Combining Webduino Programming With Situated Learning to Promote Computational Thinking,Motivation,and Satisfaction Among High School Students

Abstract

Many countries have incorporated computational thinking (CT) and programming languages into their science and technology courses. Students can improve their CT ability by learning programming languages. Moreover, situated learning enables students to generate knowledge and master problem-solving skills through interaction with situations. This study incorporated Webduino learning and the situated learning strategy into a programming course and analyzed its impact on high school students’ CT ability, learning motivation, and course satisfaction. A quasi-experimental research method was adopted, wherein the experimental group was subjected to the situated learning strategy and the control group was subjected to a traditional teaching method. The study results revealed that integrating Webduino programming with situated learning could effectively improve five categories of CT skills; moreover, the activity models of situated learning enhanced the value and expectation dimensions of learning motivation. In addition, satisfaction with the course content and self-identity slightly improved. However, because teachers were required to elaborate on stories to promote learner engagement with life situations, the time available for programming was limited. Thus, no significant difference was observed in teaching satisfaction.

Keywords

Webduino programming language computational thinking situated learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

J. R.

Reder

L. M.

Simon

H. A.

(1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.

Arfé

Vardanega

Ronconi

(2020). The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition skills. Computers & Education, 148, 103807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103807

Australian Curriculum, Assessment, Reporting Authority. (2013). Draft Australian curriculum technologies. http://consultation.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Static/docs/Technologies/Draft%20Australian%20Curriculum%20Technologies%20%20February%202013.pdf

Balanskat

Engelhardt

(2015). Computing our future. Computer programming and coding. Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. http://www.eun.org/documents/411753/817341/Computing+our+future_final_2015.pdf

Barr

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.

Barreto

V. B.

L’Erario

Fabri

J. A.

(2015). Teaching programming for high school students using the Lego Mindstorms robot. In Rocha

Á.

Adeli

Reis

L. P.

Costanzo

Orovic

Moreira

(Eds.), 2015 10th Iberian conference on information systems and technologies (CISTI). IEEE.

Bebras. (2018). http://bebras.csie.ntnu.edu.tw/about

Bender

Kussmann

(2012). Arduino based projects in the computer science capstone course. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 27(5), 152–157.

Bentil

Ababio

B. T.

(2020). Benefits of adopting problem-based learning in geography education: Standpoint of students and instructors. International Journal of Education and Evaluation, 6(3), 1–14.

10.

Brand

E. A.

Honig

W. L.

Wojtowicz

(2011). Intelligent systems development in a non engineering curriculum. In Proceedings of the 16th annual joint conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 48–52). ACM.

11.

Brown

J. S.

Collins

Duguid

(1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

12.

Casey

P. J.

(1997). Computer programming: A medium for teaching problem solving. Computers in the Schools, 13(1-2), 41–51.

13.

Chang

Y. H.

Lin

P. R.

Y. T.

(2020). Development of a Kinect-based English learning system based on integrating the ARCS model with situated learning. Sustainability, 12(5), 2037. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052037

14.

Chaudhary

Agrawal

Sureka

(2016). An experience report on teaching programming and computational thinking to elementary level children using lego robotics education kit. In Kumar

Murthy

(Eds.), 2016 IEEE 8th international conference on technology for education (T4E 2016) (pp. 38–41). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2016.15

15.

Chen

Shen

Barth-Cohen

Jiang

Huang

Eltoukhy

(2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175.

16.

Chen

H.-R.

Lin

Y.-S.

(2016). An examination of digital game-based situated learning applied to Chinese language poetry education. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2015.1007077

17.

Chen

S. H.

Chen

S. C.

Lee

S. C.

Chang

Y. I.

Yeh

K. Y.

(2017). Impact of interactive situated and simulated teaching program on novice nursing practitioners' clinical competence, confidence, and stress. Nurse Education Today, 55, 11–16.

18.

Clancey

W. J.

(1995). A tutorial on situated learning. In Self

(Ed.), Proceedings of the international conference on computer and education (pp. 49–70). AACE.

19.

College Board. (2014). AP computer science principles curriculum framework. http://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/apcomputer-science-principles-curriculum-framework.pdf

20.

Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards. CSTA Standards Task Force. Association for Computing Machinery.

21.

Csizmadia

Curzon

Dorling

Humphreys

Selby

Woollard

(2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. Computing at Schools. Unpublished report. http://community.Computingatschool.org. uk/resources/2324

22.

Dagiene

(2006). Information technology contests—Introduction to computer science in an attractive way. Informatics in Education, 5(1), 37.

23.

Dagienė

Sentance

(2016). It’s computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. In International conference on informatics in schools: Situation, evolution, and perspectives (pp. 28–39). Springer.

24.

Dagiene

Skupiene

(2004). Learning by competitions: Olympiads in informatics as a tool for training high-grade skills in programming. In 2nd International conference on information technology: Research and education (pp. 79–83). IEEE.

25.

Delal

Oner

(2020). Developing middle school students’ computational thinking skills using unplugged computing activities. Informatics in Education, 19(1), 1–13.

26.

Demirci

(2010). The project-based learning approach in a science lesson: A sample project study. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5, 66–79.

27.

Department for Education. (2013). The National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study

28.

Department for Education in England. (2013, September 11). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-englandcomputing-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-computingprogrammes-of-study

29.

Dörnyei

Ottó

(1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43–69.

30.

Gardiner

L. R.

Corbitt

Adams

S. J.

(2009). Program assessment: Getting to a practical how-to model. Journal of Education for Business, 85(3), 139–144.

31.

Gentner

Rattermann

M. J.

Forbus

K. D.

(1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating re-trievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 524–575.

32.

Google. (2015). Searching for computer science: Access and barriers in U.S. K-12 education. https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/searching-for-computer-science_report.pdf

33.

Google for Education. (2016). Exploring computational thinking. https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/

34.

Griffin

M. M.

(1995). You can’t get there from here: Situated learning transfer, and map skills. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(1), 65–87.

35.

Grover

Pea

(2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

36.

Hemmendinger

(2010). A plea for modesty. ACM Inroads, 1(2), 4–7.

37.

Herrington

Oliver

(2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.

38.

Ioannou

N. K.

Ioannidis

G. S.

Papadopoulos

G. D.

Tapeinos

A. E.

(2014). A novel educational platform, based on the Raspberry-Pi: Optimised to assist the teaching and learning of younger students. In 2014 International conference on interactive collaborative learning (ICL) (pp. 517–524). IEEE.

39.

Kelly

R. R.

McCrackin

M. A.

Russell

D. L.

Leddy

L. R.

Cray

J. J.

Larue

A. C.

(2019). Teaching surgical model development in research by using situated learning and instructional scaffolding. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, 58(3), 321–328.

40.

Kong

S. C.

Andone

Biswas

Hoppe

H. U.

Hsu

T. C.

Huang

R. H.

Kuo

B. C.

K. Y.

Looi

C. K.

Milrad

Sheldon

Shih

J. L.

Sin

K. F.

Song

K. S.

Vahrenhold

(Eds.). (2019). Proceedings of international conference on computational thinking education 2019. The Education University of Hong Kong.

41.

Ladner

R. E.

Stefik

(2017). AccessCSforAll: Making computer science accessible to K-12 students in the United States. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 118, 3–8.

42.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

43.

Lee

Grover

Martin

Pillai

Malyn-Smith

(2020). Computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective: Integrating computational thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 1–8.

44.

Leonard

Buss

Gamboa

Mitchell

Fashola

O. S.

Hubert

Almughyirah

(2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860–876.

45.

Lin

W.-C.

Huang

D.-Y.

Huang

C.-W.

Liu

Y.-C.

Chen

G.-D.

(2015). A video comic for group situated learning in the classroom. In Gomez Chova

Lopez Martinez

Candel Torres

(Eds.), EDULEARN15: 7th international conference on education and new learning technologies (pp. 4264–4271). International Association of Technology, Education and Development.

46.

Lowrie

R. E.

Clements

M. A.

(2001). Visual and nonvisual processes in grade 6 students' mathematical problem solving. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16(1), 77–93.

47.

J. J.

Fletcher

G. H. L.

(2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260–264.

48.

Luo

Antonenko

P. D.

Davis

E. C.

(2020). Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education, 146, 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103759

49.

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.

50.

Maher

Bailey

Tucka

(2018). Teaching process skills to pre-engineers using situated learning – A case study. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 8(5), 121–147.

51.

Mannila

Dagiene

Demo

Grgurina

Mirolo

Rolandsson

Settle

(2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014 on innovation & technology in computer science education conference (pp. 1-29). ACM.

52.

McLellan

(1993). Evaluation in a situated learning environment. Educational Technology, 33(3), 39.

53.

Meyers

Lester

(2013). The effects of situated learning through a community partnership in a teacher preparation program. SAGE Open, 3(3), 215824401349702.

54.

Nicaise

Gibney

Crane

(2000). Toward an understanding of authentic learning: Student perceptions of an authentic classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 9(1), 79–94.

55.

Nomura

Yuan

(2019). Long-term motivations for L2 learning: A biographical study from a situated learning perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(2), 164–178.

56.

Parmar

Isaac

Babu

S. V.

D’Souza

Leonard

A. E.

Jorg

Daily

S. B.

(2016). Programming moves: Design and evaluation of applying embodied interaction in virtual environments to enhance computational thinking in Middle school students. In Hollerer

T.V.

Interrante Lecuyer

Suma

(Eds.), 2016 IEEE virtual reality conference (VR) (pp. 131–140). IEEE.

57.

Pérez-Marín

Hijón-Neira

Bacelo

Pizarro

(2020). Can computational thinking be improved by using a methodology based on metaphors and scratch to teach computer programming to children? Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.027

58.

Pintrich

P. R.

(1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338122.pdf

59.

Pintrich

P. R.

Smith

Garcia

McKeachie

(1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). The University of Michigan.

60.

Resnick, M. (2013, May). Learn to code, code to learn. EdSurge. https://web.media.mit.edu/∼mres/papers/L2CC2L-handout.pdf

61.

Rodríguez-Martínez

J. A.

González-Calero

J. A.

Sáez-López

J. M.

(2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using scratch: An experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612448

62.

Rubio, M. A., Hierro, C. M., & Pablo, A. P. D. M. (2013, July). Using Arduino to enhance computer programming courses in science and engineering. In Proceedings of the EDULEARN13 conference (pp. 5127–5133).

63.

Selby

Woollard

(2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. In Carter

Utting

Clear

(Eds.), Proceedings of 18th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (p. 6). University of Southampton.

64.

Stein

(1998). Situated learning in adult education. ERIC Digest No. 195.

65.

Tinnesand

Chan

(1987). Step1: Throw out the instructions. ScienceTeacher, 54(6), 43–45.

66.

Topala

Tomozii

(2014). Learning satisfaction: Validity and reliability testing for students' learning satisfaction questionnaire (SLSQ). Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128(22), 380–386.

67.

Wang

C. H.

Shannon

Ross

(2013). Students' characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302–323.

68.

Weinstein

C. E.

Mayer

R. E.

(1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In Wittrock

M. C.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Macmillan.

69.

Wilson

K. L.

Lizzio

Ramsden

(1997). The development, validation and application of the course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 22(1), 33–53.

70.

Wing

J. M.

(2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

71.

Wing

J. M.

(2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.

72.

Wing

J. M.

(2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The Link Magazine, Spring. Carnegie Mellon University.

73.

C.-C.

Tseng

I.-C.

Huang

S.-L.

(2008). Visualization of program behaviors: Physical robots versus robot simulators. Informatics Education-Supporting Computational Thinking, 5090, 53–62.

74.

Yadav

Gretter

Good

McLean

(2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In Rich

Hodges

(Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13

75.

Yeoman

Wilson

(2019). Designing for situated learning: Understanding the relations between material properties, designed form and emergent learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2090–2108.

76.

Yindi

(2016). Visual basic program designing based on computational thinking capabilities training. In Xu

(Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd information technology and mechatronics engineering conference (Vol. 24, pp. 175–178). Atlantis Press.

77.

Zheng

(2010). Effects of situated learning on students’ knowledge acquisition: An individual differences perspective. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(4), 467–487.