Advertisement

The Effect of Tangible Augmented Reality Interfaces on Teaching Computational Thinking: A Preliminary Study

  • Anna GardeliEmail author
  • Spyros Vosinakis
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 916)

Abstract

Teaching introductory computer science is gradually shifting from learning a computer programming language towards acquiring more generic computational thinking skills. At the same time, more emphasis is placed nowadays in natural and playful approaches that can potentially increase student motivation and engagement. One promising such approach is the combination of tangible elements with augmented reality technology, where the instructions can be given in the real world by manipulating physical elements, and the output is presented in a digitally enhanced space. Despite its potential, this approach has not yet been evaluated in formal educational settings. In this paper we present the results from a preliminary study in an elementary school that compared a tangible AR game with the same game in an unplugged version, to examine the effect of the interface on student motivation, effectiveness and teaching practice. The results indicate that a tangible AR approach can improve the engagement and collaboration of students in classroom activities and affects the role of the instructor compared to unplugged activities. The paper concludes with a number of open issues that need to be further studied.

Keywords

Computational thinking Physical programming Augmented reality Unplugged activities 

References

  1. 1.
    Walker, C.O., Greene, B.A., Mansell, R.A.: Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement. Learn. Individ. Differ. 16(1), 1–12 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Papastergiou, M.: Digital game-based learning in high school computer science education: impact on educational effectiveness and student motivation. Comput. Educ. 52(1), 1–12 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guzdial, M.: Education Paving the way for computational thinking. Commun. ACM 51(8), 25–27 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Myers, B.A.: Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 1(1), 97–123 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., Grimley, M.: Computer science unplugged: school students doing real computing without computers. N. Z. J. Appl. Comput. Inf. Technol. 13(1), 20–29 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNerney, T.S.: From turtles to tangible programming bricks: explorations in physical language design. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 8(5), 326–337 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goyal, S., Vijay, R.S., Monga, C., Kalita, P.: Code Bits: an inexpensive tangible computational thinking toolkit For K-12 curriculum. In: Proceedings of the TEI 2016: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 441–447. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klopfenstein, L., Fedosyeyev, A., Bogliolo, A.: Bringing an unplugged coding card game to augmented reality. INTED Proceedings, pp. 9800–9805 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kranov, A. A., Bryant, R., Orr, G., Wallace, S. A., Zhang, M.: Developing a community definition and teaching modules for computational thinking: accomplishments and challenges (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., MacKinnon, L.: Learning programming at the computational thinking level via digital game-play. Procedia Comput. Sci. 9, 522–531 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, I., et al.: (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads 2(1), 32–37Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brackmann, C.P., et al: Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In: Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education- WiPSCE 2017, pp. 65–72. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horn, M.S., Jacob, R.J.K.: Designing tangible programming languages for classroom use. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI 2007), (February), pp. 159–162 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paulo Blikstein (Stanford University, USA), Arnan Sipitakiat (Chiang Mai University, Thailand), Jayme Goldstein (Google), João Wilbert (Google), Maggie Johnson (Google), S. V. (Google), & Zebedee Pedersen (Google), W. C. (IDEO). (2016). Project Bloks : designing a development platform for tangible programming for childrenGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carmigniani, J., Furht, B.: Augmented reality: an overview. In: Handbook of Augmented Reality, pp. 3–46. Springer, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Teng, C.-H., Chen, J.-Y., Chen, Z.-H.: Impact of augmented reality on programming language learning. J. Educ. Comput. Res., 073563311770610 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Santos, M.E.C., Chen, A., Taketomi, T., Yamamoto, G., Miyazaki, J., Kato, H.: Augmented reality learning experiences: survey of prototype design and evaluation. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 7(1), 38–56 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Azuma, R.T.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6(4), 355–385 (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sapounidis, T., Demetriadis, S., Stamelos, I.: Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 19(1), 225–237 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sung, H.Y., Hwang, G.J.: A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Comput. Educ. 63, 43–51 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Product and Systems Design EngUniversity of the AegeanMytileneGreece

Personalised recommendations