Elicast: embedding interactive exercises in instructional programming screencasts

ABSTRACT

In programming education, instructors often supplement lectures with active learning experiences by offering programming lab sessions where learners themselves practice writing code. However, widely accessed instructional programming screencasts are not equipped with assessment format that encourages such hands-on programming activities. We introduce Elicast, a screencast tool for recording and viewing programming lectures with embedded programming exercises, to provide hands-on programming experiences in the screen-cast. In Elicast, instructors embed multiple programming exercises while creating a screencast, and learners engage in the exercises by writing code within the screencast, receiving auto-graded results immediately. We conducted an exploratory study of Elicast with five experienced instructors and 63 undergraduate students. We found that instructors structured the lectures into small learning units using embedded exercises as checkpoints. Also, learners more actively engaged in the screencast lectures, checked their understanding of the content through the embedded exercises, and more frequently modified and executed the code during the lectures.

References

1. Kirsti M Ala-Mutka. 2005. A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer science education 15, 2 (2005), 83--102.
2. Sumit Basu, Chuck Jacobs, and Lucy Vanderwende. 2013. Powergrading: a clustering approach to amplify human effort for short answer grading. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 1 (2013), 391--402.
3. Jacob Lowell Bishop and Matthew A Verleger. 2013. The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. In ASEE National Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA, Vol. 30. 1--18.
4. Jennifer Campbell, Diane Horton, Michelle Craig, and Paul Gries. 2014. Evaluating an inverted CS1. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, 307--312.
5. Jyoti Chauhan and Anita Goel. 2016. An analysis of quiz in MOOC. In Contemporary Computing (IC3), 2016 Ninth International Conference on. IEEE, 1--6.
6. Michael Clancy, Nate Titterton, Clint Ryan, Jim Slotta, and Marcia Linn. 2003. New roles for students, instructors, and computers in a lab-based introductory programming course. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 35. ACM, 132--136.
7. National Research Council and others. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies Press.
8. Coursera. 2017. Answer in-video questions --- Coursera Help Center. (2017). https://learner.coursera.help/hc/en-us/articles/209818663-Answer-in-video-questions {Online; accessed 18-September-2017}.
9. Stephen Cummins, Alastair R Beresford, and Andrew Rice. 2016. Investigating Engagement with In-Video Quiz Questions in a Programming Course. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 9, 1 (2016), 57--66.
10. Mathias Ellmann, Alexander Oeser, Davide Fucci, and Walid Maalej. 2017. Find, understand, and extend development screencasts on YouTube. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.08824 (2017).
11. Ursula Fuller, Colin G Johnson, Tuukka Ahoniemi, Diana Cukierman, Isidoro Hernán-Losada, Jana Jackova, Essi Lahtinen, Tracy L Lewis, Donna McGee Thompson, Charles Riedesel, and others. 2007. Developing a computer science-specific learning taxonomy. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 39. ACM, 152--170.
12. Gerald C Gannod, Janet E Burge, and Michael T Helmick. 2008. Using the inverted classroom to teach software engineering. In Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering. ACM, 777--786.
13. Elena L Glassman, Jeremy Scott, Rishabh Singh, Philip J Guo, and Robert C Miller. 2015. OverCode: Visualizing variation in student solutions to programming problems at scale. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 22, 2 (2015), 7.
14. Philip J Guo, Juho Kim, and Rob Rubin. 2014. How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. ACM, 41--50.
15. Mina C Johnson-Glenberg. 2010. Embedded formative e-assessment: who benefits, who falters. Educational Media International 47, 2 (2010), 153--171.
16. Juho Kim and others. 2015a. Learnersourcing: improving learning with collective learner activity. Ph.D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
17. Juho Kim, Elena L Glassman, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2015b. RIMES: Embedding interactive multimedia exercises in lecture videos. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1535--1544.
18. René F Kizilcec, Chris Piech, and Emily Schneider. 2013. Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. ACM, 170--179.
19. Geza Kovacs. 2016. Effects of in-video Quizzes on MOOC lecture viewing. In Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. ACM, 31--10.
20. Essi Lahtinen, Kirsti Ala-Mutka, and Hannu-Matti Järvinen. 2005. A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. In Acm Sigcse Bulletin, Vol. 37. ACM, 14--18.
21. Laura MacLeod, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Andreas Bergen. 2015. Code, camera, action: How software developers document and share program knowledge using YouTube. In Program Comprehension (ICPC), 2015 IEEE 23rd International Conference on. IEEE, 104--114.
22. Nehal Mamgain, Arjun Sharma, and Puneet Goyal. 2014. Learner's perspective on video-viewing features offered by MOOC providers: Coursera and edX. In MOOC, Innovation and Technology in Education (MITE), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 331--336.
23. John Markoff. 2013. Essay-grading software offers professors a break. (2013).
24. Toni-Jan Keith Palma Monserrat, Yawen Li, Shengdong Zhao, and Xiang Cao. 2014. L. IVE: an integrated interactive video-based learning environment. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 3399--3402.
25. Keith O'Hara, Douglas Blank, and James Marshall. 2015. Computational Notebooks for AI Education. In The Twenty-Eighth International Flairs Conference.
26. Jungkook Park, Yeong Hoon Park, and Alice Oh. 2017. Non-Linear Editor for Text-Based Screencast. In Adjunct Publication of the 30th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 183--185.
27. Rishabh Singh, Sumit Gulwani, and Armando Solar-Lezama. 2013. Automated feedback generation for introductory programming assignments. ACM SIGPLAN Notices 48,6(2013), 15--26.
28. Chengzheng Sun and Clarence Ellis. 1998. Operational transformation in real-time group editors: issues, algorithms, and achievements. In Proceedings of the 1998 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 59--68.
29. Karl K Szpunar, Novall Y Khan, and Daniel L Schacter. 2013. Interpolated memory tests reduce mind wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 16(2013), 6313--6317.
30. Mark J Van Gorp and Scott Grissom. 2001. An empirical evaluation of using constructive classroom activities to teach introductory programming. Computer Science Education 11, 3 (2001), 247--260.
31. Allan Wigfield and Jacquelynne S Eccles. 2000. Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary educational psychology 25, 1 (2000), 68--81.
32. Joseph Jay Williams, Tania Lombrozo, Anne Hsu, Bernd Huber, and Juho Kim. 2016. Revising Learner Misconceptions Without Feedback: Prompting for Reflection on Anomalies. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 470--474.
33. Leon E Winslow. 1996. Programming pedagogy---a psychological overview. ACM Sigcse Bulletin 28, 3 (1996), 17--22.

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education

      • Computing education programs