Comparing learning performance of Students using Algorithm visualizations collaboratively on different Engagement levels

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 267-282

  Laakso, Mikko Jussi ^a   Myller, Niko ^b   Korhonen, Ari ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^c AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Algorithm simulation; Algorithm visualization; Collaborative learning; Engagement taxonomy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649287123     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Ben-Bassat Levy, R., Ben-Ari & M., & Uronen, P. A. (2003). The Jeliot 2000 program animation system. Computers & Education, 40 (1), 15-21.
2. Byrne, M. D., Catrambone, R., & Stasko, J. T. (1996). Do algorithm animations aid learning? Technical Report GIT- GVU-96-18, Atlanta, GA: Graphics, Visualization, and Usability Center, Georgia Institute of Technology.
3. Collazos, C., Guerrero, L., Redondo, M., & Bravo, C. (2007). Visualizing Shared-Knowledge Awareness in Collaborative Learning Processes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4715, 56-71.
4. Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49 (4), 1147-1160.
5. th Ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Grissom, S., McNally M., & Naps, T. L. (2003). Algorithm visualization in CS education: comparing levels of student engagement. Proceedings of the First ACM Symposium on Software Visualization, New York: ACM Press, 87-94.
7. Hübscher-Younger, T., & Narayanan, N. H. (2003). Constructive and collaborative learning of algorithms. SIGCSE Bulletin, 35 (1), 6-10.
8. Hundhausen, C. D. (2002). Integrating Algorithm Visualization Technology into an Undergraduate Algorithms Course: Ethnographic Studies of a Social Constructivist Approach. Computers & Education, 39 (3), 237-260.
9. Hundhausen, C. D. (2005). Using end-user visualization environments to mediate conversations: a 'Communicative Dimensions' framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 16 (3), 153-185.
10. Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2008). Designing, visualizing, and discussing algorithms within a CS 1 studio experience: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 50 (1), 301-326.
11. Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A Meta-Study of Algorithm Visualization Effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 13 (3), 259-290.
12. Kehoe, C., Stasko, J., & Taylor, A. (2001). Rethinking the evaluation of algorithm animations as learning aids: An observational study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54 (2), 265-284.
13. th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 121-124.
14. Korhonen, A., Malmi, L., Silvasti, P., Karavirta, V., Lönnberg, J., Nikander, J., Stålnacke, K., & Ihantola, P. (2004). Matrix - a framework for interactive software visualization. Research Report TKO-B 154/04, Helsinki: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology.
15. Laakso, M.-J., Salakoski, T., Grandell, L., Qiu, X., Korhonen, A., & Malmi, L. (2005a). Multi-perspective study of novice learners adopting the visual algorithm simulation exercise system TRAKLA2. Informatics in Education, 4 (1), 49-68.
16. Laakso, M.-J., Salakoski, T., & Korhonen, A. (2005b). The feasibility of automatic assessment and feedback. Proceedings of Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, Lisbon: IADIS Press, 113-122.
17. th International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 602-607.
18. Myller, N., Bednarik, R., Ben-Ari, M., & Sutinen, E. (In press). Extending the Engagement Taxonomy: Software Visualization and Collaborative Learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education.
19. th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, New York: ACM Press, 251-255.
20. th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, New York: ACM Press, 359-362.
21. Naps, T. L., & Grissom, S. (2002). The effective use of quicksort visualizations in the classroom. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18 (1), 88-96.
22. Naps, T. L., Rößling, G., Almstrum, V., Dann, W., Fleischer, R., Hundhausen, C., Korhonen, A., Malmi, L., McNally, M., Rodger, S., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2002). Exploring the Role of Visualization and Engagement in Computer Science Education. Working Group Reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, New York: ACM Press, 131-152.
23. Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborating inquiry. In Day, D. L., & Kovacs, D. K. (Eds.), Computers, Communication & Mental Models, London: Taylor & Francis, 13-25.
24. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45 (2), 185-213.
25. Stasko, J., Badre A., & Lewis, C. (1993). Do algorithm animations assist learning? An empirical study and analysis. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York: ACM Press, 61-66.
26. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. D. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (2), 183-219.
27. Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17 (4), 19-25.