Fluent Essays

Complete essay and proofreading.Write the introduction and conclusion for the essay, and collect the grammar. part_b.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Part B: Critique of technology design Introduction This article will focus on (evaluate) (1) (2) (3) (4). Computational thinking has become the basic way of thinking of people gradually with the widespread popularization of computes. The development of computer education is an inevitable requirement of The Times (ref). The teaching purpose of the current IT curriculum has shifted from popularizing computer knowledge and application skills to a more indepth and extensive level of IT education (ref). App Inventor is in line with the times background (ref), it is a new cloud-based visual programming platform (ref) that anyone can use it to solve problems in the real-world (Patton et al., 2019). Users can create one’s own mobile applications (apps) on smart phones. According to project leader, Harold Abelson, AI-written apps are perfect, but they can be created by anyone and even be usually completed within minutes. This feature presents the advantages of App Inventor intuitively. To develop apps in App Inventor users does not require coding. At first, the development environment of App Inventor programs is easy to build with fewer steps (ref). Moreover, the development process is simple and easy to operate. The design and development of App Inventor programs are completed by block splicing programming. The development process mainly includes the appearance design and components splicing in the editing view (Morelli et al, 2011), which can directly generate the installation files. Users can complete the development of the app in a very short time with zero programming knowledge based (ref). Learners and educators are a primary audience for App Inventor as it is foremost an academic project (Pokress and Veiga, 2013). Perhaps one important reason for App Inventor’s attention is that it allows users to create apps for smartphones. Given the ubiquity and popularity of smartphones among today’s generation of students, App Inventor holds enormous potential for attracting a new generation of students to computing and computational thinking (ibid). For learners, most of programming languages they encounter in the process of learning program design are dull and boring, and involve plenty of abstract theoretical knowledge, which is difficult to arouse their interest. Yet App Inventor as a program with visual splicing of blocks (ref) that encapsulates the code into blocks of different colours and shapes. Students only need to drag and pull the required blocks for splicing to complete the corresponding operation, which greatly improves the learning interest of the learners, and thus motivates students actively to construct knowledge (ref). At the same time, it became possible for students to realize one’s ideas in the course, which improves students’ learning initiative and promoted classroom interaction to a large extent (ref). Furthermore, the emulator of App Inventor is quite capable and is a good option if the budget is limited so anyone can use it even if he does not have a device available (Wolber, 2011). This is important for education and settings in which not every student has access to a smartphone (Okerlund and Turbak, 2013) especially at the K-12 level. Last but not least, the traditional build cycle for App Inventor involves writing code in an integrated development or text editor, and it usually takes minutes to rebuild the app for testing, while changes to the live development environment typically take effect in 1-2 seconds (Patton et al., 2019). It means that learners can explore and even make mistakes with relatively low time cost (ibid). On the side of educator, the traditional curriculum model is accomplished through lecturing and instructing students in operation (ref). It is difficult to motivate student. App Inventor-based teaching not only stimulates students’ interest in learning, but also emphasized the entire process of students’ autonomous problem solving (ref). This method is task-driven or problem-research teaching. Regarding to the assessment methods, App Inventor presents the advantages of process assessment based on classroom teaching and evaluation of learning outcomes after-school (ref). According to the characteristics of computational thinking, App Inventor teaching focuses on learning motivation, thinking mode, autonomous learning collaborative learning, knowledge application and teaching evaluation (ref). Shortcomings of traditional App Inventor teaching focus programming courses Students lack interest in learning Teaching key knowledge Learning motivation without Cultivation of thinking mode, ability of embodying the core of IT learning autonomous learning and collaborative learning Insufficient practice, theory is disjointed Transfer and application of knowledge from practice Single assessment method Teaching evaluation Table of teaching focus The target users of the technology in this essay is pupil, ages ? and ?. AIA has its unique advantages in the process of cultivating students’ computational thinking of middle and high school students. One of most striking features is that mobile devices support a wide range of digital communication methods compared to traditional software, enabling AIA to achieve more flexible communication and information exchange (ref). The application of technologies such as NFC and GPS provide more opportunities for students to explore applications that can be used in daily life (ref). For instance, GPS technology embedded in mobile device aggregation can be applied to security alert applications, and NFC is an instant exchange of information. Student can use the application that one’s built and even launch it in the application store. The development of mobile applications enables students to connect with others easily, thus gaining satisfaction and meeting the needs of adolescents’ respect and selfactualization (ref). App Inventor is used to develop students’ computational thinking abilities mainly. Its most widely used form is used as teaching materials that in IT courses. Take a research project of App Inventor for elementary computing education as an example, the study opted for students between the ages of 10 and 12 as experimental objects. According to cognitive development theory by Piaget, children at this period are in the concrete operational stage, usually with obvious symbolicity and logicality and a certain degree of abstraction. Students are enrolled voluntarily and have a keen interest in learning by using computers with strong computer skills. The research is based on constructivist learning theory. Researcher chose a simple but interesting application called ‘Hello Cat’ as teaching project, and students easily realized programming through App Inventor. The teaching content is quite interesting, which fully aroused the enthusiasm and initiative of students. The teaching mode advances the teaching process through five stages, that is, problem presentation, problem decomposition, problem solving, achievement display, and evaluation and feedback. During the phase of problem presentation, the researcher asked students if they wanted to make a similar application on the background that on the background that the application quickly attracted students’ attention and interest. The students showed a great willingness to affirm. Researchers then showed the two basic steps of App Inventor to the student in the phase of problem decomposition. This phase is the specific operation phase of the students. Each student completed the development of the software under the guidance and went through the process of thinking and problem solving. Finally, students presented and reflected on their work in the phase of results presentation and evaluation feedback stage. The results showed that ‘this teaching mode has stimulated students interest in learning successfully and achieved the effect of cultivating their computational thinking’. The course survey was conducted in the form of questionnaires to understand students and teachers views on App Inventor learning from the three dimensions of learning motivation, learning process and learning effectiveness. The results showed that the App Inventor programming course has been affirmed by students. Most students are very interested in the teaching content. The researchers believe that ‘students programming ability and computational thinking ability have been improved to a certain extent, and the students interest in continuing with the course was stimulated. Mobile Learning, Constructivism, and Informal Learning are the main theories of App Inventor. The features are in line with the core of mobile learning theory, which allows users to learn through access learning resources from mobile devices at any time and place (ref). Sharples (2006, p.89) believes that learners are shift in mobile learning, particularly, researchers initially focused on the specific design of portable technology. Yet a series of daily learning studies for mobile learning have shown that the interaction between learning and technology is complex and diverse (ref), learners can use any prepared technology through create opportunities and conditions by oneself while they move between the environment (ref). The characteristics of mobile learning can be described as spontaneous, private, portable, time-spatial, informal, context-aware, connected, personalized and interactive. It is worth mentioning that there is certain complementarity and conflict between mobile learning and formal education. The complement is that learners can extend classroom learning through mobile learning. The conflict is the inability of schools and teachers to manage students use of mobile devices, which is also a considered one of the limitations of App Inventor (ref). The constructivism theory emphasizes initiative of learner and personality characteristics in learning activities and respects all the personalities. App Inventor provide learners with platforms and resources for learning, also interactive learning environments that allow learners to construct learning content through autonomous learning. In addition, the feature of ‘chunking fragmented content’ (ref) is also highly consistent with constructivism. Unlike formal traditional school education in that it has no definite purpose and no fixed place of learning (ref). It meets immediate needs of learner, focuses on results, and centres on autonomous learning of learners (ref). Informal learning occurs without the strong purpose of learners. Mobile learning is more purposeful than informal learning. However, the same is that the occurrence of the mobile learning is not limited by time and space, informal learning theory provides a very important reference and support for the research of mobile learning (ref). As can be seen from rationale and design decisions of App Inventor, the design team considered a number of their impacts on computational thinking within App Inventor. Firstly, What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG). The developers can see how the app will display on the screen of the mobile device and can adjust the shape factor of the visualized device (e.g. tablet or phone) through the design editor for App Inventor (ref). Adjustments to visual components are reflected in real time, for instance, background size and colour. Second, App Inventor differs from most of programming languages in that it limits the runtime creation of new entities (ref). The user can visualize the components clearly by positioning them explicitly in the app. Third, Numbering. Unlike most programming languages, the number system in App Inventor starts at 1, consistent with children’s counting skills. (Gelman & Gallistel, 1978). App Inventor serves as a tool for education and fits the educational concept of computational thinking. Its ability to promote computational thinking education is obvious. First of all, it has a strong interesting. Reference believe that attention to the study and application of entertainment technology has opened up a new territory for education technology, which is of great significance for promoting the development of education technology. Most importantly, the feature of AIA block splicing coding has undoubtedly improved students’ interest in learning, thus effectively improving teaching efficiency. Second, AIA-based learning has durability. It provides children with a platform to learn anytime and anywhere, so that students’ learning behaviours can be sustained and stable. Furthermore, the cost of learning based on AIA is very low with the widespread use of smartphone and computers, and schools or parents can easily meet the hardware requirements of mobile learning. However, limitations of AIA are also obvious. Firstly, although the AIA claims to be a development environment for K12 children, it is still difficult for elementary school students who have no programming skills or even younger children who have no computer skills. Second, the existing components of the AIA are not complete yet. The absence of components causes students to give up their creativity which has a certain negative impact on cultivating students’ innovation ability. In the end, its gameplay causes students with poor self-control to indulge in it, and even regarded it as an entertainment game. Moreover, its easy easy-to-operate characteristics make it easy for young students to indulge in a sense of accomplishment. In other words, children will be self-satisfied overly. There have long been misconceptions is that most people think that only experts and people with a lot of programming knowledge are capable of creating a mobile app. Yet students across the K12 spectrum develop their own mobile apps with little or even no experience. For example, the CoolThink JC curriculum targets 15,000 students ages 10 and 12 in Hong Kong. According to research, AIA enables the students to address local issues through the apps they create and to think computationally (Kong et al., 2017). In summary, AIA plays a positive role in cultivating students’ interest in learning, enriching the content of school curriculum, changing the status quo of book knowledge, and improving students’ ability of information processing. ... Purchase answer to see full attachment