Edward F. Melcer
Katherine Isbister
ABSTRACT
Computer Science (CS) and related skills such as programming and Computational Thinking (CT) have recently become topics of global interest, with a large number of programming games created to engage and educate players. However, there has been relatively limited work to assess 1) the efficacy of such games with respect to critical educational factors such as enjoyment and programming self-beliefs; and 2) whether there are advantages to alternative, physically embodied design approaches (e.g., tangibles as input). To better explore the benefits of a tangible approach, we built and tested two versions of an educational programming game that were identical in design except for the form of interaction (tangible programming blocks vs. mouse input). After testing 34 participants, results showed that while both game versions were successful at improving programming self-beliefs, the tangible version corresponded to higher self-reports of player enjoyment. Overall, this paper presents a comparison between the efficacy of tangible and mouse design approaches for improving key learning factors in educational programming games.
Supplemental Material
- Ainley, M. and Ainley, J. 2011. Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students' continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 36, 1 (2011), 4--12. Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Antle, A.N. et al. 2008. Playing with The Sound Maker: Do Embodied Metaphors Help Children Learn? Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children - IDC '08 (2008), 178.Google Scholar
- Bakker, S. et al. 2012. Embodied metaphors in tangible interaction design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing (2012).Google Scholar
- Barr, D. et al. 2011. Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology. 38, 6 (2011), 20--23.Google Scholar
- Blackwell, L.S. et al. 2007. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development. 78, 1 (2007), 246--263. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Blockly: A visual programming editor: https://developers.google.com/blockly/. Accessed: 201610-09.Google Scholar
- Computer Science For All: 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computerscience-all. Accessed: 2016-09--21.Google Scholar
- Conradi, B. et al. 2011. Flow of electrons: an augmented workspace for learning physical computing experientially. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces - ITS '11 (2011), 182-- 191.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dijkstra, E.W. and others 1989. On the cruelty of really teaching computing science. Communications of the ACM. 32, 12 (1989), 1398--1404.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C.S. 2000. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Gnoli, A. et al. 2014. Back to the future: Embodied Classroom Simulations of Animal Foraging. Proceedings of TEI '14 (2014), 275--282.Google Scholar
- Güldenpfennig, F. et al. 2016. Toward Thingy Oriented Programming: Recording Marcos With Tangibles. Proceedings of the TEI'16 (2016), 455--461. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Harteveld, C. et al. 2014. A Design-Focused Analysis of Games Teaching Computer Science. Proceedings of Games+ Learning+ Society 10 (2014).Google Scholar
- Hicks, A. et al. 2014. Building Games to Learn from Their Players: Generating Hints in a Serious Game. Intelligent Tutoring Systems: 12th International Conference, ITS 2014, Honolulu, HI, USA, June 5--9, 2014. Proceedings. S. Trausan-Matu et al., eds. Springer International Publishing. 312--317.Google Scholar
- Hicks, A. 2012. Creation, evaluation, and presentation of user-generated content in community game-based tutors. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games - FDG '12 (2012).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hu, F. et al. 2015. Strawbies: Explorations in Tangible Programming. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC '15 (2015), 410--413.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Huggard, M. 2004. Programming trauma: Can it be avoided. Proceedings of the BCS Grand Challenges in Computing: Education. (2004), 50--51.Google Scholar
- Ishii, H. 2008. Tangible bits: beyond pixels. Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and Embedded Intreaction (TEI '08) (2008).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kaltenbrunner, M. and Bencina, R. 2007. reacTIVision: a computer-vision framework for table-based tangible interaction. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction. (2007), 69--74. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kao, D. and Harrell, D.F. 2015. Mazzy: A STEM Learning Game. Foundations of Digital Games (2015).Google Scholar
- Kinnunen, P. and Simon, B. 2010. Experiencing programming assignments in CS1: the emotional toll. Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on Computing education research (2010), 77--86.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kumar, V. et al. 2015. Note Code -- A Tangible Music Programming Puzzle Tool. Proceedings of TEI '15 (2015), 625--629.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lode, H. et al. 2013. Machineers: playfully introducing programming to children. CHI '13 Human Factors in Computing Systems (2013), 2639--2642.Google Scholar
- Marsh, H.W. and Martin, A.J. 2011. Academic self-concept and academic achievement: Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 81, 1 (2011), 59--77. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Melcer, E. and Isbister, K. 2016. Bridging the Physical Divide: A Design Framework for Embodied Learning Games and Simulations. CHI'16 Extended Abstracts (2016), 2225--2233.Google Scholar
- Melcer, E. and Isbister, K. 2016. Bridging the Physical Learning Divides: A Design Framework for Embodied Learning Games and Simulations. Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG (2016).Google Scholar
- Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pekrun, R. 2006. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational psychology review. 18, 4 (2006), 315--341. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pekrun, R. and Stephens, E.J. 2010. Achievement emotions: A control-value approach. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 4, 4 (2010), 238--255. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pouw, W.T.J.L. et al. 2014. An Embedded and Embodied Cognition Review of Instructional Manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review. 26, 1 (2014), 51--72. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Price, S. 2008. A representation approach to conceptualizing tangible learning environments. Proceedings of TEI '08 (2008). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Price, S. et al. 2010. Action and representation in tangible systems: implications for design of learning interactions. Proceedings of TEI '10 (2010), 145--152.Google Scholar
- Price, S. et al. 2008. Towards a framework for investigating tangible environments for learning. International Journal of Arts and Technology. 1, 3/4 (2008), 351--368. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Resnick, M. et al. 2009. Scratch: Programming for All. Communications of the ACM. 52, (2009), 60--67. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rogerson, C. and Scott, E. 2010. The fear factor: How it affects students learning to program in a tertiary environment. Journal of Information Technology Education. 9, 1 (2010), 147--171.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schweikardt, E. and Gross, M. 2008. The robot is the program: interacting with roBlocks. Proceedings of TEI '08 (2008).Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schweikardt, E. and Gross, M.D. 2006. roBlocks: a robotic construction kit for mathematics and science education. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Multimodal interfaces (2006), 72--75.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scott, M.J. and Ghinea, G. 2013. Educating programmers: A reflection on barriers to deliberate practice. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual HEA STEM Conference (2013).Google Scholar
- Scott, M.J. and Ghinea, G. 2014. Measuring enrichment: the assembly and validation of an instrument to assess student self-beliefs in CS1. Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research (2014), 123--130.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Scott, M.J. and Ghinea, G. 2014. On the domainspecificity of mindsets: The relationship between aptitude beliefs and programming practice. IEEE Transactions on Education. 57, 3 (2014), 169--174. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Shelley, T. et al. 2011. Evaluating the Embodiment Benefits of a paper-based TUI for Spatially Sensitive Simulations. Extended Abstracts of the 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2011), 1375.Google Scholar
- Skulmowski, A. et al. 2016. Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: The effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a spatial learning task. Computers & Education. 92--93, (2016), 64--75.Google Scholar
- Wang, D. et al. 2016. A Tangible Embedded Programming System to Convey Event-Handling Concept. Proceedings of TEI'16 (2016), 133--140. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wyeth, P. 2008. How Young Children Learn to Program With Sensor, Action, and Logic Blocks. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 17, 4 (2008), 517--550. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wyeth, P. and Purchase, H.C. 2002. Tangible programming elements for young children. CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '02 (2002), 774.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yannier, N. et al. 2016. Adding Physicality to an Interactive Game Improves Learning and Enjoyment?: Evidence from EarthShake. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI). 23, 4 (2016). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Year of Code and 500,000 Fund to Inspire Future Tech Experts Launched: 2014. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/year-of-code-and500000-fund-to-inspire-future-tech-experts-launched. Accessed: 2016--12--14.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Tangibles vs. Mouse in Educational Programming Games: Influences on Enjoyment and Self-Beliefs
Recommendations
Bots & (Main)Frames: Exploring the Impact of Tangible Blocks and Collaborative Play in an Educational Programming Game
CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsWhile recent work has begun to evaluate the efficacy of educational programming games, many common design decisions in these games (e.g., single player gameplay using touchpad or mouse) have not been explored for learning outcomes. For instance, ...
Embodiment, collaboration, and challenge in educational programming games: exploring use of tangibles and mouse
FDG '17: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital GamesWhile there are common design decisions in existing games for teaching Computer Science (single player puzzle based games for the touchpad/keyboard and mouse), recent work has suggested that alternative approaches such as collaborative play and ...
Exploring the Effects of Physical Embodiment in a Puzzle-Based Educational Programming Game
C&C '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and CognitionOne prominent aspect of programming skills/expertise is that it requires the use of many creative processes such as problem-solving, visualization, reflection, motivation and handling failure. While there have been a variety of puzzle-based educational ...
Comments