1 Introduction

Existing problem-solving methods can express problems and their solutions by using specific approaches that a computer can also execute. These methods constitute Computational Thinking (CT) and use computing to discover, analyze, and understand automated processes (Hunsaker, 2020). Teaching CT to secondary education students poses a challenge to educators today (Yadav et al., 2016). CT is increasingly being adopted as a cross-curricular skill to integrate computational expression, coding, and problem-solving into all subject areas by means of extensive integration initiatives (Grover, 2021). This becomes more daunting as the teacher belongs to a generation that is one or even two generations away from that of the student. Twenge (2018) provided a rough guide to the naming of our most recent generations. Today, teachers of Informatics at junior high schools belong to either Generation X (born between 1965 to 1980) or Generation Y (born between 1981 to 1995) whereas secondary school students mostly belong to Generation Z (1995 to 2012). The latter generation was born into a ‘hyper-connected’ world and has not lived a life without the influence of social media or smartphones (Seemiller & Grace, 2016). This has led to a disparity between those who teach and those who learn. Students of Gen Z differ quite a lot from their educators. They even differ from their ‘millennial’ teachers (a term used for those who belong to Gen Y) because today’s students witness technology as an omnipresent extension of themselves. Even though Gen Z is immersed in technology, it does not necessarily mean that its members understand how it works (Ryerson, 2018). Not knowing how the technology around them functions may limit their future choices in employment. Consequently, the need for Gen Z students to develop CT does exist for them to remain relevant, retain their work, and not be made redundant (Kafai & Burke, 2014).

Educators who teach students of today should understand specific traits that Gen Z members possess to comprehend their learning patterns. According to Moore et al. (2017), smartphones, social media, and a ‘hyper-connected’ world have always been a part of life for Generation Z. Even though ‘millennials’ were the first ‘Digital Natives’, a term first used by Prensky (2001), it is the members of Generation Z who solidified the term and are the most accurate representatives of it using it in all aspects of life and more importantly in education. This unprecedented penetration of technology is witnessed in many aspects of the lives of today’s learners due to ultrafast connections, inexpensive and readily available hardware, the extent of social media, and the subliminal power of Machine Learning (ML). Further, this technology penetration has made the difference between the parent/teacher (GenX, Millennials) and the child (GenZ) greater. Shahidullah (2018) wrote:

“This new breed of youths has emerged with an entirely different mindset and a different culture. They live differently, and they value different things. Their skills, values, beliefs, perceptions, attachments, and attitudes are unmatched by those of previous generations.”

These differences must be fully comprehended, especially when dealing with education. The need to understand this generation and future ones becomes even greater when trying to educate their members on the very thing that makes it difficult to teach them: technology itself. Seemiller and Grace (2016) stated that students in Generation Z show a preference for autonomous, self-paced learning with opportunities for cooperation if required. They see their teacher as a facilitator of learning who assists them in developing appropriate and realistic skills. However, teaching CT to generation Z students and at the same time allowing them to learn at their own pace will require material or curriculum design that will predict obstacles of the learning process and offer solutions whenever the student needs assistance. So, it would not be frivolous to assume that educators could prepare material for classes which are taught without their presence. Another aspect to consider is the amount of knowledge to be taught in each session or lesson. The educator must be able to offer material in small doses, as students’ attention span today has decreased mainly due to social media. The average individual’s amount of time concentrating on a task before becoming distracted, also known as “attention span”, has dropped from 12 to 5 min (Vidyarthi, 2011). Finally, the educator must teach via a wide array of alternative sources because as Seemiller and Grace (2016) wrote: “Generation Z students are comfortable with multitasking and splitting their time and focus among multiple screens”.

1.1 Background

Errington (2003) argues that Scenario-based Learning (SBL) employs immersive scenarios to supplement constructive learning methods like problem-based or case-based learning. It typically entails individuals going through a plot, which is usually focused around a puzzle or dilemma that they must solve. Students must apply their subject awareness, logical reasoning, and problem-solving skills in a safe, real-world, or imaginary setting during the process. According to Clark and Mayer (2012): “The learner assumes the role of an actor responding to a work-realistic assignment or challenge, which in turn responds to reflect the learner’s choices”.

Bardach et al. (2021) employed an online scenario-based learning activity with student teachers to improve their self-efficacy and classroom readiness. Their study indicated that their approach had a significant positive effect on cognitive classroom readiness. Conde et al. (2019) employed challenges in predefined scenarios in robotics activities to help students develop their computational thinking. Using a three-step approach (i.e., engage, investigate, act), students were able to follow the educational paths and to deal with the individual challenges. Α game-based system to foster CT skills is presented in (Turchi et al., 2019). The research provided supporting evidence towards the suitability of game-based tools in fostering CT. 'Code-create-play' was the approach used in (Lazarinis et al., 2019) for improving the coding abilities of the participants. The teaching material had a gamish look and feel including several small try-out activities, parts of a more general learning material. The testing process involved students in game sessions providing them with playful experiences and collaborative learning to promote CT. Problem-based learning in live online classes increased problem-solving (Aslan, 2021) which is a part of computational thinking and a technique employed in SBL. Storytelling and CT is explored in (Soleimani et al., 2019). Their approach facilitates and enhances child-to-child, child-to-machine, and child-to-environment interactions through semi-structured play. In (Asbell-Clarke et al., 2021) looked at the relationship between student gameplay, related classroom activity, and the development of students' CT practices. They concluded that game-based approaches are an effective CT learning and assessment tool for elementary and middle school students.

SBL does not always follow a linear progression. This facilitates students to learn by providing them with multiple input opportunities depending on the choices they make at each point of the project. Bartel et al. (2014) said in their research on using an SBL approach for learning software engineering, that during their education, students become acquainted with traditional practical scenarios. Since they can appear in their future everyday jobs, students may learn specific skills while coping with them. In line with this, Jawaharlal et al. (2004) wrote: “Students learn better through the application of authentic tasks in a real-world context”.

1.2 Purpose

This study aims to address the following research questions:

  • How can an educator design a course or series of CT lessons allowing for Generation Z students to learn in their own way?

  • How can the former design a path to knowledge which allows for autonomous, self-paced learning from the latter while offering small pieces at a time and not discouraging the Gen Z student along the way?

The study presents an alternative way of teaching by providing the teacher of CT with an arsenal of tools and a methodology based on story-telling (i.e., Scenario-based Learning). The presented SBL methodology enables CT lessons easy to follow for the newer generations.

2 Proposed SBL Methodology

The proposed methodology facilitates an educator to implement SBL for teaching CT. Using this methodology, an educator can design any kind of material (to be used in SBL) by following the following steps:

  1. (1)

    Determine the Outcome: The first step is for the designers (i.e., teachers, curriculum curators) to determine what they want their students to learn, and then reverse the process from the learning outcomes to create a series of situations that will lead to this learning.

  2. (2)

    Select the Means: This step involves selecting the means through which the material will be presented and the way that it will take place. Questions asked in this phase could be: Will it be with or without the teacher’s presence (synchronous or asynchronous)? What media will be used (apps, websites)? What kind of communication channel will be selected among the students and between the educator and the students? Will the material be provided in digital or analog format?

  3. (3)

    Choose a Story (or Theme). Like for instance in every movie, the scenario can make a difference. What kind of theme would suit the target group? What twists in the plot can keep their interest going and make students seek the next steps? Does one build to a climax through specific key moments or start the story with an impressive shock and then let the students discover what happened? These are all parts of story design.

  4. (4)

    Establish the Trigger Event and Create Bread Crumbs: When does the scenario begin? This is the moment, event, or situation that engages the student. This must be well-thought-out as it may lead to students not ever starting the scenario. Then, each step or task along the way must be encouraged with a series of connected pieces of information (a.k.a. Bread Crumbs) to allow for a clear flow towards the final goal.

  5. (5)

    Test, Debug and Evaluate: It is always wise to have previously tested the material and more importantly its sequence on either colleagues or advanced students who are willing to volunteer in order to iron out any problems in the design and delivery of the material. Then, once the method has been implemented, results can be compared with the conventional methods of teaching. Also, students can be asked through questionnaires whether they preferred the suggested SBL approach.

The scenario would be greatly improved if the students believe that the world of the scenario they are in is vast. There are many ways to achieve this. One way is by not showing them the whole picture from the beginning. One technique is to make reality somewhat obscure by using ‘amnesia’. Video games like ‘The Witcher’ [2007], ‘Silent Hill 2’ [2001], and some installments of the ‘Final Fantasy series’, have based their storylines on a character’s inability to remember creating a world ready to be discovered. Another technique to open up the scenario is to use a ‘Rube Goldberg machine-type’ approach for simple tasks. The ‘Rube Goldberg machine’, created by the American Cartoonist of the same name, is a device that is purposefully programmed to execute a straightforward task in an indirect and unnecessarily complex manner. Typically, these mechanisms are made up of a sequence of simple unrelated devices; the movement of one initiate the next, ultimately resulting in the achievement of a stated objective. Such devices have been seen in movies such as in ‘The Goonies’ [1985], where an over-engineered device was used to open a gate, or in the 1997 movie Flubber where Robin Williams’s character created a breakfast machine. So, using such a technique in SBL may be quite useful and make the students have to go through the steps of the ‘Rube Goldberg machine’ themselves in order to achieve something commonplace. It expands the world of the scenario and although it may achieve something rather unimportant, it shows that there was a lot of planning involved in the process.

2.1 Creating our SBL experience

We strived to prove that SBL works in CT teaching. For this reason, we designed a story to teach introductory Python to middle school students who had no previous experience learning Python. Python is a popular programming language (Sweigart, 2019). We sought to use the scenario in blended-learning classrooms (Picciano et al, 2014). Such classrooms combine face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction (Graham, 2006), or online synchronous and asynchronous classrooms. Synchronous online classrooms occur in real-time via some sort of video conferencing and/or chat tool. Asynchronous classrooms take place without the presence of the educator.

2.2 The material we wanted to teach

The material presented the following aspects and upon completion, the students were able to write their first Python program:

  • Setting up Python and Using the Python interactive shell and IDLE.

  • Data Types & Variables.

  • Flow Control.

  • Functions.

  • Lists.

  • Dictionaries and Structuring Data.

  • Using Strings.

  • Writing their first program.

The material followed the first six chapters of the book titled “Automate the boring stuff with Python” written by Sweigart (2019). Once we had the material, we then decided on the main theme for our story. When brainstorming for the main theme, there are certain factors to be taken into consideration. Some important factors are:

  • The material that will be taught, [in our case is Beginner Python]

  • The target age group of students, [Middle school students]

  • The time frame to complete the course [approx. 20 days]

  • The designer’s hobbies or interests [Sci-fi novels, music, sports]

  • Any restrictions, [Political Correctness, Age Appropriacy, Legal Issues such as GDPR]

In our case, as we were teaching Python, we would like the scenario to follow a path related to technology. Our GenZ target students were at the age and school grade, where they usually ask the question: “Why should I learn this?” Thus, it was imperative to show –through the scenario- the need to learn a popular programming language. For this reason, we sought to find a work-related scenario or a scenario that took place in a professional environment. For instance, if we were designing a beginner’s programming course for younger children, perhaps a more suitable scenario such as one taking place in a fairy tale environment or in a cartoon world could be more attractive. Also, taking into consideration that our time frame was approximately 3 weeks, this would be a fast-paced course. Thus, the idea of urgency was added to the design. The scenario was based on a futuristic dystopian world where artificial intelligence (AI) has taken over the world. We used our background knowledge of the history of computers and machine learning to create the possible effects these can have on the future and used that knowledge to set up the main problem students will need to solve. During the design, we took into account the fact that students were teenagers, impressionable individuals, and lacked prior knowledge of the history of computers. Therefore, when mixing any true facts with fictional aspects of the story, we needed to be extremely careful to explain the distinction between facts and fiction. This generally can be done by using a ‘Time Machine Narrative’ where all fictional elements, yet to take place (since time machines do not exist), are placed in future settings of the story, and real elements are either ones which take place in the present or past. That will facilitate the distinction between the two –real or not real- aspects of the story keeping it plausible and entertaining. Taking the above into consideration, the theme we came up with was the following:

Theme: Welcome to the year 2076! You are an aspiring programmer seeking employment in the field of coding. You see a poster advertising an organization that is completely formed by an artificially intelligent system used for the greater good of humanity. The language that the system uses to test new employees is Python, an old language that was popular at the beginning of the millennium and used today by children. You must learn the basics in order to write a simple program and get hired as an employee of the organization. But beware! Something mysterious is going on…

2.3 Story telling elements

We needed to consider important elements in storytelling (apart from the main theme). The other aspects, which can make any story worth visiting, are (1) Subplot; (2) Characters; (3) Setting; (4) Conflict-Climax-Resolution; and (5) Plot Twist.

  • Subplot: The subplot is a parallel plot that takes place while the main theme is in development. In SBL, the subplot is one of the most useful ways to incorporate various parts of the curriculum to be taught without jeopardizing the integrity of the main curriculum. Subplots allow for the creator of the curriculum to branch out into new areas when they feel they have become limited. These areas can lead to large changes within the main route of the story or simply be minor distractors. In our scenario, we showed that the student seeking work for the AI organization, run by computers, would be contacted by a group of human hackers to infiltrate the company because the hackers believed that humanity may be at risk.

  • Characters: Every story will need at least one character. As the student usually takes on the main role or the role of the protagonist, that could be enough but introducing more characters to the story will open up many possibilities. In SBL, the characters could be extremely simple, or they may offer levels of complexity that will make the student think. Our characters were hackers with a high sense of empathy.

  • Setting: The setting plays an important part in storytelling as it sets the environmental limits that the hero faces. If the setting is interesting, it can enhance the overall experience and promote a thirst for discovery. For instance, if the story is set in medieval times, then the hero cannot use the Internet to get out of a difficult situation but will expect to meet knights and explore castles. In SBL creation, if the educator has limited descriptive capabilities or if the scenario has a theme that is played in the real world, the setting may not need to be fully described creating a more mysterious setting and it can still have a great impact on the overall experience.

  • Conflict – Climax – Resolution: Once the students are presented with the main idea of the story, they will need to follow a series of steps to complete the scenario. Stories can follow the following format after the initial presentation or exposition: Conflict, Climax, and Resolution.

Conflict is usually the problem that is presented. It can be external or internal. In the scenario we created, the external conflict was that they did not know how to program in Python but wished to be hired by a company that needs programmers. In the subplot, the internal conflict which is created is that a group of human hackers contacted them and asked them to infiltrate the AI-created company to save the world from computer domination. The hackers agreed to teach them all the secrets they needed to succeed.

The Climax in a story is a peak point where the tension is at its highest. This can be achieved through the correct ranking of the difficulties of the tasks given making each one more difficult than the previous. The climax in our story was where the students had to decide whether to create the final program and take down the organization.

Finally, the Resolution is when the students had completed the final task and the story was brought to the end where they find out that they have made it. During the resolution of the story, students learn what they accomplished both story-wise and also material-wise.

  • Plot Twist: A plot twist is an unexpected turn of events. Finding a good plot twist is usually one of the more challenging aspects of storytelling. It is difficult sometimes to hide clues or even present them in plain sight but if done carefully, an unexpected change might fire up the students’ thirst to continue. Also, it can be used at the end of the course to introduce the next part of the course like a cliffhanger at the end of a TV series episode. We provided a surprising plot twist at the end of the course when the students completed their program.

3 Tools to visualize the story

By using an online storyboard service (Hart, 2013), an educator can make a quick mockup of the important elements to present. We used such a service as this facilitates the visualization of any necessary changes that need to be made, allowing for a clearer and easier planning of the next steps. We also used a mind-mapping tool (Davies, 2011; Passuello, 2021) to relate the parts of the story with the tools used to tell the story. We designed the important steps that a user goes through to complete the story. Through the mind mapping tool, the aspects which we wanted to teach were connected with the elements of the story. Then, each element was connected with various applications or web services to make the story interactive.

4 Bringing the story to life

Storyboard (shown in Fig. 1) and mind map (Fig. 2) were used as guides.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Storyboard

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Mindmap

Full size image

Both facilitated us to create the various steps in teaching Python using SBL. There are two counteracting aspects to keep in mind when designing at this stage: (1) consistency is key; and (2) variety makes the story engaging. By consistency, we mean that it is wise to select the same colors, fonts, and general look of the story so the student knows what to expect visually. By variety, we mean utilizing a plethora of tools to provide an element of surprise and make the world of the scenario seem larger. The designer is advised to combine both and provide a seamless experience through various tools. So, we used the mind mapping tool to plan each step of the way and we introduced the idea of using breadcrumbs to create a ‘Rube Goldberg Machine’ so the student would progress through the story.

We can use the mind map to create a use case diagram that can conform to the Unified Modeling Language (UML) standards for the various screens. However, we would be switching from one application to another. For this reason, we decided to present the mind map using our own custom way of presenting the various elements of the scenario. So, we would not be using Actors, a System, or Goals. As every educator may want to create their own method of depiction, we suggest that they make it as simple as possible to assist them in the design of the scenario. In our case, there was a key provided to show the various tools used. Each tool appeared in a square/rectangle in Fig. 2. What the student would do/learn through each of the tools was shown in a solid blue line connected to an oval showing the activity. Breadcrumbs (paths they followed to go from one activity to another) were depicted using red dashed lines with an arrow pointing to the next step and a number showing the sequence. There were orange pill-shaped elements called clues. They were used for either story enhancement or curriculum enhancement. However, they were optional and might have never been found. Finally, if there was a synchronous interaction activity between the educator and students it was shown with a teal-blue solid line with a circle ending. The key, which shows relationships and tools, is shown on the left. All the above were customized using iThoughtsX via the Edit Styles buttons. iThoughtsX (Apple, 2021) is a mind mapping tool on MacOs.

Having a complete plan, available with steps and links to the services we wanted to use, we created a poster (Fig. 3) that would serve as our starting point. Then, we created a front page (Fig. 4) that had a call to action. The user was to sign up and take a quiz in order to get hired by the organization called MOSAIK. For that to take place, we created a simple Learning Management System (LMS) (Turnbull et al., 2021) using a PHP framework (codeigniter) (Fig. 5). We remind that PHP is an accepted scripting language that is particularly suited to web development. Once students had signed up and had taken the quiz, they would be informed that they had failed and would not be hired by the organization. Then, they were contacted by a hacker group through the LMS. Students later found out that the group would serve as their mentors, to teach them Python basics so the student can get hired and infiltrate the ‘evil’ company. The backstory was that MOSAIK, an artificial intelligence algorithm which had gone rogue, was set out to enslave humans and the hackers wanted to reverse the code to serve humans. So, the students’ job would be to learn Python in order to alter the code and save the world from the domination of a rogue AI.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Canva, our poster

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Front Page, header and banner

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

LMS, logged in user

Full size image

Following the mind map and using a plethora of tools, we created a series of challenges which the students had to solve to progress through the story. Once they completed these tasks and were hired by the company, the organization would assign tasks which they needed to complete allowing them to get a higher salary. So, they would be taught a concept via video and then be quizzed on it. The hackers would come to the rescue if the student failed any task. Every time they completed part of the story, they would be awarded more information on why the hackers believe the organization is harmful. This also allowed us to present other topics (apart from Python) such as the history of computer languages, types of hackers, and even make references to Isaac Asimov’s ‘Three Laws of Robotics’ (Asimov, 1941).

Through our approach, we allowed the teacher of CT to familiarize him/herself with a series of tools to facilitate Gen Z students learning both in synchronous and asynchronous educational environments. The tools can be used both independently for curriculum enhancement or—in our case – as parts of a large story. The tools we used were:

  • Twine (Friedhoff, 2013; Harvey, 2014): An open-source tool for telling non-linear stories just like in old Choose-your-Own-Adventure books of the’80 s. It created text adventures that could be enhanced with media.

  • Hot Potatoes Suite (Arneil et al., 2001; Sadeghi & Soleimani, 2015): A freeware suite that allows for the creation of interactive multiple-choice, short-answer, jumbled-sentence, crossword, matching/ordering, and gap-fill exercises.

  • Quizizz (https://quizizz.com/): A quiz creator which utilizes gamification (Hamari et al., 2019). It makes quizzes really fun and also competitive. It can be used to assign homework or played live.

  • Kahoot! (Dellos, 2015; Wang & Tahir, 2020): A popular quiz game with a speedy setup and a no-frills interface allowing for quick multiuser live testing entertainingly. Mostly used for synchronous testing.

  • Parsons Programming Puzzles (Parsons & Haden, 2006): A form of scaffold program creation challenge in which the learner is given a set of code fragments, blocks of a single or several lines of code, and the task of piecing together a program from these.

  • Project Euler: A website (https://projecteuler.net/) that makes the user go through a series of challenging mathematical or computer programming problems that will demand more than just mathematical understanding to solve.

  • Repl.it (https://replit.com/): A powerful online IDE, Editor, Compiler, Interpreter, and REPL. Code, compile, run, and host in 50 + programming languages". A w tool for live code correction.

  • Discord (https://discord.com/): A service for communication via voice, video, and chat used by many gamers. It has topic-based channels that provide an organized way to facilitate question and answer sessions but also the implementation of automatic answer scripts known as bots which can allow for asynchronous communication. It is noteworthy that using a bot significantly simplifies interaction with services, providing a universal interface (Bezverhny et al., 2020).

  • Gather.town (McClure & Williams, 2021): It is a video-calling tool that can be used for synchronous lessons. What makes it special is its unique interface. The environment that users use to interact resembles a pseudo-3D video game. This is a perfect platform for scenario-based learning synchronous education meetings as the experience is enhanced by the interactive environment and the options that Gather.town provides.

One example of the use of three of the tools presented above is that we developed a simple discord bot (using Python) to answer simple questions via the forum when students were stuck in a specific area. The bot would give them a hint that could be used for them to write the code needed to find the answer to a math problem posed in Project Euler. This added an extra “Character” to our story and also allowed for interaction amongst the students themselves who were able to find the solution through cooperation. Using Repl.it, they could share their code in real-time and also contribute to each other’s code to correct it.

Assessment and results

Our methodology does not include a single application but a series of applications and tools. Therefore, we focused on assessing our methodology using a variety of inspection methods depending on the scope of the individual using the method. Through the two scopes, we sought to shed light on the following topics:

  • The effectiveness of the tools for the educator in terms of presenting and assessing the material used (1) as individual tools; (2) as a whole scenario.

  • The interest that was generated by a Generation X student in terms of (1) understanding the concepts; and (2) lesson engagement.

We used usability inspection methods to gain insight from 5 teachers of informatics who had at least three years of teaching experience. Then, we used user-testing methods to understand how the 16 students perceived the approach. Finally, through field observation, interviews and questionnaires we obtained valuable data that allowed us to reach the conclusion that will be presented below.

4.1 Inspection methods

Heuristic evaluation

The primary inspection method we used on educators was the Heuristic Evaluation Method (Mack & Nielsen, 1995) to answer how they could incorporate SBL in their curriculum design and execution. In the Heuristic Evaluation, which is mainly a usability inspection, the educators evaluated the method against a list of areas of concern to spot any design or usability problems as well as to predict any difficulties they might face if the same method was used to teach other areas of computational thinking. We took into consideration the Playability Heuristics for Educational Games (PHEG) (Nunes Marciano et al., 2014; Vieira et al., 2019) to refine the areas and adapt to the method at hand which is scenario-based learning while using various applications and tools which can be used separately but also in unity.

Cognitive walkthrough

The Cognitive Walkthrough (Polson et al., 1992) is a walkthrough approach that focuses on how easy it is to use a specific product or application. This method of evaluation has gone through many changes and many extensions in the past, some of which would have made it quite difficult to implement in our circumstances as they would be too laborious. Thus, we utilized the third iteration of the cognitive walkthrough, the “informal cognitive walkthrough”. We applied this during the design phase of the scenario mainly to prove that large portions of our SBL method could be completed without the assistance of an educator, more like a stand-alone educational tool. The reason we chose this method is because of its strengths and its applicability to small sample groups. Wilson (2013) stated that this method does not require the product to be fully functional and can even be applied during the development phase when there is enough information to show what the students will be doing and how the method responds. This method also focuses on initial usability, and walk-up-and-use learning (Wilson, 2013). This was important in our effort to show that the educator (who is designing it) should be able to remove themselves from the task of teaching it (a characteristic desired by Generation X students as shown in earlier chapters) even in part if not as a whole. We used Cognitive Walkthrough in some parts of the scenario to simulate asynchronous education.

4.2 Field observation, interviews, and questionnaires

Three different types of approaches (i.e., field observation, interviews, and questionnaires) were used to gain insight into how the students perceived the scenario-based learning method with regard to taking their first steps in coding Python. These methods were used mostly to judge the suitability of the method from an educational standpoint. Regarding the first, we used participant observation and unobtrusive observation. In participant observation, the educator can act as one of the students to gain a student-point-of-view. With unobtrusive observation, there should be no interaction with the students during the time they are taking part in SBL to avoid any biases. Consent, however, must be obtained before the observation starts. If data collection remains anonymous though, privacy will not be violated. Interviews and Questionnaires were used for in-class and online participation respectively. Both provided insight on various aspects of SBL presented below.

4.3 How does the inspection take place?

In our heuristic evaluation, four educators were first asked to read through the material that was to be taught (Python for Beginners) as well as quickly peruse the tasks that were assigned. Then, they went through the scenario as students with one educator playing the role of the “Teacher” simply as a coordinator. The educators had all taught beginner coding to students of secondary education but had never tried a scenario-based learning approach for their students. This allowed us to use the least experienced educators in SBL to eliminate any biases toward the method.

Once they completed the scenario, they were asked questions on four main areas of concern in the following aspects:

  • Interface: How easy is it to navigate through the parts with or without instructions, how interactive the material was, how well the design worked and how consistent the story was from beginning to end.

  • Education Value: Were the educational objectives met? Were the challenges ranked properly? Was there enough feedback provided?

  • Content: Was there enough information made available to the students for them to understand the concepts or delve deeper should they wish to do so? Was it suitable for their age?

  • Entertainment: Could they expect students to be satisfied with the overall experience? What would the emotional responses to the scenario be? Were the characters relatable? Would they (the educators themselves) have fun teaching a class using SBL?

As for our cognitive walkthrough evaluation, based on results we obtained regarding the interface aspect of the heuristic method we then decided that we would need to further evaluate the approach based on whether the material (as a whole or in part) could be taught without the assistance of an educator. Thus, we conducted the cognitive walkthrough method using a facilitator (who was one of our educators) and without explaining much, we asked a group of students to begin the adventure. Only a part of the adventure was tested (as this was conducted during the design and creation phase) but it was sufficient to show whether the students could follow the track on their own and also deduct information as to whether they would be interested in continuing. Then, the educator took notes and asked questions about the method’s usability, difficulty, and overall progression. Afterward, we assessed the results to see if the material was deemed adequate for the students to work on their own or with assistance.

Basic procedures that were followed before and during the implementation of this method were the following:

  1. 1.

    We defined the test-taker group to be 4–5 students.

  2. 2.

    We defined which area of the method we wanted to present (breadcrumbs 1 through 7 of the mind map) (this part should not need an educator present)

  3. 3.

    We set some ground rules:

    1. a

      All students were to be informed that this was an introduction to Python presented in an ‘alternative way’.

    2. b

      No information about the scenario was to be given before the assessment. Their starting point was the poster.

    3. c

      The evaluators could not defend or explain any part of the path/material during the assessment.

    4. d

      Students were to use their own computers/smartphones/tablets connected to the network during the test.

    5. e

      No assistance could take place among students in the room (to simulate a home experience environment).

Finally, we generated a sequence of actions that need to be taken for the students to complete the tasks and follow the breadcrumbs. The actions included the steps in order to sign up, move through the first material assignment of the LMS and also establish a primary communication with the hackers. We did not take into consideration the time used to absorb the material presented or to complete the mini-tests. This showed that a large part of the scenario can be completed without the educator’s assistance. So, a typical walkthrough can be created.

Participant observation was conducted by having an educator play the role of a student and interacting with the other students not knowing any part of the scenario. However, the educator did know how to code. So, there was bias in the educational aspect of this observation. However, the reason we allowed it was to see how the scenario itself would work and what questions the students would ask while trying to solve the riddles and puzzles. The educator himself asked questions to elicit responses. Using unobtrusive observation, after we obtained consent, we recorded questions that were asked on the various chat rooms and servers to see what areas of inquiry were significant or to find where students had trouble in continuing the story or understanding the material.

We conducted interviews with a small group of students (4–5) who followed the method at a private tutoring school. They were interviewed before starting the experience and then after the students had completed the material. For the students who followed the approach from home (synchronously or asynchronously), we used questionnaires. The questions on the questionnaires were similar to those conducted in the interviews.

4.4 Results

The educators who tested the course in the heuristic evaluation had to complete a questionnaire upon completion. The questions followed a 5-point Likert scale format such as the following: (1) Strongly disagree; (2) Disagree; (3) Neither agree nor disagree; (4) Agree; (5) Strongly agree. They were also asked to provide optional justification or add comments to any of the questions. The questions and the results of the questionnaire given to the educators are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Results from educators questionnaire [(1) Strongly disagree…(5) Strongly agree]
Full size table

Useful deductions derived from the educators’ questionnaire were the following:

  • Even though the variety in applications made the scenario and educational aspect more interesting, it lacked consistency in design. Students even characterized it as not as professional as a complete software package.

  • Educational objectives were met through the LMS but it would not be possible for students to comprehend all aspects without the presence of a teacher. The above point was even strengthened by the overwhelming view that the most entertaining parts were the group projects which require the educator’s presence.

  • The educators did not all agree that through SBL, coding lessons are easier to teach (or assess) but all educators agreed that students wanted to continue the lessons after the end.

  • The method provided adequate information regarding the teaching of coding and also the side-content (history of coding, hacking ethics, etc.) but it sometimes lacked feedback. Educators stressed that this could be improved with the next versions and a “smarter” LMS with more features and a wider database.

  • The educators did state that regarding the scenario, they were frequently asked about what will happen next and also were asked how the scenario was created. They were able to relate to GenZ students more and also show how coding can enhance the teaching experience.

From the cognitive walkthrough test, we realized that there were large parts of the scenario that could be completed without the assistance of the educator. This allows the educator to have more freedom when assigning work via SBL as most of the work has been completed before the start of the course. However, students did have questions that referred to three aspects:

  1. 1.

    The material being taught.

  2. 2.

    Technical aspects (logging in, navigation, completing the subplot).

  3. 3.

    The story.

A note for improvement is that the creator of the SBL scenario should implement a clear reference system for the various breadcrumbs. So, when a question arises, the students will be able to ask the educator using the reference system so that both parties are aware of the location of the student inside the story. For example, one student was lost after the 7th breadcrumb, and could not understand how to use Discord. It took the educator quite some time to understand where the student was as the student did not have a clear reference point and needed to explain the whole scenario step-by-step until that breadcrumb. It would have been much easier if there was an external reference such as a color code or an alphanumeric number that can appear on each page in the LMS and Twine (these are the two apps that the educator/creator has complete control over.)

Another note regarding the cognitive walkthrough is that using this testing approach, the creator can easily use it to create a thorough manual for other educators to use (or for future reference for themselves) as the mind map may not be enough for the post-creation phase.

In our interviews with the students, we asked a series of open-ended questions, and via questionnaire, we asked Likert-scale questions. Table 2 presents the results of the questionnaire that followed once the students had completed the course.

Table 2 Results from students questionnaire
Full size table

Interesting deductions came from our questionnaire results and interviews with open-ended questions:

  • Students had no problem beginning the scenario in terms of registration or following the first steps. This was expected as their generation is acquainted with human–computer interfaces.

  • The majority of students found this approach to be more entertaining than the conventional class-style approach.

  • They would still require the presence of an educator and without the educator to assist; they might have even quit the scenario. Thus, human presence in the education process is still valued and even necessary.

  • Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of creating the scenario is to provide the necessary feedback to the students. In its primary version, it was not easy to predict where each student would find difficulties, and thus students overwhelmingly expressed a desire for better feedback from the system. In the discussion below, we will suggest remedies for this.

  • Students enjoyed the variety of the applications which made the scenario “unpredictable” as they said in our observations.

  • Students also said that they would go back and complete the scenario again if they were able to “reset” the LMS to get a higher score (represented as a salary in the scenario) and climb the Employee Ranking system. They said that this would encourage them to revise the material better too.

  • As educators pointed out, group tasks and a group environment are preferable to individual-taught lessons. Students said in interviews that they liked the ‘dual system’ of being in a common chat room with others but at different stages of the scenario and levels of the material of Python. This is not frequently done in conventional classrooms. Through our chat records, we saw the phrase *Spoiler Alert* being written a few times in order for those who were ahead of the scenario not to reveal elements to those behind. Also, the sense of accomplishment, once someone progressed, was high and thus they felt they should not reveal the next phase easily to those who had not completed the work. This is also discussed further in the next paragraph to prevent story spoilers from taking place in chat rooms.

  • The majority expressed they would like to continue the material and delve deeper into Python by finding out how the story unravels.

  • Students wished most lessons would also be taught this way with Ancient Greek and Physics being the two most mentioned lessons that could benefit from this approach based on what students answered in our open-ended questions.

  • Lastly, students found the aspect of Gather. Town and live correction on coding from Repl.it to be the most tech-savvy part of the process. They said that they felt the educators who facilitated this seemed more ‘tech knowledgeable’ and ‘knew their material’. This fact can assist an educator of technology to gain the trust of the new generation in terms of technology lessons.

5 Discussion and conclusion

This paper presented tools that an educator of CT could utilize to make his/her lesson more attractive to the younger generation. It also deployed scenario-based learning to make the students follow a given path through storytelling while learning to code and also touching on other non-coding topics. The bulk of the design took place during a pre-pandemic time at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020 and the testing started during the first lockdown in Greece (March 2020). This impeded the sample number of teachers and students that we could use the method on as it was tested during a time of turmoil in the Greek education system as it was forced to transition to an online way of education never seen at this scale before with quite a few teething problems. So, teachers and students were reeling to find the pace, and thus adding a new method to the curriculum for testing in a private or public school was not permitted. However, we did accomplish the testing but with a smaller than intended sample of students. What positive deduction did come from this period is that this method could be used in cases where online education is necessary and it would provide for a more entertaining approach while taking part of the burden of an educator who has a class of 20 students to deal with. Nevertheless, more evaluations are required with larger groups of both students and educators to test the usability and adoption of SBL in CT.

Another aspect that could improve the assessment of the method is for the LMS to record behavior metrics internally to incorporate an unobtrusive observation method such for example the time a student spends on the various parts of the theory and practice. This could give the educator a better picture of the difficulty of the various aspects and even allow them to provide better feedback.

The feedback is another area that would need improvement. If educators could know which areas were the most difficult for students, they can provide feedback but adhere to the scenario, the feedback can ‘seem’ to come from the characters of the story and not the educator. So, with template messages or standard phrases, the LMS could allow the educator to send students feedback so the educator does not spend too much time. Also, if the educator would need custom-based messages they could store them for future use for other students.

As the students liked to share information with each other regarding the progression of the story, the scenario could be more dynamic by giving students different subplot activities or even differentiated story subplots (without distorting the story too much). This would give the students the idea that the world is much larger and could facilitate discussions while protecting the story from overzealous students who might want to bypass some parts of the story and more importantly skip parts of the material.

Lastly, the LMS should have a reset function for students who wish to complete the story again in their own time. The reset function can keep progress from the first time they completed the story (or even subsequent times) for comparisons and if the LMS also keeps time stamps (behavior metrics as stated above) the student can track more of their performance and improve their timings through revision. Also, the LMS can add alternative storylines (presented above) if a student chooses to repeat the story.

Soon, we will create other stories testing other elements of CT in order for us to gain a wider understanding of how SBL can be used so that the older generation of educators can transmit their knowledge to the younger generation of students.