CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
Leveraging robot programming to foster computational thinking
Tác giả
Fronza I.; Ioini N.E.; Corral L.
Năm xuất bản
2017
Source title
CSEDU 2017 - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education
Số trích dẫn
3
DOI
10.5220/0006310101090116
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
In 2013, ACM recognized Computational Thinking (CT) as "one of the fundamental skills desired of all graduates". This means that, especially in liberal education environments, one of the challenges of CT courses is to motivate students who are discouraged upfront as they perceive programming as a difficult task. Applications that have tangible results typically stimulate students' interests. For instance, Educational Robotics (ER) is recognized as a tool to enhance higher order thinking skills and to facilitate teamwork. In this paper, we describe a course that has been designed to use ER (i.e., programming a maze-solving robot) to foster CT. Each activity of the course has been designed to foster specific CT skills and to contribute to CT assessment, which remains a challenge in CT research. We report the results of an experiment, in a liberal education environment, with a total of 13 ninth graders (15.4% M, 84.6% F). © 2017 by SCITEPRESS - Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved.
Từ khóa
Computational thinking; Educational robotics; Maze
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alhazbi S., Active Blended Learning to Improve Students' Motivation in Computer Programming Courses: A Case Study, pp. 187-204, (2016); Atmatzidou S., Demetriadis S., Advancing students computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, pp. 661-670, (2016); Bateman K., Let's Not Forget the Computing Curriculum's Bigger Picture: Computational Thinking, (2014); Blenko M., Mankins M., Rogers P., Decide and Deliver: Five Steps to Breakthrough Performance in your Organization, (2013); Brennan K., Resnick M., New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking, 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, pp. 1-25, (2012); Carbone A., Hurst J., Mitchell I., Gunstone D., An exploration of internal factors influencing student learning of programming, Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education, 95, pp. 25-34, (2009); Catlin D., Woollard J., Educational robots and computational thinking, Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics and 5th International Conference Robotics in Education, pp. 144-151, (2014); Crow D., Why Every Child Should Learn to Code, (2014); Dicheva D., Dichev C., Agre G., Angelova G., Gamification in education: A systematic mapping study, Educational Technology & Society, 18, 3, pp. 1-14, (2015); Fronza I., El Ioini N., Corral L., Students want to create apps: Leveraging computational thinking to teach mobile software development, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, SIGITE '15, pp. 21-26, (2015); Fronza I., El Ioini N., Janes A., Sillitti A., Succi G., Corral L., If I had to vote on this laboratory, I would give nine: Introduction on Computational Thinking in the lower secondary school: Results of the experience, Mondo Digitale, 13, 51, pp. 757-765, (2014); Grover S., Pea R., Computational thinking in k-12. A review of the state of the field, Educational Researcher, 42, 1, pp. 38-43, (2013); Hackman J.R., Vidmar N.J., Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions, Sociometry, 33, pp. 37-54, (1970); Hambrusch S., Hoffmann C., Korb J.T., Haugan M., Hosking A.L., A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors, SIGCSE Bull, 41, 1, pp. 183-187, (2009); Hemmendinger D., A plea for modesty, ACM Inroads, 1, 2, pp. 4-7, (2010); Holzinger A., Errath M., Searle G., Thurnher B., Slany W., From extreme programming and usability engineering to extreme usability in software engineering education, 29th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC'05), 1, pp. 169-172, (2005); Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K-12 Education, (2011); Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science, (2013); Meerbaum-Salant O., Armoni M., Ben-Ari M.M., Learning computer science concepts with scratch, Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, ICER '10, pp. 69-76, (2010); Moreno-Leon J., Robles G., Roman-Gonzalez M., Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking, RED-Revista de Educacin a Distancia, 46, pp. 1-23, (2015); Prey J.C., Weaver A.C.A., Fostering gender diversity in computing, Computer, 46, 3, pp. 22-23, (2013); Resnick M., Maloney J., Monroy-Hernandez A., Rusk N., Eastmond E., Brennan K., Millner A., Rosenbaum E., Silver J., Silverman B., Et al., Scratch: Programming for all, Communications of the ACM, 52, 11, pp. 60-67, (2009); Sarmento H.R., Reis C.A.S., Zaramella V., Almeida L.D.A., Tacla C.A., Supporting the development of computational thinking: A robotic platform controlled by smartphone, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies, 9192, pp. 124-135, (2015); Settle A., Franke B., Hansen R., Spaltro F., Jurisson C., Rennert-May C., Wildeman B., Infusing computational thinking into the middle-And highschool curriculum, Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE '12, pp. 22-27, (2012); Shoop R., Flot J., Friez T., Schunn C., Witherspoon E., Can computational thinking practices be taught in robotics classrooms?, International Technology and Engineering Education Conference, pp. 1-15, (2016); Stamouli I., Doyle E., Huggard M., Establishing structured support for programming students, Frontiers in Education, 2004, (2004); Sung K., Samuel A., Mobile application development classes for the mobile, era, Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE'14, pp. 141-146, (2014); Voogt J., Fisser P., Good J., Mishra P., Yadav A., Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice, Education and Information Technologies, 20, 4, pp. 715-728, (2015); Werner L., Denner J., Campe S., Kawamoto D.C., The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school, Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE '12, pp. 215-220, (2012); Wing J.M., Computational thinking, Comm. ACM, 49, 3, (2006); Wing J.M., Computational Thinking Benefits Society, (2014); Wohlin C., Runeson P., Host M., Ohlsson M.C., Regnell B., Wesslen A., Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction, (2000)
Nơi xuất bản
SciTePress
Hình thức xuất bản
Conference paper
Open Access
All Open Access; Green Open Access; Hybrid Gold Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus