Niko Myller
Ari Korhonen
Abstract
More collaborative use of visualizations is taking place in the classrooms due to the introduction of pair programming and collaborative learning as teaching and learning methods. This introduces new challenges to the visualization tools, and thus, research and theory to support the development of collaborative visualization tools is needed. We present an empirical study in which the learning outcomes of students were compared when students were learning in collaboration and using materials which contained visualizations on different engagement levels. Results indicate that the level of engagement has an effect on students' learning results although the difference is not statistically significant. Especially, students without previous knowledge seem to gain more from using visualizations on higher engagement level.
- R. Ben-Bassat Levy, M. Ben-Ari, and P. A. Uronen. The Jeliot 2000 program animation system. Computers & Education, 40(1):15--21, 2003. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- J. Cohen. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
- C. Evans and N. J. Gibbons. The Interactivity Effect in Multimedia Learning. Accepted to Computers & Education, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Grissom, M. McNally, and T. L. Naps. Algorithm visualization in CS education: comparing levels of student engagement. In Proceedings of the First ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, pages 87--94, June 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Hübscher-Younger and N. H. Narayanan. Constructive and collaborative learning of algorithms. SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1):6--10, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. D. Hundhausen. Integrating Algorithm Visualization Technology into an Undergraduate Algorithms Course: Ethnographic Studies of a Social Constructivist Approach. Computers & Education, 39(3):237--260, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. D. Hundhausen and J. L. Brown. Designing, Visualizing, and Discussing Algorithms within a CS 1 Studio Experience: An Empirical Study. Computers & Education, In press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. D. Hundhausen, S. A. Douglas, and J. T. Stasko. A Meta-Study of Algorithm Visualization Effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13(3):259--290, 2002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Korhonen, L. Malmi, P. Silvasti, V. Karavirta, J. Lnnberg, J. Nikander, K. Stålnacke, and P. Ihantola. Matrix - a framework for interactive software visualization. Research Report TKO-B 154/04, Laboratory of Information Processing Science, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology, 2004.Google Scholar
- N. Nagappan, L. Williams, M. Ferzli, E. Wiebe, K. Yang, C. Miller, and S. Balik. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, pages 359--362. ACM Press, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. L. Naps and S. Grissom. The effective use of quicksort visualizations in the classroom. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(1):88--96, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. L. Naps, G. Rößling, V. Almstrum, W. Dann, R. Fleischer, C. Hundhausen, A. Korhonen, L. Malmi, M. McNally, S. Rodger, and J. Á. Velázquez-Iturbide. Exploring the Role of Visualization and Engagement in Computer Science Education. In Working Group Reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pages 131--152, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Roschelle. Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In D. L. Day and D. K. Kovacs, editors, Computers, Communication & Mental Models, pages 13--25. Taylor & Francis, London, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Scaife and Y. Rogers. External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(2):185--213, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. D. Suthers and C. D. Hundhausen. An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2):183--219, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Williams, R. R. Kessler, W. Cunningham, and R. Jeffries. Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4):19--25, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Analyzing engagement taxonomy in collaborative algorithm visualization
Recommendations
Analyzing engagement taxonomy in collaborative algorithm visualization
ITiCSE '07: Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science educationMore collaborative use of visualizations is taking place in the classrooms due to the introduction of pair programming and collaborative learning as teaching and learning methods. This introduces new challenges to the visualization tools, and thus, ...
Extending the Engagement Taxonomy: Software Visualization and Collaborative Learning
As collaborative learning in general, and pair programming in particular, has become widely adopted in computer science education, so has the use of pedagogical visualization tools for facilitating collaboration. However, there is little theory on ...
Algorithm visualization in CS education: comparing levels of student engagement
SoftVis '03: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on Software visualizationSoftware technology for algorithm visualization (AV) has advanced faster than our understanding of how such technology impacts student learning. In this paper we present results of a multi-university study. We measured the effect of varying levels of ...
Comments