ICLS Paper Scratch long-term effects

ICLS Paper Scratch long-term effects Tamar’s lit review

Armoni, M., Meerbaum-Salant, O. and Ben-Ari, M. From Scratch to ‘real’ programming. Trans. Computing Education 14, 4 (Feb. 2015).     Not much learning measured, but more positive identification with programming

Moskal, B., Lurie, D. and Cooper, S. Evaluating the effectiveness of a new instructional approach. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 36, 1 (2004), 75–79.

Dann, W., Cosgrove, D., Slater, D., Culyba, D. and Cooper, S. Mediated transfer: Alice 3 to Java. In 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2012, 141–146.

Malan, D.J. and Leitner, H.H. Scratch for budding computer scientists. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 39, 1 (Mar. 2007), 223–227

Weintrop, D. and Wilensky, U. To block or not to block, that is the question: students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 2015, 199–208.

D Bau, J Gray, C Kelleher, J Sheldon, F Turbak. Learnable Programming: Blocks and Beyond. Communications of the ACM, pp. 72-80. June 2017. “But programming education can have two distinct endpoints: Development of expertise to support professional programming, and the ability to accomplish other goals by creating programs.” (p72)

Measuring learning transfer: Research indicates that learning a blocks language can improve later learning of a traditional textual language. In a study of 10th graders learning C# or Java,(1) those who had taken a Scratch course in 9th grade learned more quickly, understood loops better, and were more engaged and confident than their peers who had not. However, in the final test, a significant difference was seen in only one of three cognitive dimensions. In a study at two colleges,(25) students with little or no previous programming experience and weak math preparation completed a CS0 programing class using Alice before beginning a Java CS1 course. Starting with Alice improved student grades (GPA of 3.0 vs. 1.2 for non-Alice students) and the percentage of students taking further CS courses (88% compared to 47%).     The question of whether such effects are simply due to giving students more preparation in an extra class has been tested by creating courses that combine a blocks-based introduction with a transition to a traditional language. Reports from courses using Scratch before Java or C indicate improved student engagement and understanding of some concepts.(19,39) In one study focused on learning transfer,(8) introductory Java course at CMU was modified to begin with Alice. Students in this class that used both languages averaged 10% or more better performance on every section of the same Java final exam, including expression evaluation, control structures, arrays, and working with class definitions.     That result is remarkable because one might assume that spending more time programming with blocks meant less time to learn Java. The study used a version of Alice that generated Java code from Alice blocks, and a mediated transfer pedagogy that made explicit connections between programming concepts in Alice and Java. Other studies of CS1 courses that switch from blocks to text without these features have identified potential challenges to learning with blocks.(10,27) Switching from a blocks language to text can involve both a change in syntax and semantics, and Shapiro and Ahrens propose teaching the transitions separately, by introducing syntax before generalizing semantics.(32) Additional research is needed to identify the circumstances under which blocks are effective.

1 25 19 39 8 10 27 32