Leveraging Robot Programming to Foster Computational Thinking

Ilenia Fronza, Nabil El Ioini, Luis Corral

2017

Abstract

In 2013, ACM recognized Computational Thinking (CT) as “one of the fundamental skills desired of all graduates”. This means that, especially in liberal education environments, one of the challenges of CT courses is to motivate students who are discouraged upfront as they perceive programming as a difficult task. Applications that have tangible results typically stimulate students’ interests. For instance, Educational Robotics (ER) is recognized as a tool to enhance higher order thinking skills and to facilitate teamwork. In this paper, we describe a course that has been designed to use ER (i.e., programming a maze-solving robot) to foster CT. Each activity of the course has been designed to foster specific CT skills and to contribute to CT assessment, which remains a challenge in CT research. We report the results of an experiment, in a liberal education environment, with a total of 13 ninth graders (15.4% M, 84.6% F).

References

  1. Alhazbi, S. (2016). Active Blended Learning to Improve Students' Motivation in Computer Programming Courses: A Case Study, pages 187-204. Springer International Publishing, Cham.
  2. Atmatzidou, S. and Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, Part B:661 - 670.
  3. Bateman, K. (2014). Let's not forget the computing curriculum's bigger picture: Computational thinking. http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Lets-notforget-the-computing-curriculums-bigger-pictureComputational-thinking. Accessed: 21/02/2017.
  4. Blenko, M., Mankins, M., and Rogers, P. (2013). Decide and Deliver: Five Steps to Breakthrough Performance in Your Organization. Harvard Business Press.
  5. Brennan, K. and Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, pages 1-25, Vancouver, Canada. AERA.
  6. Carbone, A., Hurst, J., Mitchell, I., and Gunstone, D. (2009). An exploration of internal factors influencing student learning of programming. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 95, pages 25-34. Australian Computer Society, Inc.
  7. Catlin, D. and Woollard, J. (2014). Educational robots and computational thinking. In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics and 5th International Conference Robotics in Education, pages 144-151, Padova, Italy.
  8. Crow, D. (2014). Why every child should learn to code. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/07/ year-of-code-dan-crow-songkick. Accessed: 21/02/2017.
  9. Dicheva, D., Dichev, C., Agre, G., and Angelova, G. (2015). Gamification in education: a systematic mapping study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3):1-14.
  10. Fronza, I., El Ioini, N., and Corral, L. (2015). Students want to create apps: Leveraging computational thinking to teach mobile software development. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education, SIGITE 7815, pages 21-26, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  11. Fronza, I., El Ioini, N., Janes, A., Sillitti, A., Succi, G., and Corral, L. (2014). If I had to vote on this laboratory, I would give nine: Introduction on Computational Thinking in the lower secondary school: Results of the experience. Mondo Digitale, 13(51):757- 765.
  12. Grover, S. and Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in k-12. a review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1):38-43.
  13. Hackman, J. R. and Vidmar, N. J. (1970). Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions. Sociometry, 33:37-54.
  14. Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., and Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. SIGCSE Bull., 41(1):183-187.
  15. Hemmendinger, D. (2010). A plea for modesty. ACM Inroads, 1(2):4-7.
  16. Holzinger, A., Errath, M., Searle, G., Thurnher, B., and Slany, W. (2005). From extreme programming and usability engineering to extreme usability in software engineering education. In 29th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC'05), volume 1, pages 169-172.
  17. ISTE and CSTA (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for k-12 education. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/ CompThinkingFlyer.pdf. Accessed: 21/02/2017.
  18. Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, ACM and IEEE Computer Society (2013). Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. ACM, New York, NY, USA. 999133.
  19. Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., and Ben-Ari, M. M. (2010). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Computing Education Research, ICER 7810, pages 69-76, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  20. Moreno-Leon, J., Robles, G., and Roman-Gonzalez, M. (2015). Dr. scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. RED-Revista de Educacin a Distancia, 46:1-23.
  21. Prey, J. C. and Weaver, A. C. A. (2013). Fostering gender diversity in computing. Computer, 46(3):22-23.
  22. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., et al. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11):60-67.
  23. Sarmento, H. R., Reis, C. A. S., Zaramella, V., Almeida, L. D. A., and Tacla, C. A. (2015). Supporting the Development of Computational Thinking: A Robotic Platform Controlled by Smartphone. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies, volume 9192 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 124-135. Springer International Publishing.
  24. Settle, A., Franke, B., Hansen, R., Spaltro, F., Jurisson, C., Rennert-May, C., and Wildeman, B. (2012). Infusing computational thinking into the middle- and highschool curriculum. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE 7812, pages 22- 27, New York, USA. ACM.
  25. Shoop, R., Flot, J., Friez, T., Schunn, C., and Witherspoon, E. (2016). Can computational thinking practices be taught in robotics classrooms? In International Technology and Engineering Education Conference, pages 1-15. Carnegie Mellon Robotics Academy/University of Pittsburgh.
  26. Stamouli, I., Doyle, E., and Huggard, M. (2004). Establishing structured support for programming students. In Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual, pages F2G-5. IEEE.
  27. Sung, K. and Samuel, A. (2014). Mobile application development classes for the mobile era. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE'14, pages 141- 146, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  28. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., and Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4):715- 728.
  29. Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., and 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, SIGCSE 7812, pages 215- 220, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  30. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Comm. ACM, 49(3).
  31. Wing, J. M. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu. Accessed: 21/02/2017.
  32. Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., and Wesslén, A. (2000). Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, USA.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Fronza I., El Ioini N. and Corral L. (2017). Leveraging Robot Programming to Foster Computational Thinking . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-240-0, pages 109-116. DOI: 10.5220/0006310101090116


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu17,
author={Ilenia Fronza and Nabil El Ioini and Luis Corral},
title={Leveraging Robot Programming to Foster Computational Thinking},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},
year={2017},
pages={109-116},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006310101090116},
isbn={978-989-758-240-0},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - Leveraging Robot Programming to Foster Computational Thinking
SN - 978-989-758-240-0
AU - Fronza I.
AU - El Ioini N.
AU - Corral L.
PY - 2017
SP - 109
EP - 116
DO - 10.5220/0006310101090116