Skip to main content

Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools


This paper presents a cross-age study exploring children’s performance on robot introductory programming activities with one tangible and one isomorphic graphical system. Both subsystems are parts of an innovative system, namely the PROTEAS kit. The tangible subsystem consists of cube-shaped blocks that represent simple and more advanced programming structures. Users may interconnect the cubic-shaped commands and so create the robot programming code. The graphical subsystem presents onscreen an isomorphic to the tangible programming space. Children (N = 109) of five different aged groups were let to interact in pairs with the two operationally equivalent programming subsystems with the scope to program a NXT Lego robot. Three variables associated with children performance upon tasks and four variables related with performance during free interaction were studied. Data analysis based on computer logs and video recordings showed that children produced fewer errors, made more effective debugging and younger children in particular needed less time to accomplish the robot programming tasks with the tangible subsystem. Moreover, during free interaction, elder children were more engaged, created more complicated programs and explored different commands and parameters more actively in the tangible case. Finally, interpretation of the findings is provided and the advantages of tangible user interfaces in children’s introductory programming are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12


  1. 1.

    Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kelleher C, Pausch R (2005) Lowering the barriers to programming: a taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput Surv 37(2):83–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Orit S, Eva H (2009) Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions foundations and Trends®. Hum–Comput Interact 3(1–2):1–137

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sapounidis T, Demetriadis S (2009) Tangible programming interfaces: a literature review. In: Proceedings of the 4th Balkan conference in informatics, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp 70–75

  5. 5.

    Suzuki H, Kato H (1993) AlgoBlock: a tangible programming language, a tool for collaborative learning. In: Proceedings of the 4th European logo conference, pp 297–303

  6. 6.

    Wyeth P, Purchase H (2002) Designing technology for children: moving from the computer into the physical world with electronic blocks. Inform Technol Child Educ Ann 2002(1):219–244

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Horn M, Crouser R, Bers M (2011) Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):379–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Xie L, Antle AN, Motamedi N (2008) Are tangibles more fun? Comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, Bonn, pp 191–198

  9. 9.

    Zaman B, Vanden Abeele V, Markopoulos P, Marshall P (2012) Editorial: the evolving field of tangible interaction for children: the challenge of empirical validation. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):367–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kwon D, Kim H, Shim J, Lee W (2012) Algorithmic bricks: a tangible robot programming tool for elementary school students. IEEE Trans Educ 55(4):474–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Price S, Rogers Y, Scaife M, Stanton D, Neale H (2003) Using ‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interact Comput 15(2):169–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Terrenghi L, Kranz M, Holleis P, Schmidt A (2006) A cube to learn: a tangible user interface for the design of a learning appliance. Pers Ubiquit Comput 10(2):153–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Stanton D, Bayon V, Neale H, Ghali A, Benford S, Cobb S, Ingram R, O’Malley C, Wilson J, Pridmore T (2001) Classroom collaboration in the design of tangible interfaces for storytelling. In: Proceedings of the CHI01 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA, pp 482–489

  14. 14.

    Blackwell A, Hague R (2001) AutoHAN: an architecture for programming the home. In: IEEE symposia on human–centric computing languages and environments, pp 150–157

  15. 15.

    McNerney TS (2004) From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. Pers Ubiquit Comput 8(5):326–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cockburn A, Bryant A (1997) A Leogo: an equal opportunity user interface for programming. J Visual Lang Comput 8(5–6):601–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Smith A (2007) Using magnets in physical blocks that behave as programming objects. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, New York, NY, USA, pp 147–150

  18. 18.

    Marshall P (2007) Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on tangible and embedded interaction, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, pp 163–170

  19. 19.

    McNerney T (2001) Tangible computation bricks: building-blocks for physical microworlds. In: Proceedings of the CHI01, ACM Press

  20. 20.

    Wyeth P, Purchase H (2003) Using developmental theories to inform the design of technology for children. In: Conference on interaction design and children, New York, NY, USA, pp 93–100

  21. 21.

    Horn M, Jacob RJK (2007) Tangible programming in the classroom with tern. In: CHI ‘07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing, San Jose, CA, USA, pp 1965–1970

  22. 22.

    Sapounidis T, Demetriadis S (2013) Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: exploring cross-age children’s preferences. Pers Ubiquit Comput. doi:10.1007/s00779-013-0641-7

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Zuckerman O, Gal-Oz A (2013) To TUI or not to TUI: evaluating performance and preference in tangible vs graphical user interfaces. Int J Hum–Comput St 71(7–8):803–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sapounidis T, Demetriadis S (2012) Exploring children preferences regarding tangible and graphical tools for introductory programming: evaluating the PROTEAS kit. In: 12th International conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT), Rome, Italy, pp 316–320

  25. 25.

    Maloney J, Resnick M, Rusk N, Silverman B, Eastmond E (2010) The scratch programming language and environment. Trans Comput Educ 10(4):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Horn MS, Solovey ET, Crouser RJ, Jacob RJK (2009) Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Boston, pp 975–984

  27. 27.

    Antle AN (2007) Designing tangibles for children: what designers need to know. In: Proceedings of the CHI’07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, USA, pp 2243–2248

  28. 28.

    Zaman B, Abeele Vanden V, Markopoulos P, Marshall P (2009) Tangibles for children: the challenges. In: 27th International conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Boston, USA, pp 4729–4732

  29. 29.

    Schneider B, Jermann P, Zufferey G, Dillenbourg P (2011) Benefits of a tangible interface for collaborative learning and interaction. IEEE Trans Learn Technol 4(3):222–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Shaer O, Jacob RJK (2009) A specification paradigm for the design and implementation of tangible user interfaces. ACM Trans Comput–Hum Interact 16(4)20:1–20:39

  31. 31.

    Sylla C, Branco P, Coutinho C, Coquet E (2012) TUIs vs GUIs: comparing the learning potential with preschoolers. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(4):421–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Fernaeus Y, Tholander J (2006) Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space. In: CHI ‘06 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Canada, pp 447–456

  33. 33.

    Kitamura Y, Itoh Y, Masaki T, Kishino F (2000) ActiveCube: a bi-directional user interface using cubes. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on knowledge-based intelligent engineering systems and allied technologies, Brighton, UK, pp 99–102

  34. 34.

    Zuckerman O, Arida S, Resnick M (2005) Extending tangible interfaces for education: digital montessori-inspired manipulatives. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Portland, OR, USA, pp 859–868

  35. 35.

    Rekimoto J, Ullmer B, Oba H (2001) DataTiles: a modular platform for mixed physical and graphical interactions. In: CHI ‘01 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Seattle, WA, USA, pp 269–276

  36. 36.

    Patten J, Griffith L, Ishii H (2000) A tangible interface for controlling robotic toys. In: CHI’00 conference on human factors in computing systems, Hague, The Netherlands, pp 277–278

  37. 37.

    Cockburn A, Bryant A (1996) Do it this way: equal opportunity programming for kids. In: Proceedings of the sixth australian conference on computer–human interaction, Hamilton, New Zealand, pp 246–251

  38. 38.

    Kahn K (1996) Drawings on napkins, video-game animation, and other ways to program computers. Com ACM 39(8):49–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wyeth P, Purchase H (2002) Tangible programming elements for young children. In: CHI’02 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp 774–775

  40. 40.

    Frei P, Su V, Mikhak B, Ishii H (2000) Curlybot: designing a new class of computational toys. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Hague, The Netherlands, pp 129–136

  41. 41.

    Ullmer B, Ishii H, Jacob RJK (2005) Token constraint systems for tangible interaction with digital information. ACM T Comput–Hum Int (TOCHI) 12(1):81–118

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Blackwell A (2003) Cognitive dimensions of tangible programming languages. In: Proceedings of the first joint conference of the empirical assessment in software engineering and psychology of programming interest groups, Keele, UK, pp 391–405

  43. 43.

    Fishkin KP (2004) A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8(5):347–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Zuckerman O, Resnick M (2003) A physical interface for system dynamics simulation. In: CHI ‘03 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, FL, USA, pp 810–811

  45. 45.

    Sharlin E, Itoh Y, Watson B, Kitamura Y, Sutphen S, Liu L, Kishino F (2004) Spatial tangible user interfaces for cognitive assessment and training. Biol Inspir Approaches Adv Inf Technol 3141:137–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Sapounidis T, Demetriadis S (2011) Touch your program with hands: qualities in tangible programming tools for novice. In: Proceedings of the 15th Panhellenic conference on informatics (PCI), Kastoria, Greece, pp 363–367

  47. 47.

    Carver S, Klahr D (1986) Assessing children’s LOGO debugging skills with a formal model. J Educ Comput Res 2(4):487–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Halstead M (1977) Elements of software science (operating and programming systems series). Elsevier, New York

  49. 49.

    McCabe T (1976) A complexity measure. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 2(4):308–320

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Sheng Y, Shijie Z (2010) A survey on metric of software complexity. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international conference information management and engineering (ICIME), Chengdu, China, pp 352–356

  51. 51.

    Scott SD, Mandryk RL, Inkpen KM (2003) Understanding children’s collaborative interactions in shared environments. J Comput Assist Learn 19(2):220–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Inkpen K, Booth K S, Gribble S D, Klawe M (1995) Give and take: children collaborating on one computer. In: CHI ‘95 conference companion on human factors in computing systems, Denver, CO, USA, pp 258–259

  53. 53.

    Stamovlasis D, Dimos A, Tsaparlis G (2006) A study of group interaction processes in learning lower secondary physics. J Res Sci Teach 43(6):556–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Rogers Y, Lim Y, Hazlewood R, Marshall P (2009) Equal opportunities: do shareable interfaces promote more group participation than single user displays? Hum–Comput Int 24(1–2):79–116

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Falcão TP, Price S (2009) What have you done! The role of interference in tangible environments for supporting collaborative learning. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning, Rhodes, Greece, pp 325–334

  56. 56.

    Klemmer SR, Hartmann B, Takayama L (2006) How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on designing interactive systems, University Park, PA, USA, pp 140–149

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theodosios Sapounidis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sapounidis, T., Demetriadis, S. & Stamelos, I. Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19, 225–237 (2015).

Download citation


  • Computer science education
  • Educational technology
  • Educational robot
  • Introductory programming
  • Tangible programming
  • Tangible user interface