Investigating the Transition from Block-based to Text-based Programming Techniques in Secondary Education in Greece



Abstract Views
676

Downloads
495

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Feb 15, 2022
Published Feb 18, 2022
10.24018/ejeng.2021.0.CIE.2753

Abstract viewed = 676 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Nowadays computer programming is an essential skill that has grown in popularity in secondary education. In its block-based form, it is used to familiarize students with the basic concepts of programming before the students move on to text-based programming languages. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the transition from blocked-based to text-based programming techniques in secondary education. More specifically, four educational programming activities, which exploit the use of a block-based programming environment, were implemented in two classes of third grade Gymnasium students in Greece during the course of Informatics. The same educational activities were implemented again in the same classes with the use of a transitional block-to-text based programming environment aiming at normalizing the transition from block-based to text-based programming techniques. The implementation findings indicate a very positive feedback from the students’ side in understanding the association between block and text commands.
Keywords: Block-based, Programming, Secondary Education, Text-based.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Karaliopoulou M., Apostolakis I., and Kanidis E. Perceptions of Informatics Teachers Regarding the Use of Block and Text Programming Environments. European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, 2018:11-18.
     Google Scholar
  2. Alrubaye H., Ludi S., and Mkaouer M. W. Comparison of block-based and hybrid-based environments in transferring programming skills to text-based environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03060, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  3. Tikva C. and Tambouris E. Mapping computational thinking through programming in K-12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature Review. Computers & Education, 2021;162:104083.
     Google Scholar
  4. Doukakis S. Exploring brain activity and transforming knowledge in visual and textual programming using neuroeducation approaches. AIMS Neuroscience, 2019;6(3):175-190.
     Google Scholar
  5. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2019.3.175.
     Google Scholar
  6. Grover S. and Basu S. Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and boolean logic. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, pp. 267-272, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  7. Xu Z., Ritzhaupt A. D., Tian F., and Umapathy K. Block-based versus text-based programming environments on novice student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis study. Computer Science Education, 2017;29(2-3):177-204.
     Google Scholar
  8. Gomez M. J., Moresi M., and Benotti L. Text-based programming in elementary school: a comparative study of programming abilities in children with and without block-based experience. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 402-408, 2019.
     Google Scholar
  9. Weintrop D., and Wilensky U. Transitioning from introductory block-based and text-based environments to professional programming languages in high school computer science classrooms. Computers & Education, 2019;142:103646.
     Google Scholar
  10. Ladias D., Karvounidis T., and Ladias A. Composition of programming structures into scenarios and their matching with the SOLO levels. 5th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM), Corfu, Greece, pp. 1-6, 2020. doi: 10.1109/SEEDA-CECNSM49515.2020.9221792.
     Google Scholar
  11. Moors L., Luxton-Reilly A., and Denny P. Transitioning from block-based to text-based programming languages. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE), pp. 57-64, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  12. Tumlin N. Teacher Configurable Coding Challenges for Block Languages. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 783–784, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  13. Bers M. U. Coding as another language: a pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education, 2019;6(4):499-528.
     Google Scholar
  14. Weintrop D., Bain C., Wilensky U., and Education U. S. Blocking Progress? Transitioning from Block-based to Text-based Programming, 2017.
     Google Scholar
  15. Kölling M., Brown N. C., and Altadmri A. Frame-based editing: Easing the transition from blocks to text-based programming. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, pp. 29-38, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  16. Strong G., O'Carroll S., and Bresnihan N. A block based editor for python. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, pp. 1-2, 2018.
     Google Scholar
  17. Homer M. and Noble J. Lessons in combining block-based and textual programming. Journal of Visual Languages and Sentient Systems, 2017;3(1):22-39.
     Google Scholar
  18. Weintrop D. and Wilensky U. How block-based, text-based, and hybrid block/text modalities shape novice programming practices. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2018;17:83-92.
     Google Scholar
  19. Weintrop D. and Wilensky U. Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 2017;18(1):1-25.
     Google Scholar
  20. Mladenovi? M., Boljat I., and Žanko Ž. Comparing loops misconceptions in block-based and text-based programming languages at the K-12 level. Education and Information Technologies, 2018;23(4):1483-1500.
     Google Scholar
  21. Strawhacker A. and Bers M. U. What they learn when they learn coding: investigating cognitive domains and computer programming knowledge in young children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2019;67(3):541-575.
     Google Scholar
  22. Kandemir C. M., Kalelio?lu F., and Gülbahar Y. Pedagogy of teaching introductory text?based programming in terms of computational thinking concepts and practices. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 2021;29(1):29-45.
     Google Scholar
  23. Seralidou E. and Douligeris C. Learning programming by creating games through the use of structured activities in secondary education in Greece. Education and Information Technologies, 2021;26(1):859-898.
     Google Scholar
  24. Iskrenovic-Momcilovic O. Pair programming with Scratch. Education and Information Technologies, 2019;24:2943–2952.
     Google Scholar
  25. Karvounidis T., Ladias A., Ladias D., and Douligeris C. Kinds of loops implemented with messages in Scratch and the SOLO Taxonomy. 4th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM), Piraeus 20-22 Sept. 2019, DOI: 10.1109/SEEDA-CECNSM.2019.8908420.
     Google Scholar
  26. Kaplan B. and Maxwell J. A. Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. In Evaluating the organizational impact of healthcare information systems. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 30-55, 2005.
     Google Scholar


Most read articles by the same author(s)