Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing computational thinking skills of students with disabilities

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) and computer science (CS) are becoming more widely adopted in K-12 education. However, there is a lack of focus on CT and CS access for children with disabilities. This study investigates the effect of the robot development process at the secondary school level on the algorithmic thinking and mental rotation skills of students with learning disabilities (LD). The study was conducted with the single-subject model and as an A-B-A design. In the study, the CT skill development of four students with LD (1 female, 3 male) was monitored throughout 13 weeks with the pre-treatment sessions running from weeks 1–4, treatment sessions running from weeks 5–9, and post-treatment sessions running from weeks 10–13. During the treatment sessions, robot design and programming implementations were performed. During these 13 sessions, the observer scored participants’ both algorithmic problem-solving and mental rotation skills. These skills are also required to use some other cognitive sub-skills (i.e., selective attention, processing speed) which were defined by ten special education experts at the beginning of the study. All these skills were evaluated according to how well the students performed the following four criteria: (1) To start to perform the instructions quickly (processing speed), (2) to focus on the task by filtering out distractions (selective attention), (3) to fulfill the task without having to have the instructions repeated, (4) to perform algorithmic problem-solving/mental rotation tasks without any help. Considering the results on the participants’ algorithmic problem-solving skills, a significant improvement was obtained in their skills after the treatment process. The improvement obtained in the participants’ mental rotation skills is another important result of the study. Considering the study results from a holistic perspective, it can be concluded that the robot development implementation, as educational technology, can be used to support the cognitive development of students with learning disabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alimisis, D., & Kynigos, C. (2009). Constructionism and robotics in education.Teacher education on robotic-enhanced constructivist pedagogical methods,11–26

  • Alqahtani, S. S. (2021). Repeated Reading and Error Correction to Improve Fluency Skills for Students with Learning Disabilities. International Journal of Literacies, 28(1), 13–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Altun, A., & Mazman, S. G. (2015). Identifying latent patterns in undergraduate Students’ programming profiles. Smart Learning Environments, 2, 13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonia, P., Panagiotis, V., & Panagiotis, K. (2014). Screening Dyscalculia and Algorithmic Thinking Difficulties. 1st International Conference on New Developments in Science and Technology Education. Proceedings Manuscripts

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belfiore, P. J., Skinner, C. H., & Ferkis, M. A. (1995). Effects of response and trial repetition on sight-word training for students with learning dısabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 347–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouck, E. C., & Yadav, A. (2020). Providing access and opportunity for computational thinking and computer science to support mathematics for students with disabilities.Journal of Special Education Technology, doi:0162643420978564

  • Città, G., Gentile, M., Allegra, M., Arrigo, M., Conti, D., Ottaviano, S. … Sciortino, M. (2019). The effects of mental rotation on computational thinking. Computers & Education, 141, 103613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B. (1990). Dyslexia: Theory and practice of remedial Instruction (2nd ed.). York Press, Inc. Maryland

  • Conchinha, C., Osório, P., & de Freitas, J. C. (2015, November). Playful learning: Educational robotics applied to students with learning disabilities. In 2015 International symposium on computers in education (SIIE) (pp. 167–171). IEEE

  • Cowan, R., & Powell, D. (2014). The contributions of domain-general and numerical factors to third-grade arithmetic skills and mathematical learning disability. Journal of educational psychology, 106(1), 214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coxon, S. V. (2012). The Malleability of spatial ability under treatment of a FIRST LEGO league based robotics simulation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 291–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Amico, A., & Guastella, D. (2019). The robotic construction kit as a tool for cognitive stimulation in children and adolescents: the RE4BES Protocol. Robotics, 8(1), 8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demir, Ü. (2021). The Effect of Computer-Free Coding Education for Special Education Students on Problem-Solving Skills. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 4(3), 3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falcão, T. (2010). The role of tangible technologies for special education. CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2911–2914). ACM

  • Falcão, T. P., & Price, S. (2010). Informing design for tangible interaction: a case for children with learning difficulties. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 190–193). ACM

  • Falkner, K., & Vivian, R. (2015). A review of computer science resources for learning and teaching with K-12 computing curricula: An Australian case study. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 390–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanchamps, N. L., Slangen, L., Hennissen, P., & Specht, M. (2019). The influence of SRA programming on algorithmic thinking and self-efficacy using Lego robotics in two types of instruction.International Journal of Technology and Design Education,1–20

  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Higher Education

  • Futschek, G. (2006). Algorithmic thinking: the key for understanding computer science. In International conference on informatics in secondary schools-evolution and perspectives (pp. 159–168). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Futschek, G., & Moschitz, J. (2011). Learning algorithmic thinking with tangible objects eases transition to computer programming. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (pp. 155–164). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • González-Calero, J. A., Cózar, R., Villena, R., & Merino, J. M. (2018). The development of mental rotation abilities through robotics‐based instruction: An experience mediated by gender.British Journal of Educational Technology

  • Goodwin, L. D., & Goodwin, W. L. (1991). Using generalizability theory in early childhood special education. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(2), 193–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornecker, E., & Buur, J. (2006). Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI’06 (pp. 437–446). Montreal, Canada: ACM Press

  • Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional children, 71(2), 165–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibrani, L., Allen, T., Brown, D., Sherkat, N., & Stewart, D. (2011). Supporting students with learning and physical disabilities using a mobile robot platform. Interactive Technologies and Games, 84–265

  • Ishii, H., & Ullmer, B. (1997). Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI’97. Atlanta, USA: ACM Press

  • Israel, M., Wherfel, Q. M., Pearson, J., Shehab, S., & Tapia, T. (2015). Empowering K–12 students with disabilities to learn computational thinking and computer programming. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(1), 45–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Israel, M., Ray, M. J., Maa, W. C., Jeong, G. K., Lee, Lash, C., T., & Do, V. (2018). School-embedded and district-wide instructional coaching in K-8 computer science: Implications for including students with disabilities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 471–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, S., & Burnett, G. (2008). Spatial ability and learning to program. Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments, 4(1), 47–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawanagh, J. F. (1988). Learning Disabilities. Proceedings of the National Conference. Pennsylvania. New York Pres

  • Kirk, S. A. (1963). Behavioral Diagnosis and Remediation of Learning Disabilities. Proceedings of the conference on exploration into the problems of the perceptually handicapped children. Chicago

  • Kong, J. E., Yan, C., Serceki, A., & Swanson, H. L. (2021). Word-Problem-Solving Interventions for Elementary Students With Learning Disabilities: A Selective Meta-Analysis of the Literature.Learning Disability Quarterly, doi:0731948721994843

  • Korkmaz, B. (2000). Pediatric Behavior Neurology [Pediatrik Davranış Nörolojisi] Istanbul University Publications. No:4267, İstanbul

  • Korkmazlar, Ü. (1994). Special Learning Disorders [Özel Öğrenme Bozukluğu]. İstanbul: Taç Ofset

    Google Scholar 

  • Korkmazlar, Ü. (2003). Özel öğrenme bozukluğu. Farklı Gelişen Çocuklar İçinde. Edt: Adnan Kulaksızoğlu, Remzi Kitabevi, Istanbul

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What works clearinghouse

  • Lindsay, S., & Hounsell, K. G. (2017). Adapting a robotics program to enhance participation and interest in STEM among children with disabilities: a pilot study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(7), 694–704

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, A. S., Schunn, C. D., Flot, J., & Shoop, R. (2013). The role of physicality in rich programming environments. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 315–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J. W., Tankersley, M., & Talbott, E. (1994). Using single-subject research methodology to study learning disabilities. Research Issues in Learning Disabilities (pp. 163–177). New York, NY: Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 344–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R., & Cooper, G. (2013). Mindstorms robots and the application of cognitive load theory in introductory programming. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 296–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McReynolds, L. V., & Kearns, K. (1983). Single-subject experimental designs in communicative disorders. Baltimore: University Park Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, P. I., & Hammill, D. (1976). Methods for Learning Disorders (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olabe, J. C., Olabe, M. A., Basogain, X., & Castaño, C. (2011). Programming and robotics with Scratch in primary education. Education in a technological world: communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts, 356–363

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Computers, Children and Powerful Ideas. NY: Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (2005). Teaching Children Thinking. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(3), 353–365. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved June 13, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/21844/

  • Penmetcha, M. R. (2012). Exploring the effectiveness of robotics as a vehicle for computational thinking (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University)

  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Prado, Y., Jacob, S., & Warschauer, M. (2021). Teaching computational thinking to exceptional learners: lessons from two inclusive classrooms.Computer Science Education,1–25

  • Ray, M. J., Israel, M., Lee, C. E., & Do, V. (2018). A cross-case analysis of instructional strategies to support participation of K-8 Students with disabilities in CS for All. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 900–905)

  • Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shukla, J., Cristiano, J., Amela, D., Anguera, L., Vergés-Llahí, J., & Puig, D. (2015). A case study of robot interaction among individuals with profound and multiple learning disabilities. In International Conference on Social Robotics (pp. 613–622). Springer, Cham

  • Siegel, L. S., & Linder, B. A. (1984). Short-term memory processes in children with reading and arithmetic learning disabilities. Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 200–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verner, I. M. (2004). Robot manipulations: A synergy of visualization, computation and action for spatial instruction. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:IJCO.0000040892.46198.aa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virnes, M. (2008). Robotics in special needs education. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 29–32)

  • Vlamos, M. P. (2010). Diagnostic Screener on Dyscalculia and algorithmic thinking. In Workshop on Informatics in Education, WIE.

  • Yünkül, E., Durak, G., Çankaya, S., & Abidin, Z. (2017). The effects of scratch software on students’ computational thinking skills. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 11(2), 502–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whirter, J., & Acar, N. V. (1985). Communication with children: Learning, support and child-raising. (Çocukla İletişim: Öğrenme, destekleme ve çocuk yetiştirme sanatı). Nuve Publications. Ankara

  • Wille, S., Century, J., & Pike, M. (2017). Exploratory research to expand opportunities in computer science for students with learning differences. Computing in Science & Engineering, 19(3), 40–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaien, S. Z. (2021). Effects of Self-Regulated Strategy Development Strategy on Story Writing among Students with Learning Disabilities.International Journal of Instruction, 14(4)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Yildiz Technical University, C-213, Davutpasa Campus, Esenler, Istanbul, Turkey

    Serhat Bahadır Kert, Sabiha Yeni & Mehmet Fatih Erkoç

Authors
  1. Serhat Bahadır Kert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sabiha Yeni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehmet Fatih Erkoç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serhat Bahadır Kert.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Observation Form.

Dear Observer,

Arrange the tables and chairs so that you and your student sit side by side. Your student should be able to follow the instructions from a laptop or tablet. Secure the camera with a tripod (it should be adjusted before the student arrives to avoid distraction). Position the camera so that you and your student’s face and table can be viewed. During the session, observe your student’s performance and fill in the rubric below. If you have any additional observations you would like to present, write them in the box of observation notes.

Thank you for your effort and support.

Student

:

Date

:

Session

:

Observer

:

Observed performance

1

(Not at all)

2

3

4

5

(Completely)

Student can start to perform the instructions quickly.

     

Student can focus on the task by filtering out the disruptive elements.

     

Student can fulfill the task without having to have instructions repeated.

     

Student can perform algorithmic problem-solving processes without any help.

     
  1. Observation Notes:

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kert, S.B., Yeni, S. & Fatih Erkoç, M. Enhancing computational thinking skills of students with disabilities. Instr Sci 50, 625–651 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09585-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09585-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation