More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Public Access

PlanIT! A New Integrated Tool to Help Novices Design for Open-ended Projects

Authors:

Alexandra Milliken,

Veronica Cateté,

Tiffany Barnes,

Chris MartensAuthors Info & Claims

SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Pages 232 - 238

https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432552

Published: 05 March 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Project-based learning can encourage and motivate students to learn through exploring their own interests, but introduces special challenges for novice programmers. Recent research has shown that novice students perceive themselves to be "bad at programming, especially when they do not know how to start writing a program, or need to create a plan before getting started. In this paper, we present PlanIT, a guided planning tool integrated with the Snap! programming environment designed to help novices plan and program their open-ended projects. Within PlanIT, students can add a description for their project, use a to do list to help break down the steps of implementation, plan important elements of their program including actors, variables, and events, and view related example projects. We report findings from a pilot study of high school students using PlanIT, showing that students who used the tool learned to make more specific and actionable plans. Results from student interviews show they appreciate the guidance that PlanIT provides, as well as the affordances it offers to more quickly create program elements.

References

[1]

Mohammed Ibrahim Alhojailan. 2012. Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. West East Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 1, 1 (2012), 39--47.

[2]

Carl Alphonce and Blake Martin. 2005. Green: a customizable UML class diagram plug-in for Eclipse. In Companion to the 20th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications. 108--109.

[3]

Adam Burke, Cristi Shanahan, and Eka Herlambang. 2014. An exploratory study comparing goal-oriented mental imagery with daily to-do lists: Supporting college student success. Current Psychology, Vol. 33, 1 (2014), 20--34.

[4]

Dan Garcia, Brian Harvey, and Tiffany Barnes. 2015. The beauty and joy of computing. ACM Inroads, Vol. 6, 4 (2015), 71--79.

Digital Library

[5]

Jamie Gorson and Eleanor O'Rourke. 2020. Why do CS1 Students Think They're Bad at Programming? Investigating Self-efficacy and Self-assessments at Three Universities. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 170--181.

Digital Library

[6]

A Gwande. 2010. The checklist manifesto. New York: Picadur (2010).

[7]

Wei Jin and Albert Corbett. 2011. Effectiveness of cognitive apprenticeship learning (CAL) and cognitive tutors (CT) for problem solving using fundamental programming concepts. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 305--310.

Digital Library

[8]

Wei Jin, Albert Corbett, Will Lloyd, Lewis Baumstark, and Christine Rolka. 2014. Evaluation of guided-planning and assisted-coding with task relevant dynamic hinting. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 318--328.

Digital Library

[9]

Hieke Keuning, Bastiaan Heeren, and Johan Jeuring. 2017. Code quality issues in student programs. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 110--115.

Digital Library

[10]

Andrew J Ko, Robin Abraham, Laura Beckwith, Alan Blackwell, Margaret Burnett, Martin Erwig, Chris Scaffidi, Joseph Lawrance, Henry Lieberman, Brad Myers, et almbox. 2011. The state of the art in end-user software engineering. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Vol. 43, 3 (2011), 1--44.

Digital Library

[11]

Michael Kölling. 2010. The greenfoot programming environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Vol. 10, 4 (2010), 1--21.

Digital Library

[12]

Kyungbin Kwon. 2017. Novice programmer's misconception of programming reflected on problem-solving plans. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, Vol. 1, 4 (2017), 14--24.

[13]

Essi Lahtinen, Kirsti Ala-Mutka, and Hannu-Matti J"arvinen. 2005. A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. Acm sigcse bulletin, Vol. 37, 3 (2005), 14--18.

[14]

Alex Lishinski, Aman Yadav, Richard Enbody, and Jon Good. 2016. The influence of problem solving abilities on students' performance on different assessment tasks in CS1. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education. 329--334.

Digital Library

[15]

Andrew Luxton-Reilly, Ibrahim Albluwi, Brett A Becker, Michail Giannakos, Amruth N Kumar, Linda Ott, James Paterson, Michael James Scott, Judy Sheard, and Claudia Szabo. 2018. Introductory programming: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings Companion of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 55--106.

Digital Library

[16]

Moira Maguire and Brid Delahunt. 2017. Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 9, 3 (2017).

[17]

Ralph Morelli, C Uche, P Lake, and L Baldwin. 2015. Analyzing Year One of a CS Principles PD Project. In Proceedings of the ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 368--373. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2677265

Digital Library

[18]

Sally H Moritz, Fang Wei, Shahida M Parvez, and Glenn D Blank. 2005. From objects-first to design-first with multimedia and intelligent tutoring. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 37, 3 (2005), 99--103.

Digital Library

[19]

Kylie A. Peppler and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2007. What Videogame Making Can Teach Us about Literacy and Learning: Alternative Pathways into Participatory Culture. In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Association Conference. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED521155

[20]

Beatriz Pérez and Ángel L Rubio. 2020. A project-based learning approach for enhancing learning skills and motivation in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 309--315.

[21]

Thomas W Price, Joseph Jay Williams, Jaemarie Solyst, and Samiha Marwan. 2020. Engaging Students with Instructor Solutions in Online Programming Homework. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--7.

Digital Library

[22]

Keith Quille and Susan Bergin. 2018. Programming: predicting student success early in CS1. a re-validation and replication study. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 15--20.

Digital Library

[23]

Alexander Repenning, Ryan Grover, Kris Gutierrez, Nadia Repenning, David C. Webb, Kyu Han Koh, Hilarie Nickerson, Susan B. Miller, Catharine Brand, Ian Her Many Horses, Ashok Basawapatna, and Fred Gluck. 2015. Scalable Game Design. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 15, 2 (apr 2015), 1--31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700517

Digital Library

[24]

Lucy Suchman. 1987. Plans and Situation Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication. (1987).

[25]

John Sweller, Jeroen JG Van Merrienboer, and Fred GWC Paas. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, Vol. 10, 3 (1998), 251--296.

[26]

Jakita O Thomas, Yolanda Rankin, Rachelle Minor, and Li Sun. 2017. Exploring the difficulties African-American middle school girls face enacting computational algorithmic thinking over three years while designing games for social change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Vol. 26, 4--6 (2017), 389--421.

Digital Library

[27]

Elizabeth T Turner. 2012. Meeting learners? needs through project-based learning. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology (IJAVET), Vol. 3, 4 (2012), 24--34.

Digital Library

[28]

Ian Utting, Stephen Cooper, and Michael Kö lling. 2010. Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch -- A Discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 10, 4 (2010). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1868364

Digital Library

[29]

Wengran Wang, Rui Zhi, Alexandra Milliken, Nicholas Lytle, and Thomas W. Price. 2020. Crescendo: Engaging Students to Self-Paced Programming Practices. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (Portland, OR, USA) (SIGCSE '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 859--865. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366919

Cited By

Wang ZShen LKuang EZhang SFan M(2024)Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content (AIGC) Tools on Social Dynamics in UX CollaborationProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660703(1594-1606)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660703
Weinman NBoreczky JFox AStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)A Novel Scaffolded Assessment Bridging Concepts and CodeProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3626253.3635509(1853-1854)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626253.3635509
Reichert HTabarsi BPrice TBarnes T(2024)Jigsaw: A Tool for Decomposing and Planning Programming Problems2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)10.1109/VL/HCC60511.2024.00034(236-247)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC60511.2024.00034
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

PlanIT! A New Integrated Tool to Help Novices Design for Open-ended Projects

Recommendations

Novices' Learning Barriers When Using Code Examples in Open-Ended Programming
ITiCSE '21: Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1

Open-ended programming increases students' motivation by allowing them to solve authentic problems and connect programming to their own interests. However, such open-ended projects are also challenging, as they often encourage students to explore new ...
Planit: the analysis of a computerized problem-solving tool
Factors Influencing Students' Help-Seeking Behavior while Programming with Human and Computer Tutors
ICER '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

When novice students encounter difficulty when learning to program, some can seek help from instructors or teaching assistants. This one-on-one tutoring is highly effective at fostering learning, but busy instructors and large class sizes can make ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 2021

1454 pages

ISBN:9781450380621

DOI:10.1145/3408877

General Chairs:
Mark Sherriff
University of Virginia, USA
,
Laurence D. Merkle
Air Force Institute of Technology, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Pamela Cutter
Kalamazoo College, USA
,
Alvaro Monge
California State University, Long Beach, USA
,
Judithe Sheard
Monash University, Australia

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 March 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

SIGCSE '21

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

SIGCSE '21: The 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

March 13 - 20, 2021

Virtual Event, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025

Sponsor:
sigcse

The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

February 26 - March 1, 2025

Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

12
Total Citations
View Citations
486
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)110
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)37

Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wang ZShen LKuang EZhang SFan M(2024)Exploring the Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content (AIGC) Tools on Social Dynamics in UX CollaborationProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference10.1145/3643834.3660703(1594-1606)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3643834.3660703
Weinman NBoreczky JFox AStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)A Novel Scaffolded Assessment Bridging Concepts and CodeProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3626253.3635509(1853-1854)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626253.3635509
Reichert HTabarsi BPrice TBarnes T(2024)Jigsaw: A Tool for Decomposing and Planning Programming Problems2024 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)10.1109/VL/HCC60511.2024.00034(236-247)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC60511.2024.00034
Tsan JEatinger DPugnali AGonzalez-Maldonado DFranklin DWeintrop DBecker BQuille KLaakso MBarendsen ESimon (2022)Scaffolding Young Learners' Open-Ended Programming Projects with Planning SheetsProceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 110.1145/3502718.3524769(372-378)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3502718.3524769
Limke AMilliken ACateté VGransbury IIsvik APrice TMartens CBarnes TBecker BQuille KLaakso MBarendsen ESimon (2022)Case Studies on the Use of Storyboarding by Novice ProgrammersProceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 110.1145/3502718.3524749(318-324)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3502718.3524749
Gonzalez-Maldonado DPugnali ATsan JEatinger DFranklin DWeintrop D(2022)Investigating the Use of Planning Sheets in Young Learners’ Open-Ended Scratch ProjectsProceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3501385.3543972(247-263)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3501385.3543972
Wang WLe Meur ABobbadi MAkram BBarnes TMartens CPrice TMerkle LDoyle MSheard JSoh LDorn B(2022)Exploring Design Choices to Support Novices' Example Use During Creative Open-Ended ProgrammingProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499374(619-625)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3478431.3499374
Huang RFerdowsi KSelvaraj ASoosai Raj ALerner SMerkle LDoyle MSheard JSoh LDorn B(2022)Investigating the Impact of Using a Live Programming Environment in a CS1 CourseProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499305(495-501)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3478431.3499305
Sim TLau S(2022)Review on Challenges and Solutions in Novice Programming Education2022 IEEE International Conference on Computing (ICOCO)10.1109/ICOCO56118.2022.10031657(55-61)Online publication date: 14-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOCO56118.2022.10031657
Dong YShabrina PMarwan SBarnes T(2021)You Really Need Help: Exploring Expert Reasons for Intervention During Block-based Programming AssignmentsProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research10.1145/3446871.3469764(334-346)Online publication date: 16-Aug-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3446871.3469764
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents