Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Teaching with physical computing in school: the case of the micro:bit

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many physical devices supporting the learning of programming and digital making are now available which have the potential to make learning fun, accessible and creative for children and young adults. The advent of this new technology necessitates research to inform pedagogical approaches that work in the classroom. We carried out a study which explored the pedagogy around the use of the physical devices for programming, drawing on teachers’ experiences of teaching and assessment. The device used was the micro:bit, but the findings are applicable to use with any similar device in school. A mixed-methods study was designed including a survey of 50 Computing teachers, followed by interviews with ten teachers about their use of the micro:bit. The study revealed that the most commonly used teaching methods with this physical computing device were live coding demonstrations, pair programming, discussion, collaborative work and tinkering. Strategies teachers used did not always align to what they felt was effective, with design and code tracing being seen as effective methods, although not the most popular strategies to use. Perceptions and experiences of the teachers participating in the research may be useful to teachers elsewhere who want to use the micro:bit and other physical computing devices to teach programming to children.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school, mathematics teachers in China and the U.S. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, T., Protzenko, J., Bishop, J., Moskal, M., de Halleux, J., Braun, M., & Riley, C. (2016). Microsoft touch develop and the BBC micro:Bit. In L. Dillon, W. Visser, & L. Williams (Eds.), Proceedings of 38th international conference on software engineering companion (ICSE '16) (pp. 637–640). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banzi, M. (2011). Getting started with Arduino. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

  • Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barba, E., & Chancellor, S. (2015). Tangible media approaches to introductory computer science. In V. Dagienė, C. Schulte, & T. Jevsikova (Eds.), Proceedings of 2015 ACM conference on innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 207–212). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), PCK and science education (pp. 147–161). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Ben-Ari, M. (1998). Constructivism in computer science education. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, ACM, 8, 38–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitsch, V. (2005). Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. Journal of Agribusiness, 23(1), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2013). Gears of our childhood: Constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 173–182). New York: ACM.

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver

  • Chen, N. S., Quadir, B., & Teng, D. C. (2011). A novel approach of learning English with robot for elementary school students. In M. Chang, W.-Y. Hwang, M.-P. Chen, & W. Mueller (Eds.), Edutainment Technologies 2011, LNCS 6872 (pp. 309–316). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druin, A., & Hendler, J. (2000). Robots for kids: Exploring new technologies for learning experiences. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

  • Falkner, K., & Vivian, R. (2015). A review of computer science resources for learning and teaching with K-12 computing curricula: An Australian case study. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 390–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagin, B. S., Merkle, L. D., & Eggers, T. W. (2001). Teaching computer science with robotics using Ada/Mindstorms 2.0. In ACM SIGAda Ada Letters (Vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 73-78). ACM.

  • Flowers, T. R., & Gossett, K. A. (2002). Teaching problem solving, computing, and information technology with robots. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 17(6), 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, A., & Thornton, D. (2005). A web-based programming environment for Lego mindstorms robots. In ACM Southeast Regional Conference: Proceedings of the 43rd annual Southeast regional conference- (Vol. 2, pp. 349-350).

  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014). Assessing computational learning in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education (pp. 57-62). ACM.

  • Highfield, K. (2010). Robotic toys as a catalyst for mathematical problem solving. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(2), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, S., Scott, J., Sentance, S., Miller, C., Villar, N., Schwiderski-Grosche, S., & Johnston, S. (2013). NET Gadgeteer: A new platform for K-12 computer science education. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 391–396). New York: ACM.

  • Hodges, S., Sentance, S., Finney, J., & Ball. T. (2019). Physical computing: A key element of modern computer science education. IEE Computer. Retrieved from https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/135064/

  • Hong, J. C., Yu, K. C., & Chen, M. Y. (2011). Collaborative learning in technological project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 335–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, D. W. L., & Der-Thanq, C. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the Design of web-Based E-learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, K. H., Haynie, K., & Kearns, G. (2016). Teaching elementary students programming in a physical computing classroom. In D. Boisvert & S. Zilora (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th annual conference on information technology education (pp. 85–90). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. USA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Vasudevan, V. (2015). Constructionist gaming beyond the screen: Middle school students’ crafting and computing of touchpads, board games, and controllers. In J. Gal-Ezer, S. Sentance, & J. Vahrenhold (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 49–54). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014). A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R., & Russell, T. (2005). Reconstructing knowledge in action: Learning from the authority of experience as a first-year teacher. In D. Beijaard, P. C. Meijer, G. Morine-Dershimer, & H. Tillema (Eds.), Teacher professional development in changing conditions (pp. 133–148). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katai, Z., & Toth, L. (2010). Technologically and artistically enhanced multi-sensory computer-programming education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 244–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kritt, D. W. (2013). A Vygotskian perspective on learning, culture and an education that matters. Early Childhood Matters, 120, 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1989). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. In E. Soloway & J. C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer (pp. 83–112). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linask, L. (2012). Is the Vygotskian perspective suitable for describing the development of signs? Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, 6(2), 202–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litts, B. K., Kafai, Y. B., Lui, D. A., Walker, J. T., & Widman, S. A. (2017). Stitching codeable circuits: High school students’ learning about circuitry and coding with electronic textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 494–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2007). Pedagogical content knowledge: What does it mean to science teachers? In R. P. D. Couso (Ed.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 93–105). Springer.

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical con-tent knowledge (Vol. 6, pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Major, L., Kyriacou, T., & Brereton, O. P. (2012). Systematic literature review: Teaching novices programming using robots. IET Software, 6(6), 502–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F. (1996). Kids learning engineering science using LEGO and the programmable brick. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

  • Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum qualitative Sozialforschung / forum. Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089.

  • McCartney, R. (1996). Introduction to robotics in computer science and engineering education. Computer Science Education, 7(2), 135–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nager, A., & Atkinson, R. D. (2016). The case for improving U.S. computer science education. Washington DC: Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quevedo-Torrero, J. U. (2009). Learning theories in computer science education. In the Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (pp. 1634-1635). IEEE.

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms - children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przybylla, M. (2015). Physical Computing in Computer Science Education: Creative Learning with Interactive Objects. In the Proceedings of NIOC 2015. Retrieved from http://nioc.nl/archief/proceedings/NIOC2015/NIOC%20-%20Slides-Proceedings/Donderdag%20N-053/N-053-uitgebreid.pdf

  • Przybylla, M., & Romeike, R. (2014a). Key competences with physical computing. In T. Brinda, N. Reynolds, & R. Romeike (Eds.), Proceedings of key competencies in informatics and ICT 2014 (pp. 216–221). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przybylla, M., & Romeike, R. (2014b). Overcoming issues with students perceptions of informatics in everyday life and education with physical computing. In Y. Gülbahar, E. Karataş, & M. Adnan (Eds.), Local proceedings of the 7th international conference on informatics in schools: Situation, evolution and perspectives - ISSEP 2014 (pp. 9–22). Ankara: Ankara University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przybylla, M., & Romeike, R. (2014c). Physical computing and its scope - towards a constructionist computer science curriculum with physical computing. Information Technology Education, 13(2), 225–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartatzemi, M., Dagdilelis, V., & Kagani, K. (2005). Teaching programming with robots: A case study on Greek secondary education. In Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (pp. 502-512). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2015). Teachers’ perspectives on successful strategies for teaching computing in school. Paper presented at the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) conference on theoretical computer science, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.

  • Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentance, S., & Schwiderski-Grosche, S. (2012). Challenge and creativity: using .NET Gadgeteer in schools. In M. Knobelsdorf & R. Romeike (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 90–100). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentance, S., Waite, J., Hodges, S., MacLeod, E., & Yeomans, L. (2016). Creating cool stuff: Pupils’ experience of the BBC micro: Bit. In M. E. Caspersen, S. H. Edwards, T. Barnes, & D. D. Garcia (Eds.), Proceedings of 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium computer science education (pp. 531–536). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentance, S., Waite, J., MacLeod, E., & Yeomans, L. E. (2017). Teaching with physical computing devices: The BBC micro:Bit initiative. In Proceedings of 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education: WIPSCE '17, 10.1145/3137065.3137083

  • Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. American Educational Review, 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society. (2017). After the reboot: Computing education in UK schools. Policy report.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1981) The instrumental method in psychology. In Wertsch, JV (ed.) The concept of activity in soviet psychology, Sharpe, NY.

  • Wei, C. W., Hung, I. C., Lee, L., & Chen, N. S. (2011). A joyful classroom learning system with robot learning companion for children to learn mathematics multiplication. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widodo, A. (2017). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and students’ reasoning and wellbeing. In journal of physics: Conference series (Vol. 812, no. 1, p. 012119). IOP Publishing.

  • Wong, K. (2001). Teaching programming with LEGO RCX robots. In D. Colton, S. Feather, M. Payne, & W. Tastle (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th information systems education conference (ISECON 2001). Downers Grove: AITP Education Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Anonymised

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sue Sentance

    Present address: Raspberry Pi Foundation, 37 Hills Road, Cambridge, UK

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Filiz Kalelioglu

  2. Department of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London, London, UK

    Sue Sentance

Authors
  1. Filiz Kalelioglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sue Sentance
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filiz Kalelioglu.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalelioglu, F., Sentance, S. Teaching with physical computing in school: the case of the micro:bit. Educ Inf Technol 25, 2577–2603 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10080-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10080-8

Keywords