Mohammad Ahsan HABIB, Raja-Jamilah RAJA-YUSOF, Siti Salwah SALIM, Asmiza Abdul SANI, Hazrina SOFIAN, Aishah ABU BAKAR

Analyzing students’ experience in programming with computational thinking through competitive, physical, and tactile games: the quadrilateral method approach

The lack of computational thinking (CT) skills can be one of the reasons why students find themselves having difficulties in writing a good program. Therefore, understanding how CT skills can be developed is essential. This research explores how CT skills can be developed for programming through competitive, physical, and tactile games. The CT elements in this research focus on four major programming concepts, which are decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithmic thinking. We have conducted game activities through several algorithms that include sorting, swapping, and graph algorithms and analyzed how the game affects the student experience (SX) in understanding the CT concept in those algorithms. We have applied the quadrilateral method approach to the data collection and analysis. The data was obtained through observation, interview/survey based on six SX criteria (attention, engagement, awareness, satisfaction, confidence, and performance), and performances of the conducted game activities were compared. The results of the quadrilation of the data collected show a positive impact on the SX, highlight the effectiveness of the competitive, physical, and tactile game approach proposed in this research towards programming and CT skills development.

PDF

___

[1] Ortiz OO, Franco JAP, Garau PMA, Martin RH. Innovative mobile robot method: improving the learning of programming languages in engineering degrees. IEEE Transactions on Education 2017. doi: 10.1109/TE.2016.2608779
[2] Kunkle WM, Allen RB. The impact of different teaching approaches and languages on student learning of introductory programming concepts. ACM Transactions on computing Education 2016; 16 (1): 1-26. doi: 10.1145/2785807
[3] Hegazi MO, Alhawarat M. The challenges and the opportunities of teaching the introductory computer programming course: case study. In: 2015 Fifth International Conference on e-Learning (econf) 2015; pp. 324-330. doi: 10.1109/ECONF.2015.61
[4] Ab Hamid SH. Solutions to teaching object-oriented programming. WSEAS Transactions on Communications 2004; 3 (1): 99-104.
[5] Marcolino AS, Barbosa E. A survey on problems related to the teaching of programming in Brazilian educational institutions. In: 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) 2017; pp. 1-9. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2017.8190495
[6] Tang X, Yin Y, Lin Q, Hadad R, Zhai X. Assessing computational thinking: a systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education 2020; 148: 103798.
[7] Brennan K, Resnick M. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association; Vancouver, Canada 2012; 1:25. doi: 10.1.1.296.6602
[8] Weintrop D, Beheshti E, Horn M, Orton K, Jona K et al. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology 2016; 25 (1): 127-47. doi: 10.1007/s10956-015- 9581-5
[9] Selby C, Woollard J. Computational thinking: the developing definition. In: ITiCSE Conference, University of Kent, Canterbury, England; 2013.
[10] Barr V, Stephenson C. Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads 2011; 2 (1): 48-54. doi: 10.1145/1929887.1929905
[11] Li Y. Teaching programming based on computational thinking. In: 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) 2016; pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2016.7757408
[12] Looi CK, How ML, Longkai W, Seow P, Liu L. Analysis of linkages between an unplugged activity and the development of computational thinking. Computer Science Education 2018; 28 (3): 255-79. doi: 10.1080/08993408.2018.1533297
[13] Meyer B. Object-oriented software construction. Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs, 1997; 2: 331-410.
[14] Bishop J. Language features meet design patterns: raising the abstraction bar. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Role of Abstraction in Software Engineering 2008; pp. 1-7. doi: 10.1145/1370164.1370166
[15] Riley DD, Hunt KA. Computational thinking for the modern problem solver. CRC press 2014. doi: 10.1201/b16688
[16] Hazzan O, Kramer J. The role of abstraction in software engineering. In: Companion of the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering 2008; pp. 1045-1046. doi: 10.1145/1370175.1370239
[17] Wing JM. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 2006; 49 (3): 33-5. doi: 0001-0782/06/0300
[18] Nardelli E, Ventre G. Introducing computational thinking in Italian schools: a first report on “programma il futuro” project. In: 9th International Technology, Education and Development Conference 2015; pp. 7414-7421.
[19] Esper S, Foster SR, Griswold WG, Herrera C, Snyder W. CodeSpells: bridging educational language features with industry-standard languages. In: Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research 2014; pp. 05-14.
[20] Dantas TF, Lopes PP, do Amaral EM. Programming life: gamification applied to the teaching of algorithms and programming through a serious game. In: Handbook of Research on Immersive Digital Games in Educational Environments. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global, 2019, pp. 486-523.
[21] Brady C, Orton K, Weintrop D, Anton G, Rodriguez S et al. All roads lead to computing: Making, participatory simulations, and social computing as pathways to computer science. In: IEEE Transactions on Education 2016; 60(1): 59-66. doi: 10.1109/TE.2016.2622680
[22] Hyman C, Shrout A, Kaczmarek-Frew K, Green H, Frazier N et al. Decolonizing methodologies: recovery and access amidst the ruins. In: DH 2017.
[23] Weintrop D, Wilensky U. Robobuilder: a computational thinking game. In: SIGCSE 2013; p. 736. doi: 10.1145/2445196.2445430
[24] Zhao W, Shute VJ. Can playing a video game foster computational thinking skills? Computers & Education 2019; 141:103633.
[25] Papert S. A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. In: Children in the Information Age 1988; Pergamon. pp. 3-18. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-08-036464-3.50006-5
[26] Kubitza T, Schmidt A. meSchup: a platform for programming interconnected smart things. Computer 2017; 50 (11): 38-49. doi: 10.1109/MC.2017.4041350
[27] Corral JM, Balcells AC, Estévez AM, Moreno GJ, Ramos MJ. A game-based approach to the teaching of objectoriented programming languages. Computers & Education 2014; 73: 83-92. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.013
[28] Melcer EF, Isbister K. Bots & (Main) frames: exploring the impact of tangible blocks and collaborative play in an educational programming game. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2018; pp. 1-14. doi: 10.1145/3173574.3173840
[29] Papastergiou M. Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education 2009; 52 (1): 1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.004
[30] Oblinger D. The next generation of educational engagement. Journal of Interactive Media in Education 2004; 2004 (1). doi: 10.5334/2004-8-oblinger
[31] Klement M. How do my students study? An analysis of students’ of educational disciplines favorite learning styles according to VARK classification. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2014; 132: 384-90. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.326
[32] Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. NY, USA: Harper Perennial, 1997; 39.
[33] Kennedy C, Kraemer ET. Qualitative observations of student reasoning: Coding in the wild. In: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education 2019; pp. 224-230.
[34] Peterson CH, Peterson NA, Powell KG. Cognitive interviewing for item development: Validity evidence based on content and response processes. In: Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 2017; 50 (4): 217-23. doi: 10.1080/07481756.2017.1339564
[35] Berenguel M, Rodríguez F, Moreno JC, Guzmán JL, González R. Tools and methodologies for teaching robotics in computer science & engineering studies. Computer Applications in Engineering Education 2016; 24 (2): 202-14.
[36] Güzeliş C. An experience on problem based learning in an engineering faculty. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 2006; 14 (1): 67-76.
[37] Akaslan D, Law EL. A model for flipping electrical engineering with e-learning using a multidimensional approach. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 2016; 24 (5): 3419-3431. doi: 10.3906/elk-1411-144
[38] Bell T, Witten TH, Fellows M, Adams R, McKenzie J et al. CS Unplugged: An enrichment and extension programme for primary-aged students. Creative Commons 2015.
[39] Villa JM. diff: Simplifying the estimation of difference-in-differences treatment effects. The Stata Journal 2016; 16 (1): 52-71. doi: 10.1177/1536867X1601600108
[40] Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R. How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school (Exp. ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000, p. 374.
[41] Ibanez MB, Di-Serio A, Delgado-Kloos C. Gamification for engaging computer science students in learning activities: A case study. IEEE Transactions on learning technologies 2014; 7 (3): 291-301. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2014.2329293
[42] Cagiltay NE, Ozcelik E, Ozcelik NS. The effect of competition on learning in games. Computers & Education 2015; 87: 35-41. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.001
[43] Hanus MD, Fox J. Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: a longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education 2015; 80: 152-161.