Advertisement

Skramble: An Embeddable Python Programming Environment for Use in Learning Systems

  • Henry MiskinEmail author
  • Anandha Gopalan
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 739)

Abstract

Computing has recently been introduced as a core subject in British schools, meaning that children need to learn computer programming. Teachers have to be prepared to deliver the new curriculum and children need the correct environment and support to succeed. This paper discusses TuringLab, a challenge-based learning system for the Python programming language and proposes Skramble, an embeddable Python programming environment for use within existing learning systems. TuringLab has been used to teach children how to programme at a number of volunteer-led coding clubs. Children engaged well with the system, and the volunteers, who acted as teachers in these sessions, found it an extremely valuable educational tool. Skramble is an open source environment and is designed to abstract functionality such as code execution, error handling, syntax analysis, code testing, output capture and package management: allowing this feature-rich environment to be easily integrated into existing learning systems.

Keywords

Computer programming Information technology Open source Online learning Python programming 

References

  1. 1.
    Stergioulas, L.K., Drenoyianni, H.: Pursuing Digital Literacy in Compulsory Education. New Literacies and Digital Epistemologies, vol. 43. Peter Lang Publishing Inc., New York (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gove, M.: Michael Gove speaks about computing and education technology (2014). https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-speaks-about-computing-and-education-technology. Accessed 27 Aug 2015
  3. 3.
    Cellan-Jones, R.: A computing revolution in schools, September 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29010511. Accessed 4 Jun 2015
  4. 4.
    Department for Education. National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study, September 2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study. Accessed 4 Jun 2015
  5. 5.
    Jones, S.P.: Code to joy. Times Educ. Suppl. (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Computing at School. Computing Teachers Call For More Training Amidst Concerns Pupils Know More Than Them, January 2015. http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/index.php?id=current-news&post=quickstart-launch-2. Accessed 4 Jun 2015
  7. 7.
    OurICT. Ten Resources for Teaching Computer Science (2015). http://www.ourict.co.uk/teaching-computer-science/. Accessed 22 Aug 2015
  8. 8.
    Brown, N.C.C., Kölling, M., Crick, T., Jones, S.P., Humphreys, S., Sentance, S.: Bringing computer science back into schools: lessons from the UK. Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    EdSurge. Teaching Kids to Code (2015). https://www.edsurge.com/research/guides/teaching-kids-to-code. Accessed 14 Oct 2015
  10. 10.
    Flanagan, J.: 10 places in Britain where you can learn how to write computer code (2013). http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/14/learn-how-to-code. Accessed 27 Aug 2015
  11. 11.
    Zheng, S., Rosson, M.B., Shih, P.C., Carroll, J.M.: Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. In: ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, March 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ofsted. Virtual learning environments: an evaluation of their development in a sample of educational settings (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    EDUCAUSE. 7 things you should know about learning tools interoperability. Technical report, EDUCAUSE (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alzaghoul, A.F.: The implication of the learning theories on implementing e-learning courses. Res. Bull. Jordan ACM 11(11), 27–30 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mödritscher, F.: e-Learning theories in practice: a comparison of three. Sci. Technol., 3–18 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Black, P., Wiliam, D.: Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Granada Learning, London (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., Wiliam, D.: Assessment For Learning: Putting it into Practice. McGraw-Hill Education, London (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cooper, D., Adams, K.: Talk about Assessment: Strategies and Tools to Improve Learning. Thomson/Nelson, Toronto (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knight, J.: The assessment for learning strategy. Technical report, Department for children, schools and families (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anderson, T.: The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University Press, Athabasca (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vygotsky, L.: Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wood, D.: How Children Think and Learn: The Social Context of Cognitive Development. Blackwell, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brophy, J.: Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in education: developing appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Educ. Psychol. 34(2), 75–85 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Juriševič, M.: Creativity in the zone of proximal motivational development. In: Facilitating Effective Student Learning Through Teacher Research and Innovation, pp. 415–429 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keller, J.M., Suzuki, K.: Use of the ARCS Motivation Model in courseware design (1988)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adler, M.J.: The Paideia Proposal: An Education Manifesto. Macmillan, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brophy, J.E.: Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educ. Leadersh. 5(2), 40–48 (1987)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scott Grabinger, R., Dunlap, J.C.: Rich environments for active learning: a definition. Res. Learn. Technol. 3(2), 5–34 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huffaker, D.A., Calvert, S.L.: The new science of learning: active learning, metacognition, and transfer of knowledge in e-learning applications. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 29(3), 325–334 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pearlman, B.: Making 21st century schools creating learner-centered schoolplaces/workplaces for a new culture of students at work. Educ. Technol. 49(5), 14–19 (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walser, N.: Spotlight on Technology in Education. Harvard Education Letter Spotlight, vol. 7. Harvard Educational Publishing Group, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Twigg, C.A.: Quality, Cost and Access: The Case for Redesign. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gordon, N.: Flexible pedagogies: technology-enhanced learning (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arkorful, V., Abaidoo, N.: The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. Int. J. Instr. Technol. Distance Learn., 29 (2015)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y.: Scratch: a sneak preview. In: Creating, Connecting and Collaborating Through Computing (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Maloney, J.H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y.: Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. In: ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Franklin, D., Conrad, P., Boe, B., Nilsen, K.: Assessment of computer science learning in a scratch-based outreach program. In: Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2013)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kelleher, C., Pausch, R.: Lowering the barriers to programming: a taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 37, 83–137 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoc, J.-M., Nguyen-Xuan, A.: Language semantics, mental models and analogy. Psychol. Program. 10, 139–156 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gomes, A., Mendes, A.J.N.: Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In: International Conference on Engineering Education, pp. 1–5 (2007)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Deek, F.P., McHugh, J.A.: A survey and critical analysis of tools for learning programming. Comput. Sci. Educ. 8(2), 130–178 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van Gorp, M.J., Grissom, S.: An empirical evaluation of using constructive classroom activities to teach introductory programming. Comput. Sci. Educ. 11(3), 247–260 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sentance, S., Csizmadia, A.: Computing in the curriculum: challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 22, 469–495 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kemp, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Hunt, S., Jackson, C.: Computing in the national curriculum: a guide for secondary teachers (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations