The Effect of Teaching Physical Programming on Computational Thinking Skills and Self-Efficacy Perceptions Towards Computational Thinking

Abstract

The study examined the effect of teaching text-based programming with a physical programming tool on secondary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy perceptions. The study was conducted according to a sequential explanatory design as a mixed method research. The study group consisted of 85 secondary school students. Within the scope of the study, a physical programming tool called Micro:bit was used to teach Python programming for a period of 6 weeks. Data were collected using the Self-Efficacy Perception Scale for Computational Thinking Skill, Bebras: International Challenge on Informatics and Computational Thinking Tasks, tests focused on programming tool, concepts, and processes, and through semi-structured interview questioning. According to the findings obtained from pretests and posttests, a significant and positive difference was found in the students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy perceptions towards computational thinking skill. As a result of having received instruction in programming, the students satisfactorily learnt the required programming concepts and processes. Through learning Python programming with a physical programming tool, the students not only gained the skills required to write appropriate syntax, and to test and debug code, but they also learnt programming concepts such as variables, conditional expressions, loops, and functions.

Keywords

physical programming programming education text-based programming computational thinking skill self-efficacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

N. D.

(2016). A call for computational thinking in undergraduate psychology. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 15(3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659252

Atmatzidou

Demetriadis

Nika

(2018). How does the degree of guidance support students’ metacognitive and problem solving skills in educational robotics? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9709-x

Bakar

M. A.

Mukhtar

Khalid

(2020). The effect of turtle graphics approach on students’ motivation to learn programming: A case study in a Malaysian university. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 10(4), 290–297. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.4.1378

Banzi

Shiloh

(2015). Getting started with Arduino (3rd ed.). Maker Media.

Barba

Chancellor

(2015). Tangible media approaches to introductory computer science. In Dagienė

Schulte

Jevsikova

(Eds), Proceedings of 2015 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 207–212). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742612

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. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905

Barut

Tugtekin

Kuzu

(2016). Programlama eğitiminin bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerileri bağlamında incelenmesi [The Investigation of Programming Training in Context of Computational Thinking]. In Proceedings of the 4th international instructional technologies and teacher education symposium (pp. 210–214). ITTES. https://ittes.org.tr/dosyalar/files/IttesArsivi/2016/fulltext-proceeding-ittes2016.pdf

Berland

Wilensky

(2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9552-x

Bernad

Sic

Repnik

Osrajnik

(2021). Development of measurement systems with the BBC Micro:bit. In Koricic

Skala

Car

Cicin-Sain

Babic

Sruk

Skvorc

Ribaric

Jerbic

Gros

Vrdoljak

Mauher

Tijan

Katulic

Petrovic

Galinac Grbac

Fijan

N. F.

Gradisnik

(Eds), Proceedings of 2021 44th international convention on information, communication and electronic technology (MIPRO) (pp. 853–858). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO52101.2021.9596834

10.

Bocconi

Chioccariello

Dettori

Ferrari

Engelhardt

(2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education – implications for policy and practice. European Commission. EUR 28295 EN. https://doi.org/10.2791/792158

11.

Brennan

Resnick

(2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association. (1, p. 25). AERA. https://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf

12.

Buyukozturk

Ş.

(2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences. (8th ed.). Pegem yayıncılık.

13.

Byrne

Lyons

(2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. In Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 49–52). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/377435.377467

14.

Capay

Kvassayová

Bellayova

Mansell

Petrík

(2022). Programmable hardware BBC micro: Bit as a tool for developing teacher competencies. In Kallel

Kammoun

H. M.

Hsairi

(Eds), Proceedings of 2022 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1496–1501). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766487

15.

Cheng

Y.-P.

Lai

C.-F.

Chen

Y.-T.

Wang

W.-S.

Huang

Y.-M.

T.-T.

(2023). Enhancing student’s computational thinking skills with student-generated questions strategy in a game-based learning platform. Computers and Education, 200, 104794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104794.

16.

Choi

(2012). Learners’ reflections on computer programming using scratch: Korean primary pre-service teachers’ perspective. In Proceedings of 10th international conference for media in education 2012 (ICoME) (pp. 22–24). Beijing Normal University.

17.

Cortina

T. J.

Dann

W. P.

Frieze

Ciminillo

Tananis

Trahan

(2012). Work in progress: Activate: Advancing computing and technology interest and innovation through teacher education. In Proceedings of 2012 frontiers in education conference (pp. 1–2). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2012.6462477

18.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2014). Dede

Demir

S. B.

(Eds). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi [designing and conducting mixed methods research]. Anı Yayıncılık.

19.

Denning

P. J.

(2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/2998438

20.

Dorling

White

(2015). Scratch: A way to logo and python. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 191–196). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677256

21.

Eguchi

(2015). Educational robotics as a learning tool for promoting rich environments for active learning (REALs). In Keengwe

(Ed), Handbook of research on educational technology integration and active learning (pp. 19–47). IGI Global.

22.

Ezeamuzie

N. O.

Leung

J. S.

(2022). Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 481–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211033158

23.

Feldhausen

Weese

J. L.

Bean

N. H.

(2018). Increasing student self-efficacy in computational thinking via STEM outreach programs. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 302–307). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159593

24.

Freudenthal

Ogrey

A. N.

Roy

M. K.

Siegel

(2010). A computational introduction to STEM studies, IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference. (pp. 663–672). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2010.5492514

25.

Gibson

S. D.

Bradley

(2017). A study of Northern Ireland Key stage 2 pupils’ perceptions of using the BBC Micro:bit in STEM education. The STeP Journal, 4(1), 15–41. https://ojs.cumbria.ac.uk/index.php/step/article/view/374/495

26.

González

Lopez

Castro

(2018). Development of computational thinking in high school students: A case study in Chile. In Proceedings of 37th international conference of the Chilean computer science (pp. 1–8). Society (SCCC). https://doi.org/10.1109/SCCC.2018.8705239

27.

Goud Yadagiri

Krishnamoorthy

S. P.

Kapila

(2015). A blocks-based visual environment to teach robot-programming to K-12 students [conference presentation]. 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23358

28.

Green

S. B.

Salkind

N. J.

(2014). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (7th ed.). Pearson.

29.

Grover

Pea

(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

30.

Gulbahar

Kert

S. B.

Kalelioglu

(2019). The self-efficacy perception scale for computational thinking skilll: Validity and reliability study. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.385097.

31.

Hambrusch

Hoffmann

Korb

J. T.

Haugan

Hosking

A. L.

(2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508931

32.

Harel

Papert

(1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482900010102

33.

Hinton

P. R.

McMurray

Brownlow

(2014). SPSS explained (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797298

34.

Hsu

T.-C.

Chang

S.-C.

Hung

Y.-T.

(2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers and Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004.

35.

Jin

K. H.

Haynie

Kearns

(2016). Teaching elementary students programming in a physical computing classroom. In Proceedings of the 17th annual conference on information technology education (pp. 85–90). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2978192.2978238

36.

Junior

L. A.

Neto

O. T.

Hernandez

M. F.

Martins

P. S.

Roger

L. L.

Guerra

F. A.

(2013). A low-cost and simple Arduino-based educational robotics kit. Cyber Journals: Multidisciplinary Journals in Science and Technology, Journal of Selected Areas in Robotics and Control (JSRC), 3(12), 1–7. https://www.cyberjournals.com/Papers/Dec2013/01.pdf

37.

Karim

M. E.

Lemaignan

Mondada

(2015). A review: Can robots reshape K-12 STEM education? In 2015 IEEE international workshop on advanced robotics and its social impacts (ARSO) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ARSO.2015.7428217

38.

Keith

P. K.

Sullivan

F. R.

Pham

(2019). Roles, collaboration, and the development of computational thinking in a robotics learning environment. In Kong

S.-C.

Abelson

(Eds), Computational thinking education (pp. 223–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7

39.

Kukul

(2018). The effect of different structured processes on students' computational thinking skills, selfefficacy levels and programming achievements in programming teaching. Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University. https://tinyurl.com/4hyvpzyy

40.

Lahtinen

Ala-Mutka

Jarvinen

H.-M.

(2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/1151954.1067453

41.

Lau

W.-W.

Yuen

A.-H.

(2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1202–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.002

42.

Law

K.-M.

Lee

V.-C.

Y.-T.

(2010). Learning motivation in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. Computers and Education, 55(1), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.007

43.

Leech

N. L.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3

44.

Schoenfeld

A. H.

diSessa

A. A.

Graesser

A. C.

Benson

L. C.

English

L. D.

Duschl

R. A.

(2020). Computational thinking is more about thinking than computing. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00030-2

45.

Mannila

Dagiene

Demo

Grgurina

Mirolo

Rolandsson

Settle

(2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Clear

Lister

(Eds), Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014 on innovation and technology in computer science education conference (pp. 1–29). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610

46.

Mozo

J. R.

Quintero

H. M.

Ariza

H. M.

(2017). Educational robotics: Algorithm logic learning comparison. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(24), 15470–15474. https://www.ripublication.com/ijaer17/ijaerv12n24_214.pdf

47.

Nouri

Zhang

Mannila

Norén

(2019). Development of computational thinking, digital competence and 21^st century skills when learning programming in K-9. Education Inquiry, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1627844

48.

Numanoglu

Keser

(2017). Programlama öğretiminde robot kullanımı - mbot örneği. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.306198

49.

Ozdinç

Altun

(2014). Bilişim teknolojileri öğretmeni adaylarının programlama sürecini etkileyen faktörler [factors effecting information technology teacher trainees' programming process]. Ilköğretim Online, 13(4), 1531–1541. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.54872

50.

Papert

(1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

51.

Papert

(1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00191473, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00191473

52.

Papert

Harel

(1991). Situating constructionism. In Papert

Harel

(Eds), Constructionism. Ablex.

53.

Park

Yoo

(2018). Python Instructional Model using robot for elementary school students. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 22(3), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2018.22.3.357

54.

Peixoto

Castro

Blazquez

Martin

Sancristobal

Carro

Plaza

(2018). Robotics tips and tricks for inclusion and integration of students. In 2018 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2037–2041). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363487

55.

Powers

Ecott

Hirshfield

(2007). Through the looking glass: Teaching CS0 with Alice. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin on Computer Science Education, 39, 213–217). https://doi.org/10.1145/1227504.1227386

56.

Przybylla

Romeike

(2014). Overcoming issues with students’ perceptions of informatics in everyday life and education with physical computing. In Gülbahar

Karataş

Adnan

(Eds), In Local proceedings of the 7th international conference on informatics in schools: Situation, evolution and perspectives (pp. 9–20). ISSEP. https://www.issep2014.org/lp-book/

57.

Radu

M. E.

Cole

Dabacan

M. A.

Harris

Sexton

(2011). The impact of providing unlimited access to programmable boards in digital design education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(2), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2009.2037735

58.

Resinovic

(2015). The use of Nao, a humanoid robot, in teaching computer programming. In Jekovec

(Ed), Proceedings of international conference on informatics in schools: Situation, evolution and perspectives—ISSEP 2015 (pp. 63–64). Založba FRI.

59.

Richard

G. T.

(2008). Employing physical computing in education: How teachers and students utilized physical computing to develop embodied and tangible learning objects. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 4(3), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.18848/1832-3669/CGP/v04i03/55887

60.

Rogers

Shum

Marquardt

Lechelt

Johnson

Baker

Davies

(2017). From the BBC micro to micro: Bit and beyond: A British innovation. Interactions, 24(2), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029601

61.

Romero

Dupont

(2016). Educational robotics: From procedural learning to co-creative project oriented challenges with LEGO WeDo. In Gómez Chova

López Martínez

Candel Torres

(Eds), EDULEARN16 proceedings (pp. 6159–6163). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2016.0318

62.

Rubio

M. A.

Romero-Zaliz

Mañoso

de Madrid

A. P.

(2014). Enhancing an introductory programming course with physical computing modules. In Proceedings of 2014 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044153

63.

Sadik

Leftwich

A. O.

Nadiruzzaman

(2017). Computational thinking conceptions and misconceptions: Progression of preservice teacher thinking during computer science lesson planning. In Rich

P. J.

Hodges

C. B.

(Eds), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations (pp. 221–238). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_14

64.

Şahin

Arslan Namlı

(2017). Algoritma eğitiminin problem çözme becerisi üzerine etkisi [the effect of algorithm training on problem solving skills]. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(5), 135–153. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/rteusbe/issue/32015/321675

65.

Scherer

Siddiq

Sanchez Viveros

(2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 764–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000314

66.

Schmidt

(2016). Increasing computer literacy with the BBC micro:bit. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 15(2), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2016.23

67.

Sentance

Schwiderski-Grosche

(2012). Challenge and creativity: Using .NET gadgeteer in schools. In Knobelsdorf

Romeike

(Eds), Proceedings of the 7th workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 90–100). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2481449.2481473

68.

Sentance

Waite

Hodges

MacLeod

Yeomans

L. E.

(2017). Creating cool stuff – pupils’ experience of the BBC micro:bit. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 531–536). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017749

69.

Sırakaya

D. A.

(2019). Programlama öğretiminin bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisine etkisi [the effect of programming teaching on computational thinking]. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 23(2), 575–590. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tsadergisi/issue/47639/448409

70.

Stager

G. S.

(2007). An investigation of constructionism in the Maine youth center. University of Melbourne.

71.

Sung

Ahn

Black

J. B.

(2017). Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9328-x

72.

Sysło

M. M.

Kwiatkowska

A. B.

(2013). Informatics for all high school students: A computational thinking approach. In Diethelm

Mittermeir

R. T.

(Eds), Informatics in schools: situation, evolution, and perspectives (vol. 7780, pp. 43–56). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36617-8_4

73.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

74.

Tashakkori

Creswell

(2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042

75.

Tran

(2019). Computational thinking equity in elementary classrooms: What third grade students know and can do. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117743918

76.

Uzun

(2018). Learner characteristics and opinions about embedded systems and robotic applications course: Towards the design of instruction. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(2), 533–559. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.505611

77.

Videnovik

Zdravevski

Lameski

Trajkovik

(2018). The BBC micro:bit in the international classroom: Learning experiences and first impressions. In 2018 17th international conference on information technology based higher education and training (ITHET) (pp. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITHET.2018.8424786

78.

Weinberg

A. E.

(2013). Computational thinking: An investigation of the existing scholarship and research. Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University. https://hdl.handle.net/10217/78883

79.

Wing

J. M.

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

80.

Wing

J. M.

(2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

81.

Wing

J. M.

(2010). Computational thinking: What and why? https://www.cs.cmu.edu/∼CompThink/papers/TheLinkWing.pdf

82.

Witherspoon

E. B.

Schunn

C. D.

Higashi

R. M.

Shoop

(2018). Attending to structural programming features predicts differences in learning and motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12219

83.

S. Y.

Y. S.

(2021). Visual programming environments and computational thinking performance of fifth-and sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120988807

84.

Zhou

Chai

C. S.

Liang

J. C.

(2023). Application of metacognitive planning scaffolding for the cultivation of computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(6), 1123–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231160294

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB