Links table
Abstract and 1. Introduction
2 Literature Review
3 approach
3.1 The structure of the problem and dynamic scaffolding
3.2 Evaluation and informal comments
3.3 Pair Programming Dyad
3.4 course structure
4 discussion
5 Conclusion
6 thanks, appreciation and references
5 Conclusion
Marital programming has always been a promising educational tool, but its application to the semester witnessed mixed results. In particular, the design of instructions for programming has seen little research. However, PSS is suitable for both CS education and pair programs in particular.
PSS are active educational teaching assets that include student husbands in solving problems in classroom. Dynamic scourges are used to control the difficulty of the problem in matching the student’s ability to keep them in ZPD. PSS is a vocational training model for learning that has succeeded in engineering education.
It seems that the PSS air conditioning of the introduction and the study here is a good solution to the problem of applying marital programming on both the “problem ladder” and dynamic scales that provide adequate guidelines and directions for students from a variety of backgrounds and capabilities. The active and adaptive nature of the learning environment has led to a large number of students who report their participation and challenge.
Moreover, the students were also reported to be appreciated by the weekly class of the class. Through rotation through the demonstration, PSS, and the extraction of information, students can see and apply new concepts every week. This provides freedom of active learning and sharing it while avoiding a little bit of guidance for experienced or weak students.
PSS collection for CS between a free educational environment and active with a deliberate structure to keep students on the right track. This is a fruitful medium land. We believe that students find refreshing during their high education. The very positive results of students, with the overwhelming majority that finds PSS for CS useful, attractive, and difficult, should encourage other teachers to adapt to the semester.
6 thanks and appreciation
We thank Joe Le Dux for our PSS education in an eager workshop, for his visions, comments, and modification when preparing this manuscript. We also would like to thank ASEE auditors for their comprehensive and useful notes.
Reference
K. Beck, extremist programming explained: embrace the change. Edison Wesley, a professional, 2000.
Je Hannay, T 51, no. 7, p. 1110-1122, 2009.
A. Hawlitschek, S. Berndt, and S. Schulz, “Experimental Research on Higher Education Programming: Literature Review”, computer science education, pages 1-29, 2022.
L. Williams, RR Kesler, W. Cunningham, and R. Jeffries, “Promoting Marital Programming Case”, IEEE SOFTWARE, Volume. 17, no. 4, p. 19-25, 2000.
G. Salomon, distributed perception: psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
L. Williams and RL Upchurch, “Support for Student House Programming,” ACM SigCse Bulletin, folder. 33, no. 1, p. 327-331, 2001.
MT Chi and R. Wylie, “ICAP: Connecting Cognitive Participation with Active Learning Results”, educational psychologist, volume. 49, no. 4, p. 219-243, 2014.
JM Le Doux and AA Waller, “Problem solving studio: a vocational training environment for ambitious engineers.” Progress in engineering education, folder. 5, no. 3, p. N3, 2016.
A. Collins et al. , “Cognitive Training Training: Teaching the Craft of Reading, Writing and Mathematics. Technical Report No. 403.” 1987.
C. MCDOWELL, B. Hanks, and L. Werner, “Marital Programming Experience in Chapter”, in the facts of the eighth annual conference for innovation and technology in computer science education, 2003, pages 60-64.
Na Bowman, L. Jarratt, K. Culver, and AM Segre, “Programming the pair in perspective: effects on stability, achievement and fairness in computer science”, research magazine on educational event, volume. 13, no. 4, p. 731-758, 2020.
LL Werner, B. Hanks, and C. MCDOWLL, “Pair-PROGRAMMING helps female computer science students”, educational resources magazine (JERIC), volume. 4, no. 1, p. 4 – ES, 2004.
LS vygotsky and M. Cole, the mind in society: developing higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, 1978.
DH Jonassen and W
SM Dinham, “A continuous qualitative study of architecture studio: teacher exchange analysis. Annual meeting paper.” 1987.
Le Raths, teaching for thinking: theory, strategies and activities for the classroom. Teachers College Press, 1967.
D. Perkins, “Baby and annoying knowledge”, in overcoming barriers in front of students’ understanding. Routledge, 2006, PP. 57-71.
E. Routledge, 2020, PP. 375-398.
D. Rosenberg and M. Stephens, extremist programming: the issue against XP. Abrais, 2008.
MA Ruiz-PRIMO, “Unofficial formative evaluation: the role of educational dialogues in the evaluation of student learning”, studies in educational evaluation, volume. 37, no. 1, p. 15-24, 2011.
C. MCDOWELL, L. Werner, H. Bullock, and J 38-42.
author:
(1) J[email protected]).
