research-article

Public Access

Developing Computational Thinking through a Virtual Robotics Programming Curriculum

Authors:

Eben B. Witherspoon,

Ross M. Higashi,

Christian D. Schunn,

Emily C. Baehr,

Robin ShoopAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 18, Issue 1

Article No.: 4, Pages 1 - 20

https://doi.org/10.1145/3104982

Published: 27 October 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Computational thinking describes key principles from computer science that are broadly generalizable. Robotics programs can be engaging learning environments for acquiring core computational thinking competencies. However, few empirical studies evaluate the effectiveness of a robotics programming curriculum for developing computational thinking knowledge and skills. This study measures pre/post gains with new computational thinking assessments given to middle school students who participated in a virtual robotics programming curriculum. Overall, participation in the virtual robotics curriculum was related to significant gains in pre- to posttest scores, with larger gains for students who made further progress through the curriculum. The success of this intervention suggests that participation in a scaffolded programming curriculum, within the context of virtual robotics, supports the development of generalizable computational thinking knowledge and skills that are associated with increased problem-solving performance on nonrobotics computing tasks. Furthermore, the particular units that students engage in may determine their level of growth in these competencies.

References

[1]

ACM Education Policy Committee. 2014. Rebooting the Pathway to Success: Preparing Students for Computing Workforce Needs in the United States. Retrieved from http://pathways.acm.org/ACM_pathways_report.pdf.

[2]

D. Alimisis and C. Kynigos. 2009. Constructionism and robotics in education. In D. Alimisis (Ed.), Teacher Education on Robotics-Enhanced Constructivist Pedagogical Methods. School of Pedagogical and Tech. Education, Athens, Greece, 11--26.

[3]

D. Alimisis. 2012. Robotics in education 8 education in robotics: Shifting focus from technology to pedagogy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Robotics in Education. Matfyz Press, 7--14.

[4]

R. D. Atkinson and M. Mayo. 2011. Refueling the U.S. Innovation Economy: Fresh Approaches to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.itif.org/files/2010-refueling-innovation-economy.pdf.

[5]

V. Barr and C. Stephenson. 2011. Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads 2, 1, 48--54.

Digital Library

[6]

F. B. V. Benitti. 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers and Education 58, 3, 978--988.

Digital Library

[7]

K. Brennan and M. Resnick. 2012. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the American Educational Research Association. 1--25. Retrieved from http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf.

[8]

R. Catrambone. 1998. The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127, 4, 355--376.

[9]

D. H. Clements and D. F. Gullo. 1984. Effects of computer programming on young children's cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology 76, 6, 1051--1058.

[10]

J. Cohen. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112, 1, 155--159.

[11]

Y. Doppelt, C. D. Schunn, E. M. Silk, M. M. Mehalik, B. Reynolds, and E. Ward. 2009. Evaluating the impact of a facilitated learning community approach to professional development on teacher practice and student achievement. Research in Science 8 Technological Education 27, 3, 339--354.

[12]

Educational Testing Service. 2015. The Praxis Study Companion: Technology Education. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/s/praxis/pdf/5051.pdf.

[13]

A. Eguchi. 2014. Learning experience through robocupjunior: Promoting engineering and computational thinking through robotics competition. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/20743.

[14]

B. Ericson and M. Guzdial. 2014. Measuring demographics and performance in computer science education at a nationwide scale using AP CS data. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’14). ACM Press, New York, 217--222.

Digital Library

[15]

J. Goode and J. Margolis. 2011. Exploring computer science. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 11, 2, 1--16.

Digital Library

[16]

S. Grover and R. Pea. 2013. Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher 42, 1, 38--43.

[17]

M. Guzdial, B. Ericson, T. Mcklin, and S. Engelman. 2014. Georgia computes! An intervention in a US state, with formal and informal education in a policy context. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 14, 2, 13.

[18]

S. Hambrusch, C. Hoffmann, J. T. Korb, M. Haugan, and A. L. Hosking. 2009. A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 41, 183.

Digital Library

[19]

J. B. Harris and M. J. Hofer. 2011. Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 43, 3, 211--229.

[20]

C. Kelleher and R. Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming. ACM Computing Surveys 37, 2, 83--137.

Digital Library

[21]

G. Khoury. 2007. CSTA Certification Committee Report: Computer Science State Certification Requirements. Computer Science Teachers Association, New York. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/ComputerScienceTeacherCertifi cation/sub/TeachCertRept07New.pdf.

[22]

C. Kim, M. K. Kim, C. Lee, J. M. Spector, and K. DeMeester. 2013. Teacher beliefs and technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education 29, 1, 76--85.

[23]

D. Klahr and S. M. Carver. 1988. Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology 20, 3, 362--404.

[24]

K. H. Koh, A. Repenning, H. Nickerson, Y. Endo, and P. Motter. 2013. Will it stick? Exploring the sustainability of computational thinking education through game design. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). ACM Press, New York, 597--602.

Digital Library

[25]

R. Kurland, C. Pea, and Clement R. Mawby. 1986. A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2, 4, 429--458

[26]

J. Lave and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[27]

I. Lee, F. Martin, and K. Apone. 2014. Integrating computational thinking across the K--8 curriculum. ACM Inroads 5, 4, 64--71.

Digital Library

[28]

A. S. Liu, J. Newsom, C. Schunn, and R. Shoop. 2013. Students learn programming faster through robotic simulation. Tech Directions 72, 16--19. Retrieved from http://www.education.rec.ri.cmu.edu/content/educators/research/files/p16-19 Shoop et al.pdf.

[29]

A. S. Liu, C. D. Schunn, J. Flot, and R. Shoop. 2013. The role of physicality in rich programming environments. Computer Science Education 23, 4, 315--331.

[30]

S. Y. Lye and J. H. L. Koh. 2014. Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior 41, 51--61.

Digital Library

[31]

L. Major, T. Kyriacou, and O. P. Brereton. 2012. Systematic literature review: Teaching novices programming using robots. IET Software 6, 6, 502.

[32]

R. E. Mayer. 1974. Acquisition processes and resilience under varying testing conditions for structurally different problem-solving procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology 66, 5, 644--656.

[33]

R. E. Mayer. 2008. Applying the science of learning: evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist 63, 8, 760--769.

[34]

R. E. Mayer and J. G. Greeno. 1972. Structural differences between outcomes produced by different instructional methods. Journal of Educational Psychology 63, 12, 165--173.

[35]

A. Melchior, F. Cohen, T. Cutter, and T. Leavitt. 2005. More Than Robots: An Evaluation of the FIRST Robotics Competition Participant and Institutional Impacts. Brandeis University Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Waltham, MA.

[36]

National Research Council, Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking. 2010. The Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking. National Research Council, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12840.html.

[37]

National Science Board. 2015. Revisiting the STEM Workforce, A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. National Science Board, Arlington, VA. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2015/nsb201510.pdf.

[38]

S. Y. Okita. 2013. The relative merits of transparency: Investigating situations that support the use of robotics in developing student learning adaptability across virtual and physical computing platforms. British Journal of Educational Technology 45, 5, 844--862.

[39]

D. B. Palumbo. 1990. Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research 60, 1, 65--89.

[40]

R. Pea. 1983. LOGO Programming and problem solving. In Proceedings of the American Educational Research Association (AERA’83). Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/∼roypea/RoyPDF%20folder/A39_Pea_87d_CCT_TR_MS.pdf.

[41]

S. Puntambekar and R. Hubscher. 2005. Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist 40, 1, 1--12. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4001.

[42]

A. Repenning, D. Webb, and A. Ioannidou. 2010. Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). ACM, New York, 265--269.

Digital Library

[43]

A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree. 2003. Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education 13, 2, 137--172.

[44]

G. Salomon and D. N. Perkins. 1987. Transfer of cognitive skills from programming: When and how? Journal of Educational Computing Research 3, 149--170.

[45]

L. S. Shulman. 1986. Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15, 2, 4--14.

[46]

E. Silk, C. Schunn, and R. Shoop. 2009. Synchronized robot dancing: Motivating efficiency 8 meaning in problem solving with robotics. Robot Magazine 17, 42--45.

[47]

L. Wang, P. A. Ertmer, and T. J. Newby. 2004. Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 36, 3, 231--250.

[48]

D. Weintrop, E. Beheshti, M. Horn, K. Orton, K. Jona, L. Trouille, and U. Wilensky. 2016. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25, 1, 127--147.

[49]

L. Werner, J. Denner, S. Campe, and D. C. Kawamoto. 2012. The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’12). ACM, New York, 215--220.

Digital Library

[50]

J. M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49, 3, 33.

Digital Library

[51]

L. K. Zech, C. L. Gause-Vega, M. H. Bray, T. Secules, and S. R. Goldman. 2000. Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist 35, 3, 207--217.

Cited By

Altıok SÜçgül M(2025)Effects of Robotic Coding on Computational Thinking Skills of Secondary School StudentsEffets du codage robotique sur les compétences de pensée computationnelle des élèves du secondaireCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology10.21432/cjlt2860750:2(1-24)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28607
Dong YMa HLi HJing BLiu H(2025)Effects of digital badges on pupils' computational thinking and learning motivation in computer scienceActa Psychologica10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104824254(104824)Online publication date: Apr-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104824
Palop BDíaz IRodríguez-Muñiz LSantaengracia J(2025)Redefining computational thinking: A holistic framework and its implications for K-12 educationEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-13297-4Online publication date: 22-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13297-4
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Developing Computational Thinking through a Virtual Robotics Programming Curriculum
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
    1. Interactive learning environments

Recommendations

A model for piloting pathways for computational thinking in a general education curriculum
SIGCSE '11: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

Computational thinking has been identified as a necessary fundamental skill for all students. University curricula, however, are currently not designed to provide such knowledge to a broad student population. In this paper, we report on our experiences ...
Computational Thinking for All: An Experience Report on Scaling up Teaching Computational Thinking to All Students in a Major City in Sweden
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

The Swedish government has recently introduced digital competence including programming in the Swedish K-9 curriculum starting no later than fall 2018. This means that 100 000 teachers need to learn programming and digital competence in less than a ...
Evaluation and development of STEAM teachers’ computational thinking skills: Analysis of multiple influential factors
Abstract
Computational thinking (CT) has become the basic foothold of STEAM education. The role of teachers as an essential element of CT education cannot be ignored. Therefore, measuring teachers’ ability to integrate CT into classroom is necessary. There ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 18, Issue 1

March 2018

127 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3155324

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2017 ACM.

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: 27 October 2017

Accepted: 01 May 2017

Revised: 01 May 2017

Received: 01 December 2016

Published in TOCE Volume 18, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

77
Total Citations
View Citations
2,922
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)487
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)56

Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Altıok SÜçgül M(2025)Effects of Robotic Coding on Computational Thinking Skills of Secondary School StudentsEffets du codage robotique sur les compétences de pensée computationnelle des élèves du secondaireCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology10.21432/cjlt2860750:2(1-24)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt28607
Dong YMa HLi HJing BLiu H(2025)Effects of digital badges on pupils' computational thinking and learning motivation in computer scienceActa Psychologica10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104824254(104824)Online publication date: Apr-2025
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104824
Palop BDíaz IRodríguez-Muñiz LSantaengracia J(2025)Redefining computational thinking: A holistic framework and its implications for K-12 educationEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-13297-4Online publication date: 22-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13297-4
Kim MKim JLee W(2025)Intellectual disabilities and programming: Improving computational thinking-based problem solvingEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-13253-2Online publication date: 8-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13253-2
Heeney M(2024)Online Constructionism Using Digital TwinsProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 210.1145/3632621.3671417(563-566)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632621.3671417
Gao HZhang YWang KYu FLi T(2024)Using 3D Virtual and Physical Robot Alone or Together-Which Works Better for Learning engagement and Computational Thinking2024 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET)10.1109/ISET61814.2024.00082(381-385)Online publication date: 29-Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET61814.2024.00082
Wang YXie B(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
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101528
Wong G(2024)Amplifying children’s computational problem-solving skills: A hybrid-based design for programming educationEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-11880-929:2(1761-1793)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-023-11880-9
Martín LHijón‐Neira RPizarro CCañas J(2024)Fostering computational thinking with simulated 3D robots in secondary educationComputer Applications in Engineering Education10.1002/cae.2274032:4Online publication date: 8-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22740
Jamal NJawawi DHassan RMohamad RHalim SSaadon NIsa MHamed H(2024)Adaptive learning framework for learning computational thinking using educational roboticsComputer Applications in Engineering Education10.1002/cae.2273232:4Online publication date: 6-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22732
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents