pedagogical architectures to support the process of teaching and learning of computer programming

7/29/2019 Pedagogical architectures to support the process of teaching and learning of computer programming

1/14

Pedagogical architectures to supportthe process of teaching and learning

of computer programming

Orivaldo de Lira Tavares, UFES, Brasil

Credin Silva de Menezes, UFRGS, Brasil

Rosane Aragn, UFRGS, Brasil

Presented by Thais H. Castro, UFAM, Brasil


2/14

The problem

Before the entry at university the students has a level of

knowledge deficit:

Resoluo sistemtica de problemas de construo

de artefatos que satisfaam uma lista de requisitos;

Avaliao da qualidade de produtos digitais;

Resoluo cooperativa de problemas;

Elementos de linguagens de programao;

Ambientes computacionais para o desenvolvimento e

avaliao de programas.


3/14

Current Practices in Introductory

Computer Programming Disciplines

The teacher presents the methods and

elements of the programming language and

model programs fully ready;

Submit lists of exercises to be solvedindividually or in groups;

The lists are corrected only with respect to

the operation of the program code produced.


4/14

Weaknesses

This approach fail to consider the development of the followingaspects:

1.domain of a method for solving problems especially directed tothe construction of artifacts satisfying a set of requirements;

2.domain of a methodology for assessing the quality of programs

produced;3.easy to solve problems cooperatively;

4.use of syntax, semantics and pragmatics of a programminglanguage;

5.domain of different computing resources to support the

development and evaluation of programs.


5/14

Theoretical Support

In order to construct knowledge, an error corrected is more important than asuccess, since it requires the intervention of self-regulatory mechanisms that areresponsible for reconstructions. These self-regulations allow individuals toachieve the ability to solve problems in a formal level [2];

The system of cooperative work (in teams) contributes to the development of theformalism since it encourages awareness of the student's own thinking, so hecan get arguments to express it and defend it, as well as enhances learning by

allowing exchanges of views on the object of learning [6]; More recent research [7] [4] have sought to emphasize the importance of the

pedagogical approach when using digital resources to support learning throughthe application of the concept of architecture pedagogical. Thus, the use of anydigital resource needs to be backed by an appropriate pedagogical approach,

architecture pedagogical

=

pedagogical approach + Computacional resources.


6/14

Working Proposal :Principles

The pedagogical approach adopted in this initial class schedulewas based on the following principles:

1.Authoring of solution: encourage students to develop solutions,reflect on the results and on the process of development of thesolutions and create a custom method of building the programs;

2.Cooperation: cooperating with classmates to enhance learningand motivate students to participate more actively in the learningprocess;

3.Critical thinking: build many possible solutions for each proposedproblem and compare them with each other and with the solutions

built by other students.


7/14

Working Proposal :

Pedagogical Approach

Each group chose a problem to which the

project should develop a program that solves the

problem;

Each group created a web space, shared it with

the classroom, which included the description of

the problem and reports on the solutions

produced, according to the following model:


8/14

Working Proposal :

The report model

1. Problem description (the context of the problem and a precise identificationof the passage chosen to be tackle the project);

2. Proposed solution (including data organization, the main algorithms usedand how is the interaction between user and program);

3. Evidence of correction:

1. a) explanation of the conviction that the critical parts of the2. program works;

3. b) planning and carrying out the tests (with which data the program hasbeen tested? what was expected, was it obtained?)

4. Program performance (brief consideration of the memory consumption andcomputational effort);

5. Evaluation of the project by the group (managed to achieve the desiredgoals with the solution: What are the main difficulties? What were unable tobe achieved and what were the reasons?)

6. Source code (with comments).


9/14

The proposal in action

The pedagogical architecture was used in a class of programming, onthe semester 2011/2, consisting of 16 students beginning courses inComputer Science or Computer Engineering at Federal University ofEsprito Santo Brasil;

The students was organized in groups of two or three members.

The web spaces of each group were visited by classmates and

received comments; Each group prepared a presentation of the results achieved, published

it in the web, and presented it to the other groups and teacher;

The comments posted on the classroom web space and those receivedduring the presentation were used to produce new versions of thesolution constructed by the group.

Doubts could be raised in the classroom or shared with peers and

teachers via digital resources.


10/14

The proposal in action : the site of

each group

Pgina inicialdo wikidadisciplina

4. Desafios de

programao

(desafio1,2,3)

5. Lista de estudantes(Estudante 1 ...

Estudante n)

1.

Apresentao

(instituio,

disciplina,prof

essores,monitores,

calendrio de

aulas)

2. Aulas

(notas das aulas)3. Listas de

problemas (lista 1

... lista n)

6.1Wikis dos

projetos dos

grupos(um por grupo)

5.1 Wikis

individuais decada estudante

6. Grupos de

projeto


11/14

Results

To raise the students' opinions about thepedagogical architecture adopted, at the endof the semester (2011/2), to each student,was asked a report covering topics related to:

individual work,

group work,

the use of technology, the

learning acquired versus his expectations. we present in next slide a analyse of the

questions.


12/14

Analysis of the questions

Construction of autonomy: the challenges

faced in searching for a solution to the problems

were effective;

The Grasp of Consciousness: the need toexplain the solution to colleagues helped them

understand more deeply their conceptions;


13/14

Analysis of the questions

Competency in problem solving: the need to consider

different solutions to problems increases students'

confidence about their skills;

The cooperative work facilitate the learning:

Students affirm that teamwork development contributed

the construction of more refined knowledge;

Adequacy of technological support: the students

considered appropriate and sufficient the digital

resources and the pedagogical architectures adopted inthe discipline.


14/14

Final Considerations

This article presented the results of research on pedagogicalarchitectures to support the teaching-learning process in initialprogramming disciplines.

The pedagogical architecture studied shows a constructivistpedagogical approach, emphasizing the learning to learn, theautonomy of students, the student as the author of the programs

(solutions to problems), the doing as the predecessor ofunderstanding, cooperative work, socialization of the results(programs), the search for generating several possible solutions,all of this, seeking greater awareness of problems and theirsolutions.

The digital resources of the pedagogical architecture allowed

the proper implementation of the pedagogical approach andwere well accepted by students.

pedagogical architectures to support the process of teaching and learning of computer programming

Documents