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.
AndersonN. D. (2016). A call for computational thinking in undergraduate psychology. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 15(3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659252
2.
AtmatzidouS.DemetriadisS.NikaP. (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
3.
BakarM. A.MukhtarM.KhalidF. (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
4.
BanziM.ShilohM. (2015). Getting started with Arduino (3rd ed.). Maker Media.
5.
BarbaE.ChancellorS. (2015). Tangible media approaches to introductory computer science. In DagienėV.SchulteC.JevsikovaT. (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
6.
BarrV.StephensonC. (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
7.
BarutE.TugtekinU.KuzuA. (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
8.
BerlandM.WilenskyU. (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
9.
BernadP.SicD.RepnikR.OsrajnikD. (2021). Development of measurement systems with the BBC Micro:bit. In KoricicM.SkalaK.CarZ.Cicin-SainM.BabicS.SrukV.SkvorcD.RibaricS.JerbicB.GrosS.VrdoljakB.MauherM.TijanE.KatulicT.PetrovicJ.Galinac GrbacT.FijanN. F.GradisnikV. (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.
BocconiS.ChioccarielloA.DettoriG.FerrariA.EngelhardtK. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education – implications for policy and practice. European Commission. EUR 28295 EN. https://doi.org/10.2791/792158
11.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (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.
BuyukozturkŞ. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences. (8th ed.). Pegem yayıncılık.
13.
ByrneP.LyonsG. (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.
CapayM.KvassayováN.BellayovaM.MansellM.PetríkS. (2022). Programmable hardware BBC micro: Bit as a tool for developing teacher competencies. In KallelI.KammounH. M.HsairiL. (Eds), Proceedings of 2022 IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1496–1501). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766487
15.
ChengY.-P.LaiC.-F.ChenY.-T.WangW.-S.HuangY.-M.WuT.-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.
ChoiH. (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.
CortinaT. J.DannW. P.FriezeC.CiminilloC.TananisC.TrahanK. (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.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2014). DedeY.DemirS. B. (Eds). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi [designing and conducting mixed methods research]. Anı Yayıncılık.
DorlingM.WhiteD. (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.
EguchiA. (2015). Educational robotics as a learning tool for promoting rich environments for active learning (REALs). In KeengweJ. (Ed), Handbook of research on educational technology integration and active learning (pp. 19–47). IGI Global.
22.
EzeamuzieN. O.LeungJ. 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.
FeldhausenR.WeeseJ. L.BeanN. 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.
FreudenthalE.OgreyA. N.RoyM. K.SiegelA. (2010). A computational introduction to STEM studies, IEEE EDUCON 2010 Conference. (pp. 663–672). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2010.5492514
GonzálezF.LopezC.CastroC. (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 YadagiriR.KrishnamoorthyS. P.KapilaV. (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.
GreenS. B.SalkindN. J. (2014). Using SPSS for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (7th ed.). Pearson.
29.
GroverS.PeaR. (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.
GulbaharY.KertS. B.KaleliogluF. (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.
HambruschS.HoffmannC.KorbJ. T.HauganM.HoskingA. 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
HsuT.-C.ChangS.-C.HungY.-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.
JinK. H.HaynieK.KearnsG. (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.
JuniorL. A.NetoO. T.HernandezM. F.MartinsP. S.RogerL. L.GuerraF. 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.
KarimM. E.LemaignanS.MondadaF. (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.
KeithP. K.SullivanF. R.PhamD. (2019). Roles, collaboration, and the development of computational thinking in a robotics learning environment. In KongS.-C.AbelsonH. (Eds), Computational thinking education (pp. 223–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7
39.
KukulV. (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.
LahtinenE.Ala-MutkaK.JarvinenH.-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.
LauW.-W.YuenA.-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.
LawK.-M.LeeV.-C.YuY.-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
LiY.SchoenfeldA. H.diSessaA. A.GraesserA. C.BensonL. C.EnglishL. D.DuschlR. 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.
MannilaL.DagieneV.DemoB.GrgurinaN.MiroloC.RolandssonL.SettleA. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In ClearA.ListerR. (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.
MozoJ. R.QuinteroH. M.ArizaH. 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.
NouriJ.ZhangL.MannilaL.NorénE. (2019). Development of computational thinking, digital competence and 21st century skills when learning programming in K-9. Education Inquiry, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1627844
48.
NumanogluM.KeserH. (2017). Programlama öğretiminde robot kullanımı - mbot örneği. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.306198
49.
OzdinçF.AltunA. (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.
PapertS. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
PapertS.HarelI. (1991). Situating constructionism. In PapertS.HarelI. (Eds), Constructionism. Ablex.
53.
ParkD.YooI. (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.
PeixotoA.CastroM.BlazquezM.MartinS.SancristobalE.CarroG.PlazaP. (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.
PowersK.EcottS.HirshfieldL. (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.
PrzybyllaM.RomeikeR. (2014). Overcoming issues with students’ perceptions of informatics in everyday life and education with physical computing. In GülbaharY.KarataşE.AdnanM. (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.
RaduM. E.ColeC.DabacanM. A.HarrisJ.SextonS. (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.
ResinovicB. (2015). The use of Nao, a humanoid robot, in teaching computer programming. In JekovecM. (Ed), Proceedings of international conference on informatics in schools: Situation, evolution and perspectives—ISSEP 2015 (pp. 63–64). Založba FRI.
59.
RichardG. 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.
RogersY.ShumV.MarquardtN.LecheltS.JohnsonR.BakerH.DaviesM. (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.
RomeroM.DupontY. (2016). Educational robotics: From procedural learning to co-creative project oriented challenges with LEGO WeDo. In Gómez ChovaL.López MartínezA.Candel TorresI. (Eds), EDULEARN16 proceedings (pp. 6159–6163). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2016.0318
62.
RubioM. A.Romero-ZalizR.MañosoC.de MadridA. 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.
SadikO.LeftwichA. O.NadiruzzamanH. (2017). Computational thinking conceptions and misconceptions: Progression of preservice teacher thinking during computer science lesson planning. In RichP. J.HodgesC. 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.
ŞahinM.Arslan NamlıN. (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.
SchererR.SiddiqF.Sanchez ViverosB. (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.
SchmidtA. (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.
SentanceS.Schwiderski-GroscheS. (2012). Challenge and creativity: Using .NET gadgeteer in schools. In KnobelsdorfM.RomeikeR. (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.
SentanceS.WaiteJ.HodgesS.MacLeodE.YeomansL. 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.
SırakayaD. 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.
StagerG. S. (2007). An investigation of constructionism in the Maine youth center. University of Melbourne.
71.
SungW.AhnJ.BlackJ. 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.
SysłoM. M.KwiatkowskaA. B. (2013). Informatics for all high school students: A computational thinking approach. In DiethelmI.MittermeirR. 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.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
TranY. (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.
UzunA.UzR. (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.
VidenovikM.ZdravevskiE.LameskiP.TrajkovikV. (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.
WeinbergA. E. (2013). Computational thinking: An investigation of the existing scholarship and research. Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University. https://hdl.handle.net/10217/78883
WingJ. 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
WitherspoonE. B.SchunnC. D.HigashiR. M.ShoopR. (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.
WuS. Y.SuY. 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.
ZhouY.ChaiC. S.LiX.MaC.LiB.YuD.LiangJ. 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.
