Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3328778.3366841acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Impacts of Creating Smart Everyday Objects on Young Female Students' Programming Skills and Attitudes

Published: 26 February 2020 Publication History

Abstract

In computer programming education, learning to program tangible objects has become a common way to introduce programming to young students. In an effort to address this intervention, scientific research has been done on the effectiveness of using tangible hardware platforms such as robots and wearable products to teach basic programming concepts to children. However, there is a lack of research on how young students' attitudes and programming skills are influenced over time, when they learn to program tangible objects and make them smart. In this paper, we investigate the impacts of using a tangible everyday object and making it smart on young female students' attitudes towards programming and the acquisition of basic programming skills. During a 4-day non-formal programming workshop with 12 6th grade students, they were introduced to basic programming concepts, and learned how to apply them to turn a houseplant into a smart object. In a pilot study, we employed a block-based programming environment and analyzed the students' trajectories of attitudes towards programming and performance based on repeated open-ended qualitative questionnaires and programming questions throughout the workshop. The results show that all students had high confidence regarding programming skills, regardless of creating smart objects. Furthermore, it indicates that experienced students highly valued the programming of tangible everyday objects compared with inexperienced students. The findings of this work contribute to our understanding of how making tangible everyday objects smart can support the development of a positive attitude and keep up of interest throughout a programming workshop among girls.

References

[1]
Sally R Beisser. 2005. An examination of gender differences in elementary constructionist classrooms using Lego/Logo instruction. Computers in the Schools, Vol. 22, 3--4 (2005), 7--19.
[2]
Paulo Blikstein. 2015. Computationally Enhanced Toolkits for Children: Historical Review and a Framework for Future Design . Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 9, 1 (2015), 1--68. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000057
[3]
Leah Buechley, Mike Eisenberg, Jaime Catchen, and Ali 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. ACM, 423--432.
[4]
John W Coffey. 2017. A Study of the Use of a Reflective Activity to Improve Students' Software Design Capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 129--134.
[5]
Microsoft Corporation. 2017. Why Europe's girls aren't studying STEM. (2017). retrieved August 10, 2019 from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/427011.
[6]
Inés Friss de Kereki and Areti Manataki. 2016. "Code Yourself" and "A Programar": a bilingual MOOC for teaching Computer Science to teenagers. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016 IEEE. IEEE, 1--9.
[7]
Bernhard Ertl, Silke Luttenberger, and Manuela Paechter. 2017. The impact of gender stereotypes on the self-concept of female students in stem subjects with an under-representation of females. Frontiers in psychology, Vol. 8 (2017), 703.
[8]
Neil Fraser. 2014. Google blockly-a visual programming editor. URL: http://code.google.com/p/blockly. Accessed Sep (2014). Now available at https://developers.google.com/blockly/; accessed 10-August-2019.
[9]
Elena Gorbacheva, Jenine Beekhuyzen, Jan vom Brocke, and Jörg Becker. 2019. Directions for research on gender imbalance in the IT profession. European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 28, 1 (2019), 43--67.
[10]
Denise Gürer and Tracy Camp. 2002. An ACM-W literature review on women in computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 34, 2 (2002), 121--127.
[11]
Yasmin B Kafai. 2016. From computational thinking to computational participation in K--12 education. Commun. ACM, Vol. 59, 8 (2016), 26--27.
[12]
Yasmin B Kafai, Eunkyoung Lee, Kristin Searle, Deborah Fields, Eliot Kaplan, and Debora Lui. 2014. A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Vol. 14, 1 (2014), 1.
[13]
Filiz Kalelioug lu. 2015. A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code. org. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 52 (2015), 200--210.
[14]
Eva-Sophie Katterfeldt and Nadine Dittert. 2018. Co-designing Smart Home Maker Workshops with Girls. In Proceedings of the Conference on Creativity and Making in Education. ACM, 100--101.
[15]
Eva-Sophie Katterfeldt, Nadine Dittert, and Heidi 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. ACM, 9--17.
[16]
Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Vol. 37, 2 (2005), 83--137.
[17]
John Maloney, Mitchel Resnick, Natalie Rusk, Brian Silverman, and Evelyn Eastmond. 2010. The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Vol. 10, 4 (2010), 16.
[18]
Cecilia Martinez, Marcos J Gomez, and Luciana Benotti. 2015. A comparison of preschool and elementary school children learning computer science concepts through a multilanguage robot programming platform. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education . ACM, 159--164.
[19]
Edward F Melcer and Katherine Isbister. 2018. Bots & (Main) Frames: exploring the impact of tangible blocks and collaborative play in an educational programming game. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 266.
[20]
Alexandros Merkouris, Konstantinos Chorianopoulos, and Achilles Kameas. 2017. Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Vol. 17, 2 (2017), 9.
[21]
Illah R Nourbakhsh, Emily Hamner, Kevin Crowley, and Katie Wilkinson. 2004. Formal measures of learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA'04. 2004, Vol. 2. IEEE, 1831--1836.
[22]
Seymour Papert. 2002. Hard Fun. Bangor Daily News (Bangor, Maine) (2002). retrieved August 1, 2019 from http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html.
[23]
Vivek Paramasivam, Justin Huang, Sarah Elliott, and Maya Cakmak. 2017. Computer Science Outreach with End-User Robot-Programming Tools. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 447--452.
[24]
Kanjun Qiu, Leah Buechley, Edward Baafi, and Wendy Dubow. 2013. A curriculum for teaching computer science through computational textiles. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 20--27.
[25]
Y Malini Reddy and Heidi Andrade. 2010. A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, Vol. 35, 4 (2010), 435--448.
[26]
Mitchel Resnick, Fred Martin, Robert Berg, Rick Borovoy, Vanessa Colella, Kwin Kramer, and Brian Silverman. 1998. Digital manipulatives: new toys to think with. In CHI '98: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, 281--287. https://doi.org/10.1145/274644.274684
[27]
Mazyar Seraj, Serge Autexier, and Jan Janssen. 2018. BEESM, a block-based educational programming tool for end users. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM, 886--891.
[28]
Mazyar Seraj, Cornelia S Große, Serge Autexier, and Rolf Drechsler. 2019 a. Look What I Can Do: Acquisition of Programming Skills in the Context of Living Labs. In Proceedings of the 41th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training. IEEE.
[29]
Mazyar Seraj, Cornelia S Große, Serge Autexier, and Rolf Drechsler. 2019 b. Smart Homes Programming: Development and Evaluation of an Educational Programming Application for Young Learners. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 146--152.
[30]
Jaekwoun Shim, Daiyoung Kwon, and Wongyu Lee. 2016. The effects of a robot game environment on computer programming education for elementary school students. IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 60, 2 (2016), 164--172.
[31]
Amanda Sullivan and Marina Umashi Bers. 2016. Girls, boys, and bots: Gender differences in young children's performance on robotics and programming tasks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, Vol. 15 (2016), 145--165.
[32]
David Weintrop. 2019. Block-based programming in computer science education. Commun. ACM, Vol. 62, 8 (2019), 22--25.
[33]
David Weintrop and Nathan Holbert. 2017. From blocks to text and back: Programming patterns in a dual-modality environment. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 633--638.
[34]
David Weintrop and Uri Wilensky. 2015. Using Commutative Assessments to Compare Conceptual Understanding in Blocks-based and Text-based Programs. In ICER, Vol. 15. 101--110.
[35]
David Weintrop and Uri Wilensky. 2017. Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Vol. 18, 1 (2017), 3.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Programming Smart Objects: How Young Learners’ Programming Skills, Attitudes, and Perception Are InfluencedProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E10.1145/3689493.3689982(45-55)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
  • (2022)Children’s Participation in the Design of Smart Solutions: A Literature ReviewSmart Cities10.3390/smartcities50200265:2(475-495)Online publication date: 2-Apr-2022
  • (2022)Smart-thing design by children at a distanceInternational Journal of Child-Computer Interaction10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.10048233:COnline publication date: 1-Sep-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 2020
1502 pages
ISBN:9781450367936
DOI:10.1145/3328778
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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 February 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. acquisition of programming skills
  2. attitudes towards programming
  3. smart objects
  4. tangible objects
  5. young female students

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung

Conference

SIGCSE '20
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025
The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 26 - March 1, 2025
Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)45
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 22 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Programming Smart Objects: How Young Learners’ Programming Skills, Attitudes, and Perception Are InfluencedProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E10.1145/3689493.3689982(45-55)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
  • (2022)Children’s Participation in the Design of Smart Solutions: A Literature ReviewSmart Cities10.3390/smartcities50200265:2(475-495)Online publication date: 2-Apr-2022
  • (2022)Smart-thing design by children at a distanceInternational Journal of Child-Computer Interaction10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.10048233:COnline publication date: 1-Sep-2022
  • (2021)Interaction of visual interface and academic levels with young students’ anxiety, playfulness, and enjoyment in programming for robot controlUniversal Access in the Information Society10.1007/s10209-021-00821-322:1(213-225)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2021
  • (2021)What Children Learn in Smart-Thing Design at a Distance: An Exploratory InvestigationMethodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, 11th International Conference10.1007/978-3-030-86618-1_3(22-31)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2021
  • (2020)Impacts of Block-based Programming on Young Learners' Programming Skills and Attitudes in the Context of Smart EnvironmentsProceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3341525.3394000(569-570)Online publication date: 15-Jun-2020

View Options

Login options

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