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

  • Jiyae Noh
  • Jeongmin LeeEmail author
Development Article


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.


Elementary education Robotics programming Computational thinking Creativity Prior skill Gender difference 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1989). Growing up creative: Nurturing a lifetime of creativity. Norwalk, CT: Crown House Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  5. Baser, M. (2013). Attitude, gender and achievement in computer programming. Online Submission, 14(2), 248–255.Google Scholar
  6. Bebras. (2015). Retrieved October 10, 2017, from
  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.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, J., & Jenkins, T. (1999). Gender and programming. SIGCSE. Bulletin, 31(3), 1–4. Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  11. Clement, D. H. (1986). Effects of Logo and CAI environments on cognition and creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 309–318.Google Scholar
  12. Clement, D. H. (1991). Enhancement of creativity in computer environments. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 173–187.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Computer science standards. Computer Science Teachers Association. Retrieved August, 2017 from
  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.Google Scholar
  16. Fagin, B. S., & Merkle, L. S. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 307–311.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  18. Ginsburg, H. P., & Opper, S. (1988). Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  23. Jun, S., Han, S., & Kim, S. (2017). Effect of design-based learning on improving computational thinking. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(1), 43–53.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  25. Kim, Y. C. (2010). Scoring for the TTCT. Daegu, Korea.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  29. Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31–43.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  37. Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 235–275.Google Scholar
  38. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Resnick, M. (2007). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(4), 18–22.Google Scholar
  41. Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  46. Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. Retrieved August, 2017 from
  47. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance test of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press Ginn.Google Scholar
  48. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Stead-Dorval, K. B. (2006). Creative problem solving: An introduction. Singapore: Prufrock Press Inc.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  53. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.Google Scholar
  54. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366, 3717–3725.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Technology, College of EducationEwha Womans UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations