Niko Myller
Mordechai Ben-Ari
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
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 collaborative learning with visualization, and few studies on their effect on each other. We build on the concept of the engagement taxonomy and extend it to classify finer variations in the engagement that result from the use of a visualization tool. We analyze the applicability of the taxonomy to the description of the differences in the collaboration process when visualization is used. Our hypothesis is that increasing the level of engagement between learners and the visualization tool results in a higher positive impact of the visualization on the collaboration process. This article describes an empirical investigation designed to test the hypothesis. The results provide support for our extended engagement taxonomy and hypothesis by showing that the collaborative activities of the students and the engagement levels are correlated.
- Ben-Bassat Levy, R., Ben-Ari, M., and Uronen, P. A. 2003. The Jeliot 2000 program animation system. Comput. Ed. 40, 1, 15--21. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Berkowitz, M. W. and Gibbs, J. C. 1983. Measuring the development of features in moral discussion. Merill-Palmer Quar. 29, 399--410.Google Scholar
- Bryant, S., Romero, P., and du Boulay, B. 2005. Pair programming and the reappropriation of individual tools for collaborative programming. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (SIGGROUP’05), M. Pendergast, K. Schmidt, G. Mark, and M. Ackerman Eds. ACM Press, 332--333. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ebel, G. and Ben-Ari, M. 2006. Affective effects of program visualization. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Computing Education Research Workshop (ICER’06). ACM Press, 1--5. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Evans, C. and Gibbons, N. J. 2007. The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Comput. Ed. 49, 4, 1147--1160. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., and Borg, W. R. 2006. Educational Research: An Introduction 8th Ed. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- Green, T. R. G. and Petre, M. 1996. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A “cognitive dimensions” framework. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 7, 131--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grissom, S., McNally, M., and Naps, T. L. 2003. Algorithm visualization in CS education: Comparing levels of student engagement. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Symposium on Software Visualization (SOFTVIS’03). ACM Press, 87--94. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Haaster, K. V. and Hagan, D. 2004. Teaching and learning with BlueJ: An evaluation of a pedagogical tool. In Proceedings of Informing Science + IT Education Conference (InSITE’04). Informing Science Institute, 455--470.Google Scholar
- Hübscher-Younger, T. and Narayanan, N. H. 2003. Constructive and collaborative learning of algorithms. SIGCSE Bull. 35, 1, 6--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hundhausen, C. D. 2002. Integrating algorithm visualization technology into an undergraduate algorithms course: Ethnographic studies of a social constructivist approach. Comput. Ed. 39, 3, 237--260. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hundhausen, C. D. 2005. Using end-user visualization environments to mediate conversations: A “communicative dimensions” framework. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 16, 3, 153--185. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hundhausen, C. D. and Brown, J. L. 2005. Personalizing and discussing algorithms within CS1 studio experiences: An observational study. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’05). ACM Press, 45--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hundhausen, C. D. and Brown, J. L. 2007. What you see is what you code: A “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 18, 1, 22--47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hundhausen, C. D. and Brown, J. L. 2008. Designing, visualizing, and discussing algorithms within a CS 1 studio experience: An empirical study. Comput. Ed. 50, 1, 301--326. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., and Stasko, J. T. 2002. A meta-study of algorithm visualization effectiveness. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 13, 3, 259--290.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kanselaar, G., and Jaspers, J. 2007. Visualization of participation: Does it contribute to successful computer-supported collaborative learning? Comput. Ed. 49, 4, 1037--1065. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jehng, J.-C. J. and Chan, T.-W. 1998. Designing computer support for collaborative visual learning in the domain of computer programming. Comput. Hum. Behav. 14, 3, 429--448.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kölling, M., Quig, B., Patterson, A., and Rosenberg, J. 2003. The BlueJ system and its pedagogy. Comput. Science Ed. 13, 4, 249--268.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Korhonen, A., Laakso, M., and Myller, N. 2008. How does algorithm visualization affect collaboration? Video analysis of engagement and discussions. 5th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST’09). Submitted.Google Scholar
- Laakso, M.-J., Myller, N., and Korhonen, A. 2008. Analyzing the extended engagement taxonomy in collaborative algorithm visualization. J. Ed. Technol. Soc. To appear.Google Scholar
- Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., and Fernald, J. 2006. Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Comm. ACM 49, 8, 90--95. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meier, A., Spada, H., and Rummel, N. 2007. A rating scheme for assessing the quality of computer-supported collaboration processes. International J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2, 1, 63--86.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moreno, A., Myller, N., Sutinen, E., and Ben-Ari, M. 2004. Visualizing program with Jeliot 3. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI’04). ACM Press, 373--380. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Myller, N. 2007. Automatic generation of prediction questions during program visualization. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 178, 43--49. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Myller, N., Bednarik, R., and Moreno, A. 2007a. Integrating dynamic program visualization into BlueJ: The Jeliot 3 extension. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, J. M. Spector, D. G. Sampson, T. Okamoto, Kinshuk, S. A. Cerri, M. Ueno, and A. Kashihara Eds. IEEE Computer Society, 505--506.Google Scholar
- Myller, N., Laakso, M., and Korhonen, A. 2007b. Analyzing engagement taxonomy in collaborative algorithm visualization. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’07), J. Hughes, D. R. Peiris, and P. T. Tymann Eds. ACM Press, 251--255. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Myller, N. and Nuutinen, J. 2006. JeCo: Combining program visualization and story weaving. Informatics Ed. 5, 2, 267--276.Google Scholar
- Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C., and Balik, S. 2003. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. In Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’03). ACM Press, 359--362. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Naps, T. L. 2005. Jhavé -- Addressing the need to support algorithm visualization with tools for active engagement. IEEE Comput.- Graph. Appl. 25, 5, 49--55. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Naps, T. L. and Grissom, S. 2002. The effective use of quicksort visualizations in the classroom. J. Comput. Sci. Coll 18, 1, 88--96. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, V., Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C., Korhonen, A., Malmi, L., McNally, M., Rodger, S., and Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. 2002. Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education. In ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’02). (Working Groups Report). ACM Press, 131--152. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oechsle, R. and Morth, T. 2007. Peer review of animations developed by students. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 178, 181--186. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ragonis, N. and Ben-Ari, M. 2005. On understanding the statics and dynamics of object-oriented programs. SIGCSE Bull. 37, 1, 226--230. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roschelle, J. 1996. Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry. In Computers, Communication & Mental Models, D. L. Day and D. K. Kovacs Eds. Taylor & Francis, London, UK. 13--25. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rößling, G. and Naps, T. L. 2002. A testbed for pedagogical requirements in algorithm visualizations. In Proceedings of the Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’02). ACM Press, 96--100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scaife, M. and Rogers, Y. 1996. External cognition: how do graphical representations work? Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 45, 2, 185--213. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Simon, B., Anderson, R., Hoyer, C., and Su, J. 2004. Preliminary experiences with a tablet PC based system to support active learning in computer science courses. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’04). ACM, 213--217. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Spada, H., Meier, A., Rummel, N., and Hauser, S. 2005. A new method to assess the quality of collaborative process in CSCL. In Computer Supported Collaborative Learning 2005: The Next 10 Years, T. Koschmann, D. Suthers, and T. W. Chan Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. 622--631. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Suthers, D. D. and Hundhausen, C. D. 2003. An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. J. Learn. Sciences 12, 2, 183--219.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Suthers, D. D., Hundhausen, C. D., and Girardeau, L. E. 2003. Comparing the roles of representations in face-to-face and online computer supported collaborative learning. Comput. Ed. 41, 4, 335--351. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Teasley, S. 1997. Talking about reasoning: How important is the peer in peer collaboration. In Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition, L. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, and B. Burge Eds. Springer, Berlin, Germany. 361--384.Google Scholar
- Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., and Jeffries, R. 2000. Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Softw. 17, 4, 19--25. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Extending the Engagement Taxonomy: Software Visualization and Collaborative Learning
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, ...
A Review of Generic Program Visualization Systems for Introductory Programming Education
This article is a survey of program visualization systems intended for teaching beginners about the runtime behavior of computer programs. Our focus is on generic systems that are capable of illustrating many kinds of programs and behaviors. We ...
Analyzing engagement taxonomy in collaborative algorithm visualization
Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE'07)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, ...
Comments