Gender Differences in Middle School Students’ Attitudes and Self-Efficacy Perceptions towards mBlock Programming

Abstract

This study aims to assess the effects of teaching programming with mBlock on self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes considering programming. Particularly, this study tries to research whether there is a gender difference in middle school students or not. The study was conducted in pre-test/post-test quasi experimental design. The participants of the study which was completed in twelve weeks were 82 middle school students. The data were collected through “Educational Computer Games Assisted Learning Coding Attitude Scale” and “Computer Programming Self-efficacy Scale”. The results of the research indicate that although the self-efficacy perceptions of boys towards programming were higher than the girls’ at the beginning of the research, this difference was closed at the end of the research. The results also show that teaching programming with mBlock to middle school students did not cause gender differences in self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes regarding programming. Although girls’ attitudes regarding programming were slightly higher than boys’, the difference was not considered to be significant. In addition, it was found that programming with mBlock significantly increased students' self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes towards programming. As a result, teaching programming with mBlock can provide similar possibilities for both genders in self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes regarding programming.

Keywords

• mBlock,teaching programming,middle school students,attitudes towards programming,self-efficacy perceptions towards programming

Kaynakça

1. Altun, A., & Mazman, S. G. (2012). Programlamaya iliskin oz yeterlilik algisi olceginin Turkce formumun gecerlilik ve guvenirlik calismasi [The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of the self-efficacy perception regarding programming scale]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3(2), 297–308.
2. Altun, A., & Mazman, S. G. (2015). Identifying latent patterns in undergraduate students’ programming profiles. Smart Learning Environments, 2(13), 1-16. doi:10.1186/s40561-015-0020-0
3. Askar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for JAVA programming among engineering students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1), 26–32.
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
5. Baser, M. (2013). Attitude, gender and achievement in computer programming. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 14(2), 248–255. doi:10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.14.2.2007
6. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
7. Cetin, I., & Ozden, M. Y. (2015). Development of computer programming attitude scale for university students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(5), 667–672. doi:10.1002/cae.21639
8. Cetin, I. (2016). Preservice teachers’ introduction to computing: Exploring utilization of Scratch. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 997-1021. doi:10.1177/0735633116642774

9. Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
10. Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051–1058. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1051
11. Courte, J., Howard, E. V, & Bishop-Clark, C. (2006). Using Alice in a computer science survey course. Information Systems Education Journal, 4(87), 3–7.
12. 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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.006
13. diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. 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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
15. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th. ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
16. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051
17. Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. doi:10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142
18. Guzdial, M., & Soloway, E. (2002). Teaching the Nintendo generation to program. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 17. doi:10.1145/505248.505261
19. Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Third Annual Conference of the LTSN-ICS (pp. 53–58). UK: Loughborough University.
20. Kalelioglu, F., & Gulbahar, Y. (2014). The effect of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33-50.
21. Kalelioglu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047
22. Kececi, G., Alan, B., & Kirbag Zengin, F. (2016). Educational computer games assisted learning coding attitude scale: Validity and reliability study. Education Sciences (NWSAES), 11(3), 184-194. doi:10.12739/NWSA.2016.11.3.1C0661
23. Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A survey of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137. doi:10.1145/1089733.1089734
24. Korkmaz, O., & Altun, H. (2013). Engineering and CEIT student’s attitude towards learning computer programming. International Journal of Social Science, 6(2), 1169–1185.
25. Kukul, V., Gokcearslan, S., & Gunbatar, M. S. (2017). Computer programming self-efficacy scale (CPSES) for secondary school students: Development, validation and reliability. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 7(1), 158-179. doi:10.17943/etku.288493
26. Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1202–1213. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.002
27. Lee, Y.-J. (2011). Empowering teachers to create educational software: A constructivist approach utilizing Etoys, pair programming and cognitive apprenticeship. Computers & Education, 56(2), 527–538. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.018
28. Liao, Y.-K. C., & Bright, G. W. (1991). Effects of computer programming on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 251–268. doi:10.2190/E53G-HH8K-AJRR-K69M
29. 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. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
30. Mazman, S. G., & Altun, A. (2013). The effect of introductory to programming course on programming self-efficacy of CEIT students. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 2(3), 24-29.
31. Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (Moti). (2013). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264. doi:10.1080/08993408.2013.832022
32. Monroy-Hernández, A., & Resnick, M. (2008). FEATURE Empowering kids to create and share programmable media. Interactions, 15(2), 50. doi:10.1145/1340961.1340974
33. Pausch, R., Dann, W., & Cooper, S. (2000). Alice: A 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 15(5), 107–116.
34. Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Ed.), The global information technology report: Readiness for the networked world (pp. 32–37). NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1353/cj.2007.0001
35. Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & de Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82, 409–420. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.003
36. 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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003
37. Scratch. (2018). About Scratch. Retrieved from https://scratch.mit.edu/about.
38. Su, A. Y. S., Yang, S. J. H., Hwang, W. Y., Huang, C. S. J., & Tern, M. Y. (2014). Investigating the role of computer-supported annotation in problem-solving-based teaching: An empirical study of a Scratch programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 647–665. doi:10.1111/bjet.12058
39. Yukselturk, E., & Altiok, S. (2017). An investigation of the effects of programming with Scratch on the preservice IT teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and attitudes towards computer programming. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 789–801. doi:10.1111/bjet.12453
40. Zuckerman, O., Blau, I, & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2009). Children's participation patterns in online communities: An analysis of Israeli learners in the Scratch online community. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5, 263-274.