nach oben

Education and Information Technologies

Erschienen in:

05.01.2022

Effects of programming tools with different degrees of embodiment on learning Boolean operations

verfasst von: Baichang Zhong, Liying Xia, Siyu Su

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 5/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

One of the aspects of programming that novices often struggle with is the understanding of abstract concepts, such as variables, loops, expressions, and especially Boolean operations. This paper aims to explore the effects of programming tools with different degrees of embodiment on learning Boolean operations in elementary school. To this end, 67 fifth graders were divided into two groups and participated in a 16-week quasi-experiment. The two groups were randomly assigned to two treatments: the Middle Degree of Embodiment class using AS-Block and the High Degree of Embodiment class using Boson Kits. The results indicated that (a) there were no significant differences in learning attitude (p>.05), learning immersion (p>.05), compatibility (p>.05) and cognitive load (p>.05) between the two groups; and (b) the High Degree of Embodiment class performed significantly better in terms of the quality of programming works (p<.01, r_G=.533) and the final test score (p<.05, r_G=.860) than the Middle Degree of Embodiment class. The experimental results are presented, and their implications for the instruction and development of programming education and embodied learning are addressed.

Vorheriger Artikel Designing an intelligent tutoring system for computer programing in the Pacific

Nächster Artikel A structural equation model predicting adults’ online learning self-efficacy

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Anderson, R. C. (2018). Creative engagement: Embodied metaphor, the affective brain, and meaningful learning. Mind, Brain, and Education, 12(2), 72–81.CrossRef

Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 716–724.CrossRef

Bishop-Clark, C., Courte, J., & Howard, E. V. (2006). Programming in pairs with Alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 213–228.CrossRef

Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2015). Animations showing Lego manipulative tasks: Three potential moderators of effectiveness. Computers & Education, 85, 1–13.CrossRef

Chao, K. J., Huang, H. W., Fang, W. C., & Chen, N. S. (2013). Embodied play to learn: Exploring Kinect-facilitated memory performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), 151–155.CrossRef

Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175.CrossRef

Conley, Q., Atkinson, R. K., Nguyen, F., & Nelson, B. C. (2020). MantarayAR: Leveraging augmented reality to teach probability and sampling. Computers & Education, 153, 103895.CrossRef

Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93–114.CrossRef

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRef

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 305-321). New York: Springer.

Freudenberg, S., Romero, P., & Du Boulay, B. (2007). "Talking the talk": Is intermediate-level conversation the key to the pair programming success story?. In Agile 2007 (AGILE 2007) (pp. 84-91). IEEE.

Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and Boolean logic. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 267-272). doi: 10.1145/3017680.3017723.

Herman, G. L., Loui, M. C., Kaczmarczyk, L., & Zilles, C. (2012). Describing the what and why of students’ difficulties in Boolean logic. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(1), 1–28.CrossRef

Hermans, F. (2020). Hedy: A gradual language for programming education. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 259-270). doi: 10.1145/3372782.3406262.

Hung, I. C., Kinshuk, & Chen, N. S. (2018). Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehension and retention. Computers & Education, 117, 116–131.CrossRef

Ioannou, M., & Ioannou, A. (2020). Technology-enhanced Embodied Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 23(3), 81–94.

Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Birchfield, D. A., Tolentino, L., & Koziupa, T. (2014). Collaborative embodied learning in mixed reality motion-capture environments: Two science studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 86–104.CrossRef

Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Birchfield, D. A., & Savio-Ramos, C. (2016). Effects of embodied learning and digital platform on the retention of physics content: Centripetal force. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1819.CrossRef

Kallia, M., & Sentance, S. (2020). Threshold concepts, conceptions and skills: teachers' experiences with students' engagement in functions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 411–428.CrossRef

Kaufman, D. B., Felder, R. M., & Fuller, H. (1999). Peer ratings in cooperative learning teams. In Proceedings of the 1999 American Society for Engineering Education (pp. 1-11). Charlotte, NC.

Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1988). Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 20(3), 362–404.CrossRef

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 1–15.CrossRef

Merkouris, A., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2019). Programming embodied interactions with a remotely controlled educational robot. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(4), 1–19.CrossRef

Munro, M. (2018). Principles for embodied learning approaches. SATJ. South African Theatre Journal, 31(1), 5–14.CrossRef

Nemirovsky, R., & Ferrara, F. (2009). Mathematical imagination and embodied cognition. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 70(2), 159–174.CrossRef

Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 429–434.CrossRef

Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.CrossRef

Papert, S. (1972). On making a theorem for a child. In Proceedings of the ACM Annual Conference-Volume 1 (pp. 345-349). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/800193.569942. Accessed 30 Dec 2021

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. (M. Cook, Trans.). W W Norton & Co. doi: 10.1037/11494-000.

Portelance, D. J., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Code and Tell: Assessing young children's learning of computational thinking using peer video interviews with ScratchJr. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 271-274). doi: 10.1145/2771839.2771894.

Post, L. S., Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Zwaan, R. A. (2013). Effects of simultaneously observing and making gestures while studying grammar animations on cognitive load and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1450–1455.CrossRef

Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7), 576–582.CrossRef

Shannon, C. E. (1949). The synthesis of two-terminal switching circuits. The Bell System Technical Journal, 28(1), 59–98.MathSciNetCrossRef

Sun, L., & Zhou, D. (2019). Research status and action path on international children programming education. Open Education Research, 25(2), 23–35.

Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204.CrossRef

Suzuki, H., & Kata, H. (1995). Interaction-level support for collaborative learning: AlgoBlock—an open programming language. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning (CSCL 1995) (pp.349-355), Berlin, Germany: Springer Veflag.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312.CrossRef

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRef

Tscholl, M., & Lindgren, R. (2016). Designing for learning conversations: How parents support children's science Learning within an immersive simulation. Science Education, 100(5), 877–902.CrossRef

Venn, J. (1880). I. On the diagrammatic and mechanical representation of propositions and reasonings. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 10(59), 1–18.CrossRef

Weng, J. F., Tseng, S. S., & Lee, T. J. (2010). Teaching Boolean logic through game rule tuning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(4), 319–328.CrossRef

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.CrossRef

Zhong, B., & Li, T. (2020). Can pair learning improve students’ troubleshooting performance in robotics education? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(1), 220–248.

Zhong, B., & Wang J. (2021a). Exploring the non-significant difference on students' cognitive load imposed by robotics tasks in pair learning. International Journal of Social Robotics, (3), 1–11.

Zhong B., & Wang Y. (2021b). Effects of roles assignment and learning styles on pair learning in robotics education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(1), 41–59.

Zhong B., Wang Q., & Chen J. (2016). The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 423–431.

Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., & Li, Y. (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.CrossRef

Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., & Li, Y. (2017). Investigating the period of switching roles in pair programming in a primary school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 220–233.

Titel: Effects of programming tools with different degrees of embodiment on learning Boolean operations
verfasst von: Baichang Zhong
Liying Xia
Siyu Su
Publikationsdatum: 05.01.2022
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 5/2022
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10884-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2022

What is the effect of touchscreen technology on young children’s learning?: A systematic review

Development of research capacity of a future social pedagogue in the face of digital technologies

Algorithmic thinking development through physical computing activities with Arduino in STEM education

Simulations to Teach Science Subjects: Connections Among Students’ Engagement, Self-Confidence, Satisfaction, and Learning Styles

Investigating the effect of imikode virtual reality game in enhancing object oriented programming concepts among university students in Nigeria

Adaptive learning in university students’ opinions: Cross-border research

Premium Partner