Computational Thinking, Programming Self-Efficacy, Problem Solving and Experiences in the Programming Process Conducted with Robotic Activities

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the skill levels of secondary school students regarding computational thinking, programming self-efficacy and reflective thinking aimed at problem solving and examine their experiences in the programming training process on robotic activities. Toward this purpose, a 10-week application was conducted with 55 students from 6th and 7th grades who received education at a secondary school in Western Black Sea region of Turkey during the school year of 2017-2018. The study was conducted using the mixed model and various scales in the quantitative dimension. On the other hand, a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers was applied in the qualitative dimension. As a result, it was found out that students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and reflective thinking aimed at problem solving were moderate. Students’ levels of computational thinking and programming self-efficacy were observed to differ depending on their grade levels. In addition, a positive and moderate relationship was found among the levels of computational thinking, programming self-efficacy and reflective thinking aimed at problem solving.

Keywords

• Robotics,Computational thinking,Programming self-efficacy,Reflective thinking,Programming

Kaynakça

1. Adleberg, B. M. (2013). Scratch programming and remix culture: Gender differences in interaction and motivation for pre-adolescents (Unpublished master’s thesis). Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
2. Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
3. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
4. Altun, A. & Mazman, S. G. (2012). Developing computer programming self-efficacy scale. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3(2), 297-308.
5. Antonakos, J. L. (Ed.). (2016). Computer technology and computer programming: Research and strategies. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
6. Askar, P. & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for Java programming among engineering students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1). Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from http://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/ED503900.pdf
7. Aslan, U. (2014). Fostering students' learning of probability through video game programming (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bogazici University, Istanbul.
8. Atmatzidou, S. & Demetriadis, S. N. (2012, July). Evaluating the role of collaboration scripts as group guiding tools in activities of educational robotics: Conclusions from three case studies. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on (pp. 298-302). IEEE.

9. Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S., & Nika, P. (2018). How does the degree of guidance support students’ metacognitive and problem solving skills in educational robotics? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(1), 70-85.
10. Bandura, A. & Wessels, S. (1997). Self-efficacy. New York: W.H. Freeman & Company.
11. Basogain, X., Olabe, M. A., Olabe, J. C., Maiz, I., & Castaño, C. (2012). Mathematics education through programming languages. In 21st annual world congress on learning disabilities (pp. 553-559). Oviedo, Spain: agapea.com.
12. Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), 1-20.
13. 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.
14. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., Engelhardt, K., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - European Commission JRC science for policy report. Luxembourg: European Union.
15. Boechler, P., Dragon, K., & Wasniewski, E. (2014). Digital literacy concepts and definitions: Implications for educational assessment and practice. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence (IJDLDC), 5(4), 1-18.
16. 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, MA.
17. Brennan, K. & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (pp.1-25). Vancouver, Canada: AERA.
18. Bundy, A. (2007). Computational thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical Computing, 1(2), 67-69.
19. Burke, W. Q. (2012). Coding and composition: Youth storytelling with Scratch programming (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3510989).
20. Buyukozturk, S., Cakmak, E. K., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S. & Demirel, F. (2013). Scientific research methods. Ankara: Pegem Academy.
21. Byrne, P., & Lyons, G. (2001, June). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 49-52).
22. Calder, N. (2010). Using Scratch: an integrated problem-solving approach to mathematical thinking. APMC 15 (4), 9-14.
23. Cassidy, S. & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133-153.
24. Castledine, A. R. & Chalmers, C. (2011). LEGO robotics: An authentic problem solving tool? Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(3), 19-27.
25. Cegielski, C. G. & Hall, D. J. (2006). What makes a good programmer? Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 73-75.
26. Ceylan, V., K. (2015). Effect of blended learning to academic achievement (Unpublished master’s thesis). Adnan Menderes University, Aydin, Turkey.
27. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
28. Crews, T. & Butterfield, J. (2003). Improving the learning environment in beginning programming classes: An experiment in gender equity. Journal of Information Systems Education, 14(1), 69-76.
29. CSTA, (2010). Running on empty: The Failure to teach K–12 computer science in the digital age. Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from http://runningonempty.acm.org/fullreport2.pdf
30. Cetin, E. (2012). The effect of computer programming training on children's problem-solving skills (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara.
31. Davidson, K., Larzon, L., & Ljunggren, K. (2010). Self-efficacy in programming among STS students. Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from http://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/ homepage/datadidaktik/ht10/reports/Self-Efficacy.pdf.
32. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process 8(31), 360-361.
33. DiSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Dogan, V., K. (2015). The effects of computer games development process on primary school students' critical thinking skills and algorithm achievements (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul.
35. Durak, H. (2016). Design and development of an instructional program for teaching programming process to gifted students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara.
36. Eguchi, A. (2010). What is educational robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 4006-4014). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
37. Einhorn, S. (2011). Microworlds, computational thinking, and 21st century learning. Logo Computer System Inc., White paper. Retrieved from on 22 October 2018 from http://www.microworlds.com/.
38. Faber, H. H., Wierdsma, M. D., Doornbos, R. P., van der Ven, J. S., & de Vette, K. (2017). Teaching computational thinking to primary school students via unplugged programming lessons. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network, 12, 13-24.
39. Fairchild, A. J., Horst, S. J., Finney, S. J., & Barron, K. E. (2005). Evaluating existing and new validity evidence for the academic motivation scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(3), 331-358.
40. 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.
41. Fields, D. A., Searle, K. A., Kafai, Y. B., & Min, H. S. (2012, February). Debuggems to assess student learning in e-textiles. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 699-699). ACM.
42. García-Peñalvo, F.J., 2016. What computational thinking is. Journal of Information Technology Research 9(3), v--viii.
43. Gomes, A. & Mendes, A. J. (2007, September). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In International Conference on Engineering Education–ICEE. Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anabela_Gomes2/publication/ 228328491_Learning_to_program_-_difficulties_and_solutions/links/ 02e7e52389017b9984000000.pdf.
44. Gregg, E. A. (2014). Teaching critical media literacy through videogame creation in scratch programming (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Loyola Marymount University.
45. Grover, S. & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
46. Gulbahar, Y. & Kalelioglu, F. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 13(1), 33-50.
47. Gulmez, I. (2009). Effects of using visualization tools in programming instruction on student success and motivation (Unpublished master’s thesis). Marmara University, Istanbul.
48. Gurer, D. & Camp, T. (2002). An ACM-W literature review on women in computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 121-127.
49. Hansen, J. B. & Toso, S. J. (2007). Gifted dropouts: Personality, family, social, and school factors. Gifted Child Today, 30(4), 30-41.
50. Hongwarittorrn, N. & Krairit, D. (2010, April). 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). Orlando, Florida.
51. Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296-310.
52. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2016). CT Leadership toolkit. Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ ctleadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
53. Ismail, M. N., Ngah, N. A., & Umar, I. N. (2010). Instructional strategy in the teaching of computer programming: A need assessment analyses. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 125-131.
54. Kasalak, I. (2017). Effects of robotic coding activities on the effectiveness of secondary school students 'self-efficacy and student experience about activities (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
55. Kayabasi, E. (2016). Prospective teachers' experiences on Alice: Programming in 3D environment (Unpublished master’s thesis). Uludag University, Bursa.
56. Kazakoff, E. R. (2015). Technology-based literacies for young children: digital literacy through learning to code. Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from http://link.springer.com/chapter/ 10.1007/978-94-017-9184-7_3#page-1.
57. Kizilkaya, G. & Askar, P. (2009). The development of a reflective thinking skill scale towards problem solving. Education and Science, 34(154), 82-92.
58. Korkmaz, O., Cakir, R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2016). Computational thinking levels scale (CTLS) adaptation for secondary school level. Gazi Journal of Educational Science, 1(2), 143-162.
59. Kukul, V., Gokcearslan, S., & Gunbatar, M. S. (2017). Computer programming self-efficacy scale (CPSES) for secondary school students: Development, validation and reliability. Egitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 7(1), 158-179.
60. Lai, A. F. & Yang, S. M. (2011, September). The learning effect of visualized programming learning on 6th graders' problem solving and logical reasoning abilities. In Electrical and Control Engineering (ICECE), 2011 International Conference on (pp. 6940-6944). IEEE.
61. Lau, W. W. & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1202-1213.
62. 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.
63. Lawanto, K., Close, K., Ames, C., & Brasiel, S. (2017). Exploring Strengths and Weaknesses in Middle School Students’ Computational Thinking in Scratch. In Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking (pp. 307-326). Springer, Cham.
64. Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K--8 curriculum. Acm Inroads, 5(4), 64-71.
65. Lee, Y. J. (2011). Scratch: Multimedia programming environment for young gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 34(2), 26-31.
66. Liu, C. C., Cheng, Y. B., & Huang, C. W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1907-1918.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. Manovich, L. (2013). Media after software. Journal of Visual Culture, 12(1), 30-37.
70. Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239-264.
71. MIT Media Lab, (2015). Scratch About. Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from https://scratch.mit.edu/about.
72. Microsoft, (2014). Hour of code. Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from http://www.microsoft. com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/youthspark/youthsparkhub/hourofcode/.
73. Middleton, J. & Spanish, P. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings, generalizations and criticism of the research. IRME Online, 30(1), 65-88.
74. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.
75. Moreno, J. (2012). Digital competition game to improve programming skills. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 288.
76. Noble, J. (2013). Building a LEGO-based robotics platform for a 3rd grade classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tufts University.
77. Nourbakhsh, I. R., Hamner, E., Crowley, K., & Wilkinson, K. (2004, April). Formal measures of learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course. In Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings. ICRA'04. 2004 IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 1831-1836). IEEE.
78. Olgun, K., B. (2014). The effect of programming on middle school students' thinking styles (Unpublished master’s thesis). Istanbul University.
79. Ozturk, S. (2016). The effect of flip learning method on the students' academic achievement, computer attitudes and self-directed learning skills in programming language teaching (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ankara University, Ankara.
80. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21), (2007). Partnership for 21st century skills. Retrieved on 22 October 2018 from http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework/60.
81. Patan, B. (2016). Development of coding curriculum for kindergarten. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Bahcesehir University, Istanbul.
82. Pellas, N. & Peroutseas, E. (2016). Gaming in Second Life via Scratch4SL: Engaging high school students in programming courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(1), 108-143.
83. Ramalingam, V., LaBelle, D., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2004, June). Self-efficacy and mental models in learning to program. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(3), 171-175.
84. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., ... & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67.
85. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers college record, 104(4), 842-866.
86. Rogers, C. B., Wendell, K., & Foster, J. (2010). A review of the NAE report, engineering in K-12 education. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 179-181
87. Román-González, M. (2014). Aprender a programar ‘apps’ como enriquecimiento curricular en alumnado de alta capacidad. Bordón. Revista de Pedagogía, 66(4), 135-155.
88. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691.
89. Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59-69.
90. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
91. 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.
92. Saritepeci, M. & Durak, H. (2017). Analyzing the effect of block and robotic coding activities on computational thinking in programming training. In I. Koleva & G. Duman (Eds.). Educational research and practice, (pp. 490-501). Sofia, Bulgaria: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.
93. Schunk, D.H., Meece, J.R., Pintrich, P.R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
94. Shermis, S. S. (1992). Critical thinking: Helping students learn reflectively. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
95. Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J. H., Leppien, J. H., Burns, D. E., & Imbeau, M. B. (2008). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop learner potential and challenge advanced learners. London: Sage.
96. 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.
97. Wing, J. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in Computing. New York: Academic Press.
98. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
99. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London: A Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118.
100. Yagci, M. (2016). Effect of attitudes of information technologies (IT) preservice teachers and computer programming (CP) students toward programming on their perception regarding their self-sufficiency for programming. International Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1), 1418-1432.
101. Yang, H. L. & Cheng, H. H. (2009). Creative self-efficacy and its factors: An empirical study of information system analysts and programmers. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 429-438.
102. Yen, C.-Z., Wu, P.-H., & Lin, C.-F. (2012). Analysis of expert's and novice's thinking process. Engaging Learners through Emerging Technologies, Communication in Computer and Information Science, 302, 122-134.
103. Yildiz Durak, H. & Guyer, T. (2018). Design and development of an instructional program for teaching programming processes to gifted students using Scratch. In Curriculum Development for Gifted Education Programs (pp. 61-99). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
104. Yildiz-Durak, H. & Guyer, T. (2019). An investigation of the opinions of gifted primary school students’ in the programming training processes [Programlama ogretim surecinde ustun yetenekli ilkokul ogrencilerinin goruslerinin incelenmesi]. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 52(1), 107-137. DOI: 10.30964/auebfd.466922
105. Yildiz- Durak, H. & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191-202.
106. Yildiz Durak, H. (2019). Modelling different variables in learning basic concepts of programming in flipped classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0735633119827956
107. Yildiz Durak, H. (2018a). 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. 34(6), 740-752.
108. Yildiz Durak, H. (2018b). Flipped learning readiness in teaching programming in middle schools: Modelling its relation to various variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 34(6), 939-959.
109. Yildiz Durak, H. (2018c). The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school students on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9391-y