Advertisement

The Effect of Tangible Artifacts, Gender and Subjective Technical Competence on Teaching Programming to Seventh Graders

  • Philipp Brauner
  • Thiemo Leonhardt
  • Martina Ziefle
  • Ulrik Schroeder
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5941)

Abstract

This study compares the effect of using tangible robots to using visual representations for introducing seventh graders (12 to 13 year old) to computer programming. The impact was measured on learning outcome, self-efficacy, class feedback and attitudes towards STEM (science, technology, engeneering and mathematics) topics. Results show that using robots to learn computer programming is beneficial, although no overall effect towards STEM topics could be shown. A huge gender gap in regard to subjective technical competence (STC) was found that negatively affected the participants’ performance. We provide approaches to leverage this gap and increase learning outcome and interest in STEM topics.

Keywords

Gender effects subjective technical competence introductionary programming CS0 Robots LEGO Mindstorms self-efficacy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Leszczensky, M., et al.: Bildung und Qualifikation als Grundlage der technologischen Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. Bericht des Konsortiums Bildungsindikatoren und technologische Leistungsfähigkeit. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem, Nr. 8-2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schinzel, B.: Informatik und Geschlechtergerechtigkeit in Deutschland - Annäherungen. In: Gender and Science. Perpektiven in den Natur- und Ingenieurwissenschaften. Bielefeld, pp. 127–145 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura, A.: Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2), 191–215 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu, L., Grandon, E.E.: How performance and self-efficacy influence the ease of use of object-orientation. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS 2003), Big lsland, HI, January 2003, pp. 327–336 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brosnan, M.J.: The impact of computer anxiety and self-efficacy upon performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 14, 223–234 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arning, K., Ziefle, M.: Understanding age differences in PDA acceptance and performance. Computers in Human Behavior 23(6), 2904–2927 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Busch, T.: Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 12, 147–158 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zeldin, A., Pajares, F.: Against the Odds: Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Women in Mathematical, Scientific, and Technological Careers. American Educational Research Journal 37(1), 215–246 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ziefle, M., Jakobs, E.-M.: Wege zur Technikfaszination. In: Sozialisationsverläufe und Interventionszeitpunkte. Springer, München (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petersen, U., et al.: Roberta Abschlussbericht, BMBF Projekt (2007), http://www.iais.fraunhofer.de/fileadmin/images/pics/Abteilungen/AR/PDF/Abschlussbericht_Roberta_2007-11-21.pdf (accessed March 2009)
  11. 11.
    Westram, H.: Schule und das neue Medium Internet - nicht ohne Lehrerinnen und Schülerinnen. Thesis (Dr.), Universität Dortmund (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schelhowe, H.: Interaktivität der Technologie als Herausforderung an Bildung. Zur Gender-Frage in der Informationsgesellschaft. Ruhr Universität Bochum (2004), http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/fiab/pdf/jahrbuch/j17a5.pdf (accessed March 2009)
  13. 13.
    Hartmann, S., Schecker, H.: Bietet Robotik Mädchen einen Zugang zur Informatik, Technik und Naturwissenschaft? – Evaluationsergebnisse zu dem Projekt Roberta. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, Jg. 11 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monroy-Hernández, A., Resnick, M.: FEATURE: Empowering kids to create and share programmable media. Interactions 15(2), 50–53 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papert, S.: Mindstorms:Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, Inc., New York (1980)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beier, G.: Locus of control when interacting with technology (Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik). Report Psychologie 24, 684–693 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hyde, J., et al.: DIVERSITY: Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance. Science 321(5888), 494–495 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ziefle, M., Bay, S.: How to overcome disorientation in mobile phone menus: A comparison of two different types of navigation aids. Human Computer Interaction 21(4), 393–432 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cassidy, S., Eachus, P.: Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research 26(2) (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Brauner
    • 1
  • Thiemo Leonhardt
    • 1
  • Martina Ziefle
    • 2
  • Ulrik Schroeder
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehr- und Forschungsgebiet Informatik 9RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Human Technology Centre (HumTec)RWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations