This exploratory study attempts to determine problem solving steps in block based programming environments. The study was carried out throughout one term within Code.org. Participants were 15 6th grade secondary school students enrolled in an IT course at a public secondary school. Observations, screenshots and interviews were analyzed together to find out what students do and what they think during problem solving process. As a result, three main steps (focus, fight and finalize) were extracted from students’ behavioral patterns. The results suggest that three steps occur in linear or cyclic manner with regard to the programming constructs required for the solution of the problem. Implications for instructors who desire to provide a better learning experience on problem solving through block-based programming are also included.
ArmoniM.Meerbaum-SalantO.Ben-AriM. (2015).
From scratch to “real” programming. ACM Transactions on Computing Education,
14(4), 1–15.
2.
BarrD.HarrisonJ.ConeryL. (2011).
Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading With Technology,
38(6), 20–23.
3.
BlumeG. W.SchoenH. L. (1988).
Mathematical problem-solving performance of eighth-grade programmers and nonprogrammers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
19(2), 142–156.
4.
BurkeQ. (2012).
The markings of a new pencil: Introducing programming-as-writing in the middle school classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education,
4(2), 121–135.
5.
ChaoP. Y. (2016).
Exploring students’ computational practice, design and performance of problem solving through a visual programming environment. Computers & Education,
95, 202–215.
6.
ChenC.HaduongP.BrennanK.SonnertG.SadlerP. (2019).
The effects of first programming language on college students’ computing attitude and achievement: A comparison of graphical and textual languages. Computer Science Education,
29(1), 23–48.
7.
ChingY. H.HsuY. C.BaldwinS. (2018).
Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners. TechTrends,
62(6), 563–573.
8.
DuJ.WimmerH.RadaR. (2017). “Hour of code”: A case study. In Lester, L. & Bhatnagar, N. (eds) Proceedings of the EDSIG Conference ISSN (Vol. 2473, p. 3857). Available at: http://proc.iscap.info/2017/
9.
DuncanC.BellT. (2015, November). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. In J. Gal-Ezer, S. Sentance, & J. Vahrenhold (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 39–48). Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/2818314
10.
FalloonG. (2016).
An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using Scratch Jnr. On the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
32(6), 576–593.
11.
FessakisG.GouliE.MavroudiE. (2013).
Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education,
63, 87–97.
12.
FraserN. (2015). Ten things we’ve learned from Blockly. In B. Morrison (eds) 2015 IEEE blocks and beyond workshop (blocks and beyond) (pp. 49–50). IEEE. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/BLOCKS.2015.7369000
13.
GarlickR.CankayaE. C. (2010). Using Alice in CS1: A quantitative experiment. In R. Ayfer & J. Impagliazzo (eds) Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 165–168). ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/proceedings/10.1145/1822090
GroverS.BasuS. (2017, March). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and Boolean logic. In M. E. Caspersen, S. H. Edwards (eds) Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 267–272). ACM. Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3017680.3017723
16.
GroverS.PeaR. (2013).
Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher,
42(1), 38–43.
17.
GroverS.PeaR.CooperS. (2015).
Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education,
25(2), 199–237.
18.
GulS.AsifM.AhmadW.AhmadU. (2017, December). Teaching programming: A mind map based methodology to improve learning outcomes. In S. Patnaik (eds) 2017 International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies (ICICT) (pp. 209–213). IEEE. Available at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8320192
19.
KafaiY. B.BurkeQ. (2013).
Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan,
95(1), 61–65.
20.
KalelioğluF. (2015).
A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior,
52, 200–210.
21.
KalelioğluF.GülbaharY. (2014).
The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education,
13(1), 33–50.
22.
KelleherC.PauschR. (2005).
Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),
37(2), 83–137.
23.
LeeI.MartinF.AponeK. (2014).
Integrating computational thinking across the K-8 curriculum. Acm Inroads,
5(4), 64–71.
24.
LewisC. M. (2010). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. scratch. In G. Lewandowski & S. Wolfman (eds) Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 346–350). ACM.
25.
LinnM. C. (1985).
The cognitive consequences of programming instruction in classrooms. Educational Researcher,
14(5), 14–29.
26.
LyeS. Y.KohJ. 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.
27.
MayerR. E.WittrockM. C. (2006). Problem solving. In AlexanderP. A.WinnieP. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 287e303).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
McCainT. (2005). Teaching for tomorrow: Teaching content and problem-solving skills.
Corwin Press.
29.
MladenovićM.BoljatI.ŽankoŽ. (2018).
Comparing loops misconceptions in block-based and text-based programming languages at the K-12 level. Education and Information Technologies,
23(4), 1483–1500.
30.
NanceS. (2016). Using computer programming to enhance problem-solving skills of fifth grade students [Doctoral thesis]. University of Florida.]
31.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2004). Problem solving for tomorrow’s world: First measures of cross-curricular competencies from PISA (2003).
32.
PalumboD. B. (1990).
Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research,
60(1), 65–89.
33.
PearsA.SeidmanS.MalmiL.MannilaL.AdamsE.BennedsenJ.PatersonJ. (2007). A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. In J. Carter, J.Amillo (eds) Working group reports on ITICSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 204–223). Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1345375.1345441
34.
PiechC.SahamiM.HuangJ.GuibasL. (2015). Autonomously generating hints by inferring problem solving policies. In G. Kiczales (eds) Proceedings of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale (pp. 195–204). ACM.
35.
PolyaG. (1980). On solving mathematical problems in high school. In KrulikS. (Eds.), Problem solving in school mathematics (pp. 1–2).
NCTM.
36.
PopatS.StarkeyL. (2019).
Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education,
128, 365–376.
37.
PriceT. W.BarnesT. (2015). Comparing textual and block interfaces in a novice programming environment. In B. Dorn (eds) Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 91–99). ACM.
38.
ResnickM.MaloneyJ.Monroy-HernándezA.RuskN.EastmondE.BrennanK.MillnerA.RosenbaumE.SilverJ.SilvermanB.KafaiY. (2009).
Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM,
52(11), 60–67.
39.
RingB. A.GiordanJ.RansbottomJ. S. (2008).
Problem solving through programming: Motivating the non-programmer. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges,
23(3), 61–67.
40.
ShinS.ParkP.BaeY. (2013).
The effects of an information-technology gifted program on friendship using scratch programming language and clutter. International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering,
2(3), 246.
41.
SuA.YangS. J.HwangW. Y.HuangC. S.TernM. Y. (2014).
Investigating the role of computer-supported annotation in problem solving-based teaching: An empirical study of a Scratch programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology,
45(4), 647–665.
42.
TyrenM.CarlborgN.HeathC.ErikssonE. (2018). Considerations and technical pitfalls for teaching computational thinking with BBC micro: Bit. In M. Giannakos, & M. Divitini (eds) Proceedings of the Conference on Creativity and Making in Education (pp. 81–86). Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3213818.3213829
43.
VoletS. E.LundC. P. (1994).
Metacognitive instruction in introductory computer programming: A better explanatory construct for performance than traditional factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
10(4), 297–328.
44.
WeintropD.WilenskyU. (2015). Using commutative assessments to compare conceptual understanding in blocks-based and text-based programs. In B. Dorn (eds) ICER 15 (pp. 101–110). Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2787622.2787721
45.
WeintropD.WilenskyU. (2017).
Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education,
18(1), 1–25.
46.
WingJ. M. (2008).
Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions: Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences,
366(1881), 3717–3725.
WimmerH.DuJ.RadaR. (2016). “
Hour of code”: Can it change students’ attitudes toward programming?Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice,
15(1), 053–073.
49.
XuZ.RitzhauptA. D.TianF.UmapathyK. (2019).
Block-based versus text-based programming environments on novice student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis study. Computer Science Education,
29(2-3), 177–128.
