University of Huddersfield Repository
Sidaway, Jonathan
How effective might tutorials designed around the major learning areas of the VARK framework be to teaching primary school students entry level programming and game design?
Original Citation
Sidaway, Jonathan (2016) How effective might tutorials designed around the major learning areas of the VARK framework be to teaching primary school students entry level programming and game design? Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/31663/
The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the
University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items
on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners.
Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally
can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any
format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not­for­profit
purposes without prior permission or charge, provided:
•
•
•
The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy;
A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and
The content is not changed in any way.
For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please
contact the Repository Team at: [email protected].
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/
2
4
How effective might tutorials designed around the
major learning areas of the VARK framework be
to teaching primary school students entry level
programming and game design?
Jonathan Sidaway
A thesis submitted to the University of Huddersfield in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MSc by Research
University of Huddersfield
May 2016
2
Copyright Statement
i.
The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules
to this thesis) owns any copyright in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has
given The University of Huddersfield the right to use such Copyright
for any admini strative, pr omotional, educational and/or teaching
purposes.
ii.
Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts, may be made only in
a cc orda nce wi t h the reg ul ati on s o f the U ni ver si ty Li brar y. D etai l s of
these r egulations may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must
for m par t of any such copies mad e.
iii.
The ownership of any patents, designs, trade marks and any and all
other intellectual property rights except for the Copyright (the
“Intellectual Property Rights”) and any reproductions of copyright
wor ks, for exampl e gr aphs and tables (“ Repr oductions ”) , which may
be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may
be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property Rights and
R epr odu cti on s can not an d mu st not be ma de avai l abl e for u se wi tho ut
the prior written per mission of the owner(s) of the relevant
Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions
3
Abstra ct
Computing and in par ticular, program ming and video game d evelopment in UK
primary schools are abou t to re ceive a big investment. And most primary s chool
children have nev er be en exposed to the many programming languages or what it
takes to build a video gam e, th erefor e, this resear ch investigates how schools
might approach te aching children thi s area of computing. Also taking into account
VARK’s ( 1987) idea that everyon e lea rns differently ; how could schools effectively
teach programming and g ame d esign to individuals? This was approach ed by using
VARK ( 1987) heavily as a framework t o develop tu torials and exposing the m to a
traditional classroom environment in primary sch ools. Observations and
interviews with children and teach er s suggests that th ese curr ent forms of
tutorials are somewha t effe ctive in t eaching the Sc rat ch softwar e pa ckage , the
effectiveness though, depends on fa c tors tha t a re pr esent in a traditional
clas sroom environment. Refinement of the tutorials as w ell of more contr ol over
classroom factors might improve the effectiveness and r eliability of these
tutorials.
4
Contents
A b s t r a c t ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1 . 1 C o n t e x t a n d J u s t i f i c a t i o n ......................................................................................... 6
1 . 2 B B C M i c r o B i t .................................................................................................................. 7
2 . 0 L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w ............................................................................................................. 9
2 . 1 L e a r n i n g R e l a t e d L i t e r a t u r e ................................................................................... 9
2 . 1 . 1 V A R K ............................................................................................................................ 9
2 . 1 . 2 C o g n i t i v e O v e r l o a d ............................................................................................ 10
2 . 1 . 3 T h r e s h o l d C o n c e p t ............................................................................................. 12
2 . 1 . 4 M u l t i s e n s o r y T e a c h i n g T e c h n i q u e s ......................................................... 15
2 . 2 D i s c u s s i o n o f P r o g r a m m i n g E n v i r o n m e n t s .................................................. 17
2 . 2 . 1 S c r a t c h ...................................................................................................................... 17
2 . 2 . 2 G a m e M a k e r ............................................................................................................ 18
2 .3 D iscuss i on of Teach ing and Lea rn ing wit h V id eo a nd Ot her
M e d i u m s .................................................................................................................................... 19
2 . 3 . 1 T e a c h i n g w i t h I n t e r a c t i v e M e d i a ............................................................... 19
2 . 3 . 2 T e a c h i n g w i t h V i d e o ......................................................................................... 20
3 . 0 R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n , M e t h o d s a n d M e t h o d o l o g y ........................................... 23
3 . 1 M e t h o d o l o g y ................................................................................................................... 23
3 . 1 . 1 D i s c u s s i o n o f c a s e - s t u d y a s a r e s e a r c h m e t h o d o l o g y ................ 23
3 .2 .2 D iscuss io n o f Ac t ion Based Resea rch as a Resea rch
M e t h o d o l o g y ........................................................................................................................ 24
3 .2 .3 D iscuss io n o f Des ign Based Resea rch as a Resea rch
M e t h o d o l o g y ........................................................................................................................ 24
3 . 2 . 4 D e s i g n B a s e d R e s e a r c h a s a C h o s e n R e s e a r c h M e t h o d o l o g y 25
3 . 2 . 5 D i s c u s s i o n o f Q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a v s Q u a n t i t a t i v e ............................... 26
4 . 0 D i s c u s s i o n o f R e s e a r c h M e t h o d s .......................................................................... 28
4 . 1 I n t e r v i e w s ........................................................................................................................ 28
4 . 1 . 1 U n - S t r u c t u r e d I n t e r v i e w s ............................................................................... 29
4 . 1 . 2 S t r u c t u r e d I n t e r v i e w i n g .................................................................................. 30
4 . 1 . 3 S e l e c t i n g a n I n t e r v i e w F o r m a t ................................................................... 30
4 . 2 S t r u c t u r e o f t h e D a t a C o l l e c t i o n s ..................................................................... 31
4 .2 .1 D iscuss io n o f Con tac t ing Schoo ls and S t ruc tu re of the
L e s s o n s .................................................................................................................................. 31
5 . 0 F i r s t D B R C y c l e ............................................................................................................... 34
5 . 1 R e s e a r c h .......................................................................................................................... 34
5 . 2 D e s i g n ................................................................................................................................ 36
5
5 . 2 . 1 R e a d i n g T u t o r i a l s ............................................................................................... 37
5 . 2 . 2 V i d e o T u t o r i a l s ..................................................................................................... 38
5 . 2 . 3 D e s i g n i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w .................................................................................. 40
5 . 3 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n ............................................................................................................. 41
6 . 0 D i s c u s s i o n o f F i r s t D a t a C o l l e c t i o n C y c l e ...................................................... 46
6 . 1 F i r s t S e s s i o n .................................................................................................................. 46
6 . 2 S e c o n d S e s s i o n ........................................................................................................... 46
6 . 3 T h i r d S e s s i o n ................................................................................................................ 47
6 . 4 F o u r t h S e s s i o n ............................................................................................................. 48
6 . 5 F i r s t C y c l e E v a l u a t i o n ............................................................................................. 49
6 . 6 H e a d T e a c h e r I n t e r v i e w .......................................................................................... 51
6 . 7 S u m m a r y o f F i r s t C y c l e ............................................................................................... 53
7 . 0 S e c o n d D B R C y c l e ......................................................................................................... 54
7 . 1 D e s i g n ................................................................................................................................ 54
7 . 2 I m p l e m e n t a t i o n ............................................................................................................. 56
7 . 3 R e a d i n g T u t o r i a l s ....................................................................................................... 57
7 . 4 V i d e o T u t o r i a l s ............................................................................................................. 60
7 . 5 D i s c u s s i o n o f S e c o n d D a t a C o l l e c t i o n C y c l e ............................................ 61
7 . 5 . 1 A s s i s t a n t H e a d T e a c h e r I n t e r v i e w ........................................................... 61
7 . 5 . 2 D i s c u s s i o n o f S t u d e n t ’ s V A R K S c o r e s .................................................. 63
7 . 6 D i s c u s s i o n a n d R e f l e c t i o n o f t h e P r o j e c t .................................................... 63
7 . 6 . 1 D i s c u s s i o n o f L e a r n i n g T h e o r i e s i n t h e S e s s i o n s .......................... 65
8 . 0 C o n c l u s i o n .......................................................................................................................... 66
A p p e n d i c e s .................................................................................................................................... 67
A p p e n d i x A ................................................................................................................................ 67
A p p e n d i x B ................................................................................................................................ 71
R e f e r e n c e s ..................................................................................................................................... 75
Word Count: 28614
6
1.0 Introduction
This thesis discusses the effectiveness of a technology-enhanced learning
(T EL) intervention in a pri mar y school setting . This will be done by taking a
pr e-e xi sti ng s oft war e pac kag e d esi gn ed to de mo ns trat e b asi c vi de o g a me
d esi gn an d p rogr a mmi ng pri nci pl es i nt o pri ma ry sc hool s , thi s pre - e xi s ti ng
s of t ware wi l l be Scrat ch ; a l i ght wei gh t 2 D Sp ri te bas ed pro gra m . Pupi l s wi l l
be taught to use this software thr ough the for ms of different teaching
a ppro ach es , a nd dra wi ng on Fl e mi n g’ s VAR K fr a me wor k (1 987) ,
i nt erv enti on s wi l l be desi g ned and i mpl e me n ted whi ch addr es s t hree
learning styles: visual, aural and reader/writer. As suggested in the VARK
framewor k, pupils are individuals that learn differently from one another
( V AR K L e a r n L i mi t e d , 2 0 1 6 ) . T h e r e f o r e , u s i n g Bo l l e s ’ Se n s o r y L e a r n i n g
Me tho d ( 199 7) a n i nt erv enti o n wi l l be de si gned th at co mbi ne s vi d eo a nd
audio as it is suggested that it is mor e effective than either one on its own ,
t hi s wi l l b e a s eri es of vi de o t uto rial s t hat de mo ns tra te ac ti ons on s cre en
wh i l st bei ng nar rat ed at the s a me ti me . An oth er i n ter ven ti on wi l l b e
designed that incorporates a learning from reading approach, the
i nt erv enti on wi l l i nvol ve te xt and ima g e s t o t ea ch the sa me ma te ri al a s the
video and audio version. Res earch will be done into appropriate methods
and theories to ensure the design of these interventions are effective in
teaching children Scratch. The effectiveness of these interventions will be
measured through two data collection cycles and comparisons and
o bse rva ti ons wi l l th en be ma de .
1.1 Context and Justification
The video game industry in the UK i s pr ojected to contribute £1.02 billion to
the UK GDP (Gross Domestic Product) (W ilson, 2014) because of this, now
i s a bene fi ci al op por tuni t y to i n trod uce t he tool s an d kno wl edg e t o chi l dre n.
The lear ning programmi ng landscape has changed a lot since the days of
magazines like Input Magazine that reader s used to input code into their
Commodor e 64s and BBC Micros in the 1980s . Now th ere is a lot more
choice of software and better means of obtaining infor mation with internet.
Har ms, Kerr, Ichinco, Santolucito, Chuck, Koscik, and Kelleher ( 2012)
identify that two issues that surr ound programmi ng in schools are that ther e
is lack of ti me to place progr ammi ng in the curriculum and that many
teacher s don’t have a computing background. This resear ch could help with
these issues by providing a streamli ned, eff ective method of teaching that
b oth te ac hers an d chi l dren ca n e asi l y work wi th .
Thi s i nv esti g ati on wi l l i ntro duc e Sc rat ch i nto pri mar y sch ool s and i n
particular small groups of children. Scr atch was chosen because it is ver y
vi sual bas ed , whi ch me a ns the i nti mi da ti ng nat ure of pro gra mmi n g wi t h t e xt
i sn ’t a s pr es ent as u si ng T urtl e Aca de my ’ s sof t ware, Scr at ch wi l l h elp to
t ea ch chi l dren th e con cep ts an d pri nci pl e s o f progr a mmi ng . Moreo ver, wi t h
Sc rat ch the re can be a mo re i ns tan t r e wa rd fro m th e wor k t he c hi l dre n wi l l
do which the article ‘ Recognition and Reward Guidance for Children and
Young People ’ suggests is good for encour aging learning and development
of skills.
Programmi ng in education is becomi ng incr easingly popular due to the
technology driven world we live in today. Because of this “ Government
minister Michael Gove proposed promising changes to UK ICT education ”
(Everitt, 2014). There are a lot of resources available outside of schools in
7
the for m of online courses, magazines and books but now ther e ar e a lot of
options that ar e exposing themselves to UK schools like Computer Xplor ers
that bring after school clubs to primar y school s to teach children progr ams
like KidPi x 3D and games like Minecraft that are a ccompanied by lesson
pl a ns to gui de th e g rou ps thr ough t ea m bui l di ng e xe rci se s and ga me
mechanics. Although these clubs only last for an hour per week the children
ar e experiencing a different side to computing other than word processing
and spreadsheet skills that are the subject of current school ICT courses.
This is a step into the right direction, although, there is room for
i mpr ove me nt . T hi s i mpr ove me n t wi l l onl y ha ppe n when t he barri er fo r ent ry
to progr ammi ng is br ought down by making teaching pr og rammi ng less
daunting to teachers and to streamli ne the learning process so that
pr ogr ammi ng can be more suited to the curriculum.
There are an incr easing number of opportunities for people of all ages to
get into programmi ng, these opportunities come in the for m of software
packages and after school/out of school clubs. However, there hasn’t been a
clear method of learning that has b een defined; for exampl e Gruenbaum
(2014) talks about a new class at the Univer sity of W ashington that ai ms to
teach coding concepts using Scr atch, which done in a wor kshop for mat
t here for e t here woul d ha ve been a l o t o f h and s on e xp eri en ce wi th the
s of t ware. Gr uen bau m me n ti on s h ow s o me s tude nt s stru ggl ed to c atch wi t h
up others which resulted in incomplete wor k, this might be because these
p arti c ul ar stu den t s don ’t l earn be st wi t h a ha nd s -on or ki na est heti c
approach. T herefor e, ther e isn’ t much thought goi ng into how children
p erc ei ve and i nter ac t wi th the ma teri al s pr ese nte d to the m.
1.2 BBC Micro Bit
In 2015 the BBC plan to intr oduce pri mary school children in the UK to basic
pr ogr ammi ng by giving every child in Year 7 a Micro Bit. A Micr o Bit, as
d es cri bed by t he BBC web si te i s “ A poc ke t-s ize d cod eab le co mpu ter ”
(bbc.co.uk, 2015), it bear s a lot of resemblance to the BBC Micro computer
that was introduced in the 1980s in the way that its aim is to provide that
fir st step into the digital age and mor e specifically, into pr ogrammi ng.
Key features of the Micro Bit include (T aken from BBC website) :






Programmable LED lights
T wo programmabl e buttons
Motion detector or “acceler ometer”
Compass
Bl uetooth
Five input and output rings
The BBC are obviously taking a different approach to teaching children
pr ogr ammi ng by offering a piece of hardware that i s pr ogrammable instead
o f p urel y so ft war e l i ke Scra tch and Ga me Mak er. T he Mi cro Bi t wi l l h ave
children plugging the devi ce into a computer, mobile phone or another
d evi c e s uc h a s the Ra sp berr y Pi an d wi l l ha ve th e m usi ng th e a cc o mp anyi n g
s of t ware to co mmu ni c ate wi t h t he d evi c e. By p rogr a mmi ng t wo but ton s and
wi th use of the accelerometer the device could be used as a controller for a
video game or to contr ol other software (bbc.co.uk, 2015).
Si nead Rocks, The Head of BBC Learning says “ We happily give children
paint brushes when they’re young, with no experience - it should be exactly
8
the same with technology” (bbc.co.uk, 2015). This reinforces the fore
mentioned point about now being a beneficial ti me to introducing tools such
as hardware and software to the new generation as well as doing research
into how such tools should be taught to children.
Further mor e, it is great to see big companies like the BBC pushing this area
o f co mp uti ng be cau se i t wi l l al l o w e asi er and c hea per ac ce ss to more
re so urc es the ref ore mo re c hi l dren i n pri mary ed uc ati on i n t he U K wi l l be
given more oppor tunities to get star ted in the dig ital world that surrounds
u s, as it is very i mportant to offer these tools and oppor tunities now “ It is
t hat if we don' t act no w we w il l be s hor t -c han g in g o ur ch il dren ” ( J.
Naughton, 2012) and to further this point “But their world will be also
shaped and configured by networked computing and if they don't have a
deeper understanding of this stuff then they will effectively be intellectually
c r ip p l e d . ” T h e r e f o r e , t h e Mi c r o Bi t a s l o n g wi t h t h e s i mi l a r d e v i c e t h e
Raspberry Pi are giving children the chance t o code using hardware and
introduce them to the digital world at a young age.
Figure 1: BBC Micro Bit
The BBC Micro Bit along with the government’s new curriculum on
pr ogr ammi ng i s evidence that there is going to be a major push for
computing in education in the UK in the next few years. Computing in
s ch ool s i n th e U K wi l l be a ne w a re a o f e du cati on a s Cur ti s (2 013 ) sa ys
“England will become the first country in the world to mandate computer
pr ogr amm ing in pr imar y and secondary schools”. This i s an appropriate ti me
to perform research in this area and in particular research into effective
ways to teach comp uting material s to pri mar y schools pupils in the UK.
9
2.0 Literature Review
Thi s s ec ti on wi l l bri e fl y anal y se e xi s ti ng r ese arc h t hat i s r el ev ant to t hi s
pr o jec t a nd i t wi l l sh o w ho w i t rel at es to thi s i nv esti g ati on . Fi rs tl y, thi s
section will look into any theoretical theory that is relevant to the subject
ar ea for example how video has been used to enhance lear n ing in school s
as well as looking at how the other three learning preferences (Audio,
reading and kinaesthetic) have been used to teach. Secondly, this section
will look at physical/digital products that have been brought into learning
environments. Althou gh the focus of this project isn’t the software that the
children will be using it is i mpor tant to see how software that i s designed to
t ea ch is re ceive d a nd in what ways t hey c an be eff ec tively us ed. W ith th es e
insights, it can be made clearer which softw are to choose to accompany this
project’s interventions.
2.1 Learning Related Literature
Th e f ol l o wi ng se cti on wi l l di s cus s l i tera tur e a nd the ori es th at r el ate t o
lear ning and teaching, the literature here will made up the building blocks of
the interventions.
2.1.1 VARK
VARK is an acronym whi ch stands for Visual, Aural, Read/write and
Ki naesthetic, these are four modalities or learning styles that ar e described
b y Fleming and Mills ( 1992) . T hey “ Suggested four modalities that seem ed
to reflect the experiences of the students and teachers ” although they also
me n t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s s o me o v e r l a p wi t h t h e s t y l e s . F l e mi n g , b e i n g a le a r n e r
and a teacher hi mself mentioned that his mai n research interest involved
“How people learn and how they use their modality preferences in their
c o m m u n ic a t io n ” ( V A R K L e a r n L i mi t e d , 2 0 1 6 )
Firstly, the vi sual element of the learning style refers to a per son’s
pr eference of infor mation displayed in for ms such as “ M aps, spider
diagrams, charts, graphs, flow charts, labelled diagrams, and all the
symbolic arrows, circles, hierarchies and other devices ” (VARK Learn
Li mited, 2016). The visual element of VARK, despite the name “visual” does
not involve videos or anything of that nature. Another label for thi s modality
could be “graphic”.
Secondly, the aural/auditor y element i s described as infor mation presented
as being heard or spoken. The VARK website (2016) suggests that
“L ear ners w ho ha ve th is as th e ir ma in pre fer enc e r epor t t hat t he y l earn be st
from lectures, group discussion, radio, email, using mobile phones,
s pea k ing , web - cha t and ta lk in g t h in gs thr oug h ” . Thi s for m of l ear ni ng ha s a
major emphasis on talking out loud, di scussing ideas and infor mation
vocally to someone else or eve n just to themselves. Repeating what
someone has already said or asking a previously answered question is all
part of learning through the modality.
Next, the read/write lear ning preference related to infor mation being
displayed si mply as wor ds. Thi s incl udes “ Reading and wr iting in all its
forms but especially manuals, reports, essays and assignments” (VARK
L e a r n L i mi t e d , 2 0 1 6 ) . T h e i n t e r n e t i s a n e x c e l l e n t r e s o u r c e a n d t o o l f o r
p eopl e wh o p ref er u si ng wo rds t o l e arn i n for ma ti on , i n par ti cul ar si tes l i ke
10
W i ki pedi a are wel l sui te d to thi s styl e . Al th oug h, wi th th e i nt erne t there i s
also a lot of i mager y and even videos, therefor e, ther e is some overlap
here.
Lastly, Kinaesthetic (Or Kinesthetic in other parts of the world) this last
mo d al i ty ref ers to “p er c ept ua l pr efer en ce r el ate d t o the us e o f e xp er ie nce
a n d p r a c t ic e ( s im u la t e d o r r e a l) ” ( V A R K L e a r n L i mi t e d , 2 0 1 6 ) a l s o , t h i s s t y l e
of lear ning could also be described as lear ning by doing, more si mply. T he
VAR K we bsi t e al s o sug ges ts th e pe opl e wi th thi s pa r ti cul ar l earni n g
pr eference value their own experiences of doing a certain task. In terms of
computing, a student may not fully grasp a concept of progr ammi ng until
they have sat down at a computer themselves and attempted it. Mor eover ,
t hi s mo dal i ty ha ve th e mo st o verl ap wi t h t he oth er l ea rni ng st yl es tha n t he
rest, as taking part in a particular task could involve reading, listening or
even looking at diagrams before they perfor m the task, or as they per for m
the task.
Therefore, Fleming (1992 onwar ds) de signed sets of questions that became
t h e V A R K q u e s t i o n n a i r e wh i c h a p p e a r s o n t h e V AR K L e a r n L i mi t e d we b s i t e .
This questionnaire consists of 16 questions that are multiple choice and the
user can select as many choices as they feel applies to them. After a
q ues ti onn ai re i s co mpl ete d the user wi l l be gi ve n f our re sul ts , one for
Vi su al , Aur al , Rea d/ wri te and Ki nae st heti c . Thi s q ues ti onn ai re wi l l be u sed
in this project to gather infor mation about student’s learning pr eferences.
Thi s pr o ject wi l l be he avi l y b as ed u pon th e wor ks sur rou ndi ng VAR K b y
Fleming and Mills (1992) and in par ticular the four learning styles di scussed
i n thi s se cti on wi l l be pi l l ars o n whi c h the i nter ven ti on s f or thi s pro je ct wi l l
be designed and developed.
C as si dy (20 04) wri t es ab out th e “Fra gme nt and d isp ara te ” topi c t hat is
learning styles and the research behind it, this is because of the quantity of
research ar ound it. Cassidy (2004) attempts to explore “learning-related
concepts” and while he mentions p ar ticularly ones that are the focus of
attention he goes into detail of “learning style”. On the topic of learning
style, he states that “Learning style has been the focus of such a vast
number of research and practitioner -based studies in the area, there exist a
variety of definitions, theoretical positions, models, interpretations and
measures of the construct”. In this area of research, it can be difficult to
define a path/approach to applying a learning style to a project such as this.
After looking into alternative styles of learning such as, Curry’s Onion
Model ( 1983, 1987) in that ther e are multiple layer s to learning behaviour.
And Riding and Cheema’s Fundamental Di mensions (1991) in which how
infor mation is processed is split into two major areas/d i mensions, it was
d eci de d t hat i n the i nter est o f ti me thi s pro je ct wo ul d b ene fi t f ro m an
approach that I have tried before. During my undergraduate pr oject VARK
was one particular appr oach that was analysed and i mplemented. Some of
the ground work was alr eady done, therefore VARK would be used again in
this project.
2.1.2 Cognitive Overload
Cognitive load is according to Mayer and Moreno ( 2003) the amount of
infor mation a person can process at one ti me. Their journal talks about how
people process information using separate channels; pictorial and verbal
a nd ho w t he brai n ma k es co nne cti o ns be t we en the se t wo cha nnel s to
11
i mp r o v e l e a r n i n g . T h e s t u d i e s t h e y p e r f o r me d d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t h e
i n f o r ma t i o n p e o p l e c a n p r o c e s s t h r o u g h t h e s e c h a n n e l s d o e s h a v e a li mi t
and they state that “our analysis shows that cognitive load is a central
consideration in the design of multi media instruction” (2003) . Moreover ,
Mayer and Moreno do offer theory based suggestions that they claim could
reduce cognitive load all of which wil l be greatly considered when
developing the interventions for this project.
The table in figur e 2 briefly describes some overload scenarios that
happened during Mayer’s and Moreno’s (2003) studies and methods that
t he y c a me up wi th t o re du ce the l oa d o f i n f or ma ti on.
Figure 2: Table to show Cognitive overload scenarios and solutions (Mayer & Moreno, 2003, p.46)
Type 1 – Off-Loading W hen One Channel is Overloaded is described as what
Sweller (1991) calls the split-attention effect. The Mayer’s and Moreno’s
jour nal (2003) suggests a situation where a student is watching animati on
wi th mo vi ng el e me nt s a nd on sc ree n t e xt t hat e xpl ai ns th e con ten t, thi s t e xt
is at the bottom of the screen, this means the student’s attention is split
between the moving ani mation and the text that is displayed elsewhere. T he
solution they suggest is called off -loading; in regards to the same scenario
they recommend the on scr een text to be pushed to the audio channe l in the
form of narration
Type 2 – Essential processing in both channel s is a scenario this research
will probably encounter because of the nature of one of the interventions;
t h e o n e t h a t i s b u i l t u s i n g v i s u a l a n d a u d i o i n mi n d . T h e r e f o r e , i t wi l l b e
beneficial to expand on this certain scenario. Their journal (2003) talks
about an exampl e wher e a student i s watching an ani mation that featur es
pi c tur es whi c h wi l l b e pr oc es ses by t he stu den t’ s vi su al ch ann el and i s
narrated which will be processes by the a udio channel. The overloading of
the channel s can come from the ani mation being too rich in content and
from playing too fast which results in the student not having enough ti me to
process the content individually and to connect pictures and audio together
“ By the ti me the learner selects relevant words and pictures fr om one
segment of the presentation, the next segment begins, thereby cutting short
12
the ti me needed for deeper pr ocessing”. Ther e are a couple of suggested
solutions for this par ticular scenari o but the Segmenting solution is most
appropriate, this solution for one, si mpl y involves breaking down the content
i nt o s mal l er chun ks an d al l o wi ng time be t ween ea ch ch uc k t hi s wi l l all o w
ti me for the student to process and link the content together. Fur t her more,
i n the ani ma ti on e xa mpl e a b utt on c oul d be i mpl e me n ted th at al l o ws th e
user to continue to the next section when they are ready. On the other
h a n d , wi t h a n y t h i n g o t h e r t h a n a n a n i ma t i o n o r s i mi l a r i n t e r v e n t i o n , f o r
example a video, the length of e ach section would have to be consider ed.
Mayer and Moreno ( 2003) back this point up by saying “W hen it is presented
in learner -contr olled segments rather than as a continuous pr esentation”.
A detailed look into cognitive research in learning by Mayer, R.E. & Moreno,
R . (200 3) wi l l be u se ful . T hi s i n ves ti ga ti on’ s r ese arc h wi l l l oo k i nt o l e arni ng
and teaching theories that have been used in the video game and inter active
medi a for education spaces like the work the organi sation Quest to Learn
h as don e wi th th ei r l earni ng f or comp l e xi ty an d, l e arni ng fo r d esi gn a nd
innovation approaches (q2l.org, 2016 ) and how Repenning brought his
Scalable Game Design softwar e into American schools.
Al so, Bolles’ Sensory Learning Method (1997) which suggests lear ning
through two sensor y channels (visual and audio) is mor e efficient and Kolb’s
Experiential Learning Cycle (1984) that describes a cycle that increases
lear ning will compli ment VARKs ( 1987) work and help develop an effective
way to teach Scratch.
As Peyton -Jones (2013) states “Computers ar e now par t of ever yday life.
For most of us, technology is essential to our lives, at home and at wor k”.
H e f e e l s t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n i n p r i ma r y s c h o o l s p r o g r a m mi n g a n d o t h e r s i mi l a r
computing skills will be i mportant so they can “ Par ti cipate effectively in this
di gi t al wo rl d”. Peyt on - Jon es ’ o rgani s ati on do es an ef fec ti ve job of
intr oducing the concepts, principles of computing and pr ogrammi ng as well
as using a range of different software and internet services just like the fore
mentioned Quest to Learn does. Although because this area is still
relatively new (these two organisations only appeared in the last couple of
year s) ther e is still work to be done to i mprove the effectiveness of the
lear ning process. Although, according to Moody and Sindre ( 2003)
“ Curr ently, ther e is no standard instrument for evaluating learning
effectiveness”, that was until they conducted this study. Therefore, this
p r o c e s s a s we l l a s N e i l F l e mi n g ’ s V A R K wi l l b e t h e p i l l a r s t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h
will be built from.
2.1.3 Threshold Concept
Threshold concepts is an idea that came from a U K national resear ch
pr oject about lear ning and teaching environments. Erik Meyer and Ray Land
suggest that “ Certain concepts were held by economists to be central to the
mastery of their subject” (Cousin, 2006), to break down this quote; there are
certain thresholds or milestones in a subject that once a student passed
t he y wi l l ha ve thi s eu rek a mo me n t t hat en abl es t he stu den t to progr es s
through the subject onto mor e difficult material or into another ar ea of the
subject. These threshold concept essentiall y opens doors to the student that
were previously closed, “Maybe considered to be “akin to passing through a
portal” or “Conceptual gateway” that opens up “ Previously inaccessible
way[s] of thinking about something ” Meyer and Land ( 2003).
13
Further mor e, it i s said that ther e are eight features of a threshold concept ;
ma n y of th es e f eat ure s wi l l be i mpor tan t and co ul d h el p di re ct th e d esi g n
a nd dev el op me nt of thi s pr o je ct ’s in ter ven ti ons th ere fore , the se fea tur es wi l l
be listed and expanded upon below.
2.1.3.1 Transformative
A threshold concept at its core i s; transfor mative this means that once a
student has understood this concept of the subject it can change the way
the student thinks about the subject and its material. In r egar ds to this
pr o jec t f or e xa mpl e, on ce the s tude nt s gr asp t he di ffer ent t ool s i n the Spri te
editor work then they can begin to create their own assets and therefore can
make the game their own and unique. In other wor ds, more door s have been
opened and the student may think about crea ting the project in Scr atch
d i f f e r e n t l y n o w, t h e y n o l o n g e r h a v e t o s t i c k t o t h e l i mi t e d l i b r a r y b u i l t i n t o
Scratch.
2.1.3.2 Troublesome
Th res hol d con cep ts c an be trou bl es o me , t he par ti cul ar kn o wl ed ge tha t
needs to be grasped/mastered Meyer and Land ( 2005 ) say “ Knowledge may
be troublesome because it has become ritualised, or inert, because it is
conceptually difficult or alien ” a student might have their own under standing
o f a n i d e a o r c o n c e p t t h a t wo n ’t b e c o r r e c t a n d t h e y mi g h t r e f u s e t o mo v e
from this way of thinking when exposed to a different, correct way. It might
pr ov e h ard to mov e the st ude nt a wa y fro m th ei r way of thi n ki ng. For
e x a mp l e , a s t u d e n t mi g h t h a v e p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e wi t h a s i mi l a r p r o g r a m
to Scratch but has fundamental difference in the way the softwar e is used.
This student might have tr ouble adjusting to this different way if they are
c o mf ort abl e wi th the way th ey al rea dy und ers tan d.
2.1.3.3 Irreversible
This feature is self-explanatory; it is difficult to unlearn a threshold concept
once it is learnt. The Academy of Art Univer sity (2015) uses the following
example that is illustr ated in figure 3:
“Did you know that there is an arrow embedded in the FedEx logo? Maybe
y ou d id. If yo u d id n't , loo k f or it ne xt t ime. O nce y ou see it, yo u w ill ne ver
be able to look at the FedEx logo again without the arrow popping out at
you. You will not understand how you ever missed it ”
14
Figure 3: FedEx Logo
Al though thi s particular example is a very si mple analogy the principle stays
t he sa me . On ce tha t e ure ka mo me n t h as ha ppen ed for a st ude nt i t wi l l be
very difficult to take a step back and forget this threshold concept.
2.1.3.4 Integrative
Once a par ticular thr eshold concept has been over come other si milar
concepts and ideas begin t o easier to under stand for the student, it may
bring together other tr oublesome concepts. In reference to thi s pr oject, say
f or e xa mpl e a s tud ent ha s over come t he con cep t of the IF fu ncti o n i n
Scratch then other si milar functions such as F OREVER and IF can be
under stood mor e easily . But before one of these functions wer e under stood
the student had trouble with using of all these functions.
2.1.3.5 Bounded
Bounded can occur when an idea, concept or phrase/term etc. is confused
wi th the same from another su bject. T he student is therefore bounded to
t hi s one par ti cul ar und ers tan di ng o f t hi s con ce pt and wi l l ha ve trou bl e
differentiating between the two ideas. Ter minology may even be common in
e v e r y d a y u s a g e wh i c h ma y c o n f u s e a s t u d e n t ( F l a n a g a n a n d S mi t h 2 0 0 8 ) . A
good example of this is the fore mentioned IF and F OREVER functions in
Scratch.
2.1.3.6 Discursive
Discursive is when a student places the threshold and develops an extended
use of language and are more capable of si mply under standing the concept,
“We have repeatedly seen students who have grasped a local threshold
concept themselves enthusiastically and volubly attempt to lift their partners
over the same threshold ” (Flanagan and Smith 2008).
2.1.3.7 Reconstitutive
This threshold concept feature is w hen a student passes a threshold which
allows them to reconfigure an earlier conceptual stance. A previous
understanding they had of a concept which is incorrect can now be altered
because the student has passed an i mpor tant threshold concept.
2.1.3.8 Liminality
15
Li minality is the ter m given to the ‘rite of passage’ a student takes when
they understand a threshold concept. Cousin (2006) suggests that “ In short,
there is no simple passage in learning from ‘easy’ to ‘difficult’; mastery of a
threshold concept often involves messy journeys back, forth and across
c on cep tua l terr a in ”.
Th ere fore , t he cur ri cul u m tha t wi l l b e d esi gn ed for thi s pr o je ct ne eds to
integrate this theory and to do this there are three key design suggestions
that Cousin (2006) talks about in his article. The first of which is known as
jewel s in curriculum; this is where the key points or powerful transfor mative
p oi nt are i d enti fi e d. T o el a bora te , t here wi l l be gre at ca re put i nto eac h
individual lesson plan so that threshold concepts are p laced appropriately.
Therefore, the participating students should encounter these concepts at
the right ti me and should have no trouble over coming them and so that the
next lessons are not a problem.
The next suggestion is called listening for understandi ng; this step can only
take place during the actual run of the lessons instead of the design and
mo di fica tions of th e le sso ns plan s. W hilst the lesson s a re takin g place ther e
will be observations on how well the students are doing i.e. how fast they
ar e getting through the material and which materials they are using most
(The video tutorials or the written guides). If any student is having any
pr obl e ms wi th any pa rt (i n pa rti cul ar t he thre sh ol d c onc ept s) the y wi ll b e
s po ken to , t o try an d g et an und ers ta ndi ng of th e pr obl e m. I s i t ju st t hi s
student or ar e more having the same pr oblem at the same place? Once
t he se si tua ti ons ar e n ote d t he l e sso n pl a ns ca n b e a d ju st ed and op timi s ed
this should lead to the more effective lesson next ti me round.
Lastly, a holdi ng environment, which can be linked to listening for
u nder st andi ng i s wh ere a stu den t i s s tru ggl i ng wi th so me thi n g b ut fear s the y
ar e the only one. T his may lead to them suffering in silence and therefore,
wo n ’t s e e k h e l p . St u d e n t s t h a t a r e s t u c k f o r t o o l o n g ma y r e s o r t t o mi mi c r y
or plagiari sm. So looking for this during the lessons is ver y i mportant not
only because it i s suggesting the lesson might be too difficult but obvious
for the student as well, it would be unfortunate for a student to be cheated
o ut of learning. F urther mor e, “ students expressed the fear they wer e the
o nl y o ne s am ong th e ir pe ers w ho d id no t compr ehe nd d iff icu lt c onc ep ts .
While it became a source of huge relief to discover eventually that other
s tu den ts wer e s im il ar ly co nfu se d, t h is awa rene ss n eede d to be share d e arl y
on in the course” ( Cousin 2006) it is also i mpor tant to catch this sort of
situation early on so the student can be reassured and helped along,
communi cation is par amount to understanding how effective or ineffective
the lesson plans are.
2.1.4 Multisensory Teaching Techniques
Praveen ( 2015) sums up multisensor y teaching techniques in saying “ If a
child is not learning in the way you teach, change your teaching strategy
and teach the child in the way he learns! ” Praveen goes on discuss studies
that suggest that children who have difficulty learning to read can be helped
via a multisensory teaching method, the same could be assumed for children
that struggle to learn via visual and audio materials. Therefore, MTT
(Multisensory Teaching Techniques) are designed to use these different
sensors together instead of focusing on just one “ Multisensory teaching
t ec hn ique s and st rat eg ies s t im ul ate l earn in g b y enga g ing st uden ts on
16
multiple levels”. T o elaborate on this, a c hild’s vision may be affected by
injury or si mply isn’t as developed as other s and on the other hand, another
child’s hearing may have si milar problems, MTT is built ar ound offering
something for ever ybody.
Al so , chi l dren are l es s l i kel y to s tru ggl e wi th th e ma teri al b ec aus e t he y are
able to use their personal areas of strength be it looking, listening, reading
or even doing. Studies have suggested that children do learn at a faster
pace, learn more easily and develop a better under stand of concepts when
e xposed to MTT ( Praveen 2015) . Moreover , teaching materials that integrate
mor e than one sense encourages children to develop their lesser senses
utilising mor e of them, children may “ T ap into nonver bal reasoning skills ” or
“Link information to ideas they already know and understand ”.
Praveen’s ( 2015) article also provides some bullet points that a dvise on
what to include when desig ning materials based on visual and auditor y
l ear ni ng tha t coul d be us eful wh en de vel opi ng ma teri al s for thi s pr o je ct :
To sti mulate visual reasoning and lear ning
•
Text and/or pictures on paper, posters, models, projection scr eens,
computer s or flash cards
•
Use of colour for highlighting, organizing infor mation or i mager y
•
Graphic organizers, outlining passages
•
Student create d ar t, i mages, text, pictur es and video
Auditory techniques
•
Books on tape, peer assisted reading, paired reading and
computeri zed text reader s
•
Vi deo or fi l m wi t h a cc o mpa nyi ng au di o
•
Music, song, instruments, speaking, r hymes, chants and language
games
As already stated the nature of this project is to develop two separate
lesson plans/materials one focused on video and audio and the other
focused on text/reading and screenshots therefore, this mul tisensory
teaching theory (Praveen 2015) suggests that in practi ce the children
should use both these materials together to gather infor mation and to
progress through the lesson instead of favouring one particular option.
On the other hand, the VARK ( 1987) theor y based on its principles may
s ugg es t t he opp os i te s o t hat a chi l d k no wi n g t hat t hei r l ear ni ng pref ere nc e
i s audi o fo r e xa mpl e , wi l l choo se th e vi deo tu tori al s mo s t o f the ti me i f no t
all the ti me instead of using both together.
17
2.2 Discussion of Progr ammi ng Envir onments
Di sc us si on a nd co mp ari s ons of po te nti al pr ogra mmi ng appl i ca ti ons wi l l ta ke
place here, one was then chosen to be incorporated into the project.
Programmi ng environments are computer applications that act as a set of
tools or an editor for the user to create code, this code could event ually be
another computer application or a video game etc. There are different types
o f e nvi ro n men ts , f or e xa mpl e, vi sual bas ed one s and te xt ba sed on es.
2.2.1 Scratch
Scratch i s a computer application that allows user s to create si mple games
and to develop a basic under standing of design and pr ogramming concepts
and ideas. A user can use its tools to mi x art, music and logic to achieve
different results. The program was developed by MIT (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology) Media Lab in 2006 and ha s received regular
updates since then.
Scratch is the go to choice of software for this project because firstly, it is
a free application that is easily accessible online and is downloadable to be
used on the desktop/offline, therefore, there will be no is sue getting hold of
the software. Secondly, programmi ng and the concepts/principles that come
wi th it can be difficult for some students to understand ( Kerki, 2008) so
Scratch was used to “ Smooth the initial r elationship with programmi ng” . T his
is i mportant because the intended audience this project is going to study is
p r i ma r y s c h o o l p u p i l s wh o m wi l l mo s t c e r t a i n l y h a v e n o p r o g r a mmi n g o r
g a me de si gn e xp eri enc e p ri or t o thi s . T he ca se stu di es Kerki con duc te d
resulted in some positive feedback. Ker ki found t hat Scratch to pr omote
high levels of motivation is the pupils providing a “positive perception of
lear ning programmi ng”, so Scratch i s a good first step to introducing pupils
into pr ogr ammi ng. On the other hand, the same case study discovered that
there wasn’t as big an i mprovement is skills of pupils that have already
used Scratch before.
Moreover , Scr atch is Sprite and Script based; although the systems in
Scratch are very si mple compared to a lot of other video game engines and
development environments they are si mple enough and appr opriate for an
intr oductory step into programmi ng and game design. Firstly, according to
Te chT er ms (20 12) a Sp ri te i s a “ Bit map gra ph ic s t hat is des ig ned to b e p art
of a larger scene. It can either be a static image or an ani mated graphic.
Examples of sprites include objects in 2D video games, icons that are part
o f a n a pp l icat io n u ser inter fa ce, an d sma ll im age s p ub l ishe d o n webs it es ”.
Spri t es we re e xt re mel y p opul ar i n vi d eo ga me d evel o p men t d uri ng the 19 80s
and 1990s before technology that was powerful enough for 3D rendering was
developed. Sprites in video games are still used now, they are mostly seen
in a lot of independently developed titles because they are chea per and
easier to cr eate, as well as for the nostalgic aspect, as a way to remember
the older generations of video games. As sprites were used to create the
pr ota goni s ts an d e ne mi e s o f vi deo ga me s as wel l a s po wer ups an d o ther
objects, thi s meant they wer e i mpor tant ther efore, it is i mportant to
intr oduce and teach this element of video game design. In Scr atch the user
has the ability to i mpor t already made sprites from various resources such
as websites or create their own. T he software also has a feature called
18
Costumes which can be used to alter the appearance of a sprite and cycle
through them, effectively cr eating an ani mation.
Figure 4: Scratch's cat mascot, used as the default sprite when starting a new
project
Secondly, Scratch features a Scripting system that is visual based instead
of an actual pr ogrammi ng language which i s text based , for example, C# or
Java. Script in Scratch requires the user to drag a block of Script from the
library and drop it on the blank Script canvas. The Script system features
many of the concepts and phrases you expect to come acr oss in any
pr ogr ammi ng language such as Java and C# . Phrases that the user will
come across are, for exampl e, an IF statement; which is a block of code
that tells the pr ogr am to execute something only if a cer tain condition has
been reached. This block of code in Java could amount from 5 to 15 or even
5 0 l i nes of t e xt , whi c h c oul d get ver y con fu si ng to a b egi nn er stu dent . In
Scratch, a si mple IF statement can be 3 or 4 blocks of Script, as illustr ated
in figure 5:
Figure 5: IF statement in Scratch, consisting of 3 blocks
This si mplified version of basic programmi ng concepts, si milar to the
s pri te s, wi l l be a g ood i ntro du ctory s tep fo r stu den ts i n pri ma r y sc ho ol s for
the understanding such concepts.
2 .2.2 GameMaker
G a me Make r i s ano the r c o mp uter ap pl i cati on th at pro vi des u ser s wi th a g a me
creation system. Si milarly to Scratch a lot of the interface is “ drag and
dr op” and it features a scripting language known as Game Maker Language.
GameMaker fir st appeared in 1999 and is still suppor ted today, appearing
vastly differ ent to its initial release, it i s developed by YoYo Games. T he
software is a lot more advanced than S cratch because of its more complex
19
scripting options and its ability to export its projects to various devices like
And roid and iOS ph one s and ta blet s. This results in a mor e p o werful tool set
that might pr ove to be too advanced for pri mary school pupils. I n addition,
GameMaker isn’t available for free it is priced at $49.99 for the pr ofessional
version ( yoyogames.com, 2015). Software like GameMaker would be an
effective tool for pupils who have already had an introduction into
pr ogr ammi ng and game design. T his is wher e Fleming’ s VARK theory can be
used to develop a unique learning experience to the pupil, one that can be
mor e effective to the individual, from this the resear ch question emerges:
w ha t inf lu enc e can VAR K - ins p ir ed in t erv ent ion s ha ve on a c h ildr en ’s
l ear n ing e xp er ien ce in pro gramm ing ?
2.3 Discussion of Teaching and Lear ning with Video and Other M ediums
Thi s s ec ti on wi l l di s cu ss ap propri at e t ec hni que s tha t co me s wi th te achi n g
t hrou gh and wi t h i nt era cti ve me di ums a nd i n par ti cul ar vi de o. More over ,
what effective methods can be employed when teaching a video game and
video game creation to a class, is this something tr aditional teaching
methods can handle or is ther e a different approach? Also, ar e there certain
elements to consider when de aling with video content?
2 .3. 1 Te ac hi ng wi th In tera cti v e Medi a
Shaughnessy and Fulgham (2011) use an old Chinese quote to describe the
traditional way of teaching “ Teachers open the door; you enter by yourself ”.
W hat t he y ar e sayi n g h ere i s t hat tra di ti onal l y a t ea cher i s al wa ys pre sen t
to help you through this door of learning but now with online learning in the
f or m of vi de o t utori al s , gui de s a nd so ft ware wi t h b ui l t i n h el p a nd tutori al s
this quote isn’t as true anymor e. The user /student is now mor e in char ge of
their learning without the presence of a teacher therefore it is up to the
online material to be effecti ve, infor mative and accessible.
Further mor e, it is said that “ T he instructional environm ent should b e viewed
a s a s ys tem , a re lat io ns h ip am ong and be tw een a ll th e c omp onen ts of th at
system — the instructor, the learners, the material, and the technology”
( Shaughnessy & F ulgham, 2011) . The instructional environment someti mes
h as to work wi th out t he i n str uct or pr es ent , a s i n sta nce s l i ke onl i ne tu tori al s .
Therefore, the instr uctor must make prepar e ever ything a head of ti me to
e nsu re the en vi ron me nt work s p rop erl y wi tho ut hi s i n put , i f i t c an be
avoided. Although this i s the ideal situatio n, the instructor can and should
provide his help and input to the leaners whenever they need it. In relation
to this project; the sessions that are going to take place will take this form
that is described in the instructional environment. This effectivel y means
t hat , the st ude nt s wi l l be gi v e n the tut ori al s and wi l l be as ked t o f ol lo w the m
to the best of their ability with an instructor being present as an additio nal
re so urc e . T here for e, a l ot of c are a nd pl anni ng wi l l go i nto th e d esi gn an d
development of the lesson plans as well as looking into an effective way to
present and structure the lessons. Because, as suggested by Moore and
Kearsley (1996) the r elationship between all these components of this
20
system ar e i mpor tant and “That adapting a systems approach is the secr et
o f s u c c e s s f u l p r a c t ic e ” ( 1 9 9 6 ) , s o t h a t a d a p t i n g a s y s t e m s i mi l a r t o t h e o n e
posed by Moor se and Kear sley may be an effective way to approach this
project’s objectives . On the other hand , because the sessions that this
pr o jec t wi l l p r ovi de won ’t be ove r a l ong di st an ce and wi l l i nste ad be l ocal
t o p ri mary s cho ol s i n the ar ea, a te ach er wi l l b e p res ent i n t he cl as sro o m to
e nga ge wi th th e s tud ent s to hel p th e m u nde rst and th e con ten t o f the
tutorials. Although, one goal for the teaching materials is to be informati ve
and effective enough so that they can stand on their own, therefore,
students can progress through the tutorials unaided and at their own pace.
Addi ti o nal l y, th e t utori al s , fol l o wi ng Moo re and Kear sl ey di st anc e e du ca ti on
system could be made available online for user s to follow in their own ti me
outside of school.
Additionally, there is a model for course design called Unit Module Topic
model ( UMT Model) that i s based ar ound the best practices for developing
c our se s/l es son s a nd fo r f as t d el i ver y. Thi s mod el co nsi d ers “The c on ten t,
the nature of the learner, the process by which the learning will take place
(methodology) and the means for assessing the learning experience ”
( Sh aug hne ss y & F ul gha m , 201 1). T h ese poi n ts wi l l be ver y i mp ort ant an d
will be t ake n int o a ccoun t d uring th e d evelo p men t of this pro je ct ’s lesso n
plans.
To expand on the point about the nature of the learner Willis (1994)
suggests some questions that could be asked befor e the lessons take place
to help understand this particular audience of students:
What are the students’ age, cultural backgrounds, interests, and educational
levels?
W h a t i s t h e l e v e l o f f a mi l i a r i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t s wi t h t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l me t h o d s
and technological delivery systems under con sideration?
H o w wi l l th e stu den ts appl y t he kno wl edg e g ai ned i n t he co urse , and ho w i s
t hi s cour se se que nc ed wi th ot her c our se s?
Can the class be categorized into several broad subgroups, each with
different characteristics?
2 .3. 2 Te ac hi ng wi th Vi d eo
Te achi n g wi th the u se of vi deo has c han ged a l o t o ver th e year s due to the
growth of the internet and in particular websites like YouTube, which theses
now feature hundreds or even thousands of tutorials and instructional
videos for a number of subjects an d topics. Bull and Bell (2010) compares
the traditional way of teaching with video to what is common is classrooms
n o w. Th e ol d way co nsi s ted of tu rni n g o n a fi l m pr o je ct or or VHS/D VD pl a yer
and stepping out of the role of teaching whilst the video played, these
videos could be 30 to 60 mi nutes long. Nowa days teachers are going to
Y o u T u b e a n d s i mi l a r s i t e s t o a i d in d e l i v e r i n g i n f o r ma t i o n t o t h e i r s t u d e n t s ,
these videos are generally a lot shor ter for example 30 to 60 seconds or
even a couple of minutes lon g. Because of these shorter videos the teacher
c an us e t he se to “ Pin po int th e mos t r el eva nt in form at ion an d p la y an a ct ive
role in the instructional process ” (Bull & Bell, 2010 ). As the authors explain,
21
videos ar e gener ally very easy to find online and a n umber of videos can be
used together in a sort of playlist to help students develop an understanding
o f a c onc ept an d to provi d e n e w i nf or ma ti on tha t woul d ot her wi se be di f fi cul t
to acquire. Therefore, it would be beneficial to follow the structure of onli ne
tutorials in creation of the tutorials for this project, that i s, to make the
vi d eo s rel e van tl y sho rt and i n p arts . Ea ch vi de o wi l l d e mon str ate one or
mor e steps of the whole process, this way the student can have ti me to
evaluate the infor mation in bet ween videos. Further mor e, because of the
length of the videos they can easily be replayed and skipped to a certain
p oi nt whi c h wi l l ai d i n th e l ea rni ng pro ces s.
O n t he oth er han d, the re are di sadv an tage s tha t co me wi t h l ear ni ng wi th
video for example, “ D ifference between watching as a casual consumer and
watching as a learner” (Bull & Bell, 2010). W atching a video for the purpose
of instruction/learning requires the viewer to have a form of critical thinking
wh i l st wa tc hi ng i n ste ad of ju st wa tc hi ng so me th i n g l i ke so me bo dy woul d for
enter tainment pur poses. The author s suggest two for ms of awar eness a
student must have when watching as a lear ner; the first one is they must be
awar e of the context the video, questions lik e who made the video, when
was it make and why was it made need to be answered for the student.
Further mor e questions like how was it made might be i mpor tant to this ar ea
of r esearch, for example, the videos being made for this project will be
made using Camtasia video recor ding softwar e and the softwar e being used
i n the vi de os wi l l be e xactl y t he same v ersi o n a s the st ude nt s wi l l u se i n t he
sessions. T herefor e, things such as the videos’ intent, i.e. infor mation,
persuasion, entertainment etc. needs to be explained to the students
beforehand so they know what to expect and what form of critical thinking
will need to be involved whilst watching.
Moreover, the second form of awareness is self -awareness “As viewers
watch the presentation, how does information being viewed fit within each
p ers on’ s e xis t ing wa ys of k now in g a nd und ers tan d in g? ” ( Bul l & Bel l , 2 010 ) .
Th e i nf or ma ti on/ de mo ns trati o n i n th e vi deo mi g ht co nfl i ct wi t h a st ude nt ’s
p r e v i o u s k n o wl e d g e a n d / o r e x p e r i e n c e , a s t u d e n t mi g h t b e l e f t c o n f u s e d a n d
may be left with questions after the videos so it is a good idea to get an
u nder st andi ng o f t he stu den t’ s posi ti on i n t er ms o f t hei r kno wl edg e an d
pr evi ou s e xp eri en ce bef ore i ntro du ci ng the m t o t he l e arni ng ma teri al s and
the software. Getting this infor mation prior to the sessions be woul d of
gr eater benefit because adjustments can be made to the learning materials
befor e they even get to the classroom ther efor e, they will be tailored mor e
to this group of students and should be more effective.
Ano the r i mpo rta nt poi nt , i t i s s ugge st ed to enc oura ge cri ti c al vi e wi ng wi t h
vi d eo s, tha t i s , t o h av e t he vi e wer c hal l eng e a nd enga ge wi th t he vi de o
instead of si mply watching the video as you would for entertainment. T his
can be used to make sure the students ar e being involved and are
understanding the content as it’s being delivered “ As with critical reading,
c r it ica l v ie w ing is m ent al ly a ct ive a nd r e qu ire s the v ie wer to be in d ia lo gue
with the material” (Bull & Bell, 2010). This can be done by asking specific
questions before the videos and then asking for the answers at the end.
To elaborate on the earlier point about the length of the videos, because the
videos that are going to be created for this project are going to be
screencasts ( A r ecor ding of a computer screen) it is a “ Pr e-recorded event
c an be v ie wed mu lt ip le t im es and s ped up or s lo wed do wn for an al ysis ” ( Bul l
& Bell, 2010) this will help in case a student does not understand something
fir st ti me so therefore, can repeat the video and the action themselves until
22
they understand it, this relates to the repetition learning theory by Wogan
and W ater s ( 1959) . Also, because the videos can be stopped at any ti me
there is the chance to pin point i mportant inf or mation and even highlight the
afore mentioned threshold concepts so the students under stand where the
mi l es tone s are and f urth er mor e, wh at ca n b e a chi ev ed af ter the se
mil estones are compl eted.
23
3.0 Research Question , Methods and Methodology
U p o n p r e l i mi n a r y r e s e a r c h i n t o t h e V A R K f r a me wo r k i n wh i c h e v e r y u s e r
c o me s o ut at th e e nd of the VAR K q ues ti onn ai re wi th a di f fer ent s core ,
leading to the idea that every person learns differently from one another. As
well as looking into mul tisensor y teaching techniques through the uses of
interactive media such as videos and online tutorials discussed i n Chapter
2, a pri mar y resear ch question ( PRQ) arose:
How effective might tutorials designed around the major learning ar eas of
the VARK fr amewor k be to teachi ng pri mar y school students entry level
pr ogr ammi ng and game design?
Mo reo ver , wi th und erl yi ng res ear ch i nto te ac hi ng r el ate d t heori e s suc h as
threshold concepts and cognitive load clear project objectives were
presented:


To investigate the experience of a student using a tutorial tailored
towards their learning preference.
To explore the advantages and disadvantages of such tailored
tutorials against traditional methods of teaching in class rooms.
3.1 Methodology
Thi s s ec ti on wi l l di s cu ss an d c o mpar e di f fer ent me thod s and me thodol o gi es
befor e ulti mately choosing the most appr opriate one for this type of pr oject;
t he me t hod s cho sen her e wi l l d eci d e h o w th e pr o je c t mo ve s for ward , i n
p arti c ul ar h o w th e ses si on s i n prima r y s chool s wi l l ta ke sh ape a s wel l a s
h o w th e d ata wi l l be col l ec ted . T he pri mar y and se co nd r ese arc h q ue sti on s
that were outlined in section 3.0 will be the pri mar y consideration when
choosing an appropriate research approach.
3.1.1 Discussion of case - study as a resear ch methodology
The case study method of approaching research is described as
investigating a case or mul tiple cases; a case could be “ A class, or an
office, or a hospital ward; it can be an institution” (Bill, 2010, p. 1). W hich,
to begin, could appear to this project as the case would be the group of
students in a pri mar y school that used the tutorials. Bill (2010) goes on to
me n ti on th at “ N ot one k ind or so urc e of ev ide nce is l ike ly t o b e s uf f ic ie nt
(or sufficiently valid) on its own”. Therefore, instead, having mul tiple
sources of evidences i s a key feature of a case study, t his would be
beneficial to the validity of the data that would be presented from this
project.
On the other hand, Bill (2010) discusses that the nature of case studies are
“ sc ien t if ic ” and th at th e o nes pre for mi n g t he e xp eri men ts of ten ha ve t he
a bi li ty to c ontr ol al l th e vari abl e s, f or e xa mpl e, th e e nvi ron me n t, the l en gth
of the experi ments etc. Unfor tunately, as the resources available to this
p r o je c t a r e l i mi t e d a n d t h e r e f o r e , b e i n g i n v i t e d i n t o l o c a l s c h o o l s a n d u s i n g
24
their r esources on their ter ms is the most viable option all the variables
can’t be controlled. Consequently, the case study approached was rejected
as a pri mary methodology for this investigation although the key featur e of
multiples sour ces of evidences would add to the authenticity of the data and
therefore, will be incorporated.
3.2.2 Discussion of Action Based Research as a Research Methodology
Ma ny so urc es cr edi t Le wi n (1 980 -1 947) wi t h coi ni ng the t er m A cti on ba sed
research ( ABR) ( Ber g, 2004), since then the method has been a common
pr actice in the area of educational resear ch ( See, for example, Ander son,
Herr and Nihlen, 1994; Kemmi s & McTaggart , 1988). And although it has
a ppe ared i n ma ny di ff eren t oth er are a s , f or e xa mpl e, so ci al s ci en ces i t i s
common “ Especially am ong those researcher interested in classroom
teaching practices” ( Berg, 2004) . Consequently, this method of approach
would suit the environment this project intended to be involved in and would
be a good fit to the literature that was discussed earlier in Chapter 2.
On the other hand, ABR can be compared to a design based resear ch
approach which result in a lot of simil arities. In particular, the underlying
process of action based approach as described by Sagor (2000) are:







Selecting a focus
Clarifying theories
Identifying research questions
Collecting data
Analysing data
Reporting results
Taking infor med action
Ma ny phr as es her e i n thi s pro ces s ca n b e s hare d wi th tho se i n t he pro ce ss
of design based research that is discussed later on in this chapter.
3.2.3 Discussion of Design Based Research as a Research M ethodology
According to Anderson and Shattuck ( 2012) Design based resear ch (DBR)
also known as design -r esearch and development research is defined firstl y
through, “Being situated in a real educational context” (p.61) which, in thi s
case a pri mar y school in the north of England . Because of this fact , this
research would be used to “Assess, inform and improve practice” (2012) in
si milar contexts like other projects taking place in schools and other
educational establishments. Moreover, Brown (1992) who is credited wi th
fir st developing the method of r esearch, suggests that the focus on the
design and testing for the intervention is an i mportant aspect of DBR. To
elaborate, the selection and creation of the intervention should be
s upp ort ed by rel ev ant th eori e s a nd l i terat ure an d “ is de s igne d s pe c if ic al l y t o
overcome some problem or create an improvement in local practice”
( Ander son & Shattuck, 201 2). T he development of an inter vention to aid the
process of DBR is unique and in which the design part of the research
method comes into play so therefore, won’t be part of the pr ocess in
another method of resear ch, such as Action based resear ch .
25
Further mor e, DBR has flourished over the last decade because of the “Rapid
development of new technologies (e.g., computers, wide -area Internet, and
PDAs) ” (W ang & Hannafin, 2005) which would further put these approach in
l i ne wi th th e o b je cti v es se t out by t hi s pro jec t a s wel l a s t he co nte xt ,
background and justification discussed in section 1.1. And to the same
effect, W ang and Hannafin suggests that one benefit of DBR is that it
actively involves areas of learning and teaching as well as scientific
pr ocedur es, the same cannot be said for the scientific -orientated ABR.
3.2.4 Design Based Research as a Chosen Research Methodology
Upon discussion and consideration of different app roaches to research it
became clear the design based resear ch would be most appropriate, as
development of inter ven tions is an i mportant factor to answering the
pr oject’s pri mary and secondary resear ch questions as well “Design of these
in t ervent ion s is a ke y fea ture o f t he qu alit y a nd results of th e r ese arch
project” (Anderson and Shattuck, 2012) .
And ers on & Sha ttu ck (20 12) st ated th at “ D BR is a m eth odo lo gy de s ig ned by
and for educators that seeks to increase the impact, transfer, and
translation of education resear ch into improved practice” . F urther more, they
hi g hl i ght tha t DBR i s gr o wi ng i n po pul ari ty i n the ed uca ti on r es ear ch s pac e
and that a number of respected r esear chers in the space have celebrated
the potential of this approach. For instance, Brown (1992) noted that “an
e ffe ct iv e int erv ent io n s hou ld be abl e to m ig rat e f rom our e xper ime ntal
classroom to average classrooms operated by and for average students and
teachers, supported by realistic technological and personal support” . This
justifies the choice of methodology for this type of project.
T he i n ter ven ti on tha t wi l l b e c rea te d f or thi s pro je ct wi l l be desi g ned wi th
t h e t h e o r i e s f o r V AR K ( N e i l F l e mi n g , 1 9 8 7 ) , Bo l l e s ’ S e n s o r y L e a r n i n g ( 1 9 9 7 )
and Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle (1984) as well as Moody and Si ndre
(2003) investigation evaluating the effectiveness of learning interventions.
To analysis these theories as well as other appropriate research a literature
re vi e w wi l l ta ke pl ac e. Al t houg h ac cor di ng to Phun g (2 012) “ d ue to th e w ide
v ar iet y o f D BR th eore t ica l m ode l l in g a nd ca se st ud ies de plo ye d, it ca n b e
challenging to locate an over -riding theoretical framework to cross compare
available DBR experimentations ” so Phung (2012) suggests a trio of acts in
the article Design Based Resea rch as Stories of Discovery and Invention
that should be followed if conducting a design based research approach.
These three acts mentioned by Phung ( p. 4 ) ar e as followed:
Act 1: Set-up of pr oblems -questions in pre- experi mental phase of analysis
a nd e xpl or ati on .
Act 2: Confrontation of problems thr ough series of actions in experimental
phase of design and construction.
Act 3: Search of solutions -answers in post-experi mental phase of evaluation
and reflection.
On the other hand, there are disadvantages that accompany this type of
methodology. For example, although design resear ch is a powerful tool
there ar e some challenges that comes from thi s approach , some in
particular are as followed, which are taken from Design Research:
26
Theoretical and Methodological Issues ( Collins, Joseph, Bielaczyc, p.16,
2004):
• Di ffi cul ti es ari si ng fr o m the co mpl e xi ty of real - worl d si tu ati on s and thei r
re si st an ce to e xp eri men tal con trol .
• Large amounts of data aris ing from a need to combine ethnogr aphic and
quantitative analysis.
• Comparing across designs.
Th ere fore , b eca us e t hes e e xp eri me nt s wi l l ta ke pl ac e i n a p ri mary sc hool
setting, which is a real-world situation that is attended by school pupils of
different backgrounds as well as ranging skills, in particular computing
skills, the ability to control all aspects like behaviour might be troublesome.
This is the scientific side of the resear ch method which isn’t the focus of
this project; instead, the focus is t he educational side, in which to better
a ns wer th e pr o jec t’ s r ese arc h q ues ti on s wi l l t ake th e i nt erv enti o ns in to a
real world pri mary school class room with a range of students. Further more,
t he anal y si s fro m c o mbi ne et hno gra phi c dat a, whi ch i s a st udy o f s oci al
interactions, behaviours and perceptions (Reeves, Kuper, Hodges, 2008)
and quantitative data; that is informati on about qualities, “ In which the
investigator compares two or more groups in terms of cause” (Creswell,
2013)
C on seq uen tl y, wi th t he bene fi t of hi n dsi gh t, cer tai n di ffi c ul ti es as soci a ted
with this approach could have been foreseen and therefore, planned for.
Pl anning for these real- world situations more effectively is one ar ea of
i mpr ovement if a si milar project wer e to take place in the future.
A design based research approach would be appropriate for this project
because the authors from the Design -Based Research Collective argue that
i t i s “ An im por tan t me tho do log y f or und ers tan d ing ho w, wh en, an d wh y
education al innovations work in pra ctice” (The Design-Based Research
Collective, 2002).
3.2.5 Discussion of Qualitative data vs Quantitative
Firstly, a qualitative approach to data collection is, as described by the
L e wi n s, T ayl or an d Gi b bs (20 12) “Fo rms of infor mat ion ga the r in a
nonnumer ic for m ”. They gi ve a list of common examples of such data:






Interview transcript
Field notes (notes taken in the field being studied)
Vi deo
Audio recordings
Images
D o c u me n t s ( r e p o r t s , me e t i n g mi n u t e s , e - ma i l s )
L e wi n s, T ayl or an d Gi b bs co nti nu e to sa y tha t q ual i tati v e d ata “U su all y
involves people and their activities…The most common forms of qualitative
data are what people have said or done” (2012). Consequently, data
gathered fr om this method appear mor e texted based then that from
q ual i tati v e. It req ui re s l ooki n g a t th e d ata th at wa s acq ui red fro m t ho se
listed above and making sense of them and picking out themes from the
27
infor mation, this infor mation can then be used to better answer the research
question.
In comparison, quantitative data is described as r equiring large amounts of
data in order to be significant (Rasinger, 2013) whereas, qualitative often
d eal s wi th s mal l a mou nt s o f d ata “Th e m a in c hara ct er ist ic s of qua nt it at iv e
data is that it consists of information that is, in some way or other,
quantifiably” (2013, p.10) . Fur thermor e, Rasinger ( 2013, p.10) goes on to
mention examples of quantitative;



People’s age
People’s weight
People’s sex
Fr o m t he se e xa mpl es her e, t wo o f t he m are nu mb er s a nd the o ther on e
could be listed as a one letter label. Ra singer ( 2013) mentions that
q uan ti tati v e d ata u sual l y deal s wi th nu me ri c dat a a s opp ose d t o q ual i ta ti ve
d ata which, “O n t he oth er han d, de als with the qu est ions of ho w some th ing
is, as opposed to how much/many” (2013, p.10).
Consequently, quantitative data would require going into multiple schools
and gaining feedback on many students whereas, with qualitative only a
smaller sample of data i s required, therefore, o nly a couple of schools
would bring in significant data. W ith ti me being a restr aint because o f the
school year and its ter m ti mes it was only possible to visit two schools
anyway. F urther more, the nature of the r esearch question means that it
doesn’t r equire a numeric answer , instead the opinionated natur e of
qualitative data through the means of such resear ch methods like inter views
were mor e beneficial in answering the pri mar y resear ch question. To
conclude, a qualitative approach to data collection made sense for the type
of project and the ti me scale.
28
4.0 Discussion of Research Methods
Thi s s ec ti on wi l l b e a di s cus si on of re sea rch me thod s tha t coul d be u sed i n
this r esearch to aid in gathering data. Methods will be discussed and
c o mp ared th en one or mor e me thod s wi l l b e d eci de d o n. The met hods
di s cu ss ed here wi l l be app ropri a te to the pr o ject an d whe n d eci di ng o n o ne
to use the pri mary and secondary research questions were considered.
4.1 Interviews
One of the methods of gathering results that was incor p or ated into this
research was inter views. Interviews were carried out with pri mar y school
pupils, they were conducted before and after the tutorial sessions . The aim
of these interviews before the sessions were to retrieve a little background
infor mation about the pupil in reference to using computers and coding
e xpe ri en c e, thi s i s d ra wi n g f ro m W i l li s ’ (1 994) t heor y abou t unde rst an di ng
t he abi l i ti es o f the audi e nce o f s tud ent s tha t wi l l be t aki ng par t i n the
sessions. Moreover, the interviews after the tutorial sessions were used to
gain valuable feedback from the students about the video and reading
t uto ri al s, as wel l a s the way the se ssi o ns wer e r an and s tru ctur ed.
C on seq uen tl y, wh en co ndu cti ng i nter vi e ws wi th chi l dre n, a nu mb er o f ethi cal
considerations had to be made. Fir st and foremost, the safety of the
c hi l dren i s i mpo rta nt, a s wel l as ma ki ng sur e t he chi l dre n wi l l c o mfo rt abl e i n
an interview setting and answering questions given to them, as suggested
by Esomar W orld’s Research Codes and Guidelines (2016) “They must not
be disturbed or harmed by the experience of being intervi ewed”.
Further mor e, the Research Codes and Guidelines (2016, p.2) mentions a
few mor e points to consider when interview children and young people, they
are as follows:
• The parents or anyone acting as the guardian of any child or young person
taking part in a resear ch project must be confident that the latter’s safety,
rights and interests are being fully safeguarded.
• T he inter viewers and other resear cher s involved in the pr oject must be
pr otected against any misunderstandings or possible allegations of
mi s con duc t ari si ng fro m t hei r d eal in gs wi th t he chi l dren or yo ung pe opl e
taking part in that project.
• T he authorities, and the public generally, must be confident that all
re se arc h c arri ed ou t wi th chi l dren a nd you ng peo pl e i s co ndu cte d t o t he
highest ethical standards and that there can be no question of any possible
abuse of the children or young people involved.
In reference to the first point above; I (The one conducting the sessions and
the interviews, therefore, the one going into school) has a required DBS
(Disclosure and Barring Service) check that is needed to work and volunteer
i n sc hool s an d i n oth er si tua ti ons wh e n d eal i ng wi th chi l dren . T hi s do cu me nt
has been requested and approved by the local school that the tutorial
sessions took place in.
In addition, i n r eference to the other points above ; a document was
designed as a consent form that detailed the nature of the research, what
29
e xa ctl y th e s es si ons du ri ng sc hool ti me wi l l f eat ure an d wha t e xa ctl y wo ul d
be asked of the children. Also, the document made sure to highlight the fact
that the children that chose to take part in this research are volunteers and
ar e a bl e t o l ea ve at an y p oi nt wi th dat a t hat was c ol l ecti on e d i n as so ci ati on
wi th the m bei n g d el ete d i f the y so wi sh. Thi s do cu me nt wi l l app ear i n the
a ppe ndi x.
Moreover, the Research Codes and Guidelines (p.3) suggest further points
t hat s houl d be co nsi de red wh en con duc ti ng i n ter vi e ws a nd te sti ng pro duc ts
on children under age 14. The points that follow are taken from the
document that only ap ply to the tutorial sessions:
W here a s urv ey i s b ei ng carri e d ou t wi thi n a “p rot ec ted en vi ron me nt” - i .e . a
location such as a school or leisure centr e wher e some person in aut hority
has overall responsibility for the protection of the child - then the
per mission of the relevant adult overseeing that location ( such as a teacher)
must be obtained befor e conducting any interview.
W h e n r e q u e s t i n g p e r mi s s i o n t o c a r r y o u t a n i n t e r v i e w, s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r ma t i o n
must be given to the per son responsible for the child for hi m or her to reach
a n a deq uat ely con sidere d d ecision abo ut giving su ch per mission . W her e it is
not practicable for that person to see or hear the actual questions to be
a sked, the subject and general natur e of the inter view must be explained,
t oge ther wi t h a n e xpl a nati on o f a ny p ote nti al l y s en si ti ve or e mbar rassi n g
questions etc. The identity of the person giving the per mi ssion for the
interview should be noted but it is n or mally unnecessary for the per mission
t o b e o btai n ed i n wri ti n g.
If the child is to be asked to test any product, the responsible per son must
be allowed to see this and (if they wish) to try it themselves.
4.1.1 Un-Structured Interviews
There are different for mats interviews can take, depending on what the
objecti ve i s, one of these for mats is un - str uctured; this for mat involves the
i nt ervi e wer ch oo si ng a nu mb er of q ues ti on s t hat th ey wi l l as k the
interviewee , this for mat of inter views “ Are based on a clear plan that you
k eep c ons tan tl y in m ind, bu t a re als o char ac ter ize d by a m in imum o f c on tro l
over the people’s responses” (Bernard, 2011, p.211). This type of interview
pr ompts the interviewee to open up on the topic and express themselves
instead of the interviewer asking specific questions. Although, because the
intended audience of the interviews are children, asking them to express
t hei r h one st an d d etai l ed opi ni on s on a p arti c ul ar q ue sti on or su b je ct mi gh t
be difficult.
Moreover , interviews can be ti me consuming depending on the number of
people that need to be interviewed, b esides this, Bernard (2011, p.212) also
suggests that this for mat is beneficial when ther e is a lot of ti me to spend
on interviews and have the opportunity to inter view the people on many
occasions, which isn’t the case for this project because the pri mary school
g a v e l i mi t e d t i me f o r t h e s e s s i o n s d u e t o t h e i r t i me t a b l e .
30
4 .1. 2 Str uc ture d Int ervi e wi ng
On the other hand, Bernard (2011) suggests another type of interviewing
f or ma t n a med s tru ctu red i nter vi e w, Bern ard de scri b es thi s as when “Peo pl e
a sk a ske d t o r esp ond to a s n ear ly id e nt ica l a set of s t im ul i as po ss ibl e ”
(2011 , p.212). Mor eover, this for mat involves use of an inter view schedule,
which is a set of instructions to inter viewers, the example Bernard uses in
this case is “Instructions might read: ‘‘If the informant says that she or he
has at least one daughter over 10 years of age, then ask questions 26b and
26c. Other wise, go on to question 27” ( 2011, p.212). The for mat of the
q ues ti onn ai re sho wn i n t hi s e xa mp l e i s ba si c and woul d wor k wel l wi th
children.
Further mor e, collecting data could be easily compar ed with that of other
c hi l dren i n th e sa me gr oup /cl a ss an d wi th tha t o f dat a fr o m oth er
gr oups/classes, because of this, this for mat of inter view would be useful in
this situation. Also, because of the way questionnaires (written down or
orally) are set up, the interviewee’s respons es can be controlled (2011),
this would make comparing the data easier . Lastly , because ever y
interviewee would have the same questions in the same for mat, thi s would
also make comparing their r esponses mor e effective .
4 .1.3 Selecting an Inter view For mat
Both un-structured and structured interviews have their advantages and
di s ad van tage s wh en i t co me s t o i ncl u di ng the m i n a re sea rch pr o je ct su ch
a s thi s. C on sequ entl y, as th e t arge t a udi en ce for th ei r i nte rvi e ws wi ll b e
pri mary school children the for mat and features the str uctured interview
bri n gs wo ul d b e mo re ben efi ci al . Fo r e xa mpl e , al t hou gh an un - str uct ured
int ervie w would lead to a mo re na tur al inte rvie w b eca use t he in ter viewe r
doesn’t need to stick to pre-defined questions and instead can divert to
other topics and questions based on what the interviewee has said, the
children mi ght not be comfortable wi th this type of approach.
Therefore, pre-defined questions decided before the interview will be set up
for their pri mar y school sessio ns. On the other hand , the natur al inter view
process of the un-structured interviews will help outline a teacher’s opinion
a bou t pr ogr a mmi ng i n pri mar y sc ho ol s. Ther efor e, thi s fo r mat wi l l be
i nc orpo rat ed to se para te i n ter vi e ws h el d wi t h the te ach ers an d t he he ad
teacher of the school. T he inter viewer can pr ompt the teacher to elaborate
on points if the inter viewee i sn’t providing enough infor mation to answer the
q ues ti on and c an hav e a mor e a cti v e con ver sati o n wi th th e m i ns tea d o f a
q ues ti on and an s wer for ma t . Al so, mo re ti me ca n b e spen t wi th th e te ach ers
a nd hea d t eac her s b ec aus e t he se i nt ervi e ws wi l l be hel d at se para te ti mes
to the children and therefore, won’t be constraint to the hour sessions. This
is fur ther benefit to the un- str uctured for mat as discussed in section 4.1.1.
In conclusion, the interviews held to answer the research questions outlined
i n se cti on 3. 0 wi l l f eat ure a mi xture of th e str uct ure d a nd un -s tru ct ure d
for mats as described by Bernard (2011) d epending on who needs to be
interviewed.
31
4.2 Structure of the Data Collections
For the first iteration of data collection three tutorials have been developed
and bot h t uto rials has a reading element and video element to them. These
tutorials were designed using what was appropriate learning theories and
good inter active media development practices that were discussed in
Chapter 2.
4.2.1 Discussion of Contacting Schools and Str ucture of the Lessons
When contacting the local schools to set up these after school lessons
certain issues, for example, lesson length was di scussed. This is because
the lessons ar e going to be completely voluntar y and the children can drop
o ut at an y ti me an d al so the s cho ol wi l l ha ve to c onsi d er thei r al ready
established day schedule. B ut various issues could arise, for example the
c hi l dren tha t wi l l b e p art aki ng i n th ese s es si ons ma y n ot ha ve use d t he
S c r a t c h s o f t wa r e b e f o r e a n d ma y h a v e l i mi t e d e x p e r i e n c e wi t h a c o mp u t e r
and fur ther more, may have difficulty using the mouse and keyboard.
Therefore, the ti me for the sessions may have to be extended longer than
the esti mated completion ti me for the lessons. On the other hand, if, for
wh a tev er r ea son th e p aren ts or the s cho ol s a re havi n g i s sue s wi th th e
l en gth of th es e l es son s the vi de os and wri t ten gui d es ca n b e al t ered i n
length or even split down so ther e will be more but shor ter lessons.
Regarding the number of lessons, as ther e were three tutorials designed
there needed to be at least three lessons that would focus on one tutorial
each, as agreed to the school these lessons would happen once a week
during the children’s last lesson that day. Moreover , there would also have
to be an additional lesson dedicated to the interviews and feedback and
also to any technical or non-technical issues that could have arisen,
t han kf ul l y th oug h, the s cho ol al l owe d th e ses si on s t o b e very fl e xi ble .
Further mor e, to collect enough comparable data , it was beneficial to go into
two or three schools, this could have been done A schedule like this should
pr ovi de u sef ul da ta tha t fea ture s chi l dre n wi th di ffer ent t ech ni cal a bil i ti es
wh i ch wi l l ai d i n i mp rovi n g the l ess on mat eri al s so tha t mo re ef fec tiv e
sessions can take place at the second stage of testing. F urther mor e, the
i ni ti al s et of l ess on s wi l l al so hel p str ea ml i ne the whol e pro ces s for n e xt
ti me, any issues or problems can mi ght be encounter can be lear nt from.
L ocal pri mar y s ch ool s wer e b e cont a c ted vi a e mai l , thi s e mai l wi l l i nfor m t he
s ch ool a bou t t he nat ure of thi s re se arc h pr o jec t; wh at i t wi l l i nvol v e, h o w
l on g i t wi l l tak e, wh at res our ces (i . e. PCs , i n stal l ati on o f s of t wa re) wi l l be
n eed ed etc . T hi s e mai l wi l l al so off er to me et wi t h the he ad tea cher s to
further discuss the process and time and days. Next, once a school has
a gree d t o p arti ci p ate i n t hi s pro ject c ont ent fo r ms wi l l be the n a vai l abl e for
the year 6 classes (Aged 10) , the children can take these for ms away to
their parents who will have to sign the for m. These for ms will contain
infor mation about the project and what exactly the children will be doing and
wh a t d ata wi l l be col l ec ted fr o m the se se ssi o ns, t hes e f or ms wi l l al so
contain such infor mation as the dates and ti mes of the sessions. Lastl y, this
f or m wi l l fea ture ge neral que sti ons t hat wi l l at te mp t to gaug e the tec hni c al
e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e c h i l d . T h i s i n f o r ma t i o n wi l l b e u s e f u l b e c a u s e a mi x t u r e o f
children that possess different technical ability can be chosen to partake in
32
the lessons therefore, the infor mation could indicate a level of effectiveness
in the lesson materials.
N e xt, duri n g t he fi rst s es si on the chi l dre n wi l l be i nvi t ed to ta ke the VAR K
(1 987 ) q ues ti onn ai re o nl i ne t hat wi l l provi d e t he m wi t h a s core t hat
represents their learning preference, there will be four separate scores in
vi sual , aur al , r ead / wri t e a nd ki naes th eti c. The se re sul ts wi l l be re cord ed.
N o w, the c hi l dren wi l l i nt era ct wi th the l es son ma teri al s, e ver y c hi l d wi l l be
gi v en the fi rs t l e sso n’ s wri tt en gui d e wi th ac co mp an yi ng i mag es an d t he
vid eo tu torials. The children will be told to follo w b oth learnin g ma terials
and to compl ete the lesson, they will be shown the finished product so they
have an idea of what they are working towards.
Moreover, the idea of this structure of lesson is to give the child the tools
they need and/or prefer so that they can learn better than traditional
me t ho ds . Al th ough , a t eac her wi l l b e pr es ent to hel p wi t h a ny pro bl ems t he
children mi ght encounter it will be pr eferable that the children have the
right materials pr ovided so that teacher intervention is not needed. On the
other hand, a teacher being present and involved is still i mpor tant to the
children’s learning as according to Shaughnessy and Fulgham (2011), all
t hi s wi l l b e o bse rve d a nd rec orde d be cau se i f a tea ch er i s nee ded and ge ts
involved too often then the lesson materials are not wor king as effecti ve as
they could be.
Fu rth er mor e, duri ng th e a ct ual l ess on , o bser va ti ons wi l l be th e pri mar y
me t ho d o f dat a c ol l ecti on , o bs erv ati o ns wi l l l ook i n to whi c h for m of le arni ng
material the children using most, if any, or is one for m dominating over the
o ther ? Are c hi l dren l o oki ng ba ck to pre vi ou s p age s of the wri t ten gui de s
or /an d r e wi ndi n g t he vi deo t o l oo k ov er so me thi ng ? Al so , h o w l ong is i t
taking this group to get through the lesson? And is this because the lesson
is too easy or ar e the lesson materials doing a good job of teaching them to
use Scratch. T hese observations were made by the teacher (I) as they made
t hei r wa y ar oun d t he cl as sro o m a s the s tud ent s wer e f ol l o wi ng the t ut ori al s.
The teacher could track the student’s progr ess by looking at their computer
screens as they walked by. From this the teacher could take note of any
particular sections that the students got stuck on or found too difficult or
completely ignored. Moreover, the classroom observations also helped to
deter mi ne how often the student’s switched back and forth between the
Scratch application and the tutorials; and in particular, how often a student
would replay a section of the video tutorial or replay the whole thing.
Observations like these helped in answering the pri mary and secondar y
research questions outlined in Chapter 3.
In addition, at the end of each session their progress can be saved and
compared to the other school’s groups, actually seeing and comparing their
pieces of wor k can help deter mine how clear the lesson materials are and if,
f or e xa mpl e chi l dren are ge tti ng s tu ck at th e sa me poi n ts or i s a nyb od y
skipping certain sections. Also, their work can also be linked to their
pr evious programmi ng backgrounds, it is expected that those with
pr ogr ammi ng experience will have less difficulty and may even finish faster
t han th os e wi thou t. Thi s co ul d b e b eca us e word s, phr ase s and ev en f eat ure s
o f t he Scra tch pr ogra m mi gh t b e fa mi l i ar wi th the m t here for e, l e ss ti me wi l l
be taken to understand these.
L as tl y, at the e nd of al l the se se ssi on s the chi l dre n wi l l be i nvi t ed to a ns w er
a fe w que sti on s tha t wi l l tr y to i l l us tra te thei r e xperi en ce s wi th the tw o
for ms of lear ning materials. T his post-lesson questionnaire is dr awn from
the W illis’ (1994) work about understanding your audience , as well as this
33
questionnaire more direct one on one inter views may be held after the
s es si on s t hi s wi l l h el p pr ovi de a be tte r u nder st andi ng of t he chi l d’ s
experience lear ning Scratch among other advantages W illis (1994)
me n ti on s. The de ci si on on i nter vi ews wi l l be ma de af ter di s cus si on wi th th e
schools are made wher e agreements on ti me and dates can be done.
Fu rth er mor e, the an swers an d inf or ma tion gaine d fro m th ese qu estion naires
and inter views can be compar ed to the VARK data obtained at the beginning
to see if there is any correlation between the children’s score and their
o pi ni on o f a p arti c ul ar l es son ma teri al as wel l a s thei r ov eral l pro gre ss th ey
ma d e. Thi s wi l l be an opp ort uni ty to be tte r a ns wer que sti o ns su ch as are
t he se vi deo tu tori al s ef fec ti ve at te achi n g chi l dren wi th a vi su al an d aural
l ear ni ng pref ere nce s? And are wri tt en gui de s e ff ecti ve at tea chi ng c hi l dren
that pr efer to read infor mation? In addition, all the data and feedback
o btai n ed fro m th ese s es si ons wi l l al s o g o to ward s e nha nci ng an d i mpr ovi ng
the lesson materials as well as th e entire process for the second iteration.
34
5.0 First DBR Cycle
Thi s c hap ter wi l l l ook i n to de vel opi ng th e fi r st i t era ti on of the l es son
ma t eri al s , n a mel y , t he vi de o t utori al s an d the wri t ten gui d es wi th out a ny
pr evi ou s fee dba ck . Th es e fi r st versi o ns wi l l i ncor pora te so me l ea rnin g a nd
teaching theories that have been discussed in the literature review earlier in
t hi s the si s. The se l e ss on ma t eri als wi l l be ta ke n i nt o s ch ool s and wi l l be
tested, then from the feedback from these sessions the intervention s will be
i mpr ove d a nd fur ther mo re , f ro m the s eco nd i t erati o n t he pha se wi l l be
re pea ted whi ch wi l l res ul t i n a t hi rd an d fi n al i tera ti on tha t wi l l ai m to
a ns wer thi s pr o je ct ’s re sea rch qu es ti on s.
5.1 Research
To create the first iterations of the tutori als, they need to be designed
ar oun d t he pre vi ous re sea rch , i n ot her wo rds , the tu tori al s nee d to
incorporate the idea of threshold concepts, ways to reduce cognitive
overload, pull fr om mul tisensor y theor y and introduce a modern, non traditional way of te aching.
To start, as this project is highly based around the idea of VARK it is
i mportant to mention it first. As mentioned in the literature review VARK
stands for Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinaesthetic . These are the four
modalities or learning styl es Fleming and Mills ( 1992) suggested “ Seem ed
to reflect the experiences of the students and teachers” although they
me n ti on th at th ere i s s o me ov erl ap. The t utori al s i n t hi s pro jec t wi l l be
heavily influenced by VARK, this will done by creating interventions ba sed
ar ound the four modalities.
N e xt, as de sc ri bed abo ve i s t he i de a o f “ gat e wa ys ” t hat rel a te to
features/ideas or use of tools in the subject by Erik Meyer and Ray Land
(Cousin, 2006); in this case, it relates to Scratch. Before creating the
t uto ri al s i mpor tan t thre sh ol d c once pt s wi l l ne ed to be i d enti fi e d, thes e
sections ar e fundamental in ushering the users thr ough to completion of the
t uto ri al s a s wel l as e ffe cti v e u nders ta ndi ng of th e s of t wa re.
After looking t hrough online Scratch tut orials, the website eastonhome.co.uk
(2015) had suitable tutorials for this project . Certain skills that were
re qui red t o u se Scra tch e ffe cti v el y be ca me vi si bl e so th ere fore wi l l be
incorporated into the design of the tutorials. These skills include Sprite
management; the Scratch software i s heavy based around sprites and
further more, sprites ar e a common element in development of 2D based
video games therefore it is i mportant of users to under stand the cr eation
and management of sprites.
Secondly, Scripts as also a big part of the software, the use of this feature
will make the user ’s games inter acti ve and actually playable instead of their
games being static. Mor eover, Scripts in Scratch is quite a powerful tool
and ther e is a lot to it, especially for a u ser that is completely new to game
design therefore, careful consideration will be given to this particularly
threshold concept. On the other hand, once the user understands the basics
o f Sc ri pt i t wi l l res ul t i n the m h avi n g t he abi l i ty to crea te more c o mp l e x
games. F urther more, Scripts in Scratch are visual based instead of being
text based which is what actual programmi ng languages consist of, Scratch
35
Scripts are a great place to start for giving users an understanding of
pr ogr ammi ng concepts.
Thi rd an d f i nal l y, the dra wi ng to ols b ui l t i nto Scra tc h wi l l be i mpor tan t t o the
u ser as a goo d u nde rst andi n g a nd e xpe ri enc e wi th the m wi l l ma ke the
difference between a basic background and Sprite and a complex, detailed
b ac kgro und or Spri te . Thi s wi l l al so al l o w th e u ser t o gi ve th ei r g a me a
unique and personal art style. Moreover, the user could go through the
t uto ri al s wi thou t usi ng th es e t ool s a t al l b eca us e t here i s a l i brar y t ha t
contains premade Sprites to use but the option to create something they can
c al l thei r o wn wi l l gi v e thei r ga me p ers onal i ty .
Ano the r t heor y the tu tori al s wi l l nee d t o d ra w on i s the mul ti s ens ory th eor y
by Praveen (2015). This i s the idea of the effecti veness of teaching and
lear ning are increased when the user is exposed to materials that sti m ulate
mor e than one human sense, for example, instead of just the video tutorials
being purely a screen capture of Scratch it would be accompanied by an
audio narrative of what is happening on screen. By the nature of the video
tutorials that users can find online on sites like YouTube, this particular
theor y will be easy to i mplement. On the other hand, the reading tutorials
will sti mulate the user ’s vi sual sense through the scr eenshots featured on
t he pag e b ut the t e xt th at ac co mp a ni es the i mag es wi l l al s o be vi sual l y.
Be cau se of this I a m going to ma ke th e a ssu mp tion the vide o t uto rials are
going to perfor m better in the hands of pri mary school children, this might
be reflected in the children’s feedback comments at the end.
N e xt, th ese tu tori al s wi l l be de si gn ed i n a wa y tha t’ s dri ven by th e us er
instead of the teacher, which is the mor e traditional way of delivering a
lesson. Shaughnessy and Fulgham (2011) use an old Chinese quote to
describe the traditional way of teaching “ Teachers open the door; you enter
by yourself”. The traditional way involves a teaching in front of the
classroom and they deliver the lesson to the class of pupils in a way they
were taught to do and also by what they have found to work in the past
e xpe ri enc e. The way th ese t utori a l s wi l l be desi g ned i n t o p ut the pupi l i n
control, with the video tutorial the pupil is able to put headphones on and
watch the video and be in their own personal isolated lesson. Then they are
a bl e t o sto p, r e wi n d a nd pl ay the vi de o a gai n a s ma n y ti me s a s th ey n eed
until they are comfor table and are ready to move on. The same can be said
with the reading tutorials, the pupil can go through the pages at their own
pace which should i mpr ove lear ning as teacher s have to go at the pace of
the whole class inste ad of individually. Mor eover, the pupils can still talk to
e ach o ther an d h el p e ach ot her l i ke th e t radi ti on al me tho d b eca use th ey are
s ti l l i n the cl a ssr oo m, t here for e t his n e w wa y has t he adv ant age s o f th e ol d
me t ho d b ut fe atur es mod ern wa ys o f d oi ng thi ng s “ W h o ar e in the pro ce ss of
discovering knowledge, yet work collaboratively within this virtual room
w ho se door h as bee n v ir tua ll y sw un g o pen ” .
Mo reo ver , c ogni ti v e overl o ad i s an i mp ort ant th eor y t o con si der wh en
d eal i ng wi th tea chi ng ne w ski l l s to pupi l s. As men ti one d e arl i er i n t his p aper
Cognitive load is according to Mayer and Moreno ( 2003) the amount of
infor mation a person can process at one ti me. Mayer and Mor eno suggest
s ev eral me th ods to re duc e t he l o ad i n p upi l s. So me, bu t not al l wi l l a ppl y to
the design of these tutorials.
One of these overloading problems is called T ype 2, “ T his is when both
channels are overloaded with essential processing demands”; this could
h app en i n a nu mb er o f sc enari o s, f or e xa mpl e, th ere i s a narr ate d ani ma ti on
that si mply features too much vi sual and auditor y infor mation. Further more,
36
the pace of the nar ration might be too fast for the user to process or wor ds
etc. might not appear on screen for long enough. To over come thi s problem,
Shaughnessy and Fulgham (2011) su ggests two solutions. One solution is
called Segmenting, “ A potential solution to this problem is to allow
s ome t im e b et wee n suc ce ss iv e s egme nt s o f the pre sen ta t io n ” ( 201 1) . It i s
i mportant to separate both the video and r eading tutorials into sections
wher e it makes sense to avoid overload.
Pretraining is the other suggested solution, “ An alternative technique for
re du c in g cog n it ive lo ad wh en bot h ch anne l s ar e o ver lo aded w it h es se nt ia l
pr oc es s in g d ema nds is pret ra in ing, in wh ich l earn ers re ce iv e pr ior
instruction concerning the components in the to -be-learned system” (2011).
An example of this would be to display and teach i mpor tant key ter ms and
phrases the user is going t o come across in the follow tutorials, if you give
t he us er t hi s i n for ma ti on bef ore han d t hen th ey wi l l be mo re fa mi l i ar wi th
them when the ter ms and phrases then mentioned in the actual tutorials. On
the other hand, if the first exposure to a term or phras e is during the
tutorial then overload can happen when the user tries to process the
meaning of the wor d as well as reme mbering the wor d, as is also as well as
attempting to follow the action on the screen.
Another one of the pr oblems is called Type 3 , this i s when the “ System is
overloaded by incidental processing demands due to extraneous material ”.
Incidental processing refers to infor mation that can be deemed interesting
b ut not e sse nti al t o the l earni ng (W i ki ver si ty , 2 012 ). T he sol uti o n i s cal l ed
W e e d i n g wh i c h i s d o n e b y d e t e r mi n i n g wh a t i n f o r ma t i o n i s e s s e n t i a l a n d
what is extra infor mation that could confuse and distract the user . In other
words, make the infor mation and tutorial “ As concise and coher ent as
possible, so the learner will not be primed to engage in incidental
pr oc es s in g ” Sh aug hne ss y and Ful g ha m (20 11) . On e e xa mpl e o f thi s i s add ed
background music to a narrated ani mation that could potentially distract the
users by overloading the auditory channel.
Further mor e, another solution t hat i s suggested is Signalling. The author s
me n ti on th at wh en i n for ma ti on i s no t f ea si bl e t o b e re mo v ed the n a di ff eren t
approach much be taken. “ Cognitive load can be r educed by pr oviding cues
t o t he le arne r a bou t h ow to s ele ct a nd orga n ize th e ma ter ia l ” ( Lor ch, 198 9;
Me yer , 1975 ). In the e xa mple th ey use, ther e is a 4 minu te ani ma tion th at
features incidental infor mation but instead of getting rid of it the infor mation
i n col our c ode d wi th the i mpor tan t, e xtra neo us i nfor ma ti on bei n g o ne c ol our
and the inter esting but non-i mpor tant infor mation being another. Other cues
could include use of header s, underlining, ar rows pointing to infor mation
etc. In the scenario Lorch and Meyer set up there was a signalled and a
non-signalled version that was given to users , they reported that users with
the signalled version per for med better on the subsequent test.
5.2 Design
Thi s s ec ti on wi l l di s cu ss an d o utl in e t he ac tual desi g n o f t he vi deo a nd
re adi ng tu tori al s as wel l as th e o th er el e me n ts tha t wi l l f eat ure i n t he s c ho ol
sessions, for example, the interviews. The design decisions in this section
will be linked back to the learning theories and development pr acti ces that
were discussed back in Chapter 2.
37
5.2.1 Reading Tutorials
The r eading tutorials that include accompanying i mages will deliver the
reading and writing learning style of the resear ch mentioned in the VARK
f ra me wor k ( 199 2) . The chi l dre n wi l l b e gi v en pri nt ed tut ori al s tha t t he y can
read thr ough at their own pace and the i mages , although ther e are a visual
element there are i mpor tant because it would be more difficult to learn
Sc rat ch wi th out th e m. Fur ther mo re, c hi l dren wi l l b e e nc oura ged to wri te
n ote s on thei r pi ece s of pap er, thi s wi l l c over t he wri ti ng par t of the s tyl e .
Th e chi l dren wi l l und ers tan d i nf orma ti on bet ter i f t he y can pl ac e i t i n to thei r
own words, evidence of this is shown in an experi ment that was conducted
wi th children on their ability to learn names for objects (Zosh, 2013). T he
experi ment suggests that “ Peop le tend to think that parents must directly
in s tru ct th e ir c h ildre n by te ll in g t hem t he lab el s of the ob je ct s t hat sur rou nd
them, but this research tells us that children are even better word learners
when we ask them to figure things out for themselves” therefore the children
will make the tutorials easier for themselves if they can describe things in
their own way.
The for mat of the reading tutorials came from breaking down the video
t uto ri al s f ro m the Eas ton H o me web si te (ea ton ho me .c o.u k, 201 5). Thi s
f or ma t con si st s o f s mal l , foc use d vi d eo s t hat ta ke th e vi e wer t hrou gh s mal l
steps that eventually arrives at a si mple game or project. These si mple
pr o jec ts fea tur e o ne or t wo me chani c s tha t a re sui ta bl e f or a b egi nner t o t he
software and indeed, to children in a Year 6 pri mary school class.
On the other hand, although the tutorials were entry level the videos went
s trai g ht i n to sho wi ng th e u ser ho w to ma k e the ga me wi tho ut mu c h
explanation as to what certain features did or what each part of the software
wa s exactly. This series of videos assumes the user isn’t new to using
software like thi s. T his assumption shouldn’t be made when the intended
a u d i e n c e i s p r i ma r y s c h o o l c h i l d r e n t h a t mi g h t h a v e l i mi t e d e x p e r i e n c e wi t h
computer s and softwar e. T herefore, when designing the written tutorials for
t hi s pro jec t i t wa s i mp ort ant to dedi c ate t he fi rst l es son to ‘ the ba sic s ’. T hi s
first lesson would introduce and explain the different sections of the
s of t ware i n ter fac e a nd fur ther mo re, a pag e wi l l b e i ncl u ded th at e x pl ai n ed
c o mmo n ter ms t hat th e user wi l l en cou nte r i n the l es son s. Thi s deci si o n
also comes from the gener al layout and design that programmi ng books
t a k e , a s we l l a s o t h e r s i mi l a r b o o k s t h a t i n c l u d e a l o t o f t e c h n i c a l p h r a s e s .
Th ese bo ok s tend t o i ncl u de a p age de di cat ed to su ch wo rds an d p hra se s so
the reader can keep referring to them.
Th e r eadi ng tu tori al s i n t hi s for ma t wi l l be ta ken t o t he fi rst ro und of dat a
c ol l ecti on an d fro m th e f eed bac k an d o bse rva ti on s t hat wi l l be rec ei ve d
there the tutorials will be i mpr oved in for mat and in content. These tutorials
will be printed out and given to the students, with their own copy the
children will be give the freedom to go at their own pace and go back and
forth between the pages to remind themselves of infor mation or to compar e
the screenshots if they went wrong somewher e etc. This feature comes from
pr actices that ar e being perfor med by Summi t Public Schools in the US.
These practices involve software that helps children through the syllabus
which the children control “The idea is that children work best when setting
their own goals and moving at a pace that suits them. Evidence from early
pilot studies shows that pupils learn more effectively this way than with
t rad it ion al te ac h in g ” ( Ho dso n, 2015) .
38
5.2.2 Video Tutorials
The video tutorials initially took inspiration from the website
eastonhome.co.uk (2015). On this website there is a series of seven video
tutorials that tasks the user with creating various ar cade games. These
videos are of good quality and are split into short parts. On the other hand,
the videos introduced and show the user different features and ideas in no
appar ent or der, if might be less of a problem i f a user was to watch and
follow these videos in their spare ti me but for an after school class that will
have a ti me slot of about a hour the for mat these videos follow aren’t
appropriate.
To begin developing video tutorials for a school environment it was
i mportant to look at th e bigger features and mechanics of Scratch and plan
separate lessons to teach these features; these main features can also be
called threshold concepts (Meyer and Land, 2003). These thresholds
c o n c e p t s , a s d i s c u s s e d b e f o r e a s imp o r t a n t mi l e s t o n e s t h a t wh e n a u s e r
over comes can open gateways to fur ther under standing of tools and
c on cep ts et c. of th e s of t wa re. There for e, to defi n e the se con ce pts wi l l be
the first step into developing each lesson.
In that case, after looking at numerous video tutorials online and using
Scratch’s tools some threshold concepts became appar ent; moving a Sprite
ar ound the screen using Script is a very i mportant but basic skill that can
b e i ncl u ded i n a ny ga me or pr o je ct, al s o t he tool s t hat ma ke up the Spri t e
Editor, if users can grasp this feature then they can create different
char acters or objects to use in their games. Also, basic progr ammi ng logic
l i ke F ore ver l oop s, IF and EL SE s ta te me nt s wi l l al l o w th ei r ga me s t o be
i nt el li gen t a nd i n ter acti ve. La stl y , u si ng the Broa dc ast Sc ri p t, thi s wi l l al l o w
t he us er t o h av e di f fere nt ob je cts a nd Sp ri tes c o mmu ni cat e wi th each ot her ,
f or e xa mpl e, wh en a pl a yer pi c ks u p a k ey the n the y can tel l a doo r t o pl a y
an opening ani mation. Once these concepts are clear, ther e needs to a fun
game or project that has the user interested and that involves these
features and at the same ti me increasing in difficulty as the lessons go on
because it is i mpor tant for the user to have a challenge and to feel satisfied
at the end when they have their finished game wor king properly.
39
Further mor e, it was clear that these video tutorials had to be split u p into
shor t videos because of a study that was done about opti mal video length
when it comes to student engagement. The study features a gr aph that
shows median ti me spent watching a video in minutes against the videos
grouped by length (Guo, 2013).
Figure 6: Graph of Preliminary edX video engagement findings by Philip Guo retrieved from http://blog.edx.org/optimalvideo-length-student-engagement
The graph in figure 6 shows an increase in ti me watching a par ticular video
u nti l i t re ac hes i ts pe ak at th e 6 - 9 mi n ute s grou p then i t fal l s sl o wl y u nti l
the 9-12 minutes gr oup then it falls more dramatically. It is also i mpor tant
to mention that the graph shows dat a on two groups of people; one being
Certificate-earning students and the other all other students. The study
me n ti on s tha t certi fi cat e -ear ni ng st ude nt s e ngag ed mo re wi t h vi deo
“ Pre sum ab ly be cau se the y had grea ter mot iv at ion t o lear n t he mat er ia l ”
(Guo, 2013) than the all other students group. As a result of that, the
r e s u l t s t h a t wi l l b e r e t r i e v e d f r o m t h i s p r o je c t ma y s e e s i mi l a r d a t a f r o m t h a t
of the all other students group because the class of students that will be
exposed to these tutorials are being volunteered by the head teacher and
n o t b e t h e ms e l v e s , t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e mi g h t b e l e s s mo t i v a t i o n i n wa n t i n g t o
lear n the material.
Fu rth er mor e, the s tud y su ms u p t he gra ph by sa yi ng th at “The op t ima l v ideo
length is 6 minutes or shorter — students watched most of the way through
these short videos” and that the “Average engagement time of any video
40
maxes out at 6 m inutes, regardless of its length”. Therefore, it will be
beneficial to design the video tutorials to be under 6 minutes to ensur e
students stay engaged.
5.2.3 Designing the interview
D ra wi ng on Be rnar d’ s ( 201 1) d es cri pti o n o f stru ct ured an d n on - stru ctur ed
i nt ervi e ws wi l l co ns truc ted wi t h the pur po se of gat heri ng si mpl e da ta fr o m
the children and teachers that was used to firstly, gather feedback on the
tutorials as well as the str ucture of the sessions to then i mprove them for
the second data collection cycle. And secondly, to gather personal feedback
from children to outline which tutorial they preferred and why, this
infor mation then can be compared wi th their VARK scor es to better answer
the pri mar y and secondary research questions.
Th ere we re four s epar ate i ns tan ces o f i nt ervi e ws , t he fi rst i ns tan ce wa s a
s et of qu esti o ns th at too k pl ace i n the fi rs t se ssi on wi t h t he ai m o f be tte r
understanding the children’s technical experience and background, this
infor mation was then used to measur e how diffi cult the tutorials were for
c hi l dren wi th l i ttl e t o no progr a mmi ng e xperi en ce co mp ar ed to chi l dre n wi th
mo r e e xp eri en ce.
The second instance was the VARK questionnaire that is already
constructed and is available online. From this questionnaire the children will
receive scores based on visual, aural, read/write and kinaesthetic. These
scor es were recorded and then later compared after the sessions.
Th e t hi rd set of i nt ervi e ws wa s al so a se t o f q ue sti on s t hat to ok pl ace on
the last session. T hese questions were agai n ai med at the children and
asked basi c questions, for example, “W hich tutorial did you prefer ?” why
they chose that answer . W ith the infor mation gather ed from these
questionnaires, it was used to i mprove on tutorials for the second cycle of
data collecting. This questions helped opti mise the tutorials, which in hand
aided in answering the pri mar y and secondar y r esear ch questions discussed
in section 3.0. F urther more, thi s infor mation was also compar ed to the
VARK questionnaire that the chi ldren took in the first session, fr om these
comparisons it was clear if ther e only any links between a child’s VARK
score and their preferred choice of tutorial.
Th e f our th set o f i nt ervi e ws wi l l i nv ol ve th e t ea cher s a nd the h ead tea che r
of the pri mar y school, it was i mportant to discover what they thought about
pr ogr ammi ng and computing in primar y school s in general as well as their
thoughts on the video and reading tutorials.
Al so , t he fi rst s et of i nter vi e ws deter mi ne d wh o m (i f an yo ne) had previ o us
c odi ng e xperi e nce or i s mo re kno wl ed geabl e wi t h co mp uter s and s oftwa re
than other s this infor mation can be brought over to the last set of interviews
t here for e, mo re ti me ca n b e spen t u si ng the se i ndi vi dual s whi ch wi l l pr ovi de
mor e valuable feedback.
Al tho ugh th e ses si on s t hat wi l l be h el d f or the pur pos es of thi s pr o jec t wi l l
only consist of groups of around 10 to 12 children. Ther efore, thi s method of
41
i nt ervi e wi ng wo n’ t t ak e mu ch ti me a nd wi l l resul t i n val uabl e fe edb ack
because of the low number of c hildr en that need to be interviewed.
5.3 Implementation
Thi s s ec ti on wi l l d e mon str ate t he i mp l e me n tati on o f t he the ori es an d i d eas
that were discussed in the previous section , (section 5.2) into the reading
a nd vi deo tu tori al s th at wi l l be gi ve n t o t he st ude nt s t o f ol l o w. Thi s i s t he
first version of said tutorials, these are designed about the above theories
a nd sug ge sti on s wi tho ut bei ng e xpo sed t o s tud ent s. The i ni ti al ve rsi o ns of
the tutorials featur e three different lessons inspired by eastonhome.co.uk
(2015), the three tutorials are being called The Basi cs, Cat and Dog, and
The Tank Game.
Taken from the work by Guo (2013) on video length the three tutorials were
designed so that they sh ouldn’t take longer than one hour maxi mum to
complete. This ti me involves everything from l ogging onto the computers,
accessing the session materials; be it the video or reading tutorial
depending on what group the student i s in. Further more, this ti me als o
i nv ol ve s a n i ni ti al l oo k a t t he tu tori al s and th en ac ti vel y doi ng fol l o wi n g t he
t u t o r i a l s (W i t h t h e v i d e o t u t o r i a l s b e i n g u n d e r 6 mi n u t e s i n l e n g t h a s
suggested by Guo (2013)).
Figure 7 displays the questionnaire on the VARK website that the students
will be asked to take on the first week. This questionnaire featured sixteen
ra ndo m, si mpl e q ue sti on s whi ch us ual l y e xpl ai n s a s cen ari o a nd the us er i s
give four options to choose them, they may choose as well options that
a ppl y to th e m. F or e xa mp l e, “ You ar e u s ing a boo k, C D o r web s ite to le arn
how to take photos with your new digital camera. You would like to have ”
( V AR K L e a r n L i mi t e d , 2 0 1 6 ) . T h e o p t i o n s a r e s u c h t h i n g s a s wr i t t e n
instructi ons, photos, diagr ams or/and ask questions. At the end of the
q ues ti onn ai re the st ude nt s wi l l re cei v e four s core s bas ed on the f our area s
of learning; visual, aural, read/write and kinaesthetic.
42
Figure 7: VARK website, displaying the questionnaire (VARK Learn Limited, 2016)
A per son co ul d c o me ou t wi th an co mbi nati o n o f sco res , o ne per son ma y
have chosen a lot of vi sual based answer s and come out with a high vi sual
s cor e wi th the re st of th e sco res bei n g v ery l o w, t her efor e, i t i s e xp ec te d
that videos would appeal and be mor e effecti ve is teaching this par ticular
p ers on. On th e o the r h and , a not her per son mi gh t c o me ou t wi th r eal ly
si milar scores across the board. They could mean that they are adaptable
wh en it comes to learning or it could mean the options given to them on the
q ues ti onn ai re di d n’ t a ppe al to th em. I t wi l l b e i nt ere sti ng to se e whi c h
tutorial the students prefer against what their VARK scores are.
Figure 8: A page of the written tutorials
43
Fi gur e 7 s ho ws the mai n wi nd o w of Scr atc h wi th ac co mp an yi ng l a bels t hat
describe the different sections of the software interface. This was the first
page in the r eading tutorials. As well as thi s i mage appearing in the Basics
tutorial the decision was made to include it in every reading tutorial as a
r e mi n d e r t o t h e u s e r a s e a c h l e s s o n mi g h t b e we e k s a p a r t , t h i s i s e n o u g h
ti me for someone to forget some par ts of the software.
Figure 9: Another page featured in the reading tutorials
Figur e 9 shows another page that was i mpor tant to the reading tutorials. It
consists of a list of common phr ases used in Scratch, phrases a child in
Y e a r 6 mi g h t n o t h a v e c o me a c r o s s b e f o r e . A s me n t i o n e d e a r l i e r i n f o r ma t i o n
featured in Figures 8 do not appear in the eastonhome.co.uk ( 2015)
tutorials but it is critic al infor mation that should be presented to children.
Thi s wi l l al so a ct as th e gl o ss ary p age fe atur ed i n a l o t o f pap er b as ed
tutorial books.
To further emulate Easton Home’s videos, the typical for mat of the reading
tutorials consisted of each page being a ‘step’ just like each video covered
a s mal l pi ece of th e whol e ga me . Ea ch pag e h as a ste p n u mbe r al o ng wi t h a
ti tl e to i ndi ca te wh at th e s tep woul d i nvol ve, ne xt a te xt bo x wi l l be on th e
left of the page that describes the step in sh ort sentences and a screenshot
wi l l t ake up th e ri g ht han d si d e o f t he pag e t hat wi l l sh o w e xac tl y wha t t he
text has described. Moreover, there are blank spaces around the page
wh er e chi l dren wi l l be en cour age d to wri t e a nd dra w, thi s fe atur e l i nk s ba ck
to teaching experi ments by Zosh (2013) .
44
Figure 10: A typical Step in the written tutorials
Figure 10 shows the first page in the The Basics reading tutorial that asks
the user to preform actions in Scratch. To bring in the VARK (1987) theories
t he se r e adi n g t utori al s ha ve to fe at ure wri ti n g a nd i ma ger y t here for e, a s t he
s cre en sho t s ho ws th e wri tte n i n stru cti on s wi l l al way s app ear on the le ft
h and si de an d a s cre ens hot of Scra tc h wi l l ap pear on t he ri g ht. Thi s wi l l be
t he ca se as l ong as th e si ze of th e sc reen sh ot al l o ws . So me ti me s t he wh ol e
W i n d o w w i l l no t n e e d t o b e s h o wn t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e mi g h t b e mo r e s p a c e f o r
text to appear el sewher e. F urthermor e, it is i mpor tant that there is
correlation between the text and the i mage according to multisensory theor y
by Pr aveen ( 2015). Ther efore, text that f eat ure s i mportant details like
Scripts and common phrases must be written exactly as they appear in
Sc rat ch, ot her wi se th e r eade rs wi ll g et co nfu sed , e sp eci al l y i f the re i s
si milar looking phr ases or options. Moreover, the design of the pages in this
tutorial are simplistic and basic, there aren’t any effects or colours to
distract the reader.
45
Figure 11: A screenshot of the The Basics tutorial in video form.
Figur e 1 1 shows a frame from the fir st video tutorial, thi s is about half way
t hrou gh the vid eo. The vide o follows th e sa me actions an d o ption s as t he
reading tutorial which results in the same project at the end. Si milarly to the
reading tutorials, the video tutor ials bring in the VARK (1987) theories by
including a pri marily video element and a secondar y audio element, as the
t ea cher i s r eco rdi ng th ei r ac ti on s i n Scr atc h t he y ar e n arra ti ng e xa ctl y wh at
is happening on screen.
As you can see from the video contro ls at the bottom of the screen this
particular video i s just shor t of 3 mi nutes long which is in the opti mal video
length suggested by Guo (2013) . The majority of the videos in all three
s epa rat e t uto ri al s a ver age a l en gth of 2 - 4 mi nu te s wi th the e xce pti on of th e
last video in the T he Basics which i s over 7 minutes long, this is because
this particular video demonstrates some advanced Script that r equires more
ti me.
46
6 .0 Discussion of First Data Collection Cycle
After contacting a number of pri mar y schools in the local ar ea one school
re pl i ed a nd wa s wi l l i ng to part ak e i n thi s pro je ct. Aft er an i ni ti al me eti n g
with the head of the school to discuss details and when all the necessary
DBS (Di sclosure and Barring Ser vice) check was received then the first
versions of the written and video tutorials can be taken into sessions of
year 6 pupils (Aged 10 and 11) of various experiences of computer use and
pr ogr a mmi ng. The fi r st ver si on of t he dat a col l ecti o n wi l l be hel d i n l o cal
pri ma ry s chool Engl and ’ s L ane Aca de my wi th a gr oup of 16 pu pi l s i n ye ar 6 .
6.1 First Session
The plan for the first lesson was to have the children take the online VARK
questionnaire and retri eve their VARK scores so that th ey can be compared
wi th how they perfor med in the tutorials as well as their personal opinions
o f t he tu tori al s at th e e nd of the se ssi o ns. As wel l a s hav e t he chi l dre n d o
the first tutorial which featured an introduction into Scratch. Unfortunately,
ti me became an issue and a few problems arisen such as some videos not
wor king on some machines, some pupils not being able to edit the VARK
scor es document that was prepared for them as well as the machines being
pr ei ns tal l ed wi th an ol der ver si on o f Sc rat ch. Th eref ore , t he deci si on was
ma d e to ju st d e di cat e the fi rs t sessi o n to the VAR K q ue sti onn ai re and to
make sure everything was accessible to everyone. F urther mor e, this session
helped discover that the W indows 8 notebooks the school possessed were
not up to the task for this project due to the conf using natur e some pupils
found in its interface and navigation. On the other hand, some pupils did get
a c han ce to l o ad up the wri t te n t utori al s an d h ad a shor t a mou nt of ti me t o
look through it, this should help them when they actually come to follow the
t uto ri al i n th e fol l o wi ng week .
Moreover, the first session was successful in retrieving the children’s VARK
scores and now that they have been recorded they don’t need to return to
t hi s so the fol l o wi ng wee ks c an be fo cus ed on fol l o wi ng t he tut ori al s a nd
observations made to their per formances.
6.2 Second Session
The second session as mentioned above, involved the pupils doing the fir st
t uto ri al whi c h fea ture d u si ng ba si c Scri pt to ha ve th e Scr at ch ma s cot (A c at)
to move based on user input and to have a dog catching the cat ( Script
con trolled). This tu torial also in clud ed a f e w e xtra step s a t the en d to
enhance the game if any pupils managed to finish the basic tutorial.
Th e fi r st par t o f the se ssi o n i nv ol ve d spl i tti ng the ro o m i nt o t wo hal ve s, on e
half would follow the written tutorial in the form of a PowerPoint
Pre sen ta ti on o nl i ne t here for e t hi s wo ul d req ui re t he m s wi tc hi ng b et we en the
tutorial Window and the Scratch Window. Originally, the plan was to print off
t he wri t ten tu tori al s for ea sy a cces s so th ey wo ul dn ’t hav e to s wi t ch
W i ndo ws bu t b ec aus e t he cl as s i ncl u ded 16 pu pi l s i ns tead o f t he pl an ned 10
– 12 it would require printing off over 300 pages so everyone would have a
copy, this wouldn’t be cheap or feasible. Moreover, the other half of the
room would be given headphones and would be required to follow the video
47
tutorial that is broken into steps (Four in total, for this tutorial). Again, the
p upi l s woul d ha ve to s wi tch be t wee n t he Scra tch W i ndo w a nd the vi de o
player Window.
Con seq uen tly, so me issue s aro se f ro m this se t u p. Firstly, a s me n tion ed
above, some laptops had problems running the videos so the pupils using
these laptops had to resort to using the written tutorials, therefore, there
we re mor e p upi l s d oi ng the wri t ten tut ori al s i n thi s wee k. Seco ndl y, th ere
were not enough laptops for every pupil this week because another class
were also using them so some pupils had to share whi ch proved to be
di f fi cul t wh en i t c a me to th e vi d eo t uto ri al s b eca us e o nl y o ne pupi l co ul d
have the headphones on. T his is an example of how educational resear ch
conducted in laboratories doesn' t match the ' messy conditions' (Brown,
1992) of the classroom.
F u r t h e r mo r e , s o me p u p i l s h a d g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y a c t u a l l y p e r f o r mi n g t h e t a s k
issued by the tutorials. They didn’t seem to understand what the tutorials
were asking them to d o and some even seemed confused at the concept of a
tutorial as a number of the class si mply read the written tutorials and
thought they had finished. This issue leads to believe this group of children
and maybe even the school has a whole does not perfor m a lot, if any,
l es so ns usi ng t he l ap top s and th ere fore ar en ’t fa mi l i ar wi t h thi s for ma t o f
lear ning. The assumption was made that children and teachers more so
these days would have been exposed to Youtube videos as Bull and Bell
(2 010 ) s ugg es t, ther efo re , th e p upi l s woul d be fa mi l i ar wi th at l eas t th e
video tutorials. This point did suggest to be somewhat true because the half
of the group that did the video tutorials progressed further in the tutorial
than the other half of the group. Mor e evidence can b e provided on this
p oi nt by s wi tchi n g t he gro ups i n t he ne xt se ssi o n so the vi de o t uto ri al gr oup
will do the written tutorials and vice versa.
Moreover , on the subject of the written tutorials, a majority of the pupils
once they under stood that they had to follow the tutorials themselves in
Scratch tend to skip the beginning steps and would per for m some of the
tasks later on thi s would obviously result in an incomplete Scratch project.
More so on that point, no pupil finished the tutorial and majority pro duced
si milar projects. T he assumption to be made here is that maybe the pupils
were finding their footing to a new for mat of learning and to a br and new
computer pr ogram and specifically, an ar ea, that being programmi ng/game
design.
On the other hand, aft er speaking to a few individuals about the tutorials
and Scratch, they shown understanding of what they had done. For example,
o ne pai r f ol l o we d t he tut ori al s o me wh at and pl ac ed so me Sc ri pt tha t had th e
dog Sprite look at the cat Sprite but they didn’t at first understand why the
dog Sprite wasn’t moving towards the cat Sprite. T his was because they
hadn’t included a “Move X steps” Script to the dog. Once they were pointed
t o t h e f i r s t s t e p o f t h e t u t o r i a l (W hi c h t h e ma jo r i t y mi s s e d o u t ) t h e p a i r
understood what the problem was straight away.
6.3 Third Session
On the third session the group was instructed to follow the racing game
tutorial, the two halves of the group were flipped thi s ti me round so that the
half that did the video tutorial would do the reading tutorial this week and
vice versa. This tutorial wa s a step up from the basic tutorial from last week
therefor e, the assumption was made that the students were encounter mor e
48
pr oblems this ti me r ound and no one would even finish the tutorial. Both
these assumptions were true.
Majority of the pupils in bot h gr oups got to the same stage of the tutorial
which was drawing a background that featured a track and a separate car
sprite that would move follow and can be manoeuvred left and right using
the arrow keys. This was around a third of the whole tutorial.
Some of the problems the students ran into included sprite management, for
example, some of the students were drawing their car design onto the
background therefore were not able to manipulate the car separately. This
mi ght be a common mistake that people new to sprite based game design do
or i t mi g ht be an i ssu e wi th the tu tori al s no t con ve yi ng the i nfor ma ti on
effectively.
Further mor e, other students spent too long actually designing their car
sprites which led to them not progressing to the technical sec tion of the
t u t o r i a l . T h i s mi g h t b e b e c a u s e t h e s t u d e n t s d i d n o t f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d h o w t o
u se th e b ui l d i n dr a wi ng to ol s there fore en ded up ma ki ng mi sta ke s. To
c oun ter thi s i ss ue i n fu rth er ses si o ns th ere coul d be a si mpl er wa y o f
designing the sprite or th e students could be given a premade for them to
i mpo rt and us e, thi s woul d the n gi v e the m e xperi e nce wi t h i mpo rti ng i t e ms
i nt o Sc rat ch but on t he oth er h and, l es s e xp eri enc e wi th the dr a wi ng tool s
wi thin the program.
Other than these issues, this particul ar group showed little signs of
pr ogr ession and learning of Scr atch, this is due to the lack of computer and
Scratch experiences of the pupils in this school and due to the lack of
interest in doing this activity.
6.4 Fourth Session
First thing to note about this particular session was that the group was
remar kably smaller than the other sessions because of an intervention
session some of the pupils were involved in, that happened at the same ti me
as this one. Instead of having 16 stu dents, this fourth week there were only
8. Consequently, this made managing the session as a whole a lot easier to
h andl e , f or i n sta nce , ther e was more ti me th at co ul d b e s p en t wi th ea ch
individual student. F urther mor e, it was also easier as well to slip t he group
into video tutorial and reading tutorial, because of these two reasons there
should be a clearer observation of progression in this session.
Moreover, because ther e wer e missing members of the group the deci sion
was made to have the remainder of the group do the racing game tutorial
a gai n. The gro up sh oul d b e fa mi l i ar wi th t he fi rst thi rd o f t hi s tut ori al and
should progress further than last session. Unfortunately, this is no t the
case, few students in this smaller gr oup got to the same stage they did last
ti me and this might be because the idea of starting a clean slate, so to
speak, wasn’t appealing. On the other hand, if their work from las t session
was saved and they were able to continue from that point then the students
would progress fur ther and by result, be exposed to more of Scratch,
including script and more sprite management.
49
6.5 First Cycle Evaluation
The fir st data collection was helpful in making clear what i mprovements
could be done to the reading and video tutorials to make the second run
mor e effective in teaching the material. One i mpr ovement that could be
made i s the length of each tutorial as we ll as the actual nature of the
material in the tutorial. It came to light that no student finished any of the
t h r e e t u t o r i a l s o v e r t h e f o u r we e k s t h a t t h e y h a d . T h i s mi g h t b e f o r a
number of reasons, firstly, this parti cular class h ad not had a lot of previous
pr ogr ammi ng/game design experience therefore, ever ything pr esented to
them in the four weeks was new and unfamiliar to them. Secondly, there i s a
p os si bi li ty th e t uto ri al s were to o l o ng i n ge neral , wi t h ti me i n the se s es si on s
being dedicated to setting up and logging into laptops, as well as technical
issues that did arise there wasn’t the ti me being spent on the actual tutorial
as previously thought. Therefore, the tutorials could be redesigned to be
shor ter but still being taught over the same amount of weeks, so the
students will have more ti me on the same tutorial.
O n t he poi nt o f pr evi ou s e xp eri en ce , t he thr ee tut ori al s mi g ht be too
complex for these st udents because the school does not provide any
pr ogr ammi ng/game design materials or teaching. Co nsequently, for the
second run of data collection the tutorials could be designed to create one
pr o jec t o ver fo ur wee ks i ns tea d o f ea ch wee k bei ng a di ffer ent pr o jec t. The
decision of the differ ent pr ojects came from the theor y of thr eshold
concepts, each week the students would learn one of these milestones but
there is no reason why the same thr eshold concepts could not be
i mplemented into one bigger pr oject.
Moreover , these four weeks involved a few technical difficulties, some that
were easily resolved but other s not so. In par ticular, there were problems
with accessing the files for the tutorials because the teacher that ran the
s e s s i o n s h a d l i mi t e d a c c e s s t o t h e s c h o o l ’s s y s t e m. T h e r e f o r e , f o r t h e n e x t
set of sessions the video and PDF (Portable Document F or mat) files that
con tain the tu torials co uld b e u ploa ded online to a file sh aring site so th at
t he st ude nt ’s or the te ach er will no t n eed to a cce ss t he school’s syst e m
instead all they need is internet access. The PDF files would either be
opened inside the web browser itself or through Adobe Reader, which is a
free to download application that is designed to read PDF files.
Lastly, the first session was dedicated to retrieving a VARK score from each
o f t he st ude nt s s o t hat t hey c ou l d b e co mp ared wi t h t he fee dba ck and
observations made at the end and throughout the sessions, although some
issues occurred such as the documents containing these scores weren’t
saved and so me fee dba ck do cu men ts at th e e nd wer e n ot being filled in
pr operl y, this lead to incompl ete data, therefore accurate observations
c oul dn ’t be pul l ed fro m t he m. For th e sec ond c ycl e, e xtra c are wi l l be ta ke n
to ensure these scores and data are recorded.
This table shows five student’s VARK scores and their preferred ch oice of
tutorial between reading and video.
Student’s VARK scores against their preferred choice of tutorials
50
Reading
Student 1
Student 2
X
X
Vi deo
Students’
VARK
Scores
V:7
A:8
R:6
K:5
V:7
A:8
R:8
K:10
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
X
X
X
V:3
A:10
R:12
K:4
V:6
A:10
R:12
K:7
V:16
A:15
R:15
K:16
Figure 12 Table showing VARK scores and preferred choice of tutorials of five students.
V = Video, A = Aural, R = Reading/write, K = Kinaesthetic
This table in figur e 12 features a sampl e of the class that took part in the
fi r st cy cl e of dat a col l ecti on . T hi s s a mpl e wa s cho se n b eca us e t hey ar e the
mo s t c o mpl et e d ata th at wa s r etri ev ed fro m t he fi rst c ycl e . T he fi rst t hi ng
to notice is the two students that chose the video tutorials as their prefe rred
tutorial didn’t have a their visual VARK score as their highest score, the
pr edict that was made befor e this fir st cycle was that if a student’s visual
VARK score was their highest then this student would prefer video and
therefor e, would lear n Scratc h more effectivel y fr om the videos. Although
some of the data did back up that pr ediction, it isn’t tr ue for every student.
On the other hand, both students that chose video in this table had high
aural scores therefore, there is evidence of a correlation between a high
aural score and the audio narration in the video tutorials.
Moreover, the last student on the table shows a high score on all four
areas, despite this the student preferred the reading tutorial. This could be
for a number of reasons, perhap s the ease of going back and for war d
through the pages made it easier for the student to find infor mation or the
t e c h n i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s o f t h e v i d e o t u t o r i a l s mi g h t h a v e b e e n a d e c i d i n g
factor.
Additionally, majority of the comments left by the students a t the end of the
sessions related to the video tutorials, there were compl aints about low
volume on the videos and from observing the students during the sessions
s o me di d hav e t rou bl e wi t h the vi de o pl a yer co ntr ol s, i n pa rti cul ar mo vi ng
forward and back t o the point in the video that they needed. Therefore, an
obvious i mpr ovement to the video tutorials would be to increase the volume
of the narration as well as educating the students briefly on the video
controls of the player.
Al so, one of the questions the students were asked at the end of the
sessions was on a scale of 1 to 10 how comfortable wer e they using Scratch
after these tutorials ( 1 being not comfor table and 10 being ver y
comfortable), majority of the students put between 4 – 6 on the scale. Thi s
is interesting as none of the students have had previous experience with
this sor t of material ( programmi ng/game design) though it i s a good sign
that the tutorials are doing a somewhat good job of giving the students the
infor mation they need to use Scr atch.
Ano the r q ues ti on the s tud ent s were a ske d o n t he que sti on nai re wa s “W hi ch
l es so n was y our fa vouri t e a nd wh y?” wi t h the t wo tut ori al s ( Ca t a nd D og an d
Racing game) being the options, because of technical issues the third
51
tutorial, the T ank game never happened. Out of the same five students that
appear in figure 9 four of them chose the second tutorial, the Racing game
and one student choice the first tutorial, the Cat and Dog. The of the
reasons a student gave for this was “Because we experienced the thrill of
learning new features, which are more advanced and technical” and another
said “We liked the racing one better than the basics one because its more
advanced than the basics and they are more fun”. These two comments ar e
si milar, they are both saying they liked the challenge and the features the
second tutorial introduced to them. This could suggest that the first tutorial
wa s ei th er too ea sy an d/or uni n tere sti ng . F urth er mor e, wh en i t c o mes t o
d esi gni n g t he se con d v ersi o n o f the se tu tori al s i t wi l l be be nefi ci al to l ook
closely at the content and difficulty pr esent ed in the Racing Game tutorial
and then use this to i mprove the next set of tutorials.
In additional, the students were also asked a number of questions about
specifics of the reading and video tutorials, such questions were for
example, was r eading/video tutorial clear? And did the reading/video tutorial
give you enough infor mation etc. Firstly, the reason behind such questions
is because if the students were g iven a general question asking for their
o pi ni ons fol l o wed by a te xt bo x, ma ny wo ul d h ave be en put o ff by i t. Thi s i s
because of their age and the assumpti on that they haven’t filled out a
questionnaire of this nature before. Also, it was i mportant to retr ieve
feedback of specific elements of the tutorials, like length and if they wer e
clear enough.
6.6 Head Teacher Interview
As mentioned in section 5.2.3, a set of interviews were planned to be held
wi th the teachers and head teacher . Unfortunately, due to ti me restraints on
the teacher’s end they weren’t available for any interviews. Although, the
head teacher was available to conduct one interview post the tutorial
sessions. It was beneficial to find out what computer r elated skills and
experience the teachers processed, because as discussed in section 1.1 the
UK gover nment is looking to introduce IT and computing to pri mary school s
in a bigger volume than it is already. It was inter esting to see how prepar ed
the teachers felt about such changes coming i nto their school.
As well as gathering feedback from the students, it was i mpor tant to speak
to the head teacher and di scuss the role and position of programmi ng in
pri mary school s as well as gather her opinions on the video and reading
t uto ri al s. T hi s wa s d oi ng i n th e f orm o f an i nter vi e w, the i nter vi e w wa s
infor mal and the head teacher was encour aged to expand on her answer s
and share her opinions.
Firstly, the interviewee asked the head teacher about their personal
background on programming and video game design which they responded
that they didn’t have any tr aditional programmi ng language experience such
as any C languages or Java, for example. But, they did use LOGO during
their ti me in pri mary school; LOGO is an educational pr ogrammi ng language
fro m 1967 that could be used to move a r obot around the screen
(r emembered commonl y as a turtle character) using commands issued by the
user . Further mor e, they spoke about their use of the BBC Micr o from 1981,
the BBC Micro computer is briefly mentioned in se ction 1.2. W ith this
p arti c ul ar kno wl edg e t he hea d t eac her men ti one d t hat t hey ha d a n i d ea of
what Scratch was and the concepts of sprites and scripts.
52
C on seq uen tl y, th ey had no t h ear d o f t he ne w BBC Mi cr o: Bi t whi ch i s due
out this year and is mentioned, again in section 1.2. This was surprising
because the BBC ar e pushing to get their new hardware into pri mar y schools
t o p ro mo te prog ra mmi ng wi t h chi l dre n. The he ad tea cher s ugg es ted th at
they had not heard of the BBC Micro: Bit because of the school’s low er than
average OFSTED reports (OFSTED are the Office for Standards in
Education, Children’s Services and Skills, “They inspect and regulate
services that care for children and young people” gov.uk (2016)). The head
teacher further suggested that the Acade my that runs the school may not
want to introduce a programmi ng cur riculum until the cur rent gr ades of
students etc. are i mproved. Therefor e, in relation to this project, it will more
i mportant now going into the second cycle than it was in the beginning o f
this project to design the tutorials in the way that tailors towards users that
have not had any exposur e to programmi ng of any sort in a school
e n v i r o n me n t . A d mi t t e d l y , i n t h e d e s i g n t h e f i r s t v e r s i o n o f t h e t u t o r i a l s s o me
of the ter minology could have been explained better. F urther more, as a
result of the OFST ED r eports the head teacher had no infor mation regarding
the UK government’s plan for a programmi ng curriculum that they plan to
i mplement in the next few year s. The head teacher did ask if the tut orials
incorporated the gover nment’s progr ammi ng curriculum whi ch the answer is
no. Instead of focusing on this parti cular progr ammi ng curriculum, this
pr oject focuses on the ideas from Fleming’ s VARK framework (1987), the
idea behind this project is that individuals learn differently from one
another.
Moreover, the head teacher was asked what exactly the children currently
use the school’s computer s for. They r esponded by saying the computers
were mostly used for gathering infor mation fr om the inter net for use wi th
mo d ul es an d l e sso ns th ey we re doi ng at th e ti me . T he chi l dren woul d u se
sear ch engines to find infor mation and copy and paste it into Microsoft W ord
as well as using the BBC’s Bitesize website (W hich is a website dedicated
t o o ffe ri ng r es ourc es t o k ey st age 1 an d 2 c hi l dren for hel p wi th su b je ct s i n
the UK’s curri culum.) From this infor mation it could be concluded that the
c hi l dren i n thi s p arti c ul ar sch ool ha ve ba si c n avi ga ti onal ski l l s o f a W i ndo ws
based computer as well as under standing of conc epts such as copying text
or an i mage. T his might be why some students in the fir st sessions have
trouble contr olling the video in the video player and why some weird
confused to asked to navigate to the Scratch website to access the newest
version instead of using the older version that are preinstalled on the
laptops.
Finishing off the interview, the head teacher gave some opinions on the
t uto ri al s b ase d o n spe ndi ng a fe w mi nu te s wi th the m, thi s i n vol v ed qui c kl y
going through a reading tutorial and watching and listening to one of the
vi d eo s, thi s i s al s o wi tho ut ac tual ly f ol l o wi ng the tu tori al s on Scr atch . Th e
head teacher said that the reading tutorials were detailed and the way they
were for matted were advantageous for r emembering infor mation, the
children could move for war ds and backwards through the pages if they
n eeded to r ecall something. F urther more, they mentioned that they
preferred the video tutorials personally because they could see exactly what
they needed to do, they could see wher e the mouse on the computer was
g oi ng and wh ere to l eft cl i c k a nd wh er e t o ri g ht cl i ck. Al tho ugh thi s i s
l i mi t e d f e e d b a c k i t i s i mp o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t t h e h e a d t e a c h e r d i d n ’ t h a v e
any negative points to say about the tutorials. As a result of this feedback,
d uri ng the s eco nd cy cl e of the da ta c ol l ecti on more ti me wi l l be gi ven i n t he
i nt ervi e w wi th the h ead te ach ers an d t he tea ch ers as wel l , th ey sh oul d be
given enough ti me to sit down with at least one part of the tutorials and
53
follow them. T hen they will be able to give more meaningful feedback, this
is i mportant because the teach er s know the students in this par ticular
s ch ool a nd ther efo re, wi l l be abl e t o ma ke poi n ts abo ut el e me nts o f th e
tutorial they might not under stand given their computing experience. This
the first cycle there wasn’t an opportunity to speak to any of the te achers
d ue to ti me r es trai nt s wi th th e pr o je ct as wel l as wi thi n th e sch ool .
6 .7 Summar y of Fir st Cycle
The fir st cycle was a pilot run that was advantageous to highlighting many
ar eas of i mpr ovement in the actual design of the tutorials and the appr oach
into how to bring in and expose the material to the students. W ith the
i mpr ovements to the design and the structur e the second cycle should show
that the second iter ation of the inter ventions are a more effect ive design for
teaching Scratch , such changes involve alterations to the length of the
t uto ri al s, i n par ti cul ar th e vi deo tut ori al s . N e xt t he act ual con ten t o f t he
ma t eri al of the tu tori al wi l l b e gi v en s o me revi si o n.
Moreover, the results that were displayed in figure 10 from section 5.5 were
u ne xpe cte d a s i t wa s tho ugh t t hat s tu den ts wh o m r ecei ved a hi gh vi su al
mar k in their VARK questionnaire would prefer the video tutorials over the
reading ones but out of the 5 stude nts that gave results this is not the case,
although this mi ght be for a number of reasons. For example, the quality of
the video tutorials might be a factor or the student might have received a
si milarly high read/write score in the questionnaire.
Furth er mor e, the head teacher inter view helped to understand the technical
k no wl edg e a nd e xp eri en ce of the st ude nt s a t t hi s parti c ul ar sc hool , wi th th e
infor mation going for war d the difficult of the tutorials as well as the
s tru ct ure and del i ve r y of the l es son s woul d be ad ju ste d i n l i ne wi t h thi s .
Al so, after discussing feedback about the tutorials from the students and
the head teacher it was clear that the reading tutorials were lacking behind
in design from the video tutorials so when it comes to making chan ges and
i mpr ovements for the second cycle more care will be taken to ensure both
tutorials ar e at a high quality as well as both as at the same quality.
Consequently, it would be difficult to measur e levels of effectiveness and
pr odu ctiv ene ss of th e tut ori als if on e were no do ubt of a be tter qu ality t han
the other.
In conclusion to the first cycle, the reading and video tutorials were
somewhat effective in introducing Scratch and its featur es to newcomer s of
video game design and pr ogramming. T he feedback given in section 6.5
describes the student’s ability to use Scratch af ter the tutorials has
c on fi den ce . Goi n g f or ward , t he feed bac k and ob ser vati o ns wi l l hel p tai l or a
second version of tutorials and session structur e to further i mprove
effectiveness and pr oductiveness of a VARK focused model to teaching
pri mary school children intr oductor y level pr ogrammi ng.
54
7.0 Second DBR Cycle
Using feedback and observations from the sessions that were the first pilot
DBR cycle i mpr ovements have been made to the video and reading tutorials
as well as the structure of the sessions as well as how data is retrieved and
recor ded. Further mor e, this ti me round there will be more focus on what the
teacher s and the head teacher think of programmi ng in schools in general
a s wel l a s t hei r t hou ght s on the tut ori al s tha t wi l l be pr ese nte d to thei r
students
7.1 Design
Upon the results that were discussed in section 6.5 such as observations
that no student completed any of the pr evious tutorials the decision was
made to rethink the structure of the three current tutorials. Instead of
having three tutorials have instr uct the students to design thr ee completely
di f fere nt pro je ct s t hi s cy cl e wi l l i nv ol ve on e pr o jec t t hat wi l l be bro ke n u p
into key threshold concepts. The threshold concepts that were discussed in
section 4.1 are still relevant therefore, the new structure of the tutorials will
be a first part dedicated to teaching and developing the student’s ability to
manage Sprites, and this includes making, i mpor ting Sprites and editing
costumes.
N e xt, par t t wo f eat ure d a tut ori al de di cat ed to Scri pt s and addi n g
i nt era cti vi t y t o t he pro je ct, t hi s wi l l i nv ol ve l i nki ng toge the r a nd addi n g
Script to the Sprites that the stud ents created in the first part. This
approach should be easier for the chi ldren to understand and follow, instead
of three different projects that confuse d the students somewhat, as was
observed.
As wel l as the se ch ang es to th e t ut ori al s, th ere wi l l be cha nge s to the
structure of the sessions week by week. In the first cycle the stude nts were
gi v en one tu tori al a wee k o ver fo ur we ek s, thi s s eco nd cy cl e wi l l sti ll b e
over four weeks but because there will only be two parts to one tutorial
i ns tea d o f thre e di f fer ent tu tori al s t he st ude nts wi l l be mor e ti me to ca tc h u p
if they didn’t finish the first part from the last we ek. Therefore the new
s tru ct ure wi l l go: fi rs t wee k wi l l i ntro du ce the tu tori al s an d e xpl ai n wh at
t he y wi l l be goi n g a s wel l as ha vi ng th e stu den ts do th e VAR K onl i ne
q ues ti onn ai re to r etri e ve thei r sc ore s. On t he se cond wee k t he st uden ts wi l l
b e i ntr odu ce d t o t he Spri tes t utori al wh ere the y wi l l spe nd the en ti re l e ss on
f ol l o wi ng i t , mo reo ver , the cl a ss wi l l be spl i t i nt o t wo l i ke i n the fi r st cy cl e;
one group for video tutorial and the other for reading tutorial. F urther more,
t he thi rd we ek wi l l be us ed to i n trod uce t he Scri pt s t utori al as wel l as gi v e
students ti me to finish the Sprites tutorial, if they have n ot finished the
Spri t es tu tori al t han th ey wi l l not b e gi v en the Scri p ts tu tori al u nti l th ey do .
And fi nal l y , t he fou r th an d fi n al wee k the st ude nt s wi l l be gi v en the ch anc e
to catch up and finish whatever they are doing, some students might use
this ti me to develop extra skills if they have already finished by this point
other wise, the ti me can be used to finish both tutorials. Further more,
depending on the progress of the students, feedback sheets can be given to
those students who have finished so they can voice their opinion on the
structure and tutorials, this shouldn’t take any more than five minutes.
Th en, si mi l arl y to the fi rs t cy cl e, th e VAR K s core s of the s tud ent s wi l l be
compared and discussed against their feedback that they gave. From these
55
results, obser vations can be made and opinions can be for med about the
effectiveness of the tutorials in the current for m.
Al so, going into the second cycle some mor e thought needed to be put into
how the tutorials were actually going to be delivered to the students.
Considering the feedback gave by the students as well as observations
made by the teacher during the sessions, a lot of students had small
t ec hni cal trou bl es wi th na vi ga ti ng t o t he app ropri a te fol der s con tai ni n g t he
tutorials and as well as swapping through the different Windows on the
laptops, as one W indow contained the tutorial either in .Doc for mat or video
for mat and another W indow conta ined an online ver sion of Scratch thr ough
t he we b br o wser . Thi s s etu p l ed to so me con fusi o n wi th stu den ts , some f el t
l os t wi th th e c on sta nt s wappi n g b et we en W i ndo ws so eve ntu al l y s top
swapping between them. Therefore, going forward, an alternative option
should be considered. For example , the students could be given an
additional screen to help counter act any confusion until they are mor e
comfortable using the W indows system. Thi s second screen could be
another laptop or a tablet, this device would be dedi cated to either playing
t he vi deo t utori al s or vi e wi ng the re adi ng tu tori al s i n t he PDF f or ma t, but
this would mean these devices don’t necessary need to be as powerful as
the machines running Scratch. Although, this solution would all depend on
the resour ces the school could provide; during the head teacher interview, it
was mentioned that the school did have i Pads available so depending on the
number this solution is viable. On the contrary, thi s solution may go against
Mayer’s and Moreno’s (2003) work on the nine ways to reduce cognitive
load; one of the types described in their work in called “Essential
pr oc es s in g ” whi ch i s when bo th se nso ry ch ann el s ar e o v erl o ade d. Th ey
suggest that there is better transfer of infor mation when, for example, the
printed words are placed near corresponding parts of the graphics.
Consequently, adding an additional screen to the set up in these sessions
would go against this and would require the student to li terally turn their
h ead a way fr o m the s cree n s ho wi ng Scr atc h t o a no ther s cree n di spl ayi n g
t he tut ori al . T here for e, thi s may l ea d t o cog ni ti ve ove rl oad whi ch i s
something that is i mpor tant to avoid to increase effectiveness of teaching
and learning. Although placing a second scr een or tablet/i Pad centimetres
away from the main screen this might not be an issue.
On the other hand, if for whatever reason the fore mentioned solution
pr oves to be not possible then perhaps the a small section of the first
session could be dedicated to teaching the students how to effectively
navigate between the web browser and the Window that contains the
tutorials, whether it be a video player or Adobe Reader. Alternatively,
another solution is to put all the resources online so that the student would
o nl y h av e t o s wi t ch bet we en t wo ta bs i n a we b b ro wser . T he PDF tutori al s
as well as the video tutorials could be uploaded to a file sharing site such
a s Goo gl e D ri ve and wi t h t he fi l es b ei ng ma de pu bl i c th e stu den ts coul d al l
access these files and would be able to display them in the browser,
t here for e, wi th thi s b ei ng p ai red wi th an oth er tab di spl a yi ng the onl i n e
version of Scratch the students would only be using one W indow. Another
outcome of thi s is, the teacher would not then have to rely on the school’s
own network for adding or r emoving resour ces as they would be on a system
t hat i s bei ng co ntrol l ed b y t he teac her di re ctl y. The onl y i s sue wi t h thi s
direction is that 10 to 15 students will be accessing the same files and this
mi gh t cau se so me sl o wd o wn a nd unr es pon si ven es s o f the s yst e m.
Moreover, as in the first cycle the students will again partake in the VARK
q ues ti onn ai re o nl i ne s o tha t t hei r s cor es i n vi sual , aur al , r ead / wri t e a nd
56
ki n ae sth eti c ca n b e re tri ev ed and c o mp are d wi t h t hei r fee dba ck at the en d
a s wel l a s o bser va ti ons ma de duri n g t he se ssi on s. As thi s se co nd cycl e wi l l
i nv ol ve a di ffer ent gr oup of chi l dren th en ta ki ng the VAR K q ue sti on nai re wi l l
b e n ece ss ary . F urth er mor e, th e fi rs t se ssi on wi l l al so at te mp t to gai n a
b ett er unde rs tandi n g o f the i ndi vi du al s tude nt ’s e xperi en ce wi t h c o mp uter s
a nd i n par ti cul ar , p rogr a mmi ng. A Mi cr os oft W ord do cu me nt wi l l be pro du ced
t o a sk s tud ent s qui ck , si mpl e q uesti o ns . Thi s ap proa ch wi t h t he pre s es si on
questionnaire was somethin g that was meant to take place in the first
session of the fir st cycle but due to technical issues and ti me r estraints
there was only enough ti me for the students to do the VARK questionnaire.
As a result of this, the questionnaire is already produced and there is no
reason to revise the contents of it.
Mo reo ver , a fte r t he se ssi on s wi th t he st ude nts ha ve ta ken pl a ce, th ere wi l l
b e sepa rat e s es si on s wi th i ndi vi dual tea che rs and th e h ead t eac her. Th ese
s es si on s wi l l gi ve t he sc hool sta ff a c han ce to sh are th ei r th ough ts on
pr ogr ammi ng in pri mar y schools and how effective they thought the tutorials
were on their students . As mentioned in section 2.7, Shaughnessy and
Fulgham (2011) suggested that teachers are still an i mpor tant asset to
classrooms , even with the growth of individual based lear ning from tools
such as the inter net . T heir thoughts and opinions ar e i mportant, despite
this.
7 .2 Implementation
Thi s s ec ti on wi l l d e mon str ate t he i mp r ov e men ts th at we re i n cor pora te d i nt o
the reading and video tutorial s that were derived from the evaluation of the
fi r st cy cl e fee dba ck and ob ser va tio ns di sc us sed i n sec ti on 6.5 . As wel l a s
making i mprovements directly fr om the feedback from teachers and students
t here wi l l be al ter ati on s ma de to th e d esi gn an d stru ct ure o f th e t utori al s
and sessions according to the theories discussed in the entirety of literature
review or section 2.0. This section will be split into reading tutorials and
video tutorials, focusing on the changes and i mprovements made to increase
the effectiveness of the content as well as the delivery of the tutorials.
As mentioned in section 6.1 a questionnaire was pr oduced in the first cycle
wi th questions that were ai med at better understanding the student’s
e xpe ri enc e wi th co mp ut ers . Bel o w ar e the 4 que sti on s the st ude nt s wi l l be
a sk ed to an s we r b efor e the y star t f ol l o wi ng the t utori al s . T hes e q uesti o ns
wi l l be gi v en to the m d uri ng the fi rs t se ssi on al on g wi th the VAR K
q ues ti onn ai re. Both of t hes e q ues ti on nai res wi l l ma ke up the fi rs t wee k; th e
t uto ri al s wi l l s tar t t he fol l o wi ng wee k.
Pl ease take some ti me to answer these questions below:
Do you have computer or laptop at home?
If yes, are you a frequent user of this computer or laptop?
Have you had any previous experience of maki ng a video game?
57
If yes, was it more design focused or progr ammi ng focused? (Tick both, if
applicable)
Have you used online tutorials before in the form of reading guides and/or
videos?
Have you used the computer softwar e Scratch before?
The questions above are si mple, easy to answer questions ai med at pri mary
school children, these questions only require a yes or no answer as well as
a short sentence explaining why if they answered yes.
7.3 Reading Tutorials
Th e r eadi ng tu tori al part o f t he i n ter ve nti on s wi l l b e di s cu sse d i n thi s
s ec ti on, her e scr een sho ts ac co mp a ni ed by di sc us si ons wi l l ou tl i ne th e way
the reading tutorials were built as well as the reasoning behind how and
why they were built this way.
Figure 13: Screenshot of Tutorial Part1 Reading version
Figure 13 is a screenshot that shows the first part of the tutorial in reading
for mat, the fir st thing to note here i s that the r eading tutorials are now in a
PDF for mat instead of a Micr osoft W ord (.doc) for mat. This deci sion was
made because of the obser vations and comments by students that some of
t he i ma ge s i n the l ast re adi ng tu tori al s we ren ’t ve ry cl ear an d o n some
58
occasions the teacher had to manually resize the i ma ges in the W ord
documents so the students could see what they needed to, this obviously
distur bed the for mat and text of the rest of the document.
One of the advantages of PDF is that the content is somewhat more
scalable, ther efore, the students can zoom i n to see the i mages more
cl e arl y wi th out di st urbi ng t he te xt b eca us e t he te xt sc al es al ong wi t h the
i mages. On the other hand, because of the nature of PDF s it is more
difficult to edit, if there is a clear gr ammar mistake etc. that is found during
a s es si on i t ca nno t b e al t ered wi t ho ut the ori gi nal W ord doc u men t, so e xtra
c are wi l l be ta ken to s pel l and gr amma r che ck th e con ten t.
Figure 14: Screenshot of Tutorial Part1 Reading version, highlighting the objective of the tutorial
Figure 14 another screenshot of the PDF reading tutorial part 1. This part of
the tutorial explains the objective of the tutorial which is to design and
i mport all the appropriate Sprites into Scratch. In this tutorial the student
wi l l s p e n d t i me g e t t i n g f a mi l i a r wi t h t h e “ p a i n t n e w Sp r i t e ” a n d “ I mp o r t
Spri t e f ro m fi l e” bu tt ons a s wel l as the C os tu me ta b a s l o ng wi th th e d esi gn
tools such as the “ Br ush” tool. T his for mat is different to the for mat of the
last tutorials, in section 4.3 the for mat i s describe d as being three different
t uto ri al s h ave ea ch ai m t o d ev el op thr ee di ffer ent pr o je ct s. The de cisi o n for
this change comes fr om the theor y of thr eshold concepts (Cousin, 2006).
Moreover, clear threshold concepts were decided upon during the design of
the first cycle (section 4.2) and wer e i mplemented into the three tutorials
but upon observation the three different projects from week to week
confused the students therefore, the tutorials were changed to develop just
one project over four weeks. The pr oject is the tank game that was designed
in section 4.2 but during the first cycle the students never got to perform
this tutorial because of technical issues, therefore it was redesigned and
repurposed. This first part of the tutorials focuses on the creation of Sprites
for the tank game because the under standing and management of Sprites is
an i mportant threshold concept that the students need to overcome.
59
Additionally, because of the contain and for mat of the reading tutorials, that
i s th at i t co nsi s ts of te xt an d i mage s thi s me an s tha t ther e ar e t wo co gni ti ve
channels being sti mulated instead of infor mation being sent down one thi s
i s cal l ed of f -l oadi n g. T hi s wi l l s top co gni ti ve ov erl oad t hat was di sc us se d i n
section 2.4 ( Mayer and Moreno 2003) , fur ther more, another type of reducing
cogniti ve overload i s i mplemented; this is segmenting. Segmenting is
d es cri bed as “ Al lo w t ime bet wee n s uc ce ss iv e b it e -s ize s egm ent s ” ( Ma yer
and Moreno 2003), this relates to the way the parts of the tutorials was put
together , as par t one is pri marily Sprites and part two is pri marily Scripts
based. These are bite size parts that take around an hour to complete that
f oc us on the s a me su b je ct . Moreo ver , seg m e n ti ng al so r equi re s the co nte nt
to be learner controlled, which by the abil ity to go back and forward through
the pages of the PDF, it is learner controlled .
Figure 15 Screenshot of Tutorial Part 2 Reading version
Figure 15 shows tutorial part 2 which is the part of the tutorials that focuses
o n a not her thr esh ol d con cep t; Scri p ts . I n t hi s tut ori al th e stu den ts wi l l op en
u p t hei r wor k fro m th e pr evi ou s l es so n whi ch wi l l i ncl ud e al l t he Sp rit es th at
ar e n eed ed for th e g a me, t h ey wi l l the n b egi n to add Scri p t t o t he Spri te s to
gi v e the pro je ct ga me me ch ani cs an d i nt era cti vi t y. T hi s tut ori al wi l l onl y be
given to the students once they have completed part one, other wise the
Spri t es wo n’ t b e p res ent i n t hei r pro je ct s to add th e Sc ri p ts to . Thi s
decision was made purely because during the first cycle none of the
students had completed any of the tutorials fully, so now there is a
requirement to finish the previous one to continue. Consequently, the
students won’t be starting from sc ratch on a new project each week like
they had to do during the first cycle . So they can pick up from where they
left off the previous week, therefore, there is a higher chance that the
students will complete the tutorials and finish with a wor king, functi oning
tank game.
Additionally, these tutorials in their current form also incorporate the work
of Praveen ( 2015) about mul tisensor y techniques, as mentioned in section
2.6, Praveen suggests that “to simulate visual reasoning and learning” i t is
60
mor e effec tive to use more than one sensor y channel making developing
teaching materials, in these tutorials this is done by text and screenshots
next to each other on a page.
7.4 Video Tutorials
T h i s s e c t i o n , s i mi l a r l y t o s e c t i o n 6 . 3 , wi l l o u t l i n e t h e i mp l e me n t a t i o n
decisions of the video tutorials in this second phrase of design. Screenshots
will acco mpany the discussion but as these par ticular tutorials as videos
and ther efore, are meant to be watched and listen to with the Scratch
program at hand the screenshots won’t present an accurate picture of these
materials.
From the feedback gained in section 6.5 the video tutorials haven’t changed
that much in design, this is because the students didn’t have any major
i s sue s wi th the vi d eo tut ori al s other t h an th e a udi o vol u me was sl i gh tl y l o w,
t here for e, vol u me was on e s mal l thi n g t hat was co nsi de r ed wh en recor di ng
these new videos. If the volume appear ed to be too low after the r ecording
then the volume can be artificially altered using the tools built into
Camtasia Studio 8, which is the software that was used to r ecor d the screen
and record the narration.
Further mor e, as the decision was made to change the str ucture of the
tutorials from the original design of three different projects to one project in
two par ts, this meant that the videos had to be rer ecor ded. Consequently,
this meant that mor e planning and consider ation went in to the video
tutorials before recording started. Firstly, taking what was learnt from Guo’s
wor k on opti mal video length ( 201 3) that the original tutorials drew upon
( section 4.2) the videos wer e to be split down into small chucks of only a
f e w mi n u t e s l o n g . Mo r e o v e r , a s t h e t u t o r i a l s we r e t o b e i n t wo p a r t s , e a c h
p art wa s to be de si gned to t ake aro und an ho ur t o co mpl e te; t hi s was
because that is how long the school required these sessions take. On the
o ther ha nd, t he vi deo s wer en’ t bein g d esi gn ed to ta ke e xa ctl y 60 mi n ute s to
complete because these sessions as the first ti me majority of the students
will be exposed to Scratch a nd therefore, aren’t going to understand the
t uto ri al s s trai g ht a way so ti me mu s t be al l o wed fo r t he m to re wa tc h the
videos until they understand and prefor m what they must do.
T h e v i d e o t u t o r i a l s we r e s p l i t i n t o s e c t i o n s wi t h e a c h v i d e o a i mi n g t o b e
a r o u n d 2 t o 3 mi n u t e s l o n g , t h i s r e s u l t e d i n t h e r e b e i n g 7 v i d e o s f o r p a r t 1
o f t h e t u t o r i a l . I n t o t a l p a r t 1 wo u l d t a k e 1 1 mi n u t e s t o wa t c h wi t h o u t
stopping, although, as mentioned in the previous par agraph the students
will stop the video to go back and wat ch parts again as well as stop the
video to actually preform the task on Scratch itself. Going back to the graph
and studies per for med by Guo (2013), looking back at the graph in figure 3
the dip in median ti me spend watching star ts at the 9 to 12 minute m ar k,
therefore, if a student prefer to watch all the videos first non -stop before
g oi ng bac k and re wa tc hi ng the m, f or e xa mpl e, th en the vi de os sh oul d k eep
the student interested during the entire length. F urther mor e, the second
part of the video tutorials are double par t 1 at 22 minutes long in total and
there being 10 videos all together.
61
Figure 16: Screenshot showing the folder containing the videos for Part 2 of the video tutorials
Moreover , the reason for these higher numbers is fir stly, because Script in
Scratch as a concept and in execution is more difficult than Sprite
ma n ag e men t so the ref ore, wi l l ta ke l ong er t o e xpl ai n . Se condl y, the
s tru ct ure thi s se co nd cy cl e i s ta kin g ( t wo p a rt tut ori al o ver fo ur week s)
there might be a chance a student will finish earlier than the others. So
instead of them waiting for the lesson to finish this student can engage in
a n ‘e xtra s’ s ecti o n whi ch wi l l i nvol v e adv anc ed Scri pti ng t ech ni que s. T hi s
extras section could only appear in the Script part of the tutorials because
there is move to i mpr ove the mechanics of the game as well as introduce
new ones, wher eas, in the Sprites part there are only a finite number of
Sprites needed for the game to func tion.
7.5 Discussion of Second Data Collection Cycle
After the reading and video tutorials, as well as the structure and delivery
o f t he se ssi o ns wer e r ede si gne d fol l o wi n g o bse rva ti on s fr o m the s tud ent s
a nd tea che rs duri ng t he fi rst c ycl e of dat a col l ec ti o n, the t utori al s wi l l
br ought into another school and a si milar set of sessions took place.
Fi rs tl y, i t was ap prop ri ate to di s cus s co mp uti n g e xpe ri enc e wi thi n the s cho ol
and compare it to the per vious school, as mentioned in the first data
collection cycle, pr evious computing and video game design/development
experience is one of the elements that would deter mine the effectiveness of
the reading and video tutorials, simpl y because students with mor e
computing experience should be able to pick up using th e Scr atch
application and follow the tutorials quicker than those with little to no
pr evious computing experience. Consequently, in ter ms of computing
education provided by the school the students in the second school had
zero experience or teaching in video game design or any programmi ng
lessons but they did use the school’s laptops regularly for word processing
a nd i n tern et res ear ch for ot her sch ool s ub jec ts ; thi s i n for ma ti on was
o btai n ed fro m an i nter vi e w wi t h the cl a ss ’s reg ul ar tea cher .
7.5.1 Assistant Head Teacher Interview
During the second cycle of data collection there was an opportunity to
interview the class’s teacher wh o also had the joint role of assistant head
t ea cher . Thi s t eac her wa s pre sen t f or the ma jori t y o f ses si on s a nd eve n
tried to help the children during the sessions, whether it was technical
i s sue s o r g ener al hel p wi th t he tutori al s .
62
The interview and the q uestions answered to this teacher were identical to
the questions asked to the head teacher from the first school. Firstly, the
teacher was asked about any per sonal computing experience; the only
experience they had was word processing which is a skill the y use daily in
their wor k at school. Moreover, they mentioned a course that the teachers
at this school wer e encouraged to go on ( It was made clear that they didn’t
n eed to at ten d thi s cou rse ), thi s co urs e i nv ol ved Scr at ch, whi ch i s wh y the
teacher had no trouble aiding the students with their pr oblems in class.
Al though, the teacher mentioned that they didn’t have an oppor tunity to
expand or use the skills acquired from that course .
Further mor e, the teacher was asked if they knew anything about the UK’s
g overnment’s plans for computing in pri mary school curriculum, they said
that they knew some of their plans and the fore mentioned training with
Scratch was part of that but nothing else has come of it.
Consequently, it is worth mentioning that the governm ent were pushing the
new computing curriculum for the new school year ( September 2015) there
has been no more news on this at this ti me ( April 2016) . Also, the BBC
Micro Bit (That was discussed in section 1.2) is also a year late as they
s ai d tha t e ver y st u den t i n yea r 7 wo ul d h ave a cce ss to on e b y no w, an d t hat
the Mi cro Bit would be commer cially available to ever yone.
Next, the teacher was asked they the children in her class use the school’s
l a p t o p s f o r ; t h e y s a i d t h a t t h e i r u s e wa s l i mi t e d a n d t h a t i t w a s u s e d
pri marily for lear ning suppor t, for example, using the internet to collect
research and place it in a Micr osoft W ord document (Therefore, some word
pr ocessing). Also some online resources are used such as Number shark and
BBC Bitesize. This use of c omputer s is common in pri mary, as the students
in the first school used their laptops for exactl y the same activities.
Moreover , the teacher was then asked about their opinion on pr ogrammi ng
in schools; their answer was positive in that they thought it wa s “ Impor tant”
and “ Exciting” and that ther e just needs to be more opportunities in pri mary
schools. Also, they me ntioned that the children are not too young to be
star ting programmi ng at a pri mar y school level .
Lastly, they were asked their opinions about the reading and video tutorials.
The teacher was shown both tutorials and had the chance to listen and
wa t ch a vi deo tu tori al wi th hea dpho nes on . Al th oug h, the te ac her was n’ t put
in the same situation as the students; they did not have multiple sessions to
follow the tutorials and made a game i n Scratch. Therefore, given the
c oupl e of mi nu tes th ey ha d wi th bo th tut ori al s the y sai d tha t the y p re fer th e
reading tutorial because it i s “Easy to look back on” and “Breaks it down
better”. And that the video tutorials were “Clear” “Easy to understand” and
they liked the fact that they were br oken down into small two mi nute videos.
Another i mportant point to note i s, that the teacher mentioned the technical
pr oblems the students faced in t heir sessions and agreed that th e hardware
in the school were not up to the task of that the tutorials were trying to do.
This point is compar able to what was seen in the first school also.
The points made above and what they mean in ter ms of the tutorial s going
forward and of the PRQ were discussed in a later section.
63
7.5.2 Discussion of Student’s VARK Scores
Student’s VARK scores against their preferred choice of tutorials
Student 1
Reading
Student 2
Student 3
X
Vi deo
X
Students’
VARK
Scores
V:4
A:8
R:3
K:8
Student 4
X
X
V:9
A:9
R:8
K:10
Student 5
V:9
A:9
R:12
K:11
X
V:8
A:13
R:7
K:7
V:6
A:10
R:4
K:13
Figure 17: Table showing VARK scores and preferred choice of tutorials of five students.
V =
= Aural, R = Reading/write, K = Kinaesthetic
Vi deo, A
As wi t h t he l a st da ta col l ec ti on cycl e t he stu den ts were as ked to ta ke th e
VARK questionnaire on the fir st session, this ti me r ound mor e students
finished the questionnaire and their results were there to be recorded (In
the first school, many students turned their laptops off before the scor es
were recorded etc.) but for the purposes of fair comparison, five random
students wer e taken from the sample and their VARK scores are displayed
i n fi gure 17 al on g wi th thei r pre ferre d choi c e o f tut ori al (R eadi n g or vi d eo) .
Th ei r pr efer red ch oi ce of tu tori al al on g wi th oth er g ener al fe edb ac k
questions were recorded on their last session, after three, one hour
sessions using Scratch and the tutorials.
One thing to note in figure 17 is that students 2 and 4 have high visual
scores (9 and 8, respectively), although, both students preferred the
reading tutorials by the end of the sessions, as opposed to the video
tutorials.
7.6 Discussion and Reflection of the Project
Thi s s ec ti on wi l l a tte mp t to bri ng th e l i tera tur e a nd the de vel op me nt o f t he
tutorials as well as the data gathered from the school sessions together to
reflect on the project and to discuss again the objectives of the project as
we l l as th e p ri mary re sear ch qu esti on . Th e PRQ i s a s f ol l o ws :
How effective might tutorials designed around the major learning ar eas of
the VARK fr amewor k be to teaching pri mar y school students entry level
pr ogr ammi ng and game design?
And further project objectives:
To investigate the experience of a student using a tut orial tailored towards
their learning preference.
To explore the advantages and disadvantages of such tailored tutorials
against traditional methods of teaching in class rooms.
64
To start, the tutorials that were designed and developed for this project tha t
dr ew fr om appr opriate literatur e wer e somewhat effective in teaching
pri mary school students pr ogramming, but, the effecti veness depended on
ma n y ci rc u ms tan ce s. Th ese are as f ol l o ws an d wi l l be di s cus se d i n mo r e
detail:




The size of the group
Th e h ard war e a nd sof t ware available
Volunteering vs. non volunteering
Te ach er ’s kn o wl ed ge
Firstly, the size of the group altered the effectiveness of the tutorials for a
f e w r e a s o n s . O n e , i s t h a t d u r i n g t h e s e c o n d c y c l e t h e s c h o o l h a d a li mi t e d
number of laptops, therefore, there was one pair between one laptop. This
lead to issues when it came to the VARK questionnaire as it is a personal
q ues ti onn ai re tha t n eed s t o b e a nswe re d o n t hei r o wn an d n ot i n a pai r,
f urt her mo re, th ere wa s al so an i ssu e whe n i t ca me t o t he vi deo t utori al s as
there can only be one pair of headphones to each laptop, this meant that
only one student could listen to the video at a ti me. On the other hand,
there weren’t any problems with the reading tutorial as both students could
read it. And, when it came to actually making the game in Scratch, only one
student could control the mouse at any one ti me.
Moreover , a bigger group requires the teacher to potentially assist mor e
s tu den ts i f th ey ha d a ny i ssu es , t hi s wa s a pr obl e m th at oc curr ed i n t he fi rst
few sessions at the second school; there were many technical issues to
over come that majority of the students faced, it took mor e ti me to get
through them all, there were 30 students in this class. Therefore, both
tutorials woul d be more effective wi th a smaller gr oup because each student
should get a computer to themselves, which would allow them to work at
their own rate and there would be less strain on the teacher as well.
N e xt, pre vi ou sl y t her e were a l o t of te ch ni cal i s sue s wi th the l apt op s i n bo th
schools. This is because the laptops given to the pri mary schools aren’t
designed to run such programs like Scr atch, as agr eed by the assistant
h ead te ach er fro m th e sec ond s cho ol . Mo re po werf ul har d ware wi th th e
purpose of running such software (Li ke the BBC Mi cro Bit and Raspber ry Pi,
as it has Scratch preinstalled) would result in less technical issues and
t here for e, mo re ti me sp ent a ctu al ly f ol l o wi ng the tu tori al s .
Thirdly, the groups from both schools that took on these tutor ials were both
non volunteered groups. The sessions that took place at both schools were
taken instead of their usual last lesson of the day. Therefore, none of the
students in both groups asked or signed up for their sessions and so this
meant some students weren’t as motivated to follow the tutorials and use
Scratch, thi s is evident by some of the student’s comments made during the
sessions, particularly in the first school. To increase effectiveness, the
s tu den ts ha ve to be mo ti v ate d a nd i n tere st ed i n pr o gra mmi n g o the r wi se
t hei r ti me i s bei ng was ted , a s Hi di and H ara cki e wi cz su gge st “In ter es ts an d
goals have been identified as two important motivational variables that
impact individuals' academic performances” (2015).
L as tl y, the te ac her ’s kn o wl e dge of Sc ra tch an d co mp uti ng i n g ener al
evidently affected the outcome of the finished Scratch games. If both groups
ar e compared then both groups have little to zero previous programmi ng
experience and both gr oups wer e the same size, the second group also had
we a ker har d ware to wo rk wi th th an the fi rs t grou p. But, a s s een i n t he l as t
few sessions in the second school, there were effectively two teachers
65
wa l ki ng aro und th e cl as s wi th Scrat ch kn o wl e dge as si sti n g t he st uden ts .
Therefore, if there was an opportunity to continue this research then if
another group of this size (30 students) were taken on then an additionally
t e a c h e r mi g h t b e a n o p t i o n . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h i s mi g h t o n l y b e b e n e f i c i a l
for an entr y level class that has never done game design or programmi ng
before.
7.6.1 Discussion of Learning Theories in the Sessions
One major change fr om ver sion 1 of the tutorials to version 2 was the use of
threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003) . In version 1 the use of threshold
c on cep ts we re mi ni mal l y i mpl e ment ed, i n t hat t here were thr ee di ffe re nt
tutorials, each focusing on a different concept. This confused the students
in the first school; this could have been due to cognitive overload, as it was
their first ti me seeing and using Scratch and they were introduced t o a new
c on cep t wi th a bl a nk st art ea ch time , the s tude nt s were gi v en no time t o
absorb the infor mation given to them i n the first tutorial before moving on to
the next.
Therefore, in the second version of the tutorials, clearer threshold concepts
were identified in the form of two tutorials; one focusing on the creation and
management of Sprites and the other focusing on Scripts. This meant that
there was only one game be ing developed instead of three and the students
could see a steady progression of their work over the sessions. Evidence of
this can be seen in the student’s final work that was taken from the last
session. From this, it can be said clear threshold concept s of the subject
that is being taught aids itself to the teaching effectiveness.
Further mor e, it could be said from the VARK scores and the student’s
pr eferred tutorials that giving the option of multiple for ms of learning
materials positively effects the effectiveness of the lear ning. As displayed
in both figure 12 and 17 that it is n ot necessarily true that a student with a
high visual score would prefer video tutorials, it could be said that the
students picked up Scratch better reading about it as well as watching the
task being perfor med in front of them i n a video instead of just one or the
other. On the other hand, Hardin and Ellington (2005) suggest that video is
mor e effective at beginner and inter mediate levels of the material than
advanced levels. Therefore, at the later stages, the students started to lean
towards the text ba sed tutorials in ter ms of preference rather than video.
Al so Mayer (2001), when he proposed the individual difference principle
suggested that mul ti media presentations, such as “Videos will not have the
same benefit for all learners” (DeVaney, 2009).
Comp aratively, DeVaney (2009) conducted a resear ch project around video
tutorials and out of the 78 pupils that took part 51% voted “Strongl y Agree”
under “Rate the overall value of the tutorials you viewed” (2009). And
further more, 55.4% voted “ Strongly Agr ee ” under “ Compared to the textbook
and guidesheets, I was able to better understand the material by viewi ng
the material” (2003 ) . W ith just over half of this gr oup favouring the video
t uto ri al s i t wo ul d b e i nt eres ti ng to s ee wh at thi s per ce nta ge ’s VAR K re su l t s
would have done and their opinion on their own learning preference.
66
8.0 Conclusion
To outline this project, research into particular areas of learning and
t ea chi ng the ori es , f or e xa mp l e, VAR K ( 1 987) an d p rac ti ce s was c ondu ct ed
as well as research into using interactive media such as videos to enhance
t he l e arni ng e xperi en ce . Fr o m thi s, tu tori al s wi t h t he ob jec ti ve of te ac hi ng
the Scratch software were developed and given to a class of children in tw o
local pri mar y schools.
Upon the children’s and teacher’s feedback, the reading and video tutorials
in the current for m, as well as the structure of the sessions described in
t hi s pro jec t; wi th t he as si sta nce o f the VAR K fra me wo rk , ar e e ff ecti ve
depending on different factor s. But, as well as environment factor s that
were discussed in section 7.6, certain learning theories such as threshold
concepts, which should be clearly defined and the option of mul tiple for ms
of tutorials, depending on the difficulty of the material also increase the
effectiveness of the tutorials.
In r efer ence to the project objectives, mentioned again in section 7.6, the
tutorials did benefit the students in introducing Scratch to them for the first
ti me and although it was a posit i ve experience, it was more beneficial if
there was mor e control over the classr oom environment in ter ms of
hardware and the school ’s system, if there was an opportunity to further
progress this project than this would be a priority.
Further mor e, the rese ar ch conducted here cannot suggest that the tutorials
in their cur rent for m should r eplace the traditional teaching methods and the
cl a ss roo m en vi ron me nt th at e xi s ts i n pri mar y sc hool s to da y b ut, th e t uto ri al s
could be used as an additional aid in giving s tudents and teachers alike an
entry level step to using Scratch.
Al so , i f thi s pro je ct were to be co nd uc ted agai n a pi l ot r un wi th a coupl e of
students would be considered. This would allow any initial issues to be
over come, for example, technical pr oblem s and it would also allow the
for mat of the lesson from gathering their VARK scores to the feedback at
t he end to be t est ed. A pi l ot run wo ul d h ave to be pl a n ned wel l i n adv an ce
a s wh e n p e r f o r mi n g t e s t s t h a t i n v o l v e s c h o o l p u p i l s a r e o f t e n l i mi t e d t o t h e
p arti c ul ar sch ool ’ s cal end ar and wh en the y sc hool can ac co mmo da te. I
wo u l d a l s o l o o k i n t o mo r e s i mi l a r s t u d i e s a n d c o mp a r e t h e r e s u l t s wi t h t h e
results in this project.
67
Appendi ces
Appendix A
Participant Information Sheet
Researcher: Jonathan Sidaway, Department of Informatics, University of
Huddersfield
Supervisor: Dr James McDowell, Department of Informatics, University of
Huddersfield
Hello!
I would like to invite you to take part in a research project which I am
conducting at the University of Huddersfield, the write -up of which forms a
part of my MSc by Research. Before you decide whether to take part, I want
you to understand why I am conducting this research, and what it would
involve for you. Please take time to re ad the following information
carefully, and please talk to others about the project if you wish. If there is
anything which you would like more information about please ask me for
clarification. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part.
What is the purpose of the project?
The research aims to:
(i) Examine learner and tutor evaluations of the effectiveness of a
technology enhanced learning intervention designed to teach children how
to use the computer software Scratch as well as basic programming
concepts
(ii) Investigate differences in two approaches to teaching; one focused on
video/audio and the other on reading/writing approaches.
(iii) Explore the benefits of a video series with narration of developing
different projects in Scratch as well as exploring the benefits of a written
guide with accompanying images.
68
Why have I been invited?
You have been invited to participate as you are a student in primary that
may or may not have pervious computer programming, and as such you r
input would be valuable in helping to evaluate how effective different
approaches to learning work in this subject area.
Do I have to take part?
Your participation is voluntary and you can withdraw at any stage.
What will taking part involve for me?
•
To participate you need to attend the after school session (day and
times TBA)
•
The after school session will involve following a written guide and a
video tutorial on using the computer
software Scratch
•
The first session wi ll also involve you an online survey that will
determine your learning preference
•
At the end of the last session you will be asked to provide feedback
on the tutorials
•
Your identity will be anonymised and your answers will be kept
securely
•
You have the right to see any feedback/comments which you have
given at any time
•
Nobody else will have access to the data
What will I have to do?
Sign this consent form, then participate by actively engaging in the
learning activities, and take part in evaluati ng these by completing online
surveys and joining in a feedback session at the end to share your
experience of using the system.
What are the possible benefits of taking part?
It is hoped that by taking part in the project you will be helping me to
develop better approaches to learning computer programming.
69
Thank you for reading this information sheet.
Jonathan Sidaway
Participant Consent Form
Names of Researcher: Jonathan Sidaway, University of Huddersfield
Please initial box
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet dated
Month DD for the above project. I have had the opportunity to consider the
information, ask questions and have had these answered satisfactorily.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntar y and that I am free to
withdraw at any time without giving any reason.
3. I consent to any feedback left in the online survey, together with any
comments made in the recorded feedback session if appropriate, being
included in anonymised form in any futur e reports, journal articles and
theses resulting from the project.
4. I agree to take part in the above study.
Name of Participant:
Date:
70
Signature:
If you have agreed to participate in this project then please take some time
to answer these questions below:
1.
Do you have computer or laptop at home?
If yes, are you a frequent user of this computer or laptop?
2.
Have you had any previous experience of making a video game?
If yes, was it more design focused or programming focused ? (Tick both, if
applicable)
3.
Have you used online tutorials before in the form of written guides
and/or videos?
4.
Have you used the computer software Scratch before?
71
Appendix B
If you have agreed to participate in this project then please take some time
to answer these questions below:
1. Do you have computer or laptop at home?
If yes, do you use the computer or laptop a lot?
2. Have you had any previous experience of making a video game?
If yes, what was it you used to make the game?
3. Have you used online tutorials before like on YouTube or somewhere
else?
4. Have you used the Scratch before?
72
VARK Scores
Na m e:
Sco r e s
V i s ua l:
Au r a l:
R ea d /W ri t e:
K i n ae s t h et ic :
73
Thank you for taking part in this research project, please take the time to
give some feedback on your experience:
Tick the appropriate boxes.
Which form of learning did you prefer; reading tutorial or video tutorial?
Reading Tutorial
Video Tutorials
What did you think about the length of the tutorials?
Too short
Just right
Did you find the tutorials difficult?
Yes
No
Why?
Did you finish the tutorials?
Part 1 - Sprites
Part 2 - Scripts
Was the reading tutorial clear?
Did the reading tutorial give you enough information?
Too long
74
Were the videos clear?
Did the videos give you enough information?
On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you feel using Scratch after these tutorials?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
How would you make the reading tutorial better?
How would you make the video tutorials better?
8
9
10
75
Re ference s
Academy of Ar t University. (2015). T eaching Tip W eek 1: Refining Your
Teaching. Retrieved from http://faculty.academyart.edu/faculty/teachingtopics/weekly-teaching- tips.html .
Anderson, T. & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design -Based Research: A Decade of
Progress in Education Research?. Educational Researcher, 41 (1), 16 -25.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/stable/41413081.
A.V, P. W hat is Multisensory Teaching Techniques? Retrieved from
h ttp :/ / www.l e xi c onre adi ng cen ter .org / wha t-i s- mul ti s ens ory -te achi n gtechniques/
BBC. ( 2015). Introducing the BBC mi cr o:bit. Retrieved from
h ttp :/ / www. bb c. co. uk/pro gra mme s/ar ticles/4h VG2 Br1W 1LKCmw8 n Sm9W nQ/in
troducing- the- bbc- micro -bit.
Bernard, H. (2011). Research Methods in Anthropology. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ngg MNMH1YoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Ber g, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences.
Retrieved from
http://www.msu.ac.zw/elearning/material/1344156815Reading%204%20qualit
ative%20resear ch%20methods%20for %20social%20s ciences.pdf
Berr y, M. (2013) . Computing in the National Curri culum. Retrieved from
http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/CASPri mar yComputing.pd
f.
Bill, G. (2010). Case Study Research Methods. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uoh/reader .action?docID=10404926
Bolles, M. Bolles (1997). Sensor y Learning Method. Retrieved from
http://02dca33.netsolhost.com/Bolles%20Sensory%20Learning%20Method.ht
ml
Brinded, L. (2014) . International Business Ti mes. Retrieved fr om
http://www.i bti mes.co.uk/uk - video -games-industr y- jobs-hit- five- year-high1451906.
Brown, A. L. (1992) . Design Experi ments: Theoretical and Methodological
Challenges Cr eating Complex Inter ventions in Classroom Settings. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141 -178.
Cassidy, S. (2004) . Learning Styles: An over view of theories, models, and
measures. Educational Psychology, 24 (4) , . Retrieved fr om
http://www.acdowd- designs.com/sfs u_860_11/LS_Over View.pdf.
Cellan-Jone s, R. (2 014 ). A Co mp utin g Revolution in Schools. Ret rieved fro m
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology -29010511.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004 ). Design Research:
Theoretical and Methodological Issues. T he Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 13 (1), 15-42.
Cousin, G. (2006). An introduction to threshold concepts. Planet, (17).
Retrieved from http://www.et.kent.edu/fpdc -db/files/DD%2002- threshold.pdf.
76
C re s wel l , J.W . (2 013) . Re sear ch De si gn: Q ual i tati v e, Qua nti ta ti ve , an d
Mi xed Methods Approaches. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl =en&lr=&id=EbogAQAAQBAJ&oi =fnd&pg
=PR1&dq=quantitative+r esearch+definition&ots=cacNqQQvw7&sig=mIeqNfLK
_SIR1Sd9qp7gF-pBnK4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Curti s, S. (2013, November 4). T eaching our children to code: a quiet
revolution. Telegraph. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10410036/Teaching -ourchildren- to- code-a-quiet-r evolution.html
Devaney, T.A. (2009) . Impact of Video T utorials in an Online Education al
Statistics Cours. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5 (4),
600-608. Retrieved fr om http://jolt.merlot.org/vol5no4/devaney_1209.htm
Easton Home. ( 2015). Scratch 1.4. Retrieved from
http://www.eastonhome.co.uk/Scr atch/
East Sussex County Council. (2011). Recognition and Reward Guidance for
Children and Young People. Retrieved from
http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/690093CE -7A6F-4CA7-B6A24DBAD8ED71A2/0/rewardrecognitionyoungpeople.pdf.52 .
Esomar W orld Resear ch Codes & Guidelines. (2016). Interviewing Children
and Young People. Retrieved from
h ttp s: // www. e so ma r. org /upl oa ds /pu bl i c/k no wl e dge - and -st and ard s/c od es - andg ui del i nes /ESO MAR _Co de s -an d-Gui d el i nes_ Int ervi e wi ng - Chi l dren - andYoung-People.pdf.
Everitt , D. (2014). Progr ammi ng in education1 Introducing programming
skills in education Author: Retrieved from
h t t p : / / www. a c a d e mi a . e d u / 1 4 7 8 6 1 7 / I n t r o d u c i n g _ p r o g r a mmi n g _ s k i l l s _ in _ e d u c a
tion.
Flanagan, M. T . and Smith, J. (2008), From Playing to Under standing: The
Tr ansfor mative Potential of Discour se Versus Syntax in Learning to Program
F. Shaughnessy, M. & F ulgham, S. (2011). Education in a Competitive and
Globalizing W orld: Pedagogical Models: The Di scipline of Online T eaching.
Retrieved fr om http://site.ebrar y.com/lib/uoh/detail.action?docID=10661631
Gruenbaum, P. (2014) . Undergr aduates T each Game Progr ammi ng Using
Scratch. Computer , 47 ( 2), 82 - 84. doi: 10.1109/MC.2014.49.
Guo, P. (2013, November 13) . Optimal Video Length for Student
Eng age me n t [W eb log po st ]. Re trie ved fr o m htt p:/ /blog .ed x. org/ optima l video-length -student- engagement .
Hardin, J. R., & Ellington, A. J. (2005). Using multi media to facilitate
software instr uction in an introductory modeling cour se. INFORMS
Transactions on Education, 5(2). Retrieved from
http://pubsonline.infor ms.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/ited.5.2.9
Har ms, K.J., Kerr, J.H., Ichinco, M., Santolucito, M., Chuck, A., Koscik, T.
Kelleher , C.L. ( 2012). Designing a community to sup port long- ter m interest
in programmi ng for middle school children. Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 304 -307. doi:
10.1145/2307096.23071
77
Hi di , S. & H ara chi e wi cz, J . M. (20 00) . Moti v ati ng th e Ac ade mi c al l y
Un motivated: A Critical Issue for the 21st Century. Review of Educational
Research, 70 (2), 151-179. doi: 10.3102/00346543070002151.
Hodson, H. (2015). Personalised learning lets children study at their own
pace. Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530024 -200personalised-learning-lets-children-study-at-their-own-pace/.
Ker eki, I.F .D. ( 2008). Scratch: Application s in Computer Science 1.
Frontiers in Education Conference, T3B -7-T3B-11. doi:
10.1109/FIE.2008.4720267.
L e wi n s, A., T ayl or , C. , & Gi bbs , G. R. (2 005) . W hat i s Qu al i tati ve D ata
Anal ysis (QDA)?. Retrieved from
http://onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/Intro_QDA/what_is_qda .php.
L ynn , B. & Gl e n, B. ( 2010 ). T ea chin g wi th Di gi tal Vi de o. Re tri eve d fro m
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uoh/reader .action?docID=10759759
Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Ni ne W ays to Reduce Cognitive Load in
Multi media Lear ning. EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST. 38 (1) 43 -52.
Meyer , J. & Land, R. ( 2003). T hreshold Concepts and T roublesome
Kno wl ed ge: Li nk age s to W ays of Thi n ki ng and Prac ti si ng wi thi n th e
Di sciplines. Enhancing T eaching - Learning Environments in Undergr aduate
Courses. Retrieved from http://www.etl.tla.ed.ac.uk/docs/ETLreport4.pdf .
Mobbs, R. David Kolb. Retrieved from
http://www2.le.ac.uk/depar tments/gr adschool/training/eresour ces/teaching/t
heories/kolb
Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996) . Di stance Education: A Systems View of
Online Learning. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl =en&lr=&id=dU8KAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg
=PR4&dq=Distance+Education:+A+Systems+View+of+Online+Learning&ots=
D10jZZGvlv&sig=eidh8Jhs3 -DqSsQPEPyYhcZ5puU#v=onepage&q&f=false
Naughton, J. (2012). W hy all our kids should be taught how to code.
R etri e ved fr o m htt p:/ / www. t heg uardi a n.c o m/ edu cati o n/2 012 / mar /31 / wh y kids-should-be-taught-code.
Reeves, S., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B.D. (2008). Qualitative research
methodologies: ethnography. British Medical Journal, 337 (7668) . Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.or g.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/10.1136/bmj.a1020
Moody, D.L. & Sindre, G. (2003). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Learning
Interventions: An Infor mation Systems Case Study. ECIS 2003 Pr oceddings.
Retrieved from http://is2.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/ 20030097.pdf.
Phung, T.L. Design-Based Research as Stories of Discovery and Invention.
Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/pub lication/259945753_DesignBased_Research_as_Stories_of_Discovery__Invention
Praveen, . (2015). W hat is Multisensory Teaching Techniques?. Retrieved
f ro m htt p: // www. l e xi conr eadi n gce nt er. org/ ne w/? p= 123 7 .
Quest to Learn. (2016). A Truly New Approach to Education. Retrieved from
http://www.q2l.org/about/
Rasinger, S.M. (2013). Quantitative Research in Linguistics : An
Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.eblib.com
78
Repenning, A. & Snider, L. (2014). NYC schools to use video games to
teach computer coding. Retrieved from
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2014/07/29/nyc -schools-use-videogames-teach-computer- coding.
Robert, F. & Lorch, J.r. (1989). Text -Signaling Devices and Their Effects on
Reading and Memory Pr ocesses. Educational Psychology Review, 1 (3) ,
209-234. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23359 218.
Reigeluth, C.M. (2013). Instructional -design Theories and Model s: A New
Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2. Retrieved from
h ttp :/ /boo ks .g oogle. co .uk /bo ok s?id =OW avJ CNfh cs C&prin tse c =fro nt co ver &so
ur ce=gbs_ge_summar y_r &cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false .
Sag or, R . ( 2000 ). Gui di ng Sch ool Imp r ov e men t wi th Acti o n Res ear ch.
Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4KQHuAkSuzMC&dq=Guiding+School +I
mp r ov e men t + wi th + Acti on +R es ear ch &l r =&so urc e= gbs _n a vl i nks _s
Th e Desig n- Based Re se arch Collective , ( 2002 ). De sign - Ba sed Resear ch: An
Emer ging Paradigm for Educational Inquir y
Th e Desig n- Based Re se arch Collective , ( 2012 ). De sign - Ba sed Resear ch: A
Decade of Progress in Education Research? Educational Researc her, 41 (1),
16-25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813.
V A R K L e a r n L i mi t e d . ( 2 0 1 5 ) . I n t r o d u c t i o n t o V A RK . Re t r i e v e d f r o m
http://vark-learn.com/i ntroduction -to-vark/
UK Government. (2016) . Ofsted. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ofsted .
W i ki ver si ty . ( 201 2). Co gni ti ve Theor y of MML Co nti nu ed. R etri e ved fro m
h ttp s: //e n. wi ki ver si ty .or g/ wi ki /C ogni ti v e_Th eor y_o f_ MML_C onti n ued .
Wang, F. & Hannafin, M.J. (2005). Design -based research and technologyenhanced lear ning envir onments. Educational T echnology R esear ch and
Development, 53 (4), 5 -23. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/ar ticle/10.1007%2FBF 02504682.
W ogan, M. & W aters, R.H. (1959). The Role of Repetition in Lear ning. The
Ameri can Journal of Psychology, 72 (4) , 612 -613. doi: 10.2307/1419511.
YoYo Games. ( 2015). GameMaker: Studio. Retrieved fr om
http://www.yoyogames.com/studio .