Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Using Different Tools in Programming Teaching of Secondary School Students on Engagement, Computational Thinking and Reflective Thinking Skills for Problem Solving

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this research is to determine the effects of Scratch and Alice tools and programming teaching practices on student engagement, reflective thinking and problem-solving skills and computational thinking (CT) comparatively. A quasi-experimental design was used in the research and patterns with pretest–posttest control group were chosen for the variables. The study group was compromised of 110 students at 5th grade in 2016 spring semester. 1st and 2nd groups of Computing Technologies Course have been assigned objectively. Alice programming tool was preferred in the learning process of the 1st experimental group, whereas, Scratch programming tool was utilised in the 2nd study group during application process which lasted for 8 weeks. Results of the research show that programming teaching with Scratch has affected engagement and reflective thinking skills of the students for problem solving more positively than Alice. It has been stated that teaching with Alice affects skills related to CT of the students positively. Furthermore, some recommendations have been made for the future researches.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akpınar, Y., & Altun, A. (2014). Bilgi toplumu okullarında programlama eğitimi gereksinimi. İlköğretim Online,13(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Jarrah, A. A. M. (2016). Collaborative virtual environments for introductory programming. Doctoral thesis, New Mexico State University, New Mexico.

  • Antonakos, J. L. (Ed.). (2016). Computer technology and computer programming: Research and strategies. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armoni, M., Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). From scratch to “real” programming. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE),14(4), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Berge, O., Borge, R. E., Fjuk, A., Kaasbøll, J., & Samuelsen, T. (2003). Learning object-oriented programming. In Norsk informatik konferanse. Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190184/ on 7 December 2016.

  • Berman, R. A. (2014). Engaging students requires a renewed focus on teaching. Chronicle of Higher Education,61(3), 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K. A. (2013). Best of both worlds: Issues of structure and agency in computational creation, in and out of school. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

  • Bucci, P., Long, T. J., & Weide, B. W. (2001). Do we really teach abstraction?. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=364531 on 7 November 2016.

  • Çakıroğlu, Ü., Sarı, E., & Akkan, Y. (2011). The view of the teachers about the contribution of teaching programming to the gifted students in the problem solving. In 5th International computer & instructional technologies symposium (pp. 22–24).

  • Chang, C. K. (2014). Effects of using Alice and Scratch in an introductory programming course for corrective instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research,51(2), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P. G., & Chan, L. (1994). Teaching principles and practice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education,58(1), 240–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durak, H. (2016). Design and development of an instructional program for teaching programming process to gifted students. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.

  • Esteves, M., & Mendes, A. J. (2004). A simulation tool to help learning of object oriented programming basics. In 34th Annual frontiers in education, 2004. FIE 2004 (pp. F4C–7). IEEE.

  • Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with scratch on future teachers’ opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,41(3), 258–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education,63, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fields, D. A., Giang, M. T., Kafai, Y. B. (2014). Programming in the wild: Patterns of computational participation in the Scratch online social networking forum. In Proceedings of the 9th workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 2–11). New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2670757.2670768.

  • Fields, D. A., Searle, K. A., Kafai, Y. B., & Min, H. S. (2012). Debuggems to assess student learning in e-textiles. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 699–699). ACM.

  • Forte, A. & Guzdial, M. (2014). Computers for communication, not calculation: media as a motivation and context for learning. In Proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’04)—track 4 (p. 40096.1).

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of educational research,74(1), 59–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). A brief introduction to TACCLE 3—coding European project. In International symposium on computers in education (SIIE), 2016 (pp. 1–4). IEEE.

  • Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In International conference on engineering education—ICEE. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anabela_Gomes2/publication/228328491_Learning_to_program_-_difficulties_and_solutions/links/02e7e52389017b9984000000.pdf on 7 November 2016.

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher,42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (2015). Programming environments for children: Creating a language that grows with you. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, ABD.

  • Hongwarittorrn, N., & Krairit, D. (2010). Effects of program visualization (jeliot3) on students’ performance and attitudes towards java programming. In The spring 8th international conference on computing, communication and control technologies (pp. 6–9).

  • Katai, Z., & Toth, L. (2010). Technologically and artistically enhanced multi-sensory computer-programming education. Teaching and teacher education,26(2), 244–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayabaşı, E. (2016). Prospective teachers’ experiences on Alice: Programming in 3D environment. Unpublished MA thesis, Uludağ University, Bursa.

  • Kizilkaya, G., & Askar, P. (2009). The development of a reflective thinking skill scale towards problem solving. Education and Science,34(154), 82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2015). Computational thinking levels scale (CTLS) adaptation for secondary school level. Gazi Journal of Educational Science,1(2), 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior,72, 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of college student development,50(6), 683–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, W. W., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education,57(1), 1202–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavonen, J. M., Meisaloa, V. P., Lattua, M., & Sutinenb, E. (2003). Concretising the programming task: A case study in a secondary school. Computers & Education,40(2), 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, K. M., Lee, V. C., & Yu, Y. T. (2010). Learning motivation in e-learning facilitated computer programming courses. Computers & Education,55(1), 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawanto, K., Close, K., Ames, C., & Brasiel, S. (2017). Exploring strengths and weaknesses in middle school students’ computational thinking in scratch. In P. Rich & C. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, S. (2013). Facilitating class sessions for ego-piercing engagement. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,2013(135), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE),10(4), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margulieux, L. E., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference on International computing education research (pp. 71–78). ACM.

  • Medlock-Walton, P., Harms, K. J., Kraemer, E. T., Brennan, K., & Wendel, D. (2014). Blocks-based programming languages: Simplifying programming for different audiences with different goals. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 545–546). ACM.

  • Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). A guide to multivariate techniques. In C. A. Mertler (Ed.), Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, J. (2012). Digital competition game to improve programming skills. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,15(3), 288–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, J. (2013). Building a LEGO-based robotics platform for a 3rd grade classroom. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Tufts University.

  • Özden, M. Y. (2015). Computational thinking. http://myozden.blogspot.com.tr/2015/06/computational-thinking-bilgisayarca.html. Accessed 15 June 2017.

  • Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., Orfanakis, V., & Zaranis, N. (2014). Novice programming environments. Scratch & app inventor: A first comparison. In Proceedings of the 2014 workshop on interaction design in educational environments (p. 1). ACM.

  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning. International encyclopedia of education,2, 6452–6457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portelance, D. J., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Code and tell: Assessing young children’s learning of computational thinking using peer video interviews with ScratchJr. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 271–274). ACM.

  • Prensky, M., & Berry, B. D. (2001). Do they really think differently. On the Horizon,9(6), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psycharis, S., & Kallia, M. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students’ reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science,45(5), 583–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM,52(11), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education,13(2), 137–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for a digital age. New York, NY: O/R Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarıtepeci, M. (2012). Investigation of the effectiveness of digital storytelling method in social studies course. Unpublished MA thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.

  • Sarıtepeci, M., & Durak, H. (2017). Analyzing the effect of block and robotic coding activities on computational thinking in programming education. In I. Koleva & G. Duman (Eds.), Educational research and practice (pp. 490–501)., Chapter 49 Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shermis, S. S. (1992). Critical thinking: Helping students learn reflectively., ERIC clearinghouse on reading and communication skills Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strampel, K., & Oliver, R. (2007). Using technology to foster reflection in higher education. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.

  • Trees, F. P. (2010). A meta-analysis of pedagogical tools used in introductory programming courses. Doctoral dissertation, Pace University.

  • Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, greenfoot, and scratch—A discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE),10(4), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T. C., Mei, W. H., Lin, S. L., Chiu, S. K., & Lin, J. M. C. (2009). Teaching programming concepts to high school students with Alice. In 39th IEEE frontiers in education conference, 2009. FIE’09 (pp. 1–6). IEEE.

  • Werner, L., Denner, J., & Campe, S. (2015). Children programming games: A strategy for measuring computational learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE),14(4), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 215–220). ACM.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The Link Magazine, Spring. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. http://link.cs.cmu.edu/article.php?a=600. Accessed 12 May 2017.

  • Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—A psychological overview. ACM Sigcse Bulletin,28(3), 17–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz Durak, H. (2018). Digital story design activities used for teaching programming effect on learning of programming concepts, programming self-efficacy, and participation and analysis of student experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yıldız Durak, H., & Güyer, T. (2018). Design and development of an instructional program for teaching programming processes to gifted students using scratch. In J. Cannaday (Ed.), Curriculum development for gifted education programs (pp. 61–99). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Faculty of Education, Bartin University, Bartin, Turkey

    Hatice Yildiz Durak

Authors
  1. Hatice Yildiz Durak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hatice Yildiz Durak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yildiz Durak, H. The Effects of Using Different Tools in Programming Teaching of Secondary School Students on Engagement, Computational Thinking and Reflective Thinking Skills for Problem Solving. Tech Know Learn 25, 179–195 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9391-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9391-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation