Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Main Article Content

Anastasios Ladias
Theodoros Karvounidis corresponding author
Dimitrios Ladias

Abstract

This paper attempts to categorize parameters of communication between codes observed in the Scratch programming environment, using the SOLO taxonomy. These parameters are the form of communication (within an object, between different objects and to serve external devices scenarios), the mechanism used for communication (Polling and Interrupt techniques) and the ratio between the number of transmitters and receivers, which will be considered in a future work. Implementing this categorization in a two-dimensional table of representative codes for each case is formed. In this table, one dimension corresponds to the forms of communication and the other dimension to the mechanisms used. The ranking of the codes in each of the dimensions is done by means of the levels of the SOLO taxonomy. The table can be used to develop criteria for assessing the qualitative characteristics of the codes produced by students within a broader assessment system.

Keywords
scratch, SOLO taxonomy, forms and mechanisms of communication

Article Details

How to Cite
Ladias, A., Karvounidis, T., & Ladias, D. (2022). Forms of communications in scratch and the SOLO taxonomy. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(1), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.25082/AMLER.2022.01.007

References

  1. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning. The SOLO taxonomy. NY: Academic Press.
  2. Bellou, I., & Mikropoulos, A. (2008). A method for the Hierarchical Assessment of the Programming Knowledge, 4th Panhellenic Conference on Didactics of Informatics, 111-120.
  3. Bustard,W. D. (1990). Concepts of Concurrent Programming. Software Engineering Institute / Carnegie Mellon University (SEI-CM-24). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA223897.pdf
  4. Dijkstra, E. W. (1968). Cooperating Sequential Processes. Programming Languages, F. Genuys, ed. Academic Press, 43-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3472-0_2
  5. de Raadt, M. (2007). A Review of Australasian Investigations into Problem Solving and the Novice Programmer. Computer Science Education, 17(3), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400701538104
  6. Doukakis, S., & Papalaskari, M. A. (2019). Scaffolding Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) in Computer Science Education through Learning Activity Creation. In 2019 4th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEEDA-CECNSM.2019.8908467
  7. Giannakos, M. N., Doukakis, S., Crompton, H., Chrisochoides, N., Adamopoulos, N., & Giannopoulou, P. (2014). Examining and mapping CS teachers’ technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in K-12 schools. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044406
  8. Jimoyiannis, A. (2011). Using SOLO taxonomy to explore students’ mental models of the programming variable and the assignment statement. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 4(2), 53-74.
  9. Karvounidis, Th., Argyriou, I., Ladias, An., & Douligeris, Chr. (2017). A Design and Evaluation Framework for Visual Programming Codes. In the proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017, 999-1007. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2017.7942970
  10. Karvounidis, T., Ladias, A., Ladias, D., & Douligeris, C. (2019). Kinds of loops implemented with messages in Scratch and the SOLO Taxonomy. In the proceedings of the 4th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDACECNSM), 2019, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEEDA-CECNSM.2019.8908420
  11. Ladias, A., Ladias, D., & Karvounidis, T. (2019). Categorization of requests detecting in Scratch using the SOLO taxonomy, In the proceedings of the 2019 4th South-East Europe Design Automation, Computer Engineering, Computer Networks and Social Media Conference (SEEDA-CECNSM), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEEDA-CECNSM.2019.8908438
  12. Lister, R., Simon, B., Thompson, E., Whalley, J. L., & Prasad, C. (2006). Not seeing the forest for the trees: novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy. Proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 118-122. https://doi.org/10.1145/1140123.1140157
  13. Manataki, A., & de Kereki, I. F. (2015). Code Yourself! An Introduction to Programming. MOOC, Coursera.
  14. Moiseenko, A. V., Brylina, I. V., Kornienko, A. A., Berestneva, O. G., & Kabanova, N. N. (2015). Visual language as a mean of communication in the field of information technology, In the proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA), 2015, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/IISA.2015.7388015
  15. Panselinas, G. (2010). Computer literacy in the modern Greek school. http://plirancrete.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post.html
  16. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hern´andez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for All, Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
  17. Rozou, M., Papadakis, S., & Ladias, A. (2017). The representation of the data, in high school students’ Scratch language codes. In the proceedings of the 11th Panhellenic Conference of Informatics Teachers (PEKAP), May 5-7 2017, Chalkida, Greece. http://synedrio.pekap.gr/praktika/11o/ergasies/anakoinoseis/pekap2017-final17.pdf