InC Labs.AnalysisofStudentSatisfactioninProgrammingEducationbasedonJigsawJang,YunJae|KoreaUniv.InCLabs|2011.12.16
Index         1.    Introduction              2.    Background                   2.1. Cooperativelearning              3. ...
1.Introduction   • InthiscurrentofITsociety,                     • theabilitytoutilizeinformationthroughvariousdigitalmedi...
1.Introduction   • Theobjectiveofthisstudyis,                     • todevelopaprogrammingactivities                     • ...
2.Background   • Cooperativelearning                 • Positiveinterdependence                 • Personalresponsibility   ...
2.Background   • Jigsaw,                • Subjectthatneedtobesolvedisdivided.                • Studentsaregroupedandlater,...
3.Method       • First,                  • searchedforvariouseducationalactivitiesandcasestudiesthat                      ...
3.Method       • ProgrammingActivities                 Team Grouping                                  3 Keywords          ...
3.Method       • ProgrammingActivities                 Team Grouping                                  3 Keywords          ...
3.Method       • ProgrammingActivities                 Team Grouping                                  3 Keywords          ...
3.Method       • ProgrammingActivities                 Team Grouping                                  3 Keywords          ...
3.Method       • PMIEvaluationtools                                                          Student                      ...
4.Result       • Application                • July,2010.                • Total27student,9Mentors,4Staffs                •...
4.Result       • First,                  • meancampsatisfactionscored8.32outof10.                  • Funactivities:teamwor...
4.Result       • Second,                                                  Student                                         ...
5.Conclusion   • First,                  • satisfactionofprogrammingactivitieswereshownhigh.               • Second,      ...
Thanks.InC Labs.
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Programming Education based on Jigsaw

1,902 views
1,842 views

Published on

Analysis of student satisfaction in programming education based on jigsaw

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,902
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,089
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hi, I’m Jang, YunJae. I’m going to talk about my research result.\nThe topic of my presentation is “Analysis of student satisfaction in programming education based on jigsaw”. \n\nCan everyone see that? This figure show that word is derived from my paper. \nStudent, activities, project, learning, educational, literacy words make an appearance frequently.\n
  • There are three main things dealt with in my presentation: first, the background, second, research method and programming activities, and lastly, Application and result.\n\nMy presentation will take about 15 minutes, probably.\n
  • if we focus the digital literacy's goal to improve higher-level abilities, there would be a need to introduce a new educational method.\n\n
  • Thus, the objective of this study is to develop a programming activities, which is cooperative learning model.\nAlso the objective is to analyze students’ satisfaction by applying the developed programming activities.\n
  • Cooperative learning refers to a structured teaching process that teaches in team unit to achieve common educational goal. \n\nCooperative learning usually shows higher educational achievements than individualized learning, but for more meaningful learning, positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, personal responsibility, interpersonal and small-group skills, and frequent and regular group processing are needed[5]. \n\nCooperative learning is defined in various ways depending on the scholar, typically learners in the learning process is the importance of cooperation and Learners to reach the learning goals effectively. \n\n
  • Jigsaw, one of the cooperative learning, are as follows:[6]. Subject that need to be solved is divided. Second, students are grouped and later, by group, each member must select a sub-topic. And then Selected members of the same sub-topic will also learn to create expert groups. Finally, the learners returned to their original groups to resolve Subject.\n\n\n\n\n
  • \nProgramming Activities, which based on jigsaw was progressed as following procedures: \nFirst, through document investigations we searched for various educational activities and case studies that are required for digital literacy education. \nSecond, through five conditions of efficient cooperative learning and review of educational experts, we chose activities of educational model and described detailed activity contents. \nThird, we improved educational activity procedures through pilot tests.\n\n
  • Figure is the programming activities based on 5 basic and essential elements to cooperative learning suggested by our study. Following is the detailed contents of the instructional design strategy:\n\nfirst, Team Grouping consist to Ice-breaking, second, Team Activity consist to Think session, workshop, team project, presentation activities. Finally, Reflection consist to Retrospection. \n\n
  • There are 'positive first-impression' and 'three keywords' in icebreaking activities for team groups. The 'three keywords' helps the students to know each other through three special keywords of themselves, and also helps group individuals to expand their networks.\n
  • Team activities consist of idea discussion, workshop, team project and presentation.\n\nThere is a method called brainstorming in the activity for the idea exploration. \n\nPrototyping is an activity that uses paper or other materials to imitate the project before actually making the real one\nBy making and executing the project quickly, we can evaluate the level of interest and quality. \nThe prototype created by students can exchange feedbacks through tic-tac-toe activity. \n\nTic-tac-toe can improve student-made projects by letting other student groups to execute their projects in person and provide feedbacks. \n\nThe workshop is an activity to learn the required programming language to produce a project and learn how to use the instruments. The workshop is Jigsaw-based, which means the individual team members choose what they will learn about and take workshops, then the individual members perform their roles in team project activities. \nThree to four students make one team and work to accomplish a project. \nThe members use their knowledge they learned from workshops while they work the project out. \nThroughout the work they get opportunities to earn the spirit of teamwork, considerations, and responsibilities of their roles.\n\nPresentation is the time when they present their finished team-made project products to other students. \nThrough the presentation they earn the sense of accomplishment and self-confidence, as well as help in improvement of themselves.\n\n
  • Retrospection provides a time to look back all the educational activities and examine pros and cons of these activities. \nIn addition, retrospection provides an opportunity to make students feel responsibility of their plans by imagining and talking about how they will improve themselves in the future.\n\n
  • After the camp activities were over, there were surveys in the level of student participation, the most interesting camp activity, camp satisfaction, project satisfaction, and finally project completion. The memoirs written by students were also analyzed. \n
  • The programming activities developed by this study was applied to the PINY Camp at July, 2010.\n27 students were divided into nine teams, with one mentor included in each team. \nA mentor participated in all processes from planning projects to realizing them as a companion, advising his students to lead them into right ways. \n\nThis table show that PINY Camp time table during 3 days.\n\n
  • First, mean camp satisfaction scored 8.32 out of 10. \nTeam work, prototyping, game market, and tic-tac-toe were the most fun activities in order.\n\nFollowing responses are the good events at the camp according to the students' memoirs:\n"Through idea discussion we could exchange our opinions positively, thus our team members were all relaxed and happy.", \n"It was nice to make the prototype ourselves and exchange our opinions.", \n"It was nice to make a game through cooperation.", \n"At the last activity, the presentation, all the students had an opportunity to share and present the projects they participated in."\n\nOn the other hand, the most unfortunate events were as follows:\n"When the game market started, I didn't fully participate it. So it was unfortunate to fail in making games.", \n"I was awkward with my team mates, but I could not solve this problem so I had difficulties during team works.", \n"I didn't do well on my project presentation."\n\nOverall, we can interpret that students were satisfactory with the process planning ideas and expressing detailed creations. \nHowever, there were cases that involved the lack of satisfaction in their efforts during team activities.\n\n\n
  • Second, student participation scored 3.65 out of 5, project satisfaction 3.96, and project completion 3.8.\nParticipation, satisfaction and completion of team project all showed positive, but student participation was relatively low. \nDue to the limited project topics and activity time, there was little time to find their interest and communicate with team mates.\n\n\n\n
  • Now my presentation remain only 1 slide.\n\nIn this study we suggested programming activities based on cooperative learning for programming education. \nThe results after applying the suggested programming activities to a camp are as follow:\n\nFirst, satisfaction of programming activities were shown high. \nAccording to memoirs of the students, they enjoyed exploring and criticizing ideas like game market or tic-tac-toe, and realizing ideas such as team work or prototyping.\n\nSecond, activity participation, satisfaction and completion of the project all showed higher scores than median. \nbut activity participation was relatively low. \n
  • So, That concludes my presentation. \nThank you for your time and attention.\n\nIf you have any question, why don’t you come talk to me after the presentation?\n\nOkay, If you have any questions, I’ll do my best to answer them. \n\nCould you say that again?\nI don’t quite follow you. What exactly do you mean?\n\nI hope that I’ve answered your question. \n\nThat has been a major concern for me as well. What is your opinion on this?\n\nI wasn’t aware of that. \n\nIf there are no (further) questions, let us finish up here.\n
  • Programming Education based on Jigsaw

    1. 1. InC Labs.AnalysisofStudentSatisfactioninProgrammingEducationbasedonJigsawJang,YunJae|KoreaUniv.InCLabs|2011.12.16
    2. 2. Index 1. Introduction 2. Background 2.1. Cooperativelearning 3. Method 3.1. Researchmethod 3.2. Programmingactivities 4. Result 4.1. Application 4.2. Result 5. Conclusions InC Labs.
    3. 3. 1.Introduction • InthiscurrentofITsociety, • theabilitytoutilizeinformationthroughvariousdigitalmediais becomingnotoptionalbutrathernecessary. • Inthegroundofeducation, • therehasbeeneffortstoimprove‘digitalliteracy’thatutilize students’digitalmedia. • However, • digitalliteracyeducationhasfocusedonusingandutilizing digital-basedtechnology. • mostofthestudentsarenotgettinganydigitalliteracy education. InC Labs. 3
    4. 4. 1.Introduction • Theobjectiveofthisstudyis, • todevelopaprogrammingactivities • toanalyzestudents’satisfaction InC Labs. 4
    5. 5. 2.Background • Cooperativelearning • Positiveinterdependence • Personalresponsibility • Face-to-faceinteraction • Interpersonalandsmall-groupskills • frequentandregulargroupprocessing InC Labs. 5
    6. 6. 2.Background • Jigsaw, • Subjectthatneedtobesolvedisdivided. • Studentsaregroupedandlater,bygroup,eachmembermust selectasub-topic. • Selectedmembersofthesamesub-topicwillalsolearntocreate expertgroups. • Finally,thelearnersreturnedtotheiroriginalgroupstoresolve Subject. InC Labs. 6
    7. 7. 3.Method • First, • searchedforvariouseducationalactivitiesandcasestudiesthat arerequiredfordigitalliteracyeducation. • Second, • choseactivitiesanddescribeddetailedactivitycontents. • Third, • improvededucationalactivityproceduresthroughpilottests. InC Labs. 7
    8. 8. 3.Method • ProgrammingActivities Team Grouping 3 Keywords Ice-Breaking Positive First Impression Brainstorming Team Activity Think Session Prototyping Tic-Tac-Toe Workshop Jigsaw-based workshop Team Project Mentoring Presentation Reflection Retrospection PMI InC Labs. 8
    9. 9. 3.Method • ProgrammingActivities Team Grouping 3 Keywords Ice-Breaking Positive First Impression Brainstorming Team Activity Think Session Prototyping Tic-Tac-Toe Workshop Jigsaw-based workshop Team Project Mentoring Presentation Reflection Retrospection PMI InC Labs. 9
    10. 10. 3.Method • ProgrammingActivities Team Grouping 3 Keywords Ice-Breaking Positive First Impression ! Brainstorming Team Activity Think Session Prototyping Tic-Tac-Toe Workshop Jigsaw-based workshop Team Project Mentoring Presentation Reflection Retrospection PMI ! InC Labs. 10
    11. 11. 3.Method • ProgrammingActivities Team Grouping 3 Keywords Ice-Breaking Positive First Impression Brainstorming Team Activity Think Session Prototyping Tic-Tac-Toe Workshop Jigsaw-based workshop Team Project Mentoring Presentation Reflection Retrospection PMI InC Labs. 11
    12. 12. 3.Method • PMIEvaluationtools Student Participation 5 3 1 1 1 3 3 Project 5 5 Project Satisfaction Completion InC Labs. 12
    13. 13. 4.Result • Application • July,2010. • Total27student,9Mentors,4Staffs • 9teams(3student+1Mentorineachteam) 1Day 2Day 3Day Introduction3Keywords Workshop2 Retrospection PositiveFirstImpression TeamProject2 RTV(Real-TimeVisualization) GameMarket Workshop3 Brainstorming TeamProject3 Prototyping Tic-Tac-Toe2 Tic-Tac-Toe1 TeamProject4 Workshop1 Presentation TeamProject1 Retrospection InC Labs. 13
    14. 14. 4.Result • First, • meancampsatisfactionscored8.32outof10. • Funactivities:teamwork,prototyping,gamemarket,tic-tac-toe • goodevents • “Throughideadiscussionwecouldexchangeouropinionspositively, thusourteammemberswereallrelaxedandhappy” • unfortunateevents • “Whenthegamemarketstarted,Ididn’tfullyparticipateit.Soitwas unfortunatetofailinmakinggames.” InC Labs. 14
    15. 15. 4.Result • Second, Student Participation 5 3 1 1 1 3 3 Project 5 5 Project Satisfaction Completion InC Labs. 15
    16. 16. 5.Conclusion • First, • satisfactionofprogrammingactivitieswereshownhigh. • Second, • activityparticipation,satisfactionandcompletionoftheproject allshowedhigherscoresthanmedian. • but,activityparticipationwasrelativelylow. • TheProgrammingactivitiesthisstudysuggested, • givesanopportunitytoreviewandcriticizepreviousideas. • helpsinplanningnewideaandcreatingthemintodetailedform ofgame. InC Labs. 16
    17. 17. Thanks.InC Labs.

    ×