From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

This research full paper characterizes the literature on academic initiatives to foster computational thinking and programming (CT&P) in Brazilian K-12 education. Context: Mapping and analyzing the diversity of experiences and studies that address CT&P in K-12 education can bring valuable data to researchers. This work delimits such study to the Brazilian scenario to allow a more in-depth view, given the Brazilian context. Previous surveys and systematic mapping studies present recent publications in major Brazilian computing journals and conferences. Although they offer important contributions, they do not comprehensively cover the Brazilian literature on CT&P in K-12 education, since they focus the search in the Brazilian Computer Society publications alone. Objective: This work proposes to characterize the literature on CT&P in K-12 education in Brazil. Results: through a systematic mapping study, we collected information on year, venue, type, K-12 education stage and modality, methodological contexts, and used tools and programming languages from 338 selected primary studies from 2001 until 2016. Conclusions: there is a significant increase in the number of Brazilian studies in the latest years, showing a growing interest on this research area as well as several trends and gaps to be addressed by both researchers and practitioners.

A Mapping Study of Computational Thinking and Programming in Brazilian K-12 Education

Open Educational Resources have emerged as important elements of education in the contemporary society, promoting life-long and personalized learning that transcends social, eco- nomic and geographical barriers. To achieve the potential of OERs and bring impact on education, it is necessary to increase their development and supply. However, one of the current challenges is how to produce quality and relevant OERs to be reused and adapted to different contexts and learning situations. In this paper we proposed an agile method for the development of OERs – AM-OER, grounded on agile practices from Software Engineering. Learning Design practices from the OULDI project (UK Open University) are also embedded into the AM-OER aiming at improving quality and facilitating reuse and adaptation of OERs. In order to validate AM-OER, an experiment was conducted by applying it in the development of an OER on software testing. The results showed preliminary evidences on the applicability, effectiveness and ef ciency of the method in the development of OERs.

/pdf/am-oer-an-agile-method-for-the-development-of-open-jpxlth4hfk.pdf

AM-OER: An Agile Method for the Development of Open Educational Resources

Organizadores: Michel Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Silvia Scribner, Ellen Souberman. Tradutores: Jose Cippola Neto, Luis Silveira Menna Barreto, Solange Castro Afeche.  Coordenacao de Traducao: Grupo de desenvolvimento e ritmos biologicos-Dep. de Ciencias Biomedicas – USP. Titulo original: MINO IN SOCIETY - THE DEVELOPMENT OF HIGI-IER PSYCHOLO-GICAL PROCESSES - Havard Coilege.

/pdf/a-formacao-social-da-mente-de-l-s-vygotsky-5af9zruq67.pdf

A formação social da mente - de L. S. Vygotsky

Research concerning to the use of technology in education has received increasing attention from scholars in recent years. This attention has resulted in new educational materials demanding creative ways to plan, develop, distribute, and evaluate them. This paper integrates software innovation and management approaches, resulting in an innovative, efficient methodology for the development of learning objects (LOs). The process proposed in this research paper was applied in a case study in which two health-related LOs were developed. The process proposed in this study is called Learning Objects Development Process - LODPRO. This work contributes to both theory and practice in the development of LOs, a field in which innovative techniques such as Design Thinking and the Business Model Canvas are fundamental. Based on these results, we conclude that the present study offers a significant contribution to both theory and practice in this field. If used as a method to develop LOs that focus innovation, the techniques of Design Thinking and Business Model Canvas become fundamental parts of the process.

/pdf/lodpro-learning-objects-development-process-4t6q6bqw8k.pdf

LODPRO: learning objects development process

O desenvolvimento de objetos de aprendizagem exige modelos instrucionais e de desenvolvimento flexiveis, por se tratar de uma categoria de software com um conjunto de requisitos bastante especificos e demandas tecnologicas singulares. O uso de metodologias ageis para o desenvolvimento de objetos de aprendizagem pode facilitar esse processo permitindo a modelagem das funcionalidades baseados nos requisitos de comportamento do aluno. O presente artigo tem como objetivo discorrer sobre uma experiencia no de desenvolvimento de objetos de aprendizagem, baseado em metodologias ageis e interface baseada em scaffoldings.

/pdf/modelo-de-desenvolvimento-de-objetos-de-aprendiagem-baseado-1mfqq0i84h.pdf

Modelo de Desenvolvimento de Objetos de Aprendiagem Baseado em Metodologias Ágeis e Scaffoldings

The way young people deal with technology makes many students, who attend to Computer Science lectures, lose their motivation when confronted with teaching methods and contents high abstraction level. This lack of interest leads to learning difficulties and class evasion. In order to minimize these effects is proposed an approach where learners can engage real project, collaborating with other groups and in his own group to create Learning Objects , which will be used afterwards by other students.

Ateliê de Objetos de Aprendizagem: Uma Abordagem para o Ensino de Computação em Cursos Técnicos

This paper presents the neuropsychology evaluation method using games applied to impaired children, in order not only to diagnostic their issues in neurocognition and neurolinguistics but also in their school performance and behavioral matters as well. We shall discuss the metacognition in digital games such as Cria Conto and its possibilities aimed at an audio phonetical level.

Avaliação de Crianças Deficientes Visuais através de Jogos Neuropedagógicos

A familiaridade com que os jovens lidam com a tecnologia faz com que muitos alunos, ingressos em cursos de computacao, sintam-se desmotivados ao se deparar com o nivel de abstracao dos conteudos e com os metodos utilizados para transmiti-lo. Esta falta de interesse leva a dificuldade na aprendizagem e a evasao das aulas. Para minimizar estes efeitos e proposta uma abordagem de ensino onde os aprendizes possam se engajar em um projeto real de software, colaborando em e entre grupos para a criacao de objetos de aprendizagem que poderao ser utilizados posteriormente por outros estudantes da escola.

http://www.lbd.dcc.ufmg.br/colecoes/sbie/2010/0029.pdf

Fabio Roberto Lapolli

Papers

Modelo de Desenvolvimento de Objetos de Aprendiagem Baseado em Metodologias Ágeis e Scaffoldings

Ateliê de Objetos de Aprendizagem: Uma Abordagem para o Ensino de Computação em Cursos Técnicos

Avaliação de Crianças Deficientes Visuais através de Jogos Neuropedagógicos

Desenvolvimento de OAs como Estratégia para o Ensino Técnico de Computação