Views of Professional Community on Programmed Learning and its Prospects

In order to increase the objectivity in relation to the perception of the importance of the use of programmed learning and its other perspectives, a supplementary survey was performed in September 2013 on a randomly chosen moderately large sample of experts who accepted participation in the conference aimed at the usage of ICT in education. This representative sample included teachers of various school levels, workers in the IT field, researchers, school managers and postgraduate students. The respondents were requested to fill in a paper and pencil questionnaire consisting of two parts. While in the first part they were asked to express their opinion about a few quotations from textbook authors related to programmed learning, the second part was focused on the assessment of the potential of programmed learning in selected components of the educational process. Of the 67 respondents who were approached, 32 submitted the questionnaire, which accounts for quite a high return rate of 47.8%.

From the set of expressions used by authors of pedagogically oriented works relating to programmed learning, the following ten characteristic quotes were selected:

1. Programmed learning has taught teachers to pay more attention to pupil's learning process and less to what the teacher does, to individualized learning pace and, last but not least, to coping with learning.

2. Programmed learning has enriched the individualized didactic models by introducing the idea of pupils´ learning activity management. Programming, as a process determining an optimal workflow, operations, actions and sequence of tasks solved within a particular process (manufacturing, instruction, etc.), is being used in the current school practice more and more often.

3. The Renaissance of the programmed learning principles is closely related to the development of computer-assisted instruction concepts.

145

5. Its rational elements constitute a valuable contribution to the great historical synthesis that is permanently under reconstruction.

6. The main reasons for the small extension into practice were the high economic costs and the unpreparedness of a sufficient number of high-quality educational software developers.

7. In addition to other types of teaching, regulatory training (which according to the author includes also programmed learning) has also its own irreplaceable role in the complex integrated system of education.

8. Programmed instruction and learning are an indisputable benefit–they activate pupils. 9. Many of the programmed learning principles have gradually become generally applicable

and accepted didactic principles (e.g. the principle of feedback).

10. Certain principles of programmed learning and teaching machines have not lost its usefulness.

The quotes were presented without the authors' names, so that they could not influence the opinions of the respondents, who rated their level of agreement with the statements of individual authors using a five-point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The obtained results are summarized in the following chart:

Respondent under 40 years of age Respondent over 40 years of age Fig. 1: The level of agreement with statements related to programmed learning (own research)

The result of the survey showed a significant difference in generational understanding of the concept of programmed learning. Respondents younger than 40 (left columns) were largely sceptical to the authors’ favourable statements. A certain consensus in favourable assessment appeared in both age groups in item no. 7, which contained the statement by J. Maňák concerning the place of programmed learning in the regulatory type of training in the integrated system of education (26). Respondents over 40 years of age can imagine the possibility of wider application of the principles of programmed learning. The most widely accepted idea was the one expressed by the author in item no. 4, which appreciated the contribution of programmed learning to practice. Also the statement by J. Čáp related to the causes of programmed learning downturn (255-256), indicated in item no. 6, was greatly

146

accepted. As the diagram shows, positively received were also the thought of J. Dvořáček (item no. 8) about the pupils being activated by programmed learning (5) and broader expression of the usefulness of programmed learning by J. Zounek and K. Šeďová (item no. 10) (30-31). A smaller degree of agreement was obtained by A. Vališová's idea stated in item no. 2 (165 an).

In the second part of the questionnaire, the respondents again expressed with the help of a five-point scale their opinion about the potential of programmed learning to influence the following 11 specified areas, where 1 meant “Zero potential” and 5 “High potential”:

1. Formulation of educational goals and learning outcomes.

2. Formation of learning tasks with varying degrees of intensity of required mental operations.

3. Selection of key elements for the curriculum (core curriculum). 4. Acquisition of psychomotor skills.

5. Ensuring perfect mastery of the curriculum by revision with immediate feedback. 6. Usage in the creation of computer tutorials.

7. Ensuring individual independent learning.

8. Creation of didactic tests with a rich set of test item types. 9. Creation of equal opportunities and conditions for learning.

10. Implementation of screening (in the form of the "state" part of the maturita exam or tests for pupils in 5th and 9th grades).

11. Formation of diligence, accuracy and consistency at pupils.

Respondent under 40 years of age Respondent over 40 years of age Fig. 2: Respondents' views on the potential of programmed learning (own research)

More specific proposals for the realization of programmed learning potential were met with a greater favour in both age groups. A higher level of compliance was recorded especially in the creation of learning tasks with varying degrees of difficulty in thinking operations (item no. 2), in the selection of the core curriculum (item no. 3), in ensuring perfect mastery of the curriculum by revision with immediate feedback (item 5), in the creation of didactic tests with

147

a rich set of test item types (item no. 8) and, last but not least, in the formation of diligence, accuracy and consistency at pupils (item no. 11). While the lowest rating was recorded in item no. 9 relating to the creation of equal conditions for learning, the biggest difference by age group was reflected in item no. 10 stating the potential benefits of programmed learning for the implementation of screening in the form of "state graduation" and in testing pupils in the fifth and ninth grades.

The questionnaire also contained empty space which the respondents could use for free expression. As an example of their opinions, the following statement can be chosen: “Today's teachers do not know the true principles of programmed learning. It is necessary to start all over again.”

4 Conclusion

The analysis of university textbooks, particularly in the fields of pedagogy and didactics, showed that the majority of authors appreciate the contribution of programmed learning to the development of didactic knowledge as well as to the improvement of educational practice, and that they consider its main ideas to be applicable to both a theoretical and practical purpose. According to the experts, it is still prospective to use the concept of programmed learning and its individual components especially in the areas of learning tasks creation, selection of the core curriculum, acquisition of psychomotor skills, perfect mastery of the curriculum, and testing of students.

References

BLOOM, B. S. et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. vol. I. New York,1956. BLOOM, B. S., D. R. KRATHWOHL et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. vol. II. New York, 1965.

KAPOUNOVÁ, J. et al. Přístupy k evaluaci eLearningu. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2012. ISBN 978-80-7464-121-3.

KOSTOLÁNYOVÁ, K. Modelování adaptivní výuky v eLearningu. Media4u Magazine. 2013, p. 27-31.

KOSTOLÁNYOVÁ, K. Theoretic Principles of Adaptive Teaching Process. The New Educational Review. 2013, vol. 34, p. 209-219.

KOSTOLÁNYOVÁ, K. Teorie adaptivního e-learningu. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2012. ISBN 978-80-7464-014-8.

KULIČ, V. ed. Programované učení jako světový problém. Praha, SPN, 1966.

LANDA, L. N. Algoritmy a učení: kybernetika, algoritmizace a heuristika ve vyučování. Praha: SPN, 1973.

LOCKEE, B., D. M. MOORE and J. BURTON. Foundations of programmed instruction. In JONASSEN, D. H. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications

Technology. Second edition. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. ISBN 0-8058-4145-8, p. 545- 569.

MALACH, J. Přínos programovaného učení pro rozvoj pedagogické teorie a praxe. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2013. ISBN 978-80-7464-527-3.

MALACH, J., M. MALČÍK and E. MECHLOVÁ. From Behaviorism to Generativism: Changes of Theoretical Principles of ICT Applications in Teaching and Learning.

148

Proceedings Information and Communication Technology in Education. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2013, s. 178-193. ISBN 978-80-7464-324-8.

SPECTOR, J. M. et al. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications

Technology. Fourth edition. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, 2014. ISBN 978- 1-4614-3185-5.

TENNNYSON, R. D. Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design. Contemporary educational technology, 2010, vol 1, no 1, p. 1–16.

149

THE PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT FOR THE LEGO WEDO

ROBOTIC CONSTRUCTION SET

Karolína Mayerová, Michaela Veselovská

Department of Informatics Education, Fakulty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius Univeristy, Mlynská dolina 1, Bratislava, Slovakia

{karolina.mayerova; Michaela.veselovska}@fmph.uniba.sk

Abstract

In this article, we discuss the properties and control methods of the LEGO WeDo robotic construction set with its integrated programming environment for children. We describe the characteristics of the software environment with categories: general vs. specialised, programming style, the level of object orientation, code representation, programming constructs, project construction, preventing (syntax) errors, saving and exporting and localisation. These categories are covered by the publication from Gujberová and Tomcsányi. According to these categories, we describe the control methods of the software, the range of its possibilities, and also its advantages and disadvantages. We use pictures to demonstrate code samples for a better understanding of the code structure described in the text.

In our conclusion, we propose to create two new categories due to precise classification of educational software LEGO WeDo. Preliminary results of research indicate intuitive work with various commands, thus fostering the development of skills and the knowledge of creating programming constructs.

Keywords

Classification, Educational software, LEGO WeDo, primary school pupils

Introduction

In recent years, the interest in the use of robotics in the education process has significantly increased. All around the world, there are attempts of its use in kindergartens, as well as in university courses, where it is used mainly in science- and technically-focused subjects (Alimisis 2009). The authors (Mubin et al. 2013) believe that robots are not only modern cutting-edge technologies, but that they also represent a tangible result of the learning process of the students. Such approach really supports the idea of implementing robotics into the teaching process. However, such implementation is not an easy process and does not only include the choice of a good and proper robotic construction set for the given age category, but also the selection of a proper programming environment for this set. Of course, there are also some introductory activities related to robotics, which do not require using a computer. Micheli (2008), for example, suggested such activities designed for age group of 5 to 8-year- olds. However, for a group at the age of 9 or 10, the authors recommend using adjusted iconographic language NXT-G (visually adjusted motive on the command icons), which is to be used together with a very popular construction set LEGO Mindstorms NXT. The authors (Hirst et al. 2003) have drawn up a brief analysis of available programming environments for the robotic construction set LEGO Mindstorms RCX for a wide range of age groups (from primary school pupils, to university students and life-long learning adults, to teachers). Criteria created by these authors are primarily meant for a pre-entry level university course, but the authors are planning to use them to support students in competitions such as RoboFesta and RoboCup. The authors (Gujberová and Tomcsányi 2013) focus on

150

specifying adequate selection criteria (yet in terms of programming, not from the didactic aspect) of the programming environment for pupils of primary school. The authors, in their article, chose for their research several well-known programming environments for children (Scratch, Imagine Logo, Baltie, Kodu, etc.), which they analysed on the basis of the established criteria. When setting up the criteria, they were inspired by (Kelleher and Pausch 2005).

In our article, we intend to analyse the software for robotic kit LEGO WeDo on the basis of criteria from article (Gujberová and Tomcsányi 2013) and also suggest a number of improvements of these criteria for a more precise software classification.