When I first facilitated the Developing Computer Applications course, I had few available resources, and fell back on my experience in programme coding. I felt confident enough at coding that I would run many class activities according to the following plan:
· Decide what atomic aspect of programming I needed to cover next
o This had already been loosely defined (with weekly granularity) in the Course Directive)
· Think of a small application off the top of my head that would illustrate the concept
o Occasionally I got this wrong, and had to roll back to a simpler example – I would explain this to the students as I went
· Code the application as the students watched on the overhead projector
o Invite the students to type each line of code as I completed it
· Run my version of the application, exposing any bugs or omissions
· Fix the errors one-by-one, explaining to the students as I went
o Invite the students to make the changes with me
o Run my version again until its performance was satisfactory
· Encourage the students to run their versions, and call for me if they needed help
Looking back, it occurred to me that the closest learning theory that this practice adheres to, is Behaviourism (Watson 1913) – I was making no overt attempt to encourage any “deep” understanding of computer application development concepts, I was just inviting the students to copy my behaviour. Despite the fact that Behaviourism is currently deprecated as a learning method (Atherton 2012), I believe my practice had merit in this case:
· It introduced the students to the development environment (Visual Studio 2010 with Visual Basic) without fear of confusion
o Visual Studio 2010 is a daunting application
· It introduced the students to initial application debugging skills that can be effective even if not yet understood
· It empowered the students to create worthwhile, comprehensible applications in the absence of any conceptual understanding, only accurate typing
o It also reinforced the value of accurate typing in computer application development
· It initiated a portfolio of applications for each student that they could draw upon and extend as the course progressed
I found this practice benefited the students for several weeks. The following time that I facilitated this course, different issues arose: being more familiar with the flow of material, I made fewer errors – giving me fewer opportunities to enlarge upon the skills I was demonstrating. I attempted to correct for this by introducing errors as learning exercises, but the flow remained less natural.
I have found little information online relating to behaviourism as a way to facilitate the learning of computer programming in particular, the closest being (Spencer 1991), but where the programming referred to is that of the students’ learning, rather than computer applications.
I intend to maintain this behaviourist aspect in learning facilitation for the first several weeks of this course. I plan to review the logs that I kept, and integrate the management of programming errors into the lesson structure. This should enable me to recover the more natural flow from the first course instance, whilst ensuring that I cover the correct management of all error types at this level.
Current learning theories encourage movement beyond behaviourism in learning facilitation, and I would not want to extend my practice beyond its best use. Furthermore, having now attended the GCTLT course on Learner-centred Learning (Day 2012), I now feel the need to engage with my next cohort of students, to confirm whether the behavioural presentation I am proposing is what they would actually prefer. In the meantime, I believe that it has worked well, and I am happy to continue to run counter to current learning facilitation wisdom for the time being.
References
· Atherton J S (2012) Learning and Teaching; Deep and Surface learning [On-line: UK] retrieved 10 January 2012 from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/deepsurf.htm
· Day, Heather (2012) Learner Centred Learning/LCL Learning Module [On-line: NZ] retrieved 10 January 2012 from http://wikieducator.org/Learner_Centred_Learning/LCL_Learning_Module
· Spencer, K. A. (1991). The art of teaching and the science of learning. In K. A. Spencer The Psychology of Educational Technology and Instructional Media (pp. 12-21). Liverpool: Manutius Press
· Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177
