Abstract
While numerous studies have highlighted the potential benefits of programming environment (PE) use for children’s learning, the boundary conditions of children’s PE acceptance within the programming education context are less clear. This study fills this gap in the literature by investigating the critical determinants of children’s PE use intention and extending the boundary conditions to programming competition, computational thinking, and programming modality. A total of 1527 primary students participated in this study. Using structural equation modelling (SEM) analyses, the measurement model was validated, and the configural, metric and scalar invariance of the measurement model was established. The structural model was also confirmed, with most of the hypothesized relationships were supported. Multigroup SEM analyses were conducted to compare structural path coefficient differences across different personal moderators (i.e., gender, grade, and experience), environmental moderators (i.e., both parents’ education level), and PE use-relevant moderators (i.e., programming competition, computational thinking, and programming modality). The results revealed significant path differences in six group comparisons, with most of the path differences associated with perceived self-efficacy and perceived ease of use. It should be noted that no significant path differences were identified for the gender and programming competition group comparisons. This work serves as a pioneer study of a comprehensive understanding of the determinants and moderators of children’s PE use intention. The findings offer important theoretical implications through accommodating essential constructs within a PE acceptance framework and recommending effective strategies to improve primary students’ PE acceptance for programming learning in primary education.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data availability
Requests for data details may be made to the corresponding author. Active consent forms have been signed by the participants, and the research project has acquired ethical approval from the institution.
References
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Prentice-Hall.
Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2001). Introduction to measurement theory. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018.
Ashrafi, A., Zareravasan, A., Rabiee Savoji, S., & Amani, M. (2022). Exploring factors influencing students’ continuance intention to use the learning management system (LMS): A multi-perspective framework. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(8), 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1734028.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2021). Exploring University students’ intention to use mobile learning: A research model approach. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10267-4.
Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096.
Chai, C. S., Teo, T., Huang, F., Chiu, T. K. F., & Wang, X. (2022). Secondary school students’ intentions to learn AI: Testing moderation effects of readiness, social good and optimism. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 765–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10111-1.
Chen, C. C., Liu, C. C., Chiu, T. H., Lee, Y. W., & Wu, K. C. (2022). Role of perceived ease of use for augmented reality app designed to help children navigate smart libraries. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2082017.
Chen, C., Yang, C., Huang, K., & Yao, K. (2020). Augmented reality and competition in robotics education: Effects on 21st century competencies, group collaboration and learning motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 1052–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12469.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Cheng, G. (2019). Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of visual programming environment among boys and girls in primary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.043.
Cheng, M., Tao, D., Xie, S., Cao, X., & Yuen, A. H. (2022). Exploring students’ learning management system acceptance patterns: Antecedents and consequences of profile membership. Computers in Human Behavior, 135, 107374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107374.
Cheng, M., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2018). Student continuance of learning management system use: A longitudinal exploration. Computers & Education, 120, 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.004.
Cheng, M., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2019). Cultural divides in acceptance and continuance of learning management system use: A longitudinal study of teenagers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1613–1637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09680-5.
Cheng, M., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2022). Junior secondary students’ acceptance and continuance of e-learning system use: A multi-group analysis across social backgrounds. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(2), 324–347.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & Education, 63, 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98.
Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., & Scott, M. R. (2016). Informal science: Family education, experiences, and initial interest in science. International Journal of Science Education Part B, 6(3), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2015.1058990.
Davis, F. D. (1989). PU, PEOU, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis-Kean, P. E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parental expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.294.
Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888272.
Eccles, J. S., Arberton, A., Buchanan, C. M., Janis, J., Flanagan, C., Harold, R., MacIver, D., Midgley, C., Reuman, D. (1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children’s interests, self-perceptions, and activity choices. In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 145–208). University of Nebraska Press.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and changing behaviour: The reasoned action approach (1st Edition.). Psychology Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hava, K., & Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. (2021). Investigation of the relationship between middle school students’ computational thinking skills and their STEM career interest and attitudes toward inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(4), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09892-y.
Hsu, H. Y., Zhang, D., Kwok, O. M., Li, Y., & Ju, S. (2011). Distinguishing the influences of father’s and mother’s involvement on adolescent academic achievement: Analyses of Taiwan education panel survey data. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(5), 694–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610373101.
Huang, F., Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2020). Chinese students’ intentions to use the internet-based technology for learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 575–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09695-y.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hu, Y., Su, C. Y., & Fu, A. (2022). Factors influencing younger adolescents’ intention to use game-based programming learning: A multigroup analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8203–8233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10973-1.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence (pp. xxvi, 378). Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000.
Jiang, S., & Wong, G. K. W. (2022). Exploring age and gender differences of computational thinkers in primary school: A developmental perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12591.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Kafai, Y. B., & Proctor, C. (2022). A revaluation of computational thinking in K–12 education: Moving toward computational literacies. Educational Researcher, 51(2), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211057904.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.).). Guilford Press.
Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: The case against competition. Houghton Mifflin.
Kong, S. C. (2017). Development and validation of a programming self-efficacy scale for senior primary school learners. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. International Conference on Computational Thinking Education, Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.
Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2020). Students’ attitudes toward robotics and STEM: Differences based on gender and robotics experience. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 23–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100167.
Lai, H. M., & Chen, C. P. (2011). Factors influencing secondary school teachers’ adoption of teaching blogs. Computers & Education, 56(4), 948–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.010.
Lai, X., & Wong, G. K. (2022). Collaborative versus individual problem solving in computational thinking through programming: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(1), 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13157.
Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3.
Luo, L., Stoeger, H., & Subotnik, R. F. (2022). The influences of social agents in completing a STEM degree: An examination of female graduates of selective science high schools. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00324-w.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012.
Mason, W. A., Toumbourou, J. W., Herrenkohl, T. I., Hemphill, S. A., Catalano, R. F., & Patton, G. C. (2011). Early age alcohol use and later alcohol problems in adolescents: Individual and peer mediators in a bi-national study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25, 625–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023320.
Mutambara, D., & Bayaga, A. (2021). Determinants of mobile learning acceptance for STEM education in rural areas. Computers & Education, 160, 104010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104010.
Çınar, M., & Tüzün, H. (2021). Comparison of object-oriented and robot programming activities: The effects of programming modality on student achievement, abstraction, problem solving, and motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12495.
Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Welch, G. (2016). Robotics camps, clubs, and competitions: Results from a US robotics project. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 686–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.07.011.
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
Polat, E., Hopcan, S., Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2021). A comprehensive assessment of secondary school students’ computational thinking skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1965–1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13092.
Rau, M. A. (2020). Comparing multiple theories about learning with physical and virtual representations: Conflicting or complementary effects? Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 297–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09517-1.
Revythi, A., & Tselios, N. (2019). Extension of technology acceptance model by using system usability scale to assess behavioral intention to use e-learning. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2341–2355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09869-4.
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2020). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning computer programming: Effective instructional approaches and conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106349.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35.
Scherer, R., & Teo, T. (2019). Unpacking teachers’ intentions to integrate technology: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 27, 90–109.
Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493394.2493403.
Sewell, W. H., & Shah, V. P. (1968). Parents’ education and children’s educational aspirations and achievements. American Sociological Review, 33(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092387.
Su, J., Yang, W., & Zhong, Y. (2022). Influences of gender and socioeconomic status on children’s use of robotics in early childhood education: A systematic review. Early Education and Development, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2022.2078617.
Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2022). Programming attitudes predict computational thinking: Analysis of differences in gender and programming experience. Computers & Education, 181, 104457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104457.
Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in K-12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 162, 104083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104083.
Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., Román-González, M., Golle, J., Leifheit, L., Butz, M. V., & Ninaus, M. (2022). A cognitive definition of computational thinking in primary education. Computers & Education, 179, 104425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104425.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2018). How block-based, text-based, and hybrid block/text modalities shape novice programming practices. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.04.005.
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., Kong, S. C., & Kinshuk (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 160, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.
Witherspoon, E. B., Schunn, C. D., Higashi, R. M., & Baehr, E. C. (2016). Gender, interest, and prior experience shape opportunities to learn programming in robotics competitions. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0052-1.
Xu, Z., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Tian, F., & Umapathy, K. (2019). Block-based versus text-based programming environments on novice student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis study. Computer Science Education, 29(2–3), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1565233.
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607.
Zhao, Y., Wang, N., Li, Y., Zhou, R., & Li, S. (2021). Do cultural differences affect users’ e-learning adoption? A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13002.
Zhong, B., Wang, Q., & Chen, J. (2016). The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.017.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to extend the gratitude to the participating schools, teachers, and students.
Funding
This work was supported by Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation, China [Grant No. 2021A1515110081], Guangdong Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science, China [Grant No. GD22XJY12], Shenzhen Science, Technology and Innovation Commission, China [Grant No. 20220810115236001], Shenzhen Education Science Planning Project, China [Grant No. zdzz22008], Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University Research Grant, China [Grant No. 22GPNUZDJS09].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Miaoting Cheng: Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing – original draft, review & editing; Funding acquisition. Xiaoyan Lai: Formal analysis; Writing – original draft, review & editing. Da Tao: Writing –review & editing. Juntong Lai: Writing –review & editing. Jun Yang: Writing –review & editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interest
No conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Cheng, M., Lai, X., Tao, D. et al. Children’s programming environment acceptance: extending the boundary conditions to programming competition, computational thinking, and programming modality. Educ Inf Technol 29, 939–969 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12325-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12325-z