AGENDA

1. Mirjana Ivanović, 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. MirjanaIvanović, TomašPitner (Masaryk Univetsity, Brno, Czech) Influences of Technology Enhanced Learning in Teaching and Assessing Java Programming - Serbian and Czech Experiences