skip to main content
10.1145/3434074.3447201acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Educational Robotics and Mediated Transfer: Transitioning from Tangible Tile-based Programming, to Visual Block-based Programming

Published: 08 March 2021 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper we present the results from a study in which participants (n=26, aged 6-9) were exposed to two different ER systems, one based on tangible tile-based programming and one on visual block-programming. During the transition from the first to the second system, mediated transfer of knowledge regarding computational concepts, were observed. Furthermore, the participants CT skills were likewise observed to improve throughout the study, across both ER systems.

References

[1]
Schoolnet, E., European Schoolnet's 2017 Annual Report. 2018: eun.org - Brussels, Belgium.
[2]
Future, E.t., Prognose for STEM-mangel 2025. 2018, Engineer the Future: engineerthefuture.dk.
[3]
Corbett, C. and C. Hill, Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women's Success in Engineering and Computing. 2015: ERIC.
[4]
García-Holgado, A., et al., European Proposals to Work in the Gender Gap in STEM: A Systematic Analysis. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 2020. 15(3): p. 215--224.
[5]
García-Holgado, A., et al. Trends in studies developed in Europe focused on the gender gap in STEM. in Proceedings of the XX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. 2019.
[6]
Peixoto, A., et al. Diversity and inclusion in engineering education: Looking through the gender question. in 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). 2018. IEEE.
[7]
Wing, J.M., Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 2006. 49(3): p. 33--35.
[8]
Michel, R.P., Csermely. Doris, Jorde. Dieter, Lenzen. Harriet, Walberg-Henriksson. Valerie, Hemmo., Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. 2007, European Commission: ec.europa.eu.
[9]
Schoolnet, E., http://www.eun.org/documents/411753/665824/Perspective2_april2017_onepage_def.pdf/70b9a30e-73aa-4573-bb38-6dd0c2d15995. 2017, European Schoolnet: eun.org.
[10]
Atmatzidou, S. and S. Demetriadis, Advancing students' computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 2016. 75: p. 661--670.
[11]
Blanchard, S., V. Freiman, and N. Lirrete-Pitre, Strategies used by elementary schoolchildren solving robotics-based complex tasks: Innovative potential of technology. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010. 2(2): p. 2851--2857.
[12]
Sáez-López, J.-M., M.-L. Sevillano-García, and E. Vazquez-Cano, The effect of programming on primary school students' mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2019. 67(6): p. 1405--1425.
[13]
Bers, M.U., et al., Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 2014. 72: p. 145--157.
[14]
Caballero-Gonzalez, Y.-A., A.G.-V. Muñoz-Repiso, and A. García-Holgado. Learning computational thinking and social skills development in young children through problem solving with educational robotics. in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. 2019.
[15]
Roussou, E. and M. Rangoussi. On the use of robotics for the development of computational thinking in kindergarten: educational intervention and evaluation. in International Conference on Robotics and Education RiE 2017. 2019. Springer.
[16]
Dourish, P., Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. 2004: MIT press.
[17]
Merkouris, A. and K. Chorianopoulos. Introducing computer programming to children through robotic and wearable devices. in Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. 2015.
[18]
Papert, S.A., Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. 2020: Basic books.
[19]
BBC. BBC micro:bit celebrates huge impact in first year, with 90% of students saying it helped show that anyone can code. 2017 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/microbit-first-year.
[20]
Holst, K. Ny bevilling giver ultra:bit vokseværk. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.dr.dk/om-dr/ultrabit/ny-bevilling-giver-ultrabit-voksevaerk.
[21]
Nielsen, N. Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR) launches ultra:bit. 2018 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://cctd.au.dk/currently/news/show/artikel/danish-broadcasting-corporation-dr-launches-ultrabit/.
[22]
Foundation, M.b.E. micro:bit. [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://microbit.org/.
[23]
MakeCode, M. MakeCode. [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://makecode.microbit.org/#.
[24]
Nugent, G., et al., A model of factors contributing to STEM learning and career orientation. International Journal of Science Education, 2015. 37(7): p. 1067--1088.
[25]
Simpkins, S.D., P.E. Davis-Kean, and J.S. Eccles, Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs. Developmental psychology, 2006. 42(1): p. 70.
[26]
Master, A., et al., Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of experimental child psychology, 2017. 160: p. 92--106.
[27]
Torres-Torres, Y.-D., M. Román-González, and J.-C. Pérez-González. Implementation of unplugged teaching activities to foster computational thinking skills in primary school from a gender perspective. in Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. 2019.
[28]
Seneviratne, O., Making computer science attractive to high school girls with computational thinking approaches: A case study, in Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. 2017, Springer. p. 21--32.
[29]
Sullivan, A. and M.U. Bers, Gender differences in kindergarteners' robotics and programming achievement. International journal of technology and design education, 2013. 23(3): p. 691--702.
[30]
KUBO. KUBO Education. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://kubo.education/.
[31]
Ozobot and Evollve, I.U.S. Ozobot. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://ozobot.com/.
[32]
Pedersen, B.K.M.K., et al. Towards playful learning and computational thinking-Developing the educational robot BRICKO. in 2018 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC). 2018. IEEE.
[33]
Pedersen, B.K.M.K., J.C. Larsen, and J. Nielsen. The effect of commercially available educational robotics: a systematic review. in International Conference on Robotics and Education RiE 2017. 2019. Springer.
[34]
PRIMO. Cubetto. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.primotoys.com/.
[35]
Resources, L. Robot Mouse. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.learningresources.com/code-gor-robot-mouse-activity-set.
[36]
Robotics, M. Cubelets. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.modrobotics.com/.
[37]
Terrapin. Blue-Bot. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.terrapinlogo.com/products/robots/blue/blue-bot-family.html.
[38]
Hornecker, E. and J. Buur. Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems. 2006.
[39]
Stanton, D., et al. Classroom collaboration in the design of tangible interfaces for storytelling. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 2001.
[40]
Ullmer, B. and H. Ishii, Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM systems journal, 2000. 39(3.4): p. 915--931.
[41]
Williams, A., E. Kabisch, and P. Dourish. From interaction to participation: configuring space through embodied interaction. in International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. 2005. Springer.
[42]
Scratch. Scratch. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://scratch.mit.edu/.
[43]
University, C.M. Alice. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.alice.org/.
[44]
Armoni, M., O. Meerbaum-Salant, and M. Ben-Ari, From scratch to ?real" programming. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 2015. 14(4): p. 1--15.
[45]
Moors, L., A. Luxton-Reilly, and P. Denny. Transitioning from block-based to text-based programming languages. in 2018 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE). 2018. IEEE Computer Society.
[46]
Karaliopoulou, M., I. Apostolakis, and E. Kanidis, Perceptions of Informatics Teachers Regarding the Use of Block and Text Programming Environments. European Journal of Engineering Research and Science, 2018: p. 11--18.
[47]
Weintrop, D. and U. Wilensky. Bringing blocks-based programming into high school computer science classrooms. in Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). Washington DC, USA. 2016.
[48]
Weintrop, D. and U. Wilensky, Transitioning from introductory block-based and text-based environments to professional programming languages in high school computer science classrooms. Computers & Education, 2019. 142: p. 103646.
[49]
Bağci, B.B., M. Kama?ak, and G. Ince. The effect of the programming interfaces of robots in teaching computer languages. in International Conference on Robotics and Education RiE 2017. 2017. Springer.
[50]
Dann, W., et al. Mediated transfer: Alice 3 to java. in Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. 2012.
[51]
Mason, R. and G. Cooper. Distractions in programming evironments. in Proceedings Fifteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2013). 2013. Australian Computer Society series.
[52]
Tabet, N., et al. From alice to python. Introducing text-based programming in middle schools. in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 2016.
[53]
Verplank, B. Interaction Design Sketchbook. [PDF] 2009 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: http://billverplank.com/CiiD/IDSketch.pdf.
[54]
Ishii, H., The tangible user interface and its evolution. Communications of the ACM, 2008. 51(6): p. 32--36.
[55]
Hansen, K.G., Tænkning og sprog, in Den Nye Psykologihåndbog. 1999, Gyldendal. p. 130--164.
[56]
Teknologiskolen. Teknologiskolen. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.teknologiskolen.dk/.
[57]
Workshop, W. Dash. 2020 [cited 2020 14th of December]; Available from: https://www.makewonder.com/robots/dash/.
[58]
McKeachie, W.J. and C.L. Brewer, The teaching of psychology: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. Brewer. 2002: Taylor & Francis.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Taxonomy for Educational Robotics at SchoolsRobotics in Education10.1007/978-3-031-12848-6_9(91-96)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2022

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
HRI '21 Companion: Companion of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 2021
756 pages
ISBN:9781450382908
DOI:10.1145/3434074
  • General Chairs:
  • Cindy Bethel,
  • Ana Paiva,
  • Program Chairs:
  • Elizabeth Broadbent,
  • David Feil-Seifer,
  • Daniel Szafir
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 08 March 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. computational thinking
  2. educational robotics
  3. k-12
  4. mediated transfer
  5. tangible programming
  6. visual programming

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper

Conference

HRI '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 192 of 519 submissions, 37%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)22
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Taxonomy for Educational Robotics at SchoolsRobotics in Education10.1007/978-3-031-12848-6_9(91-96)Online publication date: 21-Jul-2022

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media