Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Data Analytics Approaches in Educational Games and Gamification Systems pp 187–212Cite as

Learner Modeling and Learning Analytics in Computational Thinking Games for Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Smart Computing and Intelligence ((SMCOMINT))

Abstract

Various approaches of game-based computational thinking (CT) environments were designed to better support the development of CT skills, such as abstraction, algorithmic thinking, generalization, or decomposition. We provide a classification of game-based environments for CT according to their characteristics such as the programming tools offered to the learners. In contrast to environments with open-ended tasks, goal-oriented learning environments have the potential to guide learners toward becoming a computational thinker. We present a framework for designing and evaluating game-based CT environments. This framework combines the use of methods of learning analytics with a suitable learning progression in order to provide appropriate dynamic guidance, scaffolds, and feedback to the learners depending on their actual state of programming. Finally, we evaluated our environment ctGameStudio with a study from the science festival “ScienceNight Ruhr 2018” using this framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ScienceNight Ruhr, science festival: https://www.wissensnacht.ruhr/english/ retrieved 2019-02-18.

References

  1. Ala-Mutka, K. M. (2005). A survey of automated assessment approaches for programming assignments. Computer Science Education, 15(2), 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Blikstein, P. (2011). Using learning analytics to assess students’ behavior in open-ended programming tasks. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, (pp. 110–116). LAK ’11, ACM, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (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, (Vol. 1, p. 25). Canada: Vancouver.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Budzik, J., & Hammond, K. J. (2000). User interactions with everyday applications as context for just-in-time information access. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference On Intelligent User Interfaces, (pp. 44–51). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cosma, G., & Joy, M. (2012). An approach to source-code plagiarism detection and investigation using latent semantic analysis. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 61(3), 379–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Curtis, B. (1981). The measurement of software quality and complexity. Software Metrics: An Analysis and Evaluation, pp. 203–224.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Engler, D. R. (1996). Vcode: A retargetable, extensible, very fast dynamic code generation system. SIGPLAN Notices, 31(5), 160–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: Drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(5/6), 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Feurzeig, W., et al. (1969). Programming-Languages as a Conceptual Framework For Teaching Mathematics. Final report on the first fifteen months of the logo project.

    Google Scholar 

  10. González, M. R (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In: Proceedings of EDULEARN15 Conference, (pp. 2436–2444).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gorman, H., & Bourne, L. E. (1983). Learning to think by learning logo: Rule learning in third-grade computer programmers. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21(3), 165–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gouws, L. A., Bradshaw, K., & Wentworth, P. (2013). Computational thinking in educational activities: An evaluation of the educational game light-bot. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, (pp. 10–15). ITiCSE ’13, ACM, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grover, S., Bienkowski, M., Niekrasz, J., & Hauswirth, M. (2016). Assessing problem-solving process at scale. In: Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale, (pp. 245–248). L@S ’16, ACM, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Halstead, M. H., et al. (1977). Elements of software science (operating and programming systems series). New York, NY: Elsevier Science Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hartmann, W., Nievergelt, J., & Reichert, R. (2001). Kara, finite state machines, and the case for programming as part of general education. In: Proceedings IEEE Symposia on Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments, 2001, (pp. 135–141). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hermans, F., & Aivaloglou, E. (2016, May). Do code smells hamper novice programming? A controlled experiment on scratch programs. In: 2016 IEEE 24th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC), (pp. 1–10).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hollingsworth, J. (1960). Automatic graders for programming classes. Communications of the ACM, 3(10), 528–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoppe, H. U., & Werneburg, S. (2018). Computational thinking—More than a variant of scientific inquiry. In: S.-C. Kong, H. A. (Ed.), Computational Thinking Education. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hoppe, U. (2017). Computational methods for the analysis of learning and knowledge building communities. In: C. Lang, G. Siemens, A. F. Wise, & D. Gaevic, (Eds.), The Handbook of Learning Analytics, (1st ed., pp. 23–33). Society for Learning Analytics Research (SoLAR), Alberta, Canada. http://solaresearch.org/hla17/hla17-chapter1.

  21. Ihantola, P., Ahoniemi, T., Karavirta, V., & Seppa¨l¨a, O. (2010). Review of recent systems for automatic assessment of programming assignments. In: Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, (pp. 86–93). Koli Calling ’10, ACM, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Iyengar, S. S., Parameswaran, N., & Fuller, J. (1982). A measure of logical complexity of programs. Computer Languages, 7(3–4), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jamil, H. M. (2017, July). Automated personalized assessment of computational thinking mooc assignments. In: 2017 IEEE 17th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), (Vol. 00, pp. 261–263).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ji, J. H., Woo, G., & Cho, H. G. (2007). A source code linearization technique for detecting plagiarized programs. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, (Vol. 39, pp. 73–77). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jost, B., Ketterl, M., Budde, R., & Leimbach, T. (2014). Graphical programming environments for educational robots: Open roberta-yet another one? In: 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia (ISM), (pp. 381–386). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 47, 1991–1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors In Computing Systems, (pp. 1455–1464). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kiesmüller, U. (2008). Automatisierte identifizierung der Problemlösestrategien von Programmieranfängern in der Sekundarstufe I. In: DDI, (pp. 33–43).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning style inventory technical manual. MA: McBer Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kölling, M. (2010). The Greenfoot programming environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., et al. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewis, C. M. (2010). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. scratch. In: Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium On Computer Science Education, (pp. 346–350). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  33. MacLaurin, M. B. (2011). The design of Kodu: A tiny visual programming language for children on the xbox 360. In: ACM Sigplan Notices, (Vol. 46, pp. 241–246). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Manske, S., & Hoppe, H. U. (2014, July). Automated indicators to assess the creativity of solutions to programming exercises. In: 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, (pp. 497–501).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Martin, R. C. (2009). Clean code: A handbook of agile software craftsmanship. Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McCabe, T. J. (1976, December). A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-2(4), 308–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2011). Habits of programming in scratch. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, (pp. 168–172). ITiCSE ’11, ACM, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mönig, J., & Harvey, B. (2018). Snap!: A Visual, Drag-and-Drop Programming Language. http://snap.berkeley.edu/snapsource/snap.html. Last accessed October 24, 2018.

  39. Moreno, J., & Robles, G. (2014, October). Automatic detection of bad programming habits in scratch: A preliminary study. In: 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, (pp. 1–4).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. et al. (2015). Analyze your scratch projects with Dr. scratch and assess your computational thinking skills. In: Scratch Conference, (pp. 12–15).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nelson, M., & Larsen, F. N. (2001). Robocode. IBM Advanced Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ota, G., Morimoto, Y., & Kato, H. (2016, September). Ninja code village for scratch: Function samples/function analyser and automatic assessment of computational thinking concepts. In: 2016 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), (pp. 238–239).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Pattis, R. E. (1981). Karel the robot: A gentle introduction to the art of programming. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Peppler, K., & Kafai, Y. (2005). Creative coding: Programming for personal expression. Retrieved August 30(2008), 314.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Peters, L. (2005). Change detection in xml trees: A survey. In: 3rd Twente Student Conference on IT.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Repenning, A. (1993). Agentsheets: A tool for building domain-oriented visual programming environments. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors In Computing Systems, (pp. 142–143). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2017). Complementary tools for computational thinking assessment. In: S. C Kong, J Sheldon, & K. Y Li (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (CTE 2017), (pp. 154–159). The Education University of Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rose, S., Habgood, J., & Jay, T. (2018). Pirate plunder: Game-based computational thinking using scratch blocks. In: Proceedings of the Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ryder, B. (1979). Constructing the call graph of a program. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 5, 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, (pp. 59–66). ICER ’13, ACM, New York, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shneiderman, B. (1977). Measuring computer program quality and comprehension. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9(4), 465–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Schmucker, K. (1996). Making programming easier for children. Interactions, 3(5), 58–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Spohrer, J. (1994). Kidsim: Programming agents without a programming language. Communications of the ACM, 37(7), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Waguespack, L., Jr., & Badiani, S. (1987). Software complexity assessment: Annotated bibliography. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 12(4), 52–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wang, L., & Chen, M. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference matching on flow experience and programming performance in gamebased learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2012). Robobuilder: A program-to-play constructionist videogame. In: Proceedings of the Constructionism 2012 Conference. Athens, Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2014). Program-to-play videogames: Developing computational literacy through gameplay. In: Proceedings of the 10th Games, Learning, and Society Conference, (pp. 264–271).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015). To block or not to block, that is the question: Students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, (pp. 199–208). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Werneburg, S., Manske, S., Feldkamp, J., & Hoppe, H. U. (2018). Improving on guidance in a gaming environment to foster computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computers in Education. Philippines.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Werneburg, S., Manske, S., & Hoppe, H. U. (2018). ctstudio. https://ct.collide.info. Last accessed October 24, 2018.

  63. Werneburg, S., Manske, S., & Hoppe, H. U. (2018). ctGameStudio—A game-based learning environment to foster computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computers in Education. Philippines.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Willems, C., Holz, T., & Freiling, F. (2007). Toward automated dynamic malware analysis using cwsandbox. IEEE Security and Privacy, 5(2), 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this publication to the memory of Sören Werneburg who designed and developed the ctGameStudio and ctMazeStudio environments and conducted this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany

    Sven Manske, Sören Werneburg & H. Ulrich Hoppe

Authors
  1. Sven Manske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sören Werneburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Ulrich Hoppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Manske .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Smart Learning Institute, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

    Ahmed Tlili

  2. School of Computing and Information Systems, Athabasca University, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Maiga Chang

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Manske, S., Werneburg, S., Hoppe, H.U. (2019). Learner Modeling and Learning Analytics in Computational Thinking Games for Education. In: Tlili, A., Chang, M. (eds) Data Analytics Approaches in Educational Games and Gamification Systems. Smart Computing and Intelligence. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9335-9_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9335-9_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-32-9334-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-32-9335-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation