Unit 3 reflection

Unit 3 has been one of the most insightful parts of this module because it introduced me to different strategies for teaching coding and made me reflect on how these approaches can be applied in real classrooms. The unit began with the concept of web tutorials, where I learned that tutorials are not just additional resources but structured programs that help students learn step by step. A good tutorial is clear, interactive, and gradually increases in difficulty so that learners can build confidence as they progress. What made this part of the unit more engaging was the debate we had on whether web tutorials are more effective than live classes or the other way around. Through this discussion, I came to see the strengths of both approaches,  tutorials give students independence and flexibility, while live classes provide direct interaction and immediate feedback. I concluded that rather than choosing one, the best approach is to combine them, using tutorials for self-paced exploration and live classes for discussion, clarification, and extension.

From there, the unit introduced me to PRIMM (Predict, Run, Investigate, Modify, Make), which I found to be an excellent framework for teaching coding in stages. I appreciated how it encourages students to actively engage with code, first by predicting its outcome and then gradually moving towards creating their own programs. PRIMM also changes the teacher’s role, placing them more as a facilitator who guides students through questioning and reflection rather than just giving answers. I could clearly see how this method would be effective in teaching GUI programming in Python, where students could first predict what a given interface does, run and investigate the code, then modify and finally make their own programs.

The next focus was live coding, which at first seemed intimidating because of the possibility of making mistakes in front of students. However, this unit taught me that mistakes are actually valuable teaching moments. By coding in real time and showing how to debug errors, teachers can model authentic problem-solving and reassure students that errors are a normal part of programming. I also learned that live coding is most effective when the teacher thinks aloud, invites student input, and uses short, planned examples. This showed me how live coding can be a powerful way to teach GUI programming in Python by making the learning process more transparent and interactive.

Finally, pair programming showed me how collaboration can enrich coding lessons. In this method, students switch between the roles of “driver” and “navigator,” which not only helps them understand code better but also builds communication and teamwork skills. I now realize how effective this approach can be in block-based programming, where students can learn from one another, share ideas, and problem-solve together. Pair programming also teaches important soft skills like listening, patience, and cooperation, which go beyond technical coding knowledge.

Overall, Unit 3 has deepened my understanding of coding pedagogy and reminded me that teaching is not about using a single strategy but about blending different approaches to create the best learning experience. In my future teaching practice, I plan to use web tutorials as a foundation for independent learning, apply PRIMM to structure lessons in a way that promotes gradual progression, incorporate live coding to model authentic problem-solving, and use pair programming to build collaboration among students. I also want to integrate what I learned from the debate by designing a blended approach that balances the flexibility of tutorials with the interactivity of live sessions. By applying these strategies, I hope to make my classroom not only a place for learning coding skills but also for developing confidence, problem-solving abilities, and teamwork.