Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students

  • 367 Accesses

Abstract

Around the world, programming education is actively promoted by such factors as economic and technical requirements. The use of a robot in programming education could help students understand computer-science concepts more easily. In this study we designed a course in programming a robot for elementary school students and investigated its effectiveness by implementing it in actual classes. We further examined the effects of students’ prior skills and of gender on the outcomes. In addition, we reviewed the applicable teaching and learning strategies in the field of robotics programming. Our course in programming a robot was implemented for 155 Korean elementary school students in the fifth and sixth grades. The course was conducted for 11 weeks. Our results show that teaching programming by using a robot significantly improved computational thinking and creativity. Computational thinking, however, was not significantly improved in the group that initially showed high scores. Further, creativity was improved more in girls than in boys, and the mean difference was statistically significant, but the difference in computational thinking was not. The implication of this study is that the best approach is to design a course in programming a robot and apply it in actual classrooms in order to discuss teaching and learning strategies according to students’ prior skills and their gender.

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

Fig. 1

Source: Noh and Lee (2018)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.

  2. Akinola, S. O. (2015). Computer programming skill and gender difference: An empirical study. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research,7(1), 1–9.

  3. Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. Norwalk, CT: Crown House Publishing Limited.

  4. Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,75, 661–670.

  5. Baser, M. (2013). Attitude, gender and achievement in computer programming. Online Submission,14(2), 248–255.

  6. Bebras. (2015). Retrieved October 10, 2017, from http://www.bebras.org/.

  7. 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.

  8. Carter, J., & Jenkins, T. (1999). Gender and programming. SIGCSE. Bulletin,31(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/384267.305824.

  9. Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education,109, 162–175.

  10. Cheng, C. C., Huang, P. L., & Huang, K. H. (2013). Cooperative learning in Lego robotics projects: Exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. Journal of Networks,8(7), 1529–1535.

  11. Clement, D. H. (1986). Effects of Logo and CAI environments on cognition and creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology,78, 309–318.

  12. Clement, D. H. (1991). Enhancement of creativity in computer environments. American Educational Research Journal,28(1), 173–187.

  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  14. Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Computer science standards. Computer Science Teachers Association. Retrieved August, 2017 from http://scratch.ttu.ee/failid/CSTA_K-12_CSS.pdf.

  15. Durak, H. Y., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education,116, 191–202.

  16. Fagin, B. S., & Merkle, L. S. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,35(1), 307–311.

  17. 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.

  18. Ginsburg, H. P., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

  19. Glover, E. M., Jovanovic, T., Mercer, K. B., Kerley, K., Bradley, B., Ressler, K. J., et al. (2012). Estrogen levels are associated with extinction deficits in women with posttraumatic stress disorder. Biological Psychiatry,72(1), 19–24.

  20. Han, K. J., & Lee, Y. K. (2003). Research on problem solving ability of mathematics through elementary school small group cooperative learning. Communications of Mathematical Education,15, 119–126.

  21. Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on pupils’ school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society,9(3), 182–194.

  22. Jeon, S. K., Seo, Y. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2011). A study about creativity and programming education. Proceedings of Korean Association of Computer Education,15(1), 73–77.

  23. Jun, S., Han, S., & Kim, S. (2017). Effect of design-based learning on improving computational thinking. Behaviour & Information Technology,36(1), 43–53.

  24. Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR),37(2), 83–137.

  25. Kim, Y. C. (2010). Scoring for the TTCT. Daegu, Korea.

  26. Kim, J. J., Hyun, D. L., Kim, S. W., Kim, J. H., & Won, Y. H. (2010). Developing the teaching material and comparative experiment of LOGO and Scratch. Journal of the Korea Contents Association,10(7), 459–469.

  27. Kim, J. H., Park, Y. J., Huh, D. Y., & Jo, I. H. (2017). Interaction of learning motivation with dashboard intervention and its effect on learning achievement. Educational Technology International,18(2), 73–99.

  28. Kobsiripat, W. (2015). Effects of the media to promote the scratch programming capabilities creativity of elementary-school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,174, 227–232.

  29. Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education,111, 31–43.

  30. Lawhead, P. B., Duncan, M. E., Bland, C. G., Goldweber, M., Schep, M., Barnes, D. J., et al. (2002). A road map for teaching introductory programming using LEGO Mindstorms robots. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,35(2), 191–201.

  31. Lee, E. K., & Lee, Y. J. (2008). The effects of 4C/ID model based robot programming learning on learners’ flow level. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education,11(4), 37–46.

  32. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior,41, 51–61.

  33. Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Roman-Gonzalez, M. (2015). Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of Scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. Revista de Educación a Distancia,46, 1–23.

  34. Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2018). Design of a SW educational program using robots: Focused on computational thinking and creative problem solving abilities of elementary school students. Journal of Educational Technology,34(1), 1–37.

  35. Papastergiou, M. (2009). Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: Impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Computers & Education,52(1), 1–12.

  36. Park, I., Kim, D., Oh, J., Jang, Y., & Lim, K. (2015). Learning effects of pedagogical robots with programming in elementary school environments in Korea. Indian Journal of Science and Technology,8(26), 1–5.

  37. Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction,12(3), 235–275.

  38. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  39. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

  40. Resnick, M. (2007). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning & Leading with Technology,35(4), 18–22.

  41. Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.

  42. Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2017). Complementary tools for computational thinking assessment. Proceedings of the international conference on computational thinking education (pp. 154–159). Hong Kong, China.

  43. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology,17, 59–69.

  44. Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education,97, 129–141.

  45. Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on international computing education research (pp. 59–66). ICER’ 13, San Diego, San California, US.

  46. Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. Retrieved August, 2017 from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/.

  47. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance test of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press Ginn.

  48. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2006). Creative problem solving: An introduction. Singapore: Prufrock Press Inc.

  49. Tzafestas, C. S., Palaiologou, N., & Alifragis, M. (2006). Virtual and remote robotic laboratory: Comparative experimental evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Education,49(3), 360–369.

  50. Van Merriënboer, J. J., Clark, R. E., & De Croock, M. B. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-model. Educational Technology Research and Development,50(2), 39–61.

  51. Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. New York: Routledge.

  52. Van Merriënboer, J. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist,38(1), 5–13.

  53. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,49(3), 33–35.

  54. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society,366, 3717–3725.

  55. Yoo, B. K., Kim, J. M., & Lee, W. K. (2014). Analysis of the impact of learner characteristics on the achievement of programming. The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education,17(5), 15–24.

  56. Zhong, B., Wang, Q., & Chen, J. (2016). The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior,64, 423–431.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jeongmin Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Noh, J., Lee, J. Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 463–484 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Elementary education
  • Robotics programming
  • Computational thinking
  • Creativity
  • Prior skill
  • Gender difference