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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
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-X
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.200715.003
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.2019.03.018
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.v6i3.1096
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.2013.10.020
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.2019.04.013
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.2012.09.011
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.2017.2724031
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.2020.3024102
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.2022.101224
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.V5.527
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.2006.08.002
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/10.1177/10567879211042327
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/s10639-021-10750-6
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.2021.3058060
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.2022.3166969
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/BF02169215
Gelter, H. (2003). Why is reflective thinking uncommon. Reflective Practice, 4(3), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/1462394032000112237
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-04-2022-0090
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/s11423-018-9618-6
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.2021.828568
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.2018.07.004
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.2020.102183
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
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/s40299-019-00479-9
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.13157
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.7671
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.2022.3155884
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.oa5
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/10.1080/09575146.2016.1167675
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.12132
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/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022121
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/s00779-014-0774-3
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.2018.2876363
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.2006.10.007
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-x
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.2016.2622227
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-12-2021-0109
Smith, W. (2009). Theatre of Use: A Frame analysis of Information Technology demonstrations. Social Studies of Science, 39(3), 449–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312708101978
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/icls2020.991
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/s10798-014-9287-7
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/10.1177/07356331211053383
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/s10798-015-9304-5
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/s10798-017-9397-0
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.2021.107120
Tan, S. Y. (2021). Reflective learning? Understanding the student perspective in higher education. Educational Research, 63(2), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2021.1917303
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/su13031418
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.2018.01.025
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/10.1080/10508400802395069
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.2022.101218
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-y
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_0000000937
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/s10639-021-10884-7
Funding
This work was supported by the 2022 Key research project of the Chinese Minis-try of Education (DCA220449) and the Beijing Education Science Plan 2021 Key Project (CDAA 21048).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Xin Gong: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Shufan Yu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Jie Xu: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing. Ailing Qiao: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Resources, Writing – review & editing. Han Han: Investigation.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The research participants and their parents agreed to participate in the study and their complete anonymity was ensured.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gong, X., Yu, S., Xu, J. et al. The effect of PDCA cycle strategy on pupils’ tangible programming skills and reflective thinking. Educ Inf Technol 29, 6383–6405 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12037-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12037-4