nach oben

Education and Information Technologies

Erschienen in:

03.08.2023

The effect of PDCA cycle strategy on pupils’ tangible programming skills and reflective thinking

verfasst von: Xin Gong, Shufan Yu, Jie Xu, Ailing Qiao, Han Han

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 5/2024

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Tangible programming combines the advantages of object manipulation with programmable hardware, which plays an essential role in improving programming skills. As a tool for ensuring the quality of projects and improving learning outcomes, the PDCA cycle strategy is conducive to cultivating reflective thinking. However, there is still a lack of empirical research on the effect of introducing the PDCA cycle strategy into programming education. In this study, using a PDCA cycle strategy, in a four-pronged model of “(P)draw up a plan, (D)assemble and programming, (C)test and debug, display and reflect (A),” and its effects on students’ programming skills and their reflective thinking were explored. There were 65 children between the ages of 7 and 8 years participated in this study. There were 31 students in each of the experimental group and the control group. A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods was adopted in this research, and students’ programming processes and results were observed and counted. The study results revealed that after attending the ‘Magic Card Robot’ course that applied the PDCA cycle strategy, the experimental group students outperformed their counterparts in programming skills (sequencing, repetitive and conditional structures). Meanwhile, the experimental group students’ reflective thinking levels were higher than those of the control group students. These findings imply that tangible programming education using the PDCA cycle strategy in the course has potential.

Vorheriger Artikel Investigating student acceptance of an academic advising chatbot in higher education institutions

Nächster Artikel Analyzing factors influencing IoT adoption in higher educational institutions in Saudi Arabia using a modified TAM model

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

Ackermann, E. K. (1996). Perspective-taking and object construction: Two keys to learning. In Y. Kafai & M. Resnick (Eds.), Constructionism in practice (pp. 1, 25-37). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00056-XCrossRef

Alonso, J. M. (2020). Teaching explainable Artificial Intelligence to High School Students. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 13(1), 974. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.d.200715.003CrossRef

Altın, M., & Saracaloğlu, A. S. (2018). Creative, critical and reflective thinking: Similarities-differences. Uluslararası Güncel Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi (UGEAD), 4(1), 1–9.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018CrossRef

Antonio, R. P. (2020). Developing students’ reflective thinking skills in a Metacognitive and Argument- Driven Learning Environment. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(3), 467–483. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i3.1096CrossRef

Bayrak, F., & Usluel, Y. K. (2011). The effect of blogging on reflective thinking skill. Hacettepe Universtiy Journal of Education, 40, 93–104.

Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. High-Tech Tots: Childhood in a Digital World, 49, 49–70.

Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020CrossRef

Bers, M. U., González-González, C., & Armas–Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138, 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013CrossRef

Blagojević, M., & Micić, Ž. (2013). A web-based intelligent report e-learning system using data mining techniques. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 39(2), 465–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2012.09.011CrossRef

Burleson, W. S., Harlow, D. B., Nilsen, K. J., Perlin, K., Freed, N., Jensen, C. N., Lahey, B., Lu, P., & Muldner, K. (2018). Active learning environments with robotic tangibles:Children’s physical and virtual spatial programming experiences. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2724031CrossRef

Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711–722.

Chen, H. M., Nguyen, B. A., Yan, Y. X., & Dow, C. R. (2020). Analysis of learning behavior in an Automated Programming Assessment Environment: A Code Quality Perspective. IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open Solutions, 8, 167341–167354. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3024102CrossRef

Chen, H. E., Sun, D., Hsu, T. C., Yang, Y., & Sun, J. (2023). Visualising trends in computational thinking research from 2012 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101224CrossRef

Chiu, C. F., & Huang, H. Y. (2015). Guided Debugging Practices of Game based programming for novice programmers. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(5), 343–347. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2015.V5.527CrossRef

Cho, Y., & Lee, Y. (2017). Possibility of improving computational thinking through activity based learning. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 95(18), 4385–4393. https://www.jatit.org/volumes/Vol95No18/6Vol95No18.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2023.

Choo, A. S., Linderman, K. W., & Schroeder, R. G. (2007). Method and context perspectives on learning and knowledge creation in quality management. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 918–931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.08.002CrossRef

Daminda Kuruppu, K. A. D. (2022). Education Reform as a platform to improve interactions of the Engineering Students during Online Teaching and learning at higher education amidst Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Reform, 31(2), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879211042327CrossRef

Deming, W. E. (2000). The new economics, for industry, government, education (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

Demir, F. (2022). The effect of different usage of the educational programming language in programming education on the programming anxiety and achievement. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 4171–4194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10750-6CrossRef

Evripidou, S., Amanatiadis, A., Christodoulou, K., & Chatzichristofis, A. (2021). Introducing algorithmic thinking and sequencing using tangible Robots. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 14(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2021.3058060CrossRef

Feijoo-Almonacid, A., & Rodriguez-Garavito, C. H. (2022). Hardware-Software platform for the development of STEM skills. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 17(2), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2022.3166969CrossRef

Fischer, T., & Lau, W. (2006, June). Marble track music sequencers for children. Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, (pp.141–144). https://doi.org/10.1145/1139073.1139108

Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Plurality revisited: Diversity management and triple loop learning. Systems Practice, 9(6), 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02169215CrossRef

Gelter, H. (2003). Why is reflective thinking uncommon. Reflective Practice, 4(3), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462394032000112237CrossRef

Havenga, M., Breed, B., Mentz, E., Govender, D., Govender, I., Dignum, F., & Dignum, V. (2013). Metacognitive and problem-solving skills to Promote Self-Directed Learning in Computer Programming:Teachers’ Experiences. SA-eDUC Journal, 10(2), 1–14.

Hellberg, R., & Fauskanger, E. (2022). Learning of quality improvement theory – experiences with reflective learning from a student perspective. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2022-0090CrossRef

Hong, Y. C., & Choi, I. (2019). Relationship between student designers’ reflective thinking and their design performance in bioengineering project: Exploring reflection patterns between high and low performers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(2), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9618-6CrossRef

Hsieh, M. C., Pan, H. C., Hsieh, S. W., Hsu, M. J., & Chou, S. W. (2022). Teaching the Concept of Computational thinking: A STEM-Based program with tangible Robots on Project-Based learning courses. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 828568. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.828568CrossRef

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 & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004CrossRef

Iivari, N., Sharma, S., & Ventä-Olkkonen, L. (2020). Digital transformation of everyday life – how COVID-19 pandemic transformed the basic education of the young generation and why information management research should care? International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102183CrossRef

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669CrossRef

Kizilkaya, G., & Aşkar, P. (2009). The development of a reflective thinking skill scale towards problem solving. Eğitim ve Bilim, 34(154), 82–92.

Kuo, W. C., & Hsu, T. C. (2020). Learning computational thinking without a computer: How computational participation happens in a computational thinking Board game. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00479-9CrossRef

Lai, X., & Wong, G. K. (2022). Collaborative versus individual problem solving in computational thinking through programming: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(1), 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13157CrossRef

Liao, H. C., & Wang, Y. H. (2019). Reflective thinking scale for Healthcare Students and Providers—Chinese version. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7671CrossRef

Lin, Y. T., Yeh, M. K. C., & Tan, S. R. (2022). Teaching programming by revealing thinking process: Watching experts’ live coding videos with reflection annotations. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(4), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2022.3155884CrossRef

Malik, S. I., Tawafak, R. M., & Shakir, M. (2021). Aligning and assessing teaching approaches with SOLO taxonomy in a computer programming course. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 17(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20211001.oa5CrossRef

Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., & Scott, F. (2016). Digital play: A new classification. Early Years, 36(3), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1167675CrossRef

Marshall, P. (2007). Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI’ 07), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227004

Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood (pp. 1–20). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Morgan, S. D., & Stewart, A. C. (2017). Continuous improvement of Team assignments: Using a web-based Tool and the Plan-Do-Check-act cycle in design and redesign: Continuous improvement of Team assignments. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 15(3), 303–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12132CrossRef

Perlman, R. (1976). Using computer technology to provide a creative learning environment for preschool children (MIT AI lab memo no. 360/Logo memo, N. 24) [MIT AI Lab]. https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/5784

Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (3d ed). Humanities Press.

Piaget, J. (1973). The child and reality: Problems of genetic psychology. Grossman.

Revelle, G., Zuckerman, O., Druin, A., & Bolas, M. (2005). Tangible user interfaces for children. CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2051–2052. https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1057095

Salido, A., & Dasari, D. (2019). The analysis of students’ reflective thinking ability viewed by students’ mathematical ability at senior high school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1157(2), 022121. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022121CrossRef

Sapounidis, T., Demetriadis, S., & Stamelos, I. (2015). Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19(1), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-014-0774-3CrossRef

Sapounidis, T., Stamovlasis, D., & Demetriadis, S. (2019). Latent class modeling of children’s preference profiles on tangible and graphical Robot Programming. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(2), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2018.2876363CrossRef

Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007CrossRef

Schweikardt, E., & Gross, M. D. (2008). The robot is the program: Interacting with roBlocks. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp.167–168). https://doi.org/10.1145/1347390.1347427

Shanley, N., Martin, F., Hite, N., Perez-Quinones, M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Pugalee, D., & Hart, E. (2022). Teaching programming online: Design, Facilitation and Assessment Strategies and Recommendations for High School Teachers. TechTrends, 66(3), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00724-xCrossRef

Shewhart, W. A. (1931). Economic control of quality of manufactured product. D. Van Nostrand.

Shim, J., Kwon, D., & Lee, W. (2017). The Effects of a Robot Game Environment on Computer Programming Education for Elementary School Students. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2016.2622227CrossRef

Silvis, D., Lee, V. R., Clarke-Midura, J., & Shumway, J. F. (2022). The technical matters: Young children debugging (with) tangible coding toys. Information and Learning Sciences, 123(9/10), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-12-2021-0109CrossRef

Smith, W. (2009). Theatre of Use: A Frame analysis of Information Technology demonstrations. Social Studies of Science, 39(3), 449–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708101978CrossRef

Socratous, C., & Ioannou, A. (2020). Common errors, successful debugging, and engagement during block-based programming using educational robotics in elementary education. 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 2, 991–998. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2020.991CrossRef

Staudinger, U. M. (2013). The need to distinguish personal from general wisdom: a short history and empirical evidence. In M. Ferrari & N. M. Weststrate (Eds.), The Scientific Study of Personal Wisdom (pp.3–19). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7987-7_1

Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9287-7CrossRef

Su, Y. S., Shao, M., & Zhao, L. (2022). Effect of mind mapping on creative thinking of children in scratch visual programming education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 906–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211053383CrossRef

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5CrossRef

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9397-0CrossRef

Sun, C., Shute, V. J., Stewart, A. E. B., Beck-White, Q., Reinhardt, C. R., Zhou, G., Duran, N., & D’Mello, S. K. (2022). The relationship between collaborative problem solving behaviors and solution outcomes in a game-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, 107120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107120CrossRef

Tan, S. Y. (2021). Reflective learning? Understanding the student perspective in higher education. Educational Research, 63(2), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1917303MathSciNetCrossRef

Walasek, T. A., Kucharczyk, Z., & Morawska-Walasek, D. (2011). Assuring quality of an e-learning project through the PDCA approach. Archives of Materials Science and Engineering, 48(1), 56–61.

Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2011). Emotional Indicators as a Way to Initiate Student Reflection in Engineering Programs. In 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings (pp.22–557). https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--17838

Wang, X., & Guo, L. (2021). How to promote University students to innovative use renewable energy? An Inquiry-Based Learning Course Model. Sustainability, 13(3), 1418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031418CrossRef

Wang, M., Yuan, B., Kirschner, P. A., Kushniruk, A. W., & Peng, J. (2018). Reflective learning with complex problems in a visualization-based learning environment with expert support. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.025CrossRef

Widmer, P. S., Schippers, M. C., & West, M. A. (2009). Recent developments in reflexivity research:A review. Psychology of Everyday Activity, 2(2), 2–11.

Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with Sensor, Action, and Logic Blocks. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802395069CrossRef

Yang, W., Ng, D. T. K., & Su, J. (2023). The impact of story-inspired programming on preschool children’s computational thinking: A multi-group experiment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, 101218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101218CrossRef

Yildiz Durak, H. (2020). The Effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary School students on Engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for Problem solving. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9391-yCrossRef

Yürük, T. (2007). John Dewey, how we think, a restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Ankara Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 48(1), 185–188. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ilhfak_0000000937CrossRef

Zhong, B., Xia, L., & Su, S. (2022). Effects of programming tools with different degrees of embodiment on learning Boolean operations. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6211–6231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10884-7CrossRef

Titel: The effect of PDCA cycle strategy on pupils’ tangible programming skills and reflective thinking
verfasst von: Xin Gong
Shufan Yu
Jie Xu
Ailing Qiao
Han Han
Publikationsdatum: 03.08.2023
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 5/2024
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12037-4

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 5/2024

Developing teaching strategies for rural school pupils’ concentration in the distance music classroom

The utilization of machine learning on studying Hadith in Islam: A systematic literature review

Integrating programming errors into knowledge graphs for automated assignment of programming tasks

Teaching effects of using bullet-screen technology during classes on students’ learning: The mediating effect of perceived interactivity

EFL learners’ motivation in a gamified formative assessment: The case of Quizizz

Teachers’ experience of the breakdown of infrastructures during the pandemic

Premium Partner