Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Teaching Programming in Secondary Education Through Embodied Computing Platforms: Robotics and Wearables

Published: 23 May 2017 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Pedagogy has emphasized that physical representations and tangible interactive objects benefit learning especially for young students. There are many tangible hardware platforms for introducing computer programming to children, but there is limited comparative evaluation of them in the context of a formal classroom. In this work, we explore the benefits of learning to code for tangible computers, such as robots and wearable computers, in comparison to programming for the desktop computer. For this purpose, 36 students participated in a within-groups study that involved three types of target computer platform tangibility: (1) desktop, (2) wearable, and (3) robotic. We employed similar blocks-based visual programming environments, and we measured emotional engagement, attitudes, and computer programming performance. We found that students were more engaged by and had a higher intention of learning programming with the robotic rather than the desktop computer. Furthermore, tangible computing platforms, either robot or wearable, did not affect the students’ performance in learning basic computational concepts (e.g., sequence, repeat, and decision). Our findings suggest that computer programming should be introduced through multiple target platforms (e.g., robots, smartphones, wearables) to engage children.

    References

    [1]
    A. Barreto and V. Benitti. 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools. Comput. Educ. 58, 3 (Apr. 2012), 978--988.
    [2]
    S. R. Beisser. 2006. An examination of gender differences in elementary constructionist classrooms using lego/logo instruction. Comput. Schools 22 (2006), 7--19.
    [3]
    L. Buechley, M. Eisenberg, and N. Elumeze. 2007. Towards a curriculum for electronic textiles in the high school classroom. SIGCSE Bull. 39, 3 (Jun. 2007), 28--32.
    [4]
    L. Buechley, M. Eisenberg, J. Catchen, and A. Crockett. 2008. The lilypad arduino: Using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08). ACM, New York, NY, 423--432.
    [5]
    L. Buechley and B. M. Hill. 2010. Lilypad in the wild: How hardware's long tail is supporting new engineering and design communities. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’10). ACM, New York, NY, 199--207.
    [6]
    P. Charters, M. J. Lee, A. J. Ko, and D. Loksa. 2014. Challenging stereotypes and changing attitudes: The effect of a brief programming encounter on adults’ attitudes toward programming. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’14). ACM, New York, NY, 653--658.
    [7]
    C. Daniel and D. C. Cliburn. 2006. Experiences with LEGO MINDSTORMS throughout the undergraduate computer science curriculum. In Proceedings of the CA 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 1--6.
    [8]
    S. Cooper, W. Dann, and J. Harrison. 2010. A k-12 college partnership. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). ACM, New York, NY, 320--324.
    [9]
    V. Dagdilelis, M. Sartatzemi, and K. Kagani. 2005. Teaching (with) robots in secondary schools: Some new and not-so-new pedagogical problems. In Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’05). 757--761.
    [10]
    A. Eguchi. 2013. Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. J. Autom. Mobile Robot. Intell. Syst. 8, 1, 5--11.
    [11]
    A. Eguchi. 2016. Robocupjunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robot. Auton. Syst. 75(B), 692--699.
    [12]
    D. Gürer and T. Camp. 2002. An ACM-W literature review on women in computing. SIGCSE Bull. 34, 2 (Jun. 2002), 121--127.
    [13]
    S. W. Haugland. 1992. The effect of computer software on preschool children's developmental gains. J. Comput. Childhood Educ. 3, 1 (1992), 15--30.
    [14]
    M. S. Horn, E. T. Solovey, R. J. Crouser, and R. J. K. Jacob. 2009. Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09). ACM, New York, NY, 975--984.
    [15]
    Y. B. Kafai, E. Lee, K. Searle, D. Fields, E. Kaplan, and D. Lui. 2014. A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 1, Article 1 (Mar. 2014).
    [16]
    E. S. Katterfeldt, N. Dittert, and H. Schelhowe. 2009. Eduwear: Smart textiles as ways of relating computing technology to everyday life. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’09). ACM, New York, NY, 9--17.
    [17]
    C. Kelleher and R. Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput. Surv. 37, 2 (Jun. 2005), 83--137.
    [18]
    C. Kelleher, R. Pausch, and S. Kiesler. 2007. Storytelling alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’07). ACM, New York, NY, 1455--1464.
    [19]
    W. W. Y. Lau, G. Ngai, S. C. F. Chan, and J. C. Y. Cheung. 2009. Learning programming through fashion and design: A pilot summer course in wearable computing for middle school students. SIGCSE Bull. 41, 1 (Mar. 2009), 504--508.
    [20]
    C. M. Lewis. 2010. How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. scratch. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). ACM, New York, NY, 346--350.
    [21]
    P. Marshall. 2007. Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference On Tangible And Embedded Interaction (TEI’07). ACM, New York, NY, 163--170.
    [22]
    M. J. Mataric. 2004. Robotics education for all ages. American Association for Artificial Intelligence Spring Symposium on Accessible, Hands-on AI and Robotics Education.
    [23]
    M. McNally, M. Goldweber, B. Fagin, and F. Klassner. 2006. Do lego mindstorms robots have a future in CS education? In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’06). ACM, New York, NY, 61--62.
    [24]
    A. Millner and E. Baafi. 2011. Modkit: Blending and extending approachable platforms for creating computer programs and interactive objects. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’11). ACM, New York, NY, 250--253.
    [25]
    O. Mubin, C. J. Stevens, S. Shahid, A. A. Mahmud, and J. J. Dong. 2013. A review of the applicability of robots in education. J. Technol. Educ. Learn. 1, 1--7.
    [26]
    I. R. Nourbakhsh, E. Hamner, K. Crowley, and K. Wilkinson. 2004. Formal measures of learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Robotics and Automation.1831--1836.
    [27]
    G. Nugent, B. Barker, N. Grandgenett, and V. Adamchuk. 2009. The use of digital manipulatives in k-12: Robotics, GPS/GIS and programming. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference 2009 (FIE’09). 1--6.
    [28]
    G. Nugent, B. Barker, N. Grandgenett, and V. I. Adamchuk. 2010. Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 42, 4 (2010), 391--408.
    [29]
    S. Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, And Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York, NY.
    [30]
    S. Papert. 1987. Computer criticism vs. Technocentric Thinking. Educational Researcher 17 (1987), 22--30.
    [31]
    K. Powers, P. Gross, S. Cooper, M. McNally, K. J. Goldman, V. Proulx, and M. Carlisle. 2006. Tools for teaching introductory programming: what works? In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’06). ACM, New York, NY, 560--561.
    [32]
    M. Przybylla and R. Romeike. 2014. Physical computing and its scope - towards a constructionist computer science curriculum with physical computing. Informat. Educ. 13.2 (2014), 225--240.
    [33]
    K. Qiu, L. Buechley, E. Baafi, and W. Dubow. 2013. A curriculum for teaching computer science through computational textiles. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’13). ACM, New York, NY, 20--27.
    [34]
    M. Resnick, F. Martin, R. Sargent, and B. Silverman. 1996. Programmable bricks: Toys to think with, IBM Syst. J. 35, 3.4 (1996), 443--452.
    [35]
    M. Resnick. 2006. Computer as paint brush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In Play = Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children's Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth, D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, and K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, 192--208.
    [36]
    M. Resnick, J. Maloney, A. Monroy-Hernández, N. Rusk, E. Eastmond, K. Brennan, A. Millner, E. Rosenbaum, J. Silver, S. Silverman, and Y. Kafai. 2009. Scratch: Programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (Nov. 2009), 60--67.
    [37]
    T. Sapounidis, S. Demetriadis, and I. Stamelos. 2015. Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools. Pers. Ubiq. Comput. 19, 1 (Jan. 2015), 225--237.
    [38]
    T. D. Snyder. 2014. Mobile digest of education statistics, 2013 (NCES 2014-085). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
    [39]
    A. Sullivan and M. U. Bers. 2012. Gender differences in kindergarteners’ robotics and programming achievement. Int. J. Technol. Des Educ. 23, 3 (2012), 691--702.
    [40]
    R. Taub, M. Armoni, and M. Ben-Ari. 2012. CS unplugged and middle-school students’ views, attitudes, and intentions regarding cs. Trans. Comput. Educ. 12, 2, Article 8 (Apr. 2012).
    [41]
    D. Wolber. 2011. App inventor and real-world motivation. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’11). ACM, New York, NY, 601--606.
    [42]
    O. Zuckerman and A. Gal-Oz. 2013. To TUI or not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs. graphical user interfaces. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 71, 7--8 (Jul. 2013), 803--820.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)From Smartphone to Fabric: Mobile Embroidery ProgrammingMedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung10.21240/mpaed/56/2024.03.20.X56(457-478)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
    • (2024)‹Making im Unterricht›MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung10.21240/mpaed/56/2024.02.14.X56(331-363)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2024
    • (2024)Integrated constructive robotics in education (ICRE) model: a paradigmatic framework for transformative learning in educational ecosystemCogent Education10.1080/2331186X.2024.232448711:1Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
    ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 17, Issue 2
    June 2017
    107 pages
    EISSN:1946-6226
    DOI:10.1145/3090098
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 23 May 2017
    Accepted: 01 October 2016
    Revised: 01 September 2016
    Received: 01 September 2015
    Published in TOCE Volume 17, Issue 2

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Ubiquitous computing
    2. children
    3. embodiment
    4. experiment
    5. learning
    6. robot
    7. wearable

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)65
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Jul 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)From Smartphone to Fabric: Mobile Embroidery ProgrammingMedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung10.21240/mpaed/56/2024.03.20.X56(457-478)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
    • (2024)‹Making im Unterricht›MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung10.21240/mpaed/56/2024.02.14.X56(331-363)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2024
    • (2024)Integrated constructive robotics in education (ICRE) model: a paradigmatic framework for transformative learning in educational ecosystemCogent Education10.1080/2331186X.2024.232448711:1Online publication date: 11-Mar-2024
    • (2024)Can robot-supported learning enhance computational thinking? –A meta-analysisThinking Skills and Creativity10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101528(101528)Online publication date: Apr-2024
    • (2024)A Systematic Review of Robotics’ Transformative Role in EducationDigital Transformation in Education and Artificial Intelligence Application10.1007/978-3-031-62058-4_16(257-272)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
    • (2023)Using Robotics in the Learning of Computer Programming: Student Experiences Based on Experiential Learning CyclesEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1303032213:3(322)Online publication date: 21-Mar-2023
    • (2023)Research on wearable technologies for learning: a systematic reviewFrontiers in Education10.3389/feduc.2023.12703898Online publication date: 9-Nov-2023
    • (2023)Promoting programming education of novice programmers in elementary schools: A contrasting cases approach for learning programmingEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-022-11565-928:7(9211-9234)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2023
    • (2023)Computing Education Research in SchoolsPast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_20(481-520)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2023
    • (2023)Comparing the use of block‐based and robot programming in introductory programming education: Effects on perceptions of programming self‐efficacyComputer Applications in Engineering Education10.1002/cae.2263731:5(1234-1255)Online publication date: 8-May-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media