Using Epistemic Network Analysis to Explore Primary School Students’ Computational Thinking in Pair Programming Learning

Abstract

Pair programming (PP) can help improve students’ computational thinking (CT), but the trajectory of CT skills and the differences between high-scoring and low-scoring students in PP are unknown and need further exploration. In this study, a total of 32 fifth graders worked on Scratch tasks in 16 pairs. The group discourse of three learning topics (comprising 9 projects) was collected. After the audio files were transcribed, 1,303 conversations were obtained. They were analyzed via Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) Webkit, which can reveal the trajectory of students’ CT development via analyzing codes of discourse related to CT in PP. Three Scratch learning topics were assessed based on the Dr. Scratch platform to acquire the level of students’ CT and to determine the low- and high-scoring groups. Results indicated that CT concepts and CT practices were always closely related in PP and CT practices, and CT perspectives could be gradually and closely related after a long period of CT training. A significant difference between the two groups’ CT structures was found. The high-scoring group had more fragments of CT practice and connecting of CT perspectives, while the low-scoring group showed more fragments of CT concepts and expressing of CT perspectives. This research provides insights into cultivating primary school students’ CT using Scratch in the context of PP. The findings can provide suggestions for instructors to design instructional interventions to facilitate students’ CT skills via PP learning. Instructors can improve CT skills by guiding students to constantly ask questions, and specifying the role swap between driver and navigator in PP. Besides, instructors could give more consideration to the development of CT perspectives, and especially the ability to question.

Keywords

computational thinking pair programming epistemic network analysis primary school scratch

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allsop

(2019). Assessing computational thinking process using a multiple evaluation approach. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 19, 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.10.004

Stein

Liu

(2022). Assessing cognitive presence in online inquiry‐based discussion through text classification and epistemic network analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(1), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13285

Bers

M. U.

(2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge press.

Bodaker

Rosenberg-Kima

R. B.

(2023). Online pair-programming: Elementary school children learning scratch together online. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(5), 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2036653

Bråting

Kilhamn

(2022). The integration of programming in Swedish school mathematics: Investigating elementary mathematics textbooks. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(4), 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2021.1897879

Breakwell

G. M.

(2001). Mental models and social representations of hazards: The significance of identity processes. Journal of Risk Research, 4(4), 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870110062730

Brennan

Resnick

(2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association (pp. 1–25). Canada.

Brennan

Resnick

(2013). Stories from the scratch community: Connecting with ideas, interests, and people. Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 463–464). ACM.

Chang

C.-K.

Tsai

Y.-T.

(2019). Pair-programming curriculum development of motion-based game for enhancing computational thinking skills. 2018 7th international congress on advanced applied Informatics (pp. 284–287). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2018.00061

10.

Chao

P.-Y.

(2016). Exploring students’ computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Computers and Education, 95(4), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.010

11.

Choi

K.-S.

(2014). A comparative analysis of different gender pair combinations in pair programming. Behaviour and Information Technology, 34(8), 825–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2014.937460

12.

Csanadi

Eagan

Kollar

Shaffer

D. W.

Fischer

(2018). When coding-and-counting is not enough: Using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-018-9292-z

13.

CSTA, & ISTE (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking. https://www.iste.org/explore/Solutions/Computational-thinking-for-all.

14.

Demir

Ö.

Seferoglu

S. S.

(2020). A comparison of solo and pair programming in terms of flow experience, coding quality, and coding achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1448–1466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120949788

15.

Denner

Campe

Werner

(2019). Does computer game design and programming benefit children? A meta-synthesis of research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277565

16.

Fagerlund

Vesisenaho

Häkkinen

(2022). Fourth grade students’ computational thinking in pair programming with scratch: A holistic case analysis. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33, 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100511

17.

Falloon

(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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12155

18.

Fawcett

L. M.

Garton

A. F.

(2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(Pt 2), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904x23411

19.

Gillott

Joyce-Gibbons

Hidson

(2020). Exploring and comparing computational thinking skills in students who take GCSE Computer Science and those who do not. International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering Systems, 3(4), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i4.77

20.

Gökçe

Yenmez

A. A.

(2022). Ingenuity of scratch programming on reflective thinking towards problem solving and computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11385-x

21.

Guo

Zheng

(2023). Understanding the evolution of cognitive engagement with interaction levels in online learning environments: Insights from learning analytics and epistemic network analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(3), 984–1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12781

22.

Hadad

Thomas

Kachovska

Yin

(2019). Practicing formative assessment for computational thinking in making environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09796-6

23.

Hopcan

Polat

Albayrak

(2022). Collaborative behavior patterns of students in programming instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 1035–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211062260

24.

Hsu

T. C.

Chang

Lin

Y. W.

(2023). Effects of voice assistant creation using different learning approaches on performance of computational thinking. Computers and Education, 192, 104657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104657

25.

Iskrenovic-Momcilovic

(2019). Pair programming with scratch. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2943–2952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09905-3

26.

Israel-Fishelson

Hershkovitz

(2022). Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: A scoping review (2011–2020). Computers and Education, 176, 104353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353

27.

(2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers and Education, 73, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010

28.

Kong

S. C.

Abelson

Lai

(2019). Introduction to computational thinking education. In Kong

S. C.

Abelson

(Eds), Computational thinking education (pp. 1–10). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_1

29.

Kong

S. C.

Chiu

M. M.

Lai

(2018). A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers and Education, 127, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.026

30.

Kong

S. C.

Lai

(2023). Scaling up a teacher development programme for sustainable computational thinking education: TPACK surveys, concept tests and primary school visits. Computers and Education, 194, 104707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104707

31.

Kong

S. C.

Wang

Y. Q.

(2020). Formation of computational identity through computational thinking perspectives development in programming learning: A mediation analysis among primary school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106230

32.

Korkmaz

Ö.

Çakir

Özden

M. Y.

(2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005

33.

Lazar

Feng

J. H.

Hochheiser

(2017). Chapter 11 - analyzing qualitative data. In Lazar

Feng

J. H.

Hochheiser

(Eds), Research methods in human computer interaction (pp. 299-327). Morgan Kaufmann.

34.

Litts

B. K.

Lewis

W. E.

Mortensen

C. K.

(2020). Engaging youth in computational thinking practices through designing place-based mobile games about local issues. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674883

35.

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

36.

Madariaga

Allendes

Nussbaum

Barrios

Acevedo

(2023). Offline and online user experience of gamified robotics for introducing computational thinking: Comparing engagement, game mechanics and coding motivation. Computers and Education, 193, 104664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104664

37.

Mohamad

S. K.

Tasir

(2023). Exploring how feedback through questioning may influence reflective thinking skills based on association rules mining technique. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101231

38.

Moreno-León

Robles

(2015a). Analyze your Scratch projects with Dr. Scratch and assess your Computational Thinking skills. In Scratch conference (pp. 12–15). IEEE.

39.

Moreno-León

Robles

(2015b). Dr. Scratch. Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818338

40.

Mouza

Pan

Y. C.

Yang

Pollock

(2020). A multiyear investigation of student computational thinking concepts, practices, and perspectives in an after-school computing program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(5), 1029–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120905605

41.

Ouyang

Dai

Chen

(2022). Applying multimodal learning analytics to examine the immediate and delayed effects of instructor scaffoldings on small groups’ collaborative programming. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00361-z

42.

Ouyang

F.-C.

Lai

H.-M.

Wang

Y.-W.

(2023). Effect of augmented reality-based virtual educational robotics on programming students’ enjoyment of learning, computational thinking skills, and academic achievement. Computers and Education, 195, 104721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104721

43.

Ozmutlu

Atay

Erdoğan

(2021). Collaboration and engagement based coding training to enhance children’s computational thinking self-efficacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40(1), 100833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100833

44.

Paquette

Grant

Zhang

Biswas

Baker

R. S.

(2021). Using epistemic networks to analyze self-regulated learning in an open-ended problem-solving environment. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67788-6_13

45.

Park

Shin

(2019). Comparing the effectiveness of Scratch and App Inventor with regard to learning computational thinking concepts. Electronics, 8(11), 1269. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics8111269

46.

Reinhold

Hoch

Werner

Richter-Gebert

Reiss

(2020). Learning fractions with and without educational technology: What matters for high-achieving and low-achieving students? Learning and Instruction, 65, 101264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101264

47.

Robledo-Castro

Castillo-Ossa

L. F.

Hederich-Martínez

(2023). Effects of a computational thinking intervention program on executive functions in children aged 10 to 11. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 35, 100563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100563

48.

Roth

J. L.

Brooks-Gunn

(2003). What exactly is a youth development program? Answers from research and practice. Applied Developmental Science, 7(2), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0702_6

49.

Ruis

Rosser

Quandt-Walle

Nathwani

Shaffer

D. W.

Pugh

C. M.

Pugh

(2017). The hands and head of a surgeon: Modeling operative competency with multimodal epistemic network analysis. The American Journal of Surgery, 216(5), 835–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.11.027

50.

Sáez-López

J. M.

Román-González

Vázquez-Cano

(2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “scratch” in five schools. Computers and Education, 97, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003

51.

Seel

N. M.

(2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on learning. In Seel

N. M.

(Ed), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1223–1229). Springer.

52.

Shaffer

D. W.

(2017). Quantitative ethnography. Cathcart Press.

53.

Shaffer

D. W.

(2018). Epistemic network analysis: Understanding learning by using big data for thick description. In Fischer

Goldman

S. R.

Hmelo-Silver

C. E.

Reimann

(Eds), International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 520-531). Routledge.

54.

Shaffer

D. W.

Collier

Ruis

A. R.

(2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3

55.

Shute

V. J.

Sun

Asbell-Clarke

(2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

56.

Stewart

W. H.

Baek

Kwid

Taylor

(2021). Exploring factors that influence computational thinking skills in elementary students’ collaborative robotics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1208–1239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121992479

57.

Sun

Zhou

(2021). Which way of design programming activities is more effective to promote K-12 students’ computational thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12545

58.

Sun

Wang

Wegerif

Peng

(2022). How do students generate ideas together in scientific creativity tasks through computer-based mind mapping? Computers and Education, 176, 104359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104359

59.

Swiecki

Shaffer

D. W.

(2020). iSENS: An integrated approach to combining epistemic and social network analyses. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on learning analytics and knowledge. ACM.

60.

Tan

S. C.

Wang

(2022). The development trajectory of shared epistemic agency in online collaborative learning: A study combing network analysis and sequential analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(8), 1655–1681. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211001562

61.

Tang

K. Y.

Chou

T. L.

Tsai

C.-C.

(2019). A content analysis of computational thinking Research: An international publication trends and research typology. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00442-8

62.

Tang

Yin

Lin

Hadad

Zhai

(2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798

63.

Teng

C. H.

Chen

J. Y.

Chen

Z. H.

(2018). Impact of augmented reality on programming language learning: Efficiency and perception. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(2), 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117706109

64.

Ternik

Koron

Šerbec

I. N.

(2017). Learning programming concepts through Maze game in scratch. In proceedings of the 11th European conference on games based learning. Graz.

65.

Troiano

G. M.

Snodgrass

Argımak

Robles

Smith

Cassidy

Tucker-Raymond

Puttick

Harteveld

(2019). Is my game OK Dr. Scratch? Proceedings of the 18th ACM international conference on interaction design and children. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323152

66.

Tsai

Lin

M. Y.

Cheng

Lee

Chyr

Lin

Tsai

(2023). The effects of online peer-facilitated learning and distributed pair programming on students’ learning. Computers & education, 203, 104849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104849

67.

Tsan

Vandenberg

Zakaria

Wiggins

J. B.

Webber

A. R.

Bradbury

Lynch

Wiebe

Boyer

K. E.

(2020). A comparison of two pair programming configurations for upper elementary students. Proceedings of the 51st ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366941

68.

Tsarava

Moeller

Román-González

Golle

Leifheit

Butz

M. V.

Ninaus

(2022). A cognitive definition of computational thinking in primary education. Computers and Education, 179, 104425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104425

69.

Vandenberg

Zakaria

Tsan

Iwanski

Lynch

Boyer

K. E.

Wiebe

(2021). Prompting collaborative and exploratory discourse: An epistemic network analysis study. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16(3), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-021-09349-3

70.

Vourletsis

Politis

(2022). Exploring the effect of remixing stories and games on the development of students’ computational thinking. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100069

71.

Wei

X. F.

Lin

Meng

N. X.

Tan

Kong

S. C.

Kinshuk

(2020). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers and Education, 160, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023

72.

Wing

J. M.

(2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

73.

Wohl

Porter

Clinch

(2015). Teaching computer science to 5–7-year-olds. Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818340

74.

Liu

Mao

Zhang

(2020). Using epistemic network analysis and self-reported reflections to explore students’ metacognition differences in collaborative learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 82, 101913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101913

75.

Jiang

Sun

(2022). A novel three-way decision model for improving computational thinking based on grey correlation analysis. Scientific Programming, 2022, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3575457

76.

Zhang

L. C.

Nouri

(2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers and Education, 141(25), 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607

77.

Zhang

Gao

Sun

Cai

Tang

Liu

(2022). Understanding student teachers’ collaborative problem solving: Insights from an epistemic network analysis (ENA). Computers and Education, 183, 104485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104485

78.

Zhang

Liu

Cai

(2019). Exploring primary school teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in online collaborative discourse: An epistemic network analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3437–3455. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12751

79.

Zhao

Liu

Wang

Y.-S.

(2022). Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers and Education, 181, 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445

80.

Zhong

Wang

Chen

(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

81.

Zhong

Wang

Chen

(2016). An exploration of three dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4), 562–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115608444