Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Learning programming by creating games through the use of structured activities in secondary education in Greece

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

Abstract

The effective teaching of the concept of programming, where critical thinking is an important factor, is not so easy in secondary education. New teaching approaches, including, game-based learning, may provide a solution due to their inclusion of more fun and diverse activities but they still lack the active participation of the students in the creation of the material. In this context, we develop new teaching and learning materials to teach programming principles, like conditionals, loops and variables, to secondary education students based mainly on the constructivistic philosophy. The aim is to help students learn the basics of programming though creating games using a block-type programming environment and not only through the use and the playing of games. This approach combines the use of game design and creation with learning and results to the developing of basic programming skills. In order to evaluate the produced material quantitative and qualitative methods, such as questionnaires, classroom observations and discussions have been used. The results depict an improvement of the students’ knowledge and skills in programming through this game creation process.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aivaloglou, E. & Hermans, F. (2016). How kids code and how we know: An exploratory study on the scratch repository. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on international computing education research (ICER '16), 8-12 September 2016, Melbourne VIC Australia, 53-61.

  • Akar, S. G. M. (2019). Does it matter being innovative: Teachers’ technology acceptance. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3415–3432.

    Google Scholar 

  • All, A., Nunez Castellar, E. P., & Van Looy, J. (2015). Assessing the effectiveness of digital game-based learning: Best practices. Computers in Education, 92-93, 90–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, F., & Simoes, J. (2019). The role of serious games, Gamification and industry 4.0 tools in the education 4.0 paradigm. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(2), 120–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelo, A. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques. A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey – Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arawjo, I., Wang, C. Y., Myers, A. C., Andersen, E. & Guimbretière, F. (2017). Teaching Programming with Gamified Semantics. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, may 06–11, 2017, Denver, Colorado, 4911–4923.

  • Bittencourt, R. A., dos Santos, D. M. B., Rodrigues, C. A., Batista, W. P. & Chalegre, H. S. (2015). Learning programming with peer support, games challenges and Scratch. Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers for Education Conference (FIE). 21–24 October 2015, El Paso, TX, USA, 1–9.

  • Borrego, C., Fernandez, C., Blanes, I., & Robles, S. (2017). Room escape at class: Escape games activities to facilitate the motivation and learning in computer science. Journal of Technology and Science Education (JOTSE), 7(2), 162–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1991). The challenge of problem based learning, St. New York: Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. H. (2006). Beyond constructivism: Navigationism in the knowledge era. On the Horizon, 14(3), 108–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çelik, H. C. (2020). The effect of modelling, collaborative and game-based learning on the geometry success of third-grade students. Education and Information Technologies, 450(25), 449–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalikias, M., Manolesou, A., & Lalou, P. (2015). Research methodology and introduction to statistical data analysis with IBM SPSS statistics. Association of Greek Academic Libraries, in Greek.

  • Chen, P., & Huang, R. (2017). Design thinking in app inventor game design and development: A case study. In IEEE 17th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT), 3–7 July 2017, Timisoara, Romania, 139–141.

  • Chitsaz, M. (2011). Scratch as the first programming language tutorial presentation. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 26(3), 102–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Çiftci, S. (2018). Trends of serious games research from 2007 to 2017: A Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(2), 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2008). The methodology of educational research. Athens: Metaichmio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Combefis, S., Beresnevicius, G., & Dagiene, V. (2016). Learning programming through games and contests: Overview, characterization and discussion. Olympiads in Informatics, 10(1), 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dankbaar, M. (2017). Serious games and blended learning; effects on performance and motivation in medical education. Perspectives on Medical Education, 6(1), 58–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Freitas, S. (2018). Are games effective learning tools? A review of educational games. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 74–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicheva, D., Irwin, K. & Dichev, C. (2017). OneUp Learning: A course Gamification Platform. Proceedings of the 6th Games and Learning Alliance Conference (GALA 2017), December 5–7, 2017, Lisbon, Portugal, LNCS Springer, 148–158.

  • Eckerdal, A., Thuné, M., & Berglund, A. (2005). What does it take to learn'programming thinking'?. In Proceedings of the first international workshop on computing education research ICER ‘05, October 1–2, Seattle, Washington, 135–142.

  • Engerman, J. A., Carr-Chellman, A. A., & MacAllan, M. (2019). Understanding learning in video games: A phenomenological approach to unpacking boy cultures in virtual worlds. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3311–3327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engestrom, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory (pp. 303–328). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fotaris, P., Mastoras, T., Leinfellner, R., & Rosunally, Y. (2016). Climbing up the leaderboard: An empirical study of applying Gamification techniques to a computer programming class. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(2), 94–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funke, A., Geldreich, K. & Hubwieser, P. (2017). Analysis of Scratch projects of an introductory programming course for primary school students. Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 25–28 April 2017, Athens, Greece, 1229–1236.

  • Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E. (2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A research and practice model. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 441–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalan, V., Abubakar, J. A. A., Zulkifi, A. N., Alwi, A., & Mat, R. C. (2017). A review of the motivation theories in learning. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1891(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greek Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs. (2018). “Information and Communication Technologies (ICT)” teaching instructions for all Elementary school classes. Number of ministerial decision Φ.20/139456/Δ1/28-8-2018.

  • Greek Ministry of Education, Research and Religious Affairs. (2019). “Informatics” teaching instructions for all Gymnasium classes. Number of ministerial decision 143912/Δ2/17-09-2019.

  • Günbatar, M. S., & Bakırcı, H. (2019). STEM teaching intention and computational thinking skills of pre-service teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 1615–1629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2015). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 54, 170–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, Y.-H., Lin, Y.-C., & Hou, H.-T. (2015). Exploring elementary-school students’ engagement patterns in a game based learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 336–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, R., Yusoff, R. C. M., Mohamed-Omar, H., & Jaafar, A. (2011). Students perceptions of using educational games to learn introductory programming. Computer and Information Science, 4(1), 205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iliya, A., Jabbar, A., & Felicia, P. (2015). Gamepaly engagement and learning in game-based learning: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 740–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iskrenovic-Momcilovic, O. (2019). Pair programming with scratch. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 2943–2952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyamu, T., & Shaanika, I. (2019). The use of activity theory to guide information systems research. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jafari, S. M., & Abdollahzade, Z. (2019). Investigating the relationship between learning style and game type in the game-based learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 2841–2862.

    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 

  • Kalieloglu, F., & Gulbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspectives. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiss, G. & Arki, Z. (2017). The influences of programming education on the algorithmic thinking. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on intercultural education “education, health and ICT for a transcultural world”, EDUHEM 2016, 15–17 June 2016, Almeria, Spain, Procedia - social and behavioral sciences, 237, 613–617.

  • Lameras, P., Arnab, S., Dunwell, I., Stewart, C., Clarke, S., & Petridis, P. (2016). Essential features of serious games design in higher education: Linking learning attributes to game mechanics. British Journal of Educational Technology (BJET), 48(4), 972–994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamp, A., & Johnson, L. (2011). ScratchQ computer programming for the 21st century learners. Teacher Librarian, 38(4), 64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez, V., & Hernandez, M. I. (2015). Scratch as a computational modeling tool for teaching physics. Physics Education, 50(3), 310–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik, S. I., Mathew, R., Al-Nuaimi, R., Al-Sideiri, A., & Coldwell-Neilson, J. (2019). Learning problem solving skills: Comparison of E-learning and M-learning in an introductory programming course. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 2779–2796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malliarakis, C., Satratzemi, M., & Xinogalos, S. (2014). Educational games for teaching computer programming. In C. Karagiannidis, P. Politis, & I. Karasavvidis (Eds.), Research on e-learning and ICT in education (pp. 87–98). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), article 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathrani, A., Christian, S., & Ponder-Sutton, A. (2016). PlayIT: Game based learning approach for teaching programming concepts. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, G. S. (2001). Discussion paper: Teacher observation in students assessment. Queensland School Curriculum Council, The State of Queensland. Source: https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/research_qscc_assess_report_4.pdf. Accessed 21 December 2019.

  • McLaren, B. M., Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Forlizzi, J. (2017). A computer-based game that promotes mathematics learning more than a conventional approach. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 7(1), 36–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miljanovic, M. & Bradbury, J. (2016). Robot ON!: a serious game for improving programming comprehension. 2016 IEEE/ACM 5th international workshop on games and software engineering (GAS), Austin, TX, USA, 33–36.

  • Mladenovic, M., Krpan, D. & Mladenovic, S. (2016). Introducing programming to elementary students novices by using game development in Python and scratch. International conference on education and new learning technologies (EDULEARN), 4–6 July, Barcelona, Spain, 1622–1629.

  • Munkvold, R. I. & Sigurdardottir, H. I. (2018). Norwegian game-based learning practices: Age, gender, game-playing and DGBL. In proceedings of the 12th European conference on game-based learning, October 4-5, Sophia Antipolis France, 460-468.

  • Nikiforos, S., Kontomaris, C. & Chorianopoulos, K. (2013). MIT scratch: A powerful tool for improving teaching of programming. Proceedings of 5th conference on informatics in education, CIE2013, October 11–13, Piraeus, 1–5.

  • Njiku, J., Maniraho, J. F., & Mutarutinya, V. (2019). Understanding teachers’ attitude towards computer technology integration in education: A review of literature. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 3041–3052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouahbi, I., Kaddari, F., Darhmaoui, H., Elachqar, A., & Lahmine, S. (2015). Learning basic programming concepts by creating games with scratch programming environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, Elsevier, 191, 1479–1482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özmen, B., & Altun, A. (2014). Undergraduate Students' experiences in programming: Difficulties and obstacles. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(3), 9–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozoran, D., Cagiltay, N., & Topalli, D. (2012). Using scratch in introduction to programming course for engineering students. In 2nd international engineering education conference (IEEC 2012), 2, 125-132.

  • Papadakis, S. J. (2018). The use of computer games in classroom environment. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 9(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paras, B. & Bizzocchi, J. (2005). Game, motivation, and effective learning: An integrated model for educational game design. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2005: Changing views: Worlds in play. Vancouver, Canada: Digital games research association (DiGRA). Retrieved from: http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/06276.18065.pdf.

  • Piaget, J. (2013). The construction of reality in the child. Routledge: The International Library of Psychology, Vol. 82.

  • Pivec, P. (2009). Game-based learning or game-based teaching? British educational communications and technology agency (BECTA), report no. 1509, 1-24, retrieved July, 10, 2019, from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1509/1/becta_2009_emergingtechnologies_games_report.pdf

  • Pivec, M., Dziabenko, O., & Schinnerl, I. (2003). Aspects of game-based learning. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on knowledge management (I-KNOW 03), 2–4 July, 2003, Graz, Austria, 216–225.

  • Plass, J. L., Homer, B. D., & Kinzer, C. K. (2015). Foundations of game-based learning. Educational Psychologist, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 50(4), 258–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roque, R., Rusk, N., & Resnick, M. (2016). Supporting diverse and creative collaboration in the scratch online community. In U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, & H. Jeong (Eds.), Mass collaboration and education, Computer-supported collaborative learning series (Vol. 16, pp. 241–256). Cham: Springer.

  • Schwartz, P., Stewart, M., & Webb, G. (2001). Problem-based learning: Case studies, experience and practice. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scratch. (2019). Create stories, games and cartoons. Share with others around the world. Source: https://scratch.mit.edu/about. Accessed: February 19 2020.

  • Seralidou E. & Douligeris C. (2019). “Learning with the AppInventor programming software through the use of structured educational scenarios in secondary education in Greece”. Education and information technologies (2019), springer, pp. 1-39.

  • Seralidou E., Douligeris C., & Gkotsiopoulos P. (2018). “Let’s Learn with Kahoot!,” IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON 2018), Tenerife, Canary Islands – Spain, pp.677–685.

  • Seralidou E., Douligeris C., & Gkotsiopoulos P. (2019). “Students’ evaluation of the “web technologies” android application for higher education”. IEEE 4th south-East Europe design automation, computer engineering, computer networks and social media conference (SEEDA-CECNSM), Piraeus, Greece, pp. 1-6.

  • Siang, A.C. & Rao, R. K. (2003). Theories of learning: A computer game perspective. Proceedings of the IEEE fifth international symposium on multimedia software engineering (ISMSE ‘03), 10–12 December 2003, Taichung, Taiwan, 239–245.

  • Snyder, L. G. & Snyder, M. J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem solving skills. The Delta pi epsilon Journal, L(2), 90–100.

  • Spires, H. A., Rowe, J. P., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2011). Problem solving and game-based learning: Effects of middle grade students. Hypothesis testing strategies on learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(4), 453–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uğur, B., Akkoyunlu, B., & Kurbanoğlu, S. (2011). Students’ opinions on blended learning and its implementation in terms of their learning styles. Education and Information Technologies, 16(1), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaca Cárdenas, L. A., Bertacchini, F., Tavernise, A., Gabriele, L., Valenti, A., Olmedo, D., Pantano, P. & Bilotta, E. (2015). Coding with scratch: The design of an educational setting for elementary pre-service teachers. Proceedings of the 18th international conference on interactive collaborative learning, world engineering education forum (WEEF/ICL2015), 20–24 Sept. 2015, Florence, Italy, 1171–1177.

  • Vasalou, A., Khaled, R., Holmes, W., & Gooch, D. (2017). Digital games-based learning for children with dyslexia: A social constructivist perspective on engagement and learning during group game-play. Computers & Education, 114, 175–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, L., Denner, J. & Campe, S. (2014). Using computer game programming to teach computational thinking skills. In learning, education and games. Volume one: Curricular and design Considarations (chapter 2). Edited by Schrier K., ETC Press.

  • Willis, R. L., Lynch, D., Fradale, P., & Yeigh, T. (2019). Influences on purposeful implementation of ICT into the classroom: An exploratory study of K-12 teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A., Hainey, T., & Connolly, T. (2013). Using scratch with primary school children: An evaluation of games constructed to gauge understanding of programming concepts. International Journal of Game Based Learning, 3(1), 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, J.-C. (2014). Digital game-based learning supports student motivation, cognitive success, and performance outcomes. Educational Technology & Society, 17(3), 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yağcı, M. (2019). A valid and reliable tool for examining computational thinking skills. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 929–951.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yien, J. M., Hung, C. M., Hwang, G. J., & Lin, Y. C. (2011). A game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning achievements in a nutrition house. The Turkish online Journal of Educational Technology (TOJET), 10(2), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunkul, E., Durak, G., Çankaya, S., & Abidin, Z. (2017). The effects of scratch software on students’ computational thinking skills. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 11(2), 502–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapusek, M., & Rugelt, J. (2013). Learning programming with serious games. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Game Based Learning, 13(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the 52 students from the 9th Gymnasium in Nikaia-Greece who participated in the implementation of the worksheets’ activities and gave us their useful comments and suggestions and also the 7 teachers who gave us their opinion about our work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Piraeus, 80, Karaoli & Dimitriou St, Piraeus, 18534, Greece

    Eleni Seralidou & Christos Douligeris

Authors
  1. Eleni Seralidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christos Douligeris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleni Seralidou.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Appendices

Appendix A

Sample Worksheet Activity –Worksheet 2

3rd Activity.

Import Objects.

From the object library find the object “Arrow1” and insert it twice in the program, changing the names to Arrow3 and Arrow4, if they do not change automatically.

figure a

5th Activity.

Expand the command codes for the object “Welcome”:

For the object “Welcome” in the section of the code that includes the “When this object is clicked” event add the following using the appropriate commands:

  1. 1

    Ask “The adventure begins! Do you want to continue? (Yes or No)”.

  2. 2

    If yes, then change the background to Livingroom_1.

  3. 3

    If no, then stop the executing of all commands.

figure b

Sample Worksheet Activity – Worksheet 3.

4th Activity.

Expand the command codes for the object “Welcome”:

For the object “Welcome” in the section of the code that includes the “When this object is clicked” event add the following using the appropriate commands:

After the command “Ask “The adventure begins! Do you want to continue? (YES or NO)”” the program should do the following:

  • Give to a variable called “Counter” the initial value of zero.

  • Repeat the following actions three times:

  1. 1

    If the answer is “NO” it will display the “Rethink it!” message so the user will be able to reply again.

  2. 2

    When the answer is “NO” the value of the variable “Counter” will be displayed and changed by +1.

  3. 3

    If the answer is “YES” then enter the house by changing the background to “Livingroom_1” and hide the “Counter” variable.

  4. 4

    If the “Counter” variable has a value equal to 3, that is, the user has repeatedly given “NO” three times, then the program must be terminated.

figure c

Appendix B

The questionnaire that was presented to the students.

General Information

  1. 1

    Class

  2. 2

    Gender

  3. 3

    Area

  4. 4

    Have you used Scratch in previous years?

  5. 5

    Have you been taught another educational programming environment the previous years?

  6. 6

    If yes, which?

  7. 7

    Were you familiar with object programming before learning about it in this class?

  8. 8

    Have you created a game in any educational programming environment the previous years?

Experience of learning and teaching

Structure and organization of the activities

  1. 1

    In each of the four Escape House exercises there were explanations of what I’m going to learn.

  2. 2

    The concepts I had to work with and learn followed each other in a clear and comprehensible way.

  3. 3

    The activities were well organized and there were not problems in their implementation.

Teaching and Learning

  1. 1

    I liked that I created a game in scratch.

  2. 2

    I will continue to use the scratch software.

  3. 3

    The given exercises helped me understand the if and loop structure through creating a game.

  4. 4

    The given exercises helped me understand the basic programming concepts like object, variable etc. through creating a game.

  5. 5

    The exercises included a lot of examples that helped in better understanding.

  6. 6

    The way the exercises were organized helped me think of many solutions for each activity.

  7. 7

    After completing the activities I think I understand and I have good knowledge of how to use Scratch.

  8. 8

    After completing the activities I find more interesting learning through creating a game.

Lesson’s Requirements

  1. 1

    In order to participate I needed to know programming.

  2. 2

    I was presented with ideas and problems in the activities that I could work with.

  3. 3

    The programming abilities and technical requirements for the implementation of activities troubled me.

  4. 4

    The planned time for the activities was enough.

  5. 5

    Collaboration with my classmates helped me.

What have you learned?

  1. 1

    I understood what I was taught through the worksheets’ activities.

  2. 2

    I was led to situations that I had to think of ideas and ways of solving problems.

  3. 3

    I had the chance to work with my classmates.

Suggestions

  1. 1

    Do you think that the activities for the EscapeHouse creation need improvement?

  2. 2

    If yes, what are your suggestions?

Appendix C

The questionnaire that was presented to the teachers.

General Information

  1. 1

    Gender

  2. 2

    Age

  3. 3

    Education Level

  4. 4

    Years of work experience

  5. 5

    Type of School

  6. 6

    Area

Learning and Teaching Experience

Structure and organization of the exercises content

  1. 1

    In each of the four Escape House exercises there are explanations of what is going to be taught.

  2. 2

    The questions and theory concepts follow each other in a clear and comprehensible way.

  3. 3

    The activities are well organized.

Teaching and Learning

  1. 1

    I like the idea of creating a game in Scratch.

  2. 2

    The activities help in understanding the if and loop structure through creating a game

  3. 3

    The activities help in understanding basic concepts like object, variable etc. through creating a game.

  4. 4

    The activities include enough examples that help in better understanding.

  5. 5

    The way the activities is organized leads in thinking many different solutions for each activity.

  6. 6

    After completing the activities, I think that the student has a good knowledge and understands how to use Scratch.

  7. 7

    After completing the activities, learning through creating a game seems more interesting.

Lesson’s requirements

  1. 1

    The student must know programming in order to participate.

  2. 2

    The ideas and problems in the activities are easy to process.

  3. 3

    The skills and technical requirements for solving the problems in the activities are high.

  4. 4

    The planned time for the activities is enough.

  5. 5

    The activities promote collaboration between students.

Suggestions

  1. 1

    Do you think that the activities of the Escape House’s creation need improvement?

  2. 2

    If yes, what are your suggestions?

Appendix D

The Pre – Post set of questions.

Knowledge

Conditionals

  1. 1

    I can identify the if structure in Scratch.

  2. 2

    I can describe the if structure in Scratch.

  3. 3

    I understand the function of the if structure in Scratch.

  4. 4

    I can explain the function of the if structure in Scratch.

  5. 5

    I can find the if structure blocks category in Scratch.

  6. 6

    I can use the if structure in an algorithm in order to solve a specific problem.

Loops

  1. 1

    I can identify the loop structure in Scratch.

  2. 2

    I can describe the loop structure in Scratch.

  3. 3

    I understand the function of the loop structure in Scratch.

  4. 4

    I can explain the function of the loop structure in Scratch.

  5. 5

    I can find the loop structure blocks category in Scratch.

  6. 6

    I can use the loop structure in an algorithm in order to solve a specific problem.

Variables

  1. 1

    I can identify the variables in Scratch.

  2. 2

    I can describe the variables in Scratch.

  3. 3

    I understand the function of the variables in Scratch.

  4. 4

    I can explain the function of the variables in Scratch.

  5. 5

    I can find the variable blocks category in Scratch.

  6. 6

    I can use the variables in an algorithm in order to solve a specific problem.

Skills

  1. 1

    I can use the Scratch if block commands to program.

  2. 2

    I can use the Scratch loop block commands to program.

  3. 3

    I can use the Scratch variables block commands to program.

  4. 4

    I can develop applications which will require the user’s participation and stimulate the user’s interest.

Attitudes

  1. 1

    I am having a positive interest in programming.

  2. 2

    I collaborate with my classmates to solve problems in programming.

  3. 3

    I am having a positive interest in learning programming through creating a game.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seralidou, E., Douligeris, C. Learning programming by creating games through the use of structured activities in secondary education in Greece. Educ Inf Technol 26, 859–898 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10255-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10255-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation