Mirjana Ivanovic, Toma

1
Mirjana Ivanovic, Tomaš Pitner (Masaryk
University, Brno, Czech) Influences of
Technology Enhanced Learning in Teaching and
Assessing Java Programming - Serbian and Czech
Experiences
2
AGENDA

• Research visit
• Technology Enhanced Learning in University
  Courses
• Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and How?
• Course Prole
• Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses
• Key Findings and Recommendation
• Conclusion

3
1. Research visit
4
1. Research visit
5
1. Research visit

• Receiving institution Masaryk University, Brno
• Main topic of interest Technology enhanced
  learning
• First week - Review of current research
  activities and project at host University in the
  domain of elearning.
• Second week - Review of current state-of-the-art
  in the field of e-Iearning 2.0, personalized and
  adaptive elearning and Lifelong Learning.
• Third week - Definition of possible common
  research topics and specification of possible
  common papers.
• Fourth week - Preparation of draft version of
  common paper. Discussion of possibilities for
  further cooperation between our two institutions
  in research and teaching.

6
AGENDA

• Research visit
• Technology Enhanced Learning in University
  Courses
• Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and How?
• Course Profile
• Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses
• Key Findings and Recommendation
• Conclusion

7
2. Technology Enhanced Learning in University
Courses

• TEL in introductory programming courses at a
  university level attract teachers' community
• It has not led to a generally applicable way of
  teaching and learning that guarantee success
• We have examined issues affecting TEL positioning
  in the curriculum, learning design, and quality
  reached in introductory Java courses

8
AGENDA

• Research visit
• Technology Enhanced Learning in University
  Courses
• Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and How?
• Course Profile
• Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses
• Key Findings and Recommendation
• Conclusion

9
2.1 Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and
How?

• Still there are a lot of discussions/numerous
  papers presenting dilemma
• which programming language to teach as a first
• which approach to adopt imperative or object
  first.
• Key principles
• To take any programming language designed for
  teaching purposes
• From time to time students complain about choice
  of old-fashioned" language
• Teach students essences of programming and
  algorithmic style of thinking
• Not to bother students with particularities of
  concrete programming language and allow them
  spending hours in finding senseless errors in
  their programs

10
2.1 Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and
How?

• Our Institutions
• Within CS1 course, we use one of teaching
  languages (Pascal, Modula-2).
• Imperative first approach.
• Fashionable at many universities start with
  Java.
• We agree with some authors.
• To concentrate first on the essential concepts of
  imperative programming.
• Later explain object-oriented concepts.
• Language, designed for teaching purposes, gives
  teachers the best balance in separating
• educational aspects of programming from the
  training aspects of coding,
• adopting algorithmic style of thinking and
  problem solving.

11
AGENDA

• Research visit
• Technology Enhanced Learning in University
  Courses
• Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and How?
• Course Profile
• Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses
• Key Findings and Recommendation
• Conclusion

12
2.2 Course Profile

• UNS-PMF
• Content - majority of second year students master
  essentials of Java and OO programming.
• Good bases further improve and upgraded in
  subsequent courses.
• MUNI-FI
• Java (second year course) focuses on
  understanding of the object-oriented paradigm.
• Students
• Become familiar with the basic Java and OO
  terminology.
• Be able to analyze, design and implement simple
  software solutions with the appropriate tools.
• After completion, the students are able to follow
  consequent courses.
• But, they are not skilled to build more serious
  programs.

13
2.2 Course Profile

• Context
• Same model (UNS-PMF, MUNI) according to Bologna
  requirements.
• Object-Oriented Programming I, 3rd term.
• Java Programming, 3rd term.
• Similar context - algorithmic and procedural
  programming is expected.

14
2.2 Course Profile

• Methodology
• UNS-PMF - traditional course with online tools
  for delivery of self-study instructional units.
• MUNI-FI - blended learning (combined face-to-face
  and online learning), including principles of
  Person Centered Approach (PCA).
• students achieve superior results, higher
  self-confidence, creativity, openness to
  experience, and respect (according to core
  attitudinal conditions.)
• Both institutions are convinced programming
  skills should be best acquired in interaction.
• MUNI-FI explicitly employs PCA while UNS-FMP
  approaches the same principles intuitively.
• In both cases a blended-learning modus ,
  semi-automated assessment tools.

15
2.2 Course Profile

• Learning Design
• Both institutions apply similar assessment
  criteria practical tasks, in-lab activities,
  in-term tests, and a final test UNS-PMF oral
  exam.
• Students are encouraged to react and put
  questions immediately
• interpersonal sharing,
• promoting the attitudes of acceptance, realness,
  and understanding.
• Diverge in the overall assessment model
• UNS-PMF mixes practical tasks and theoretical
  (technology-supported) tests.
• MUNI-FI concentrates on assessing practical
  achievements only also include homeworks, no
  oral examination. Linear grading model - points
  are simply summed together.

16
AGENDA

• Research visit
• Technology Enhanced Learning in University
  Courses
• Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and How?
• Course Profile
• Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses
• Key Findings and Recommendation
• Conclusion

17
2.3 Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses

• TEL brings a number of advantages in teaching OO
  programming
• Both institutions apply blended learning style
  using different educational tools
• LMS and Tutoring Systems
• Assessment Tools
• Communication and Cooperation

18
2.3 Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses

• LMS and Tutoring Systems
• UNS-PMF
• Moodle with extended personalization features
  (Komlenov et al., 2010) Mag, a web-base tutoring
  system which is a part of the integrated learning
  environment MILE (Ivanovic et al., 2008).
• eLessons are used, some of the quizzes as well,
  but also glossaries, wikis, discussion forums
• MUNI-FI - learning patterns supported by
  services
• delivery of learning materials (slides, demos
  and video recordings from lectures, links to
  other learning resources)
• submission folders for collecting task solutions
• on-line tools for testing submitted solutions
• administration of assessment results
• discussion forums and other communication means

19
2.3 Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses
Assessment Tools
20
2.3 Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses

• Communication and Cooperation
• UNS-PMF - use e-mails and LMS Moodle discussion
  forums, instant messages, chat sessions, e-mail.
• allow students to share ideas,
• help each other to solve common issues,
• to post their inquiries or reactions to a course
  (or group) discussion forum,
• to contact the teachers and get feedback just in
  time
• MUNI-FI - University IS is equipped with
  e-learning and communication services.
• Integrated e-mail system mass e-mail targeted to
  specific groups e.g. students of a course, or
  members of a lab group.
• Students can post inquiries or reactions to a
  course (or group) discussion forum.

21
2.3 Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses

• Communication and Cooperation
• At both institutions
• Student are hesitating to massively use
  e-learning 2.0 services (blog, wiki, chat).
• Prefer discussion forums, and at UNS-PMF use
  direct e-mailing.
• MUNI-FI most of the students tend to discuss
  things directly at the lectures or contact the
  instructors in the labs.

22
AGENDA

• Research visit
• Technology Enhanced Learning in University
  Courses
• Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and How?
• Course Profile
• Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses
• Key Findings and Recommendation
• Conclusion

23
2.4 Key Findings and Recommendation

• The comparison of both Java courses - drawn
  common useful conclusions.
• Java need not be a CS1 course.
• Object-first approach is not a must.
• Technology-enhanced learning rises popularity of
  a course.
• It helps motivated students.
• Students are not ready for e-learning 2.0
  (yet?).
• Even grading can be automated.
• Keep the grading schema simple.
• Homeworks count to grading.
• Higher demand on teachers.
• Design surveys well.

24
AGENDA

• Research visit
• Technology Enhanced Learning in University
  Courses
• Java as the Introductory OO Course Why and How?
• Course Profile
• Technology-enhanced Learning in Java Courses
• Key Findings and Recommendation
• Conclusion

25
3. Conclusion

• Technology-enhanced learning is routinely applied
  at both institutions.
• Feedback is positive from both teachers and
  students.
• To achieve defined goals, it is necessary to
  employ a wide variety of pedagogical
  methodologies and tools for TEL.
• There is still room for in-house solutions, but
  open-source alternatives are gaining on
  importance (specifically when extended to support
  adaptability and personalization).
• Key question how and how far should we go in
  applications of e-learning 2.0 patterns and
  tools?

26
Mirjana Ivanovic, Tomaš Pitner (Masaryk
Univetsity, Brno, Czech) Influences of
Technology Enhanced Learning in Teaching and
Assessing Java Programming - Serbian and Czech
Experiences