Toward the effective use of educational program animations: The roles of student's engagement and topic complexity

Programming is one of the most complex subjects in computer science degrees. Program visualization is one of the approaches adopted to make programming concepts more accessible to students. In this work we study the educational impact of an active and highly engaging approach, namely the construction of program animations by students. We systematically compared this approach with two instructional scenarios, based on viewing animations and on the traditional instruction without systematic use of animations. A general conclusion of this work is that animations actually improve learning in terms of some educational aspects: short-term and long-term knowledge acquisition, and drop-out rates. Short-term improvements depend on the complexity level of the topic: while there is no impact for simple topics, there is a learning improvement in complex topics using the viewing and constructing approaches, and there is a learning improvement for highly complex topics using the viewing approach. In the long-term, drop-out rates were significantly decreased for students involved in the two most engaging approaches. In addition, both animation viewing and animation construction improved students' passing-rate in the term exam. Nevertheless, we were unable to prove in the long term that students involved in construction tasks yielded higher grades than those involved in viewing tasks.

[1]  L. Resnick,et al.  Knowing, Learning, and Instruction , 2018 .

[2]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Rethinking the evaluation of algorithm animations as learning aids: an observational study , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Jaime Urquiza-Fuentes,et al.  Effortless Construction and Management of Program Animations on the Web , 2005, ICWL.

[4]  Scott Grissom,et al.  Algorithm visualization in CS education: comparing levels of student engagement , 2003, SoftVis '03.

[5]  Tobias Lauer Reevaluating and refining the engagement taxonomy , 2008, ITiCSE.

[6]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design , 1998 .

[7]  Christopher D. Hundhausen,et al.  Using visualizations to learn algorithms: should students construct their own, or view an expert's? , 2000, Proceeding 2000 IEEE International Symposium on Visual Languages.

[8]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  External cognition: how do graphical representations work? , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[9]  Jaime Urquiza-Fuentes,et al.  WinHIPE: an IDE for functional programming based on rewriting and visualization , 2007, SIGP.

[10]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[11]  John Domingue,et al.  Software visualization : programming as a multimedia experience , 1998 .

[12]  B. Bloom,et al.  Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , 1966 .

[13]  A. W. Lawrence,et al.  Empirical studies of the value of algorithm animation in algorithm understanding , 1993 .

[14]  Thomas L. Naps,et al.  Exploring the role of visualization and engagement in computer science education , 2003, ITiCSE-WGR '02.

[15]  Martha E. Crosby,et al.  From multimedia instruction to multimedia evaluation , 1995 .

[16]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Using student-built algorithm animations as learning aids , 1997, SIGCSE '97.

[17]  Rachelle S. Heller,et al.  Integrating algorithm animation into a learning environment , 1997, Comput. Educ..

[18]  Mordechai Ben-Ari,et al.  The Jeliot 2000 program animation system , 2003, Comput. Educ..

[19]  Erkki Sutinen,et al.  Extending the Engagement Taxonomy: Software Visualization and Collaborative Learning , 2009, TOCE.

[20]  Alfred Bork,et al.  Multimedia in Learning , 2001 .

[21]  Christopher D. Hundhausen,et al.  Integrating algorithm visualization technology into an undergraduate algorithms course: ethnographic studies of a social constructivist approach , 2002, Comput. Educ..

[22]  John C. Yuille,et al.  The Empirical Case for Dual Coding , 2014 .

[23]  C. Bonwell,et al.  Active learning : creating excitement in the classroom , 1991 .

[24]  N. Hari Narayanan,et al.  Dancing hamsters and marble statues: characterizing student visualizations of algorithms , 2003, SoftVis '03.

[25]  Clifford A. Shaffer,et al.  Effective features of algorithm visualizations , 2004, SIGCSE '04.

[26]  Jaime Urquiza-Fuentes,et al.  An Evaluation of the Effortless Approach to Build Algorithm Animations with WinHIPE , 2007, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci..

[27]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research , 2004 .

[28]  Christopher D. Hundhausen,et al.  Designing, visualizing, and discussing algorithms within a CS 1 studio experience: An empirical study , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[29]  Ari Korhonen,et al.  Comparing Learning Performance of Students Using Algorithm Visualizations Collaboratively on Different Engagement Levels , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[30]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Please address correspondence to , 2000 .

[31]  Amruth N. Kumar Results from the evaluation of the effectiveness of an online tutor on expression evaluation , 2005, SIGCSE '05.

[32]  Jaime Urquiza-Fuentes,et al.  A Survey of Successful Evaluations of Program Visualization and Algorithm Animation Systems , 2009, TOCE.

[33]  Jaime Urquiza-Fuentes,et al.  An approach to effortless construction of program animations , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[34]  Shaaron Ainsworth,et al.  The functions of multiple representations , 1999, Comput. Educ..