve Olusegun. 2015. Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, Vol. 5, 6 (2015), 66--70.
[2]
Youngkyun Baek, Yan Xu, Sanghoon Han, and Jungwon Cho. 2015. Exploring effects of intrinsic motivation and prior knowledge on student achievements in game-based Learning. Smart Computing Review (2015).
[3]
Stephen Cooper, Wanda Dann, and Randy Pausch. 2003. Teaching objects-first in introductory computer science. Acm Sigcse Bulletin, Vol. 35, 1 (2003), 191--195.
[4]
Wanda Dann, Dennis Cosgrove, Don Slater, Dave Culyba, and Steve Cooper. 2012. Mediated transfer: Alice 3 to java. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. 141--146.
[5]
Alison Derbenwick Miller, Christine Alvarado, Mehran Sahami, Elsa Villa, and Stuart Zweben. 2019. Wrestling with Retention in the CS Major: Report from the ACM Retention Committee. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education . 807--808.
[6]
Brian Harvey and Jens Mönig. 2010. Bringing "no ceiling" to scratch: Can one language serve kids and computer scientists. Proc. Constructionism (2010), 1--10.
[7]
Roya Hosseini, Kamil Akhuseyinoglu, Peter Brusilovsky, Lauri Malmi, Kerttu Pollari-Malmi, Christian Schunn, and Teemu Sirki"a. 2020. Improving engagement in program construction examples for learning Python programming. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, Vol. 30, 2 (2020), 299--336.
[8]
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho. 2015. Evidence-based programming language design: a philosophical and methodological exploration. Jyv"askyl"a studies in computing 222 (2015).
[9]
Sandra Katz, John Aronis, David Allbritton, Christine Wilson, and Mary Lou Soffa. 2003. Gender and race in predicting achievement in computer science. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 22, 3 (2003), 20--27.
[10]
Gary Lewandowski, Dennis J Bouvier, Robert McCartney, Kate Sanders, and Beth Simon. 2007. Commonsense computing (episode 3) concurrency and concert tickets. In Proceedings of the third international workshop on Computing education research . 133--144.
[11]
Gary Lewandowski, Alicia Gutschow, Robert McCartney, Kate Sanders, and Dermot Shinners-Kennedy. 2005. What novice programmers don't know. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on Computing education research. 1--12.
[12]
Nicholas Lytle, Veronica Cateté, Danielle Boulden, Yihuan Dong, Jennifer Houchins, Alexandra Milliken, Amy Isvik, Dolly Bounajim, Eric Wiebe, and Tiffany Barnes. 2019. Use, modify, create: Comparing computational thinking lesson progressions for stem classes. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . 395--401.
[13]
Robert McCartney, Dennis J Bouvier, Tzu-Yi Chen, Gary Lewandowski, Kate Sanders, Beth Simon, and Tammy VanDeGrift. 2009. Commonsense computing (episode 5) algorithm efficiency and balloon testing. In Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on Computing education research workshop . 51--62.
[14]
Marlon Mejias, Ketly Jean-Pierre, Legand Burge, and Gloria Washington. 2018. Culturally Relevant CS Pedagogy - Theory amp; Practice. In 2018 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT) . 1--5. https://doi.org/10.1109/RESPECT.2018.8491699
[15]
Jessica Morales-Chicas, Mauricio Castillo, Ireri Bernal, Paloma Ramos, and Bianca L Guzman. 2019. Computing with relevance and purpose: A review of culturally relevant education in computing. International Journal of Multicultural Education, Vol. 21, 1 (2019), 125--155.
[16]
Brad A Myers and Jeffrey Stylos. 2016. Improving API usability. Commun. ACM, Vol. 59, 6 (2016), 62--69.
[17]
Marco Piccioni, Carlo A Furia, and Bertrand Meyer. 2013. An empirical study of API usability. In 2013 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE, 5--14.
[18]
Jeff Pierce, Tina Cobb, and Randy Pausch. 1998. Alice. In ACM SIGGRAPH 98 Conference abstracts and applications. 140.
[19]
Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, et almbox. 2009. Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM, Vol. 52, 11 (2009), 60--67.
[20]
Jonathan C Roberts, Panagiotis D Ritsos, James R Jackson, and Christopher Headleand. 2017. The explanatory visualization framework: An active learning framework for teaching creative computing using explanatory visualizations. IEEE transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, Vol. 24, 1 (2017), 791--801.
[21]
Mardi Schmeichel. 2012. Good teaching? An examination of culturally relevant pedagogy as an equity practice. Journal of curriculum Studies, Vol. 44, 2 (2012), 211--231.
[22]
Beth Simon, Dennis Bouvier, Tzu-Yi Chen, Gary Lewandowski, Robert McCartney, and Kate Sanders. 2008. Common sense computing (episode 4): Debugging. Computer Science Education, Vol. 18, 2 (2008), 117--133.
[23]
Beth Simon, Tzu-Yi Chen, Gary Lewandowski, Robert McCartney, and Kate Sanders. 2006. Commonsense computing: what students know before we teach (episode 1: sorting). In Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research . 29--40.
[24]
Andreas Stefik and Richard Ladner. 2017. The quorum programming language. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 641--641.
[25]
Jeffrey Stylos, Benjamin Graf, Daniela K Busse, Carsten Ziegler, Ralf Ehret, and Jan Karstens. 2008. A case study of API redesign for improved usability. In 2008 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing. IEEE, 189--192.
[26]
Tammy VanDeGrift, Dennis Bouvier, Tzu-Yi Chen, Gary Lewandowski, Robert McCartney, and Beth Simon. 2010. Commonsense computing (episode 6) logic is harder than pie. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research . 76--85.
[27]
Chris Wilcox and Albert Lionelle. 2018. Quantifying the benefits of prior programming experience in an introductory computer science course. In Proceedings of the 49th acm technical symposium on computer science education. 80--85.
[28]
Brenda Cantwell Wilson and Sharon Shrock. 2001. Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: a study of twelve factors. Acm sigcse bulletin, Vol. 33, 1 (2001), 184--188.
[29]
Ya-Ting Carolyn Yang and Chao-Hsiang Chang. 2013. Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, Vol. 68 (2013), 334--344.
[30]
Minhaz Zibran. 2008. What makes APIs difficult to use. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security (IJCSNS), Vol. 8, 4 (2008), 255--261.
Index Terms
- Designing Designer: The Evidence-Oriented Design Process of a Pedagogical Interactive Graphics Python Library
Recommendations
Teaching an object-oriented CS1 -: with Python
ITiCSE '08There is an ongoing debate regarding the role of object orientation in the introductory programming sequence. While the pendulum swings to and fro between the "objects first" and "back to basics" extremes, there is general agreement that object-oriented ...
Performance of python CS1 students in mid-level non-python CS courses
SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science educationIf you change the CS1 language to Python, what is the impact on the rest of the curriculum? In earlier work we examined the impact of changing CS1 from C++ to Python while leaving CS2 in C++. We found that Python-prepared CS1 students fared no ...
Teaching object-oriented programming in python
Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE'07)Python's use in education has grown rapidly, due to its elegantly simple syntax. Though often viewed as a "scripting language," Python is a fully object-oriented language with an extremely consistent object model and a rich set of built-in classes.
In ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
February 2022
1049 pages
ISBN:9781450390705
DOI:10.1145/3478431
- General Chairs:
- Larry Merkle,
- Maureen Doyle,
- Program Chairs:
- Judithe Sheard,
- Leen-Kiat Soh,
- Brian Dorn
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 22 February 2022
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
SIGCSE 2022
Sponsor:
SIGCSE 2022: The 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
March 3 - 5, 2022
RI, Providence, USA
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,787 of 5,146 submissions, 35%
Upcoming Conference
SIGCSE TS 2025
- Sponsor:
- sigcse
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 135Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)22
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 19 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in