Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Education and Information Technologies
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies 5/2020

05.02.2020

A case study investigating programming students’ peer review of codes and their perceptions of the online learning environment

verfasst von: Roshni Sabarinath, Choon Lang Gwendoline Quek

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Programming in schools is no longer a novel subject. It is now quite commonly found in our schools either in formal or informal curriculum. Programmers use creative learning tactics to solve problems and communicate ideas. Learning to program is generally considered challenging. Developing and implementing new methodologies in teaching programming is imperative to overcome the current challenges associated with teaching and learning of programming. This case study aims to contribute to the programming education in schools by investigating how students learn in an online programming while involved in peer review of codes. The study subsequently examines students’ perceptions of the pedagogical, social and technical design of the online programming learning environment. When students are involved in providing and receiving feedback and creating their own identity in a programming community, they may be better prepared for learning and applying programming in their undergraduate studies and their future career in the field.
Vorheriger Artikel The impact of an adaptive e-course on students’ achievements based on the students’ prior knowledge
Nächster Artikel The effectiveness of using interactive white boards in improving the Arabic listening skills of undergraduates majoring in Arabic language at Kuwaiti universities

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
Agalianos, A., Noss, R., & Whitty, G. (2001). Logo in mainstream schools: The struggle over the soul of an educational innovation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4), 479–500.
Awuah, L. J. (2015). Supporting 21st-century teaching and learning: The role of Google apps for education (GAFE). Journal of Instructional Research, 4, 12–22.
Barr, V., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Advice on teaching CS, and the learnability of programming languages. Communications of the ACM, 58(3), 8–9.
Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2008). Don’t edit, discuss! The influence of wiki editing on learning experience and achievement. In D. Ben-Zvi (Ed.), Innovative e-learning in higher education (pp. 19–23). Haifa: University of Haifa.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25).
Brown, M. E., & Hocutt, D. L. (2015). Learning to use, useful for learning: A usability study of Google apps for education. Journal of Usability Studies, 10(4), 160–181.
Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students' writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 78–84.
Chi, M. T. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.
Chiang, F. K., & Qin, L. (2018). A pilot study to assess the impacts of game-based construction learning, using scratch, on students’ multi-step equation-solving performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(6), 803–814.
Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. (2008). Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83–88.
Crane, G. E. (2016). Leveraging Digital Communications Technology in Higher Education: Exploring URI’s Adoption of Google Apps for Education 2015.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). London: Pearson Publications Ltd..
Dickes, A. C., & Sengupta, P. (2013). Learning natural selection in 4th grade with multi-agent-based computational models. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 921–953.
Gelder, T. V. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching, 53(1), 41–48.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils' evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 105–118.
Google for Education (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2018 from https://​edu.​google.​com/​
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237.
Han, B., Bae, Y., & Park, J. (2016). The effect of mathematics achievement variables on scratch programming activities of elementary school students. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 10(12), 21–30.
Heggart, K. R., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the Most from Google classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 9.
Hsia, L. H., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). A web-based peer-assessment approach to improving junior high school students' performance, self-efficacy and motivation in performing arts courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 618–632.
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2013). Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 61–65.
Klein, R., Orelup, R., & Smith, M. (2012). Google apps for education: Valparaiso University's migration experience. In Proceedings of the 40th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User services (pp. 203-208). ACM.
Koul, R., Fraser, B., & Nastiti, H. (2018). Transdisciplinary instruction: Implementing and evaluating a primary-school STEM teaching model. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 26(8), 17–29.
Lai, C. S., & Lai, M. H. (2012, June). Using computer programming to enhance science learning for 5th graders in Taipei. In Computer, Consumer and Control (IS3C), 2012 International Symposium on (pp. 146-148). IEEE.
Lee, E. Y., Chan, C. K., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 57–87.
Lindh, M., Nolin, J., & Hedvall, K. N. (2016). Pupils in the clouds: Implementation of Google apps for education. First Monday, 21(4).
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.
Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, S. S., Chiu, C. H., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246–251.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276–282.MathSciNet
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Pond, K., Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(4), 314–323.
Price, E., Goldberg, F., Robinson, S., & McKean, M. (2016). Validity of peer grading using calibrated peer review in a guided-inquiry, conceptual physics course. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020145.
Quek, C. L., & Wang, Q. (2014). Exploring teachers’ perceptions of wikis for learning classroom cases. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 100–120.
Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 89–115.
Robertson, C. (2013). Using a cloud-based computing environment to support teacher training on common core implementation. TechTrends, 57(6), 57–60.
Roth, W. M. (1997). From everyday science to science education: How science and technology studies inspired curriculum design and classroom research. Science & Education, 6(4), 373–396.
Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141.
Sanjanaashree, P., & Soman, K. P. (2014). Language learning for visual and auditory learners using scratch toolkit. In Proceedings of the Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 1–5). Coimbatore: IEEE.
Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1–61.
Singh, A. K. J., Harun, R. N. S. R., & Fareed, W. (2013). Affordances of Wikispaces for collaborative learning and knowledge management. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 13(3), 79–97.
Stein, S., Ware, J., Laboy, J., & Schaffer, H. E. (2013). Improving K-12 pedagogy via a cloud designed for education. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 235–241.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), 137–146.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 113–132.
Tsai, Y. C., & Chuang, M. T. (2013). Fostering revision of argumentative writing through structured peer assessment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 116(1), 210–221.
Tsivitanidou, O. E., Zacharia, Z. C., & Hovardas, T. (2011). Investigating secondary school students’ unmediated peer assessment skills. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 506–519.
Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, greenfoot, and scratch--a discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 17.
Wagh, A. (2016). Building v/s exploring models: Comparing learning of evolutionary processes through agent-based modelling. Evanston: Northwestern University.
Wang, Y., & Jin, B. (2010). The application of SaaS model in network education-take google apps for example. In Education Technology and Computer (ICETC), 2010 2nd International Conference on (Vol. 4, pp. V4-191). IEEE.
Wang, Q. Y., Woo, H. L., & Chai, C. S. (2010). Affordances of ICT tools for learning. In C. S. Chai & Q. Y. Wang (Eds.), ICT for self-directed and collaborative learning (pp. 70–79). Singapore: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Wang, H. Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016a). Comparison of the effects of project-based computer programming activities between mathematics-gifted students and average students. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 33–45.
Wang, Y., Liang, Y., Liu, L., & Liu, Y. (2016b). A multi-peer assessment platform for programming language learning: Considering group non-consensus and personal radicalness. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 2011–2031.
Wang, X. M., Hwang, G. J., Liang, Z. Y., & Wang, H. Y. (2017). Enhancing students’ computer programming performances, critical thinking awareness and attitudes towards programming: An online peer-assessment attempt. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 58–68.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Xia, B. S. (2017). An in-depth analysis of learning goals in higher education: Evidence from the programming education. Journal of Learning Design, 10(2), 25–34.
Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students' performance and satisfaction within a wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 186–193.
Yim, S., Warschauer, M., & Zheng, B. (2016). Google docs in the classroom: A district-wide case study. Teachers College Record, 118(9).
Metadaten
Titel
A case study investigating programming students’ peer review of codes and their perceptions of the online learning environment
verfasst von
Roshni Sabarinath
Choon Lang Gwendoline Quek
Publikationsdatum
05.02.2020
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10111-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

Education and Information Technologies 5/2020 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Optimal professional development ICT training initiatives at flagship universities

OriginalPaper

An extended model for assessing E-Services of Iranian Universities Websites Using Mixed MCDM method

OriginalPaper

Student attitudes toward instructor assessment in higher education: Does the delivery method matter?

OriginalPaper

Exploring EFL pre-service teachers’ adoption of technology in a CALL program: obstacles, motivators, and maintenance

OriginalPaper

The educational technologist as a variety-handler

OriginalPaper

Self-regulated learning strategies and non-academic outcomes in higher education blended learning environments: A one decade review