teaching basic programming concepts to young primary...

DOI: 10.4018/IJMBL.2018010103

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 1 • January-March 2018

Copyright©2018,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

34

Teaching Basic Programming Concepts to Young Primary School Students Using Tablets:Results of a Pilot ProjectEmmanuel Fokides, University of the Aegean, Greece

ABSTRACT

Thestudypresentstheresultsofaprojectinwhichtabletsandaready-madeapplicationwereusedforteachingbasicprogrammingconceptstoyoungprimaryschoolstudents(ages7-9).Atotalof135studentsparticipatedinthestudy,attendingprimaryschoolsinAthens,Greece,dividedintothreegroups.Thefirstwastaughtconventionally.Thesecondwastaughtusingaboardgame,whilethe thirdwas taughtusing tabletsandanapplication.Students’performancewasassessedusingevaluationsheets.Dataanalysesrevealedthatstudentsinthetablets/applicationgroupoutperformedstudentsintheothertwogroupsinthreeoutoffourtests.Noagedifferenceswerenoted.Students’viewsregardingtheapplicationwerehighlypositive.Thelearningoutcomescanbeattributedtothecombinationoftheapplication’sgame-likefeaturesandtothetablets’easeofuse.Onthebasisoftheresults,educators,aswellaspolicymakers,canconsidertheuseoftabletsandmobileapplicationsforteachingbasicprogrammingconceptstoyoungprimaryschoolstudents.

KeYwoRdSApps, Board Game, Kodable, Primary School, Programming Concepts, Tablets

INTRodUCTIoN

Constanttechnologicaldevelopmentshavebroughtsignificantchangesinallaspectsofourlives,educationincluded.Thisfactputseducationalsystemsunderpressure;theyhavetochangeinordertomeettheneedsforinstructionandtrainingintheInformationera.However,wearepastthestageinwhichthegoal-withregardtoICT-wasstudentstobecomeadeptusersofdevicesandapplications.Nowadays,thegoalisforstudentstobeabletodesignandcreatecontentusingtechnology(OECD,2015).Inaway,thisneedisrelatedtotheacquisitionofcomputerprogrammingskills(Resnicketal.,2009).

Thebenefitsstudentshavewhentheylearnhowtoprogramwerenotedsincetheearlydaysoftheintegrationofcomputersineducation(Papert,1980).Ithelpsthemtodeveloptheiranalyticalandsyntheticthinking,fosterstheirskillsindesigningandsolvingalgorithms,andhasapositiveimpactontheircreativityandimagination(Fessakis,Gouli,&Mavroudi,2013;Liu,Cheng,&Huang,2011).TheteachingofbasicprogrammingconceptsisincludedintotheGreekprimaryschool’scurriculum,in the last twogrades.Alas, thecontent ispoor,outdated,notwellorganized,andstudents faceproblems(Papadakis,Orfanakis,Kalogiannakis,&Zaranis,2014).Ontheotherhand,researcherssuggestthattheteachingofprogrammingshouldhavegame-likecharacteristics,sothatthewhole


35

processbecomesanenjoyableexperience(e.g.,Margulieux,Guzdial,&Catrambone,2012)andthatitshouldstartasearlyaspossible(Kalelioğlu,2015).

In recentyears, theuseof smartphones and tablets and their applicationshas exponentiallyincreased; people of all ages (adolescents included) routinely use them. These mobile devices,becauseoftheirspecificcharacteristics(e.g.,lowcost,portability,andconnectivity),canbecomeavaluableeducationaltool.Consequently, theireducationalusesarethesubjectofanincreasingnumberofstudiesandtherelevantliteratureisbecomingmoreandmoreextensive(e.g.,Goodwin,2012;Henderson,2012).

Aboutayearago,ateamattheDepartmentofPrimarySchoolEducation,attheUniversityoftheAegean, laid thegroundworkfor the research initiativeEmergingTechnologies inEducation(ETiE).Itsmainpurposeistostudytheeducationalpotentialofavarietyofemergingtechnologies(e.g.,tablets,virtualandaugmentedreality,3Dprinters,anddrones)inasmanyaspossibleprimaryand juniorhigh school’sgrades and subjects.Taking into account that: (a) there is theneed formoreinnovativemethodsforteachingprogrammingconceptsand(b)thatmobiledeviceshaveaninterestingeducationalpotential, itwasquitelogicaltowonderwhethertablets-orothermobiledevicesforthatmatter-canbeusedforteachingprogrammingconceptstoprimaryschoolstudents.InthecontextofETiE,apilotprojectwasdesignedandimplementedinordertostudyexactlythis.Themainresearchobjectivewastoexaminewhatthelearningoutcomesmightbeafterteachingprogrammingconceptsinaplayfulwayusingtablets.Moreover,itwasconsideredasaninterestingendeavortohaveasatargetgroupveryyoungstudents(7-9-year-olds),deviatingfromthedirectivesoftheGreekcurriculum.Therationale,methodology,andtheresultsofthisinterventionarepresentedandanalyzedinthecomingsections.

PRoGRAMMING AS A TeACHING SUBJeCT IN PRIMARY SCHooL

Whilethereisnocommonconsensusregardingthedefinitionofprogramming,itcanbeviewedasthecreativeprocessofinstructingacomputeronhowtoperformatask(Blackwell,2002).Theinstructions/commandsforexecutingthistaskhavetobewrittenina(programming)languagethatcanbeunderstoodbythecomputer.Theexistingliteraturesuggestsmultiplebenefitsforstudentswhentheylearnhowtoprogram.Besideslearningfundamentalprogrammingconcepts(Zhang,Liu,OrdóñezdePablos,&She,2014), theydevelopapositiveattitudetowardlearningcomputingingeneral(Fessakisetal.,2013;Keren&Fridin,2014).Abetterunderstandingofmathematicalconceptsandimprovementoftheirsocialskills(Fessakisetal.,2013),improvementoftheirproblem-solvingskills(Akcaoglu&Koehler,2014),aswellasanimpactontheircreativityandimagination(Liuetal.,2011),werealsonoted.Likewise,whenstudentsperformwellinprogramming,theytendtousemoremeta-cognitivemanagementstrategies(Bergin,Reilly,&Traynor,2005).Ontheotherhand,theteachingofthissubjectisnotaneasytaskandstudentsdofaceproblems.Theirpoorunderstandingofhowprogramsareexecuted(Pea,1986),andoftherules,logic,andsyntaxoftheprogramminglanguages(Kristi,2003),aremajorproblems.Inaddition,someconcepts,forexample,variables,arenoteasytograsp(Pane&Myers,1996).Forchildren,thelackoflogicalreasoningandtheiras-yetundevelopedalgorithmicandcriticalthinking,arethemainreasonsfortheaboveissues(Robins,Rountree,&Rountree,2003).

There is a variety of instructional tools and techniques for teaching programming, rangingfromdraganddropapplicationstoprogrammingrobots.Forexample,Alice,a3Dprogrammingenvironment,helpedstudentstolearnfundamentalprogrammingconcepts(Zhangetal.,2014);robotprogrammingimprovedtheirgeometricthinkingandmetacognitivetasks(Keren&Fridin,2014);gamedevelopment - throughprogramming - supported their understandingof computer scienceconcepts(Denner,Werner,&Ortiz,2012).Researchhasshownthatstudentspreferdrag-and-dropapplications,visualpresentations,verbalexplanations,discoveringthingsontheirown,andtrialanderrorpractices(Liuetal.,2011;Zhangetal.,2014).


36

One of the most well-known applications for teaching programming to children is Scratch(https://scratch.mit.edu/).Thereisanextensiveliteratureonitseffectiveness.Forexample,Flannery,Silverman,Bers,Bonta,andResnick(2013)foundthatitsusehelpedstudentstodeveloptheirabilitytosolveproblemsandhadanimpactontheircreativity,self-expression,andtheirnarrativeability.Armoni,Meerbaum-Salant,andBen-Ari(2015)foundthatScratchhelpedstudentstoimprovetheirunderstandingofcomplexprogrammingconcepts, indesigningalgorithmsforsolvingproblems,andinunderstandingprogrammingprinciplesinashorttime,comparedtoothermethods.Finally,Wilson,Hainey,andConnolly(2012)notedthattheeffectivenessofScratchisduetoitsgame-likenature,afeaturewhichwasalsoconsideredasimportantbythepreviouslymentionedresearchers.

Inmanycountriesandacrossalllevelsofeducation,thecurriculumincludestheteachingofprogrammingconcepts(e.g.,Grgurina,Barendsen,Zwaneveld,vanVeen,&Stoker,2014;Grout&Houlden,2014).Also,worldwideefforts,suchasTheHourofCode(https://hourofcode.com/)trytodemystifycodingandtoshowthatanybodycanlearnthebasicsofprogramming.ComingtotheGreekprimaryschools,programmingconceptsaretaughtonlytothelasttwogrades(ages10-12)as(arathersmall)partofthecomputingcurriculum,which,inturn,istaughtjustforonehoureachweek.Theobjectivesareforstudentstounderstandalgorithmsandvariablesandtobeabletosolveprogramming problems using Logo-like applications. One can easily understand that the aboveobjectivescannotbeachievedwithsuchaminimaltimeallocation(Grigoriadou,Gogoulou,&Gouli,2002)and,quitelogically,studentsfaceproblems(Papadakisetal.,2014).

TABLeTS IN edUCATIoN

Mobile devices, such as tablets and smartphones, enable users to have unparalleled access tocommunication and information, due to their increased affordability and functionality. In aneducationalcontext,theycanbeusedinavarietyofteachingandlearningsituationsandforalmostallteaching/learningsubjects(Goodwin,2012;Smith,Kukulska-Hulme,&Page,2012).Thetermthataptlydescribes theeducationalusesof thesedevices ismobile learning(Shuler,Winters,&West,2012),whichreferstoallformsoflearningthattakeplacethroughthemediationofamobiledevice(Quinn,2011).Sincethemobiledevicescanbeusedvirtuallyeverywhereandanytime,theycanfacilitatebothformalandinformallearning(Seipold&Pachler,2011),leadingtowhathasbeentermed“ubiquitous”or“seamless”learning(van’tHooft,2013;Wong,2012).

Because,comparedtocomputers,mobiledevicescanfiteasilyintothedailyteachingpractices,they motivate students and increase their independence (Goodwin, 2012). Also, students feelmoreconfidentintheirITskills,astheyconsiderthemeasytohandle(Heinrich,2012).Increasedcollaborationamongstudents(Kearney,Schuck,Burden,&Aubusson,2012),morecreativework,developmentofITskills(Karsenti&Fievez,2013),andamorepersonalizedlearningexperience(Vavoyla&Karagiannidis,2005)werenoted.Thedevelopmentofmetacognitiveskillswasalsoacknowledged(Kearney,Schuck,Burden,&Aubusson,2012).Also,mobiledevicesgivestudentstheopportunitytoconstantlyassessandreflectontheirlearningprogress(West,2013).

However,thesuccessfulintegrationofmobiledevicesrequireschangestoeducationinorderforthesedevicestobeusedinmeaningfulways(van’tHooft,2013).Provisionshouldbemadeforstudentstofamiliarizethemselveswiththedevices’featuresandfunctions,learnhowtomanagetheirapplications,howtosharecontentandforunderstandinghowandwhenthesedevicescansupportthelearningprocess(Henderson&Yeow,2012).

Comingtotablets,althoughtheireducationalimpactisstilllargelyunknown,muchoftheexistingresearchreplicatesthefindingsfromstudiesonothermobiledevices(Dhir,Gahwaji,&Nyman,2013).Thenagain,itcanbearguedthattabletshavecertainadvantagesoverothermobiledevices(e.g.,largerscreens,greaterprocessingandbatterypower).Onthenegativeside,childrenencountersomedifficultiesinhandlingthem,mainlywhentheyhavetoinputlargepiecesoftext.Duringteamwork,thesimultaneoususeofatabletisalsoproblematic(Henderson&Yeow,2012).Researchhasalso


37

pointedoutthattabletsmaybeasourceofdistractionforstudentsbecause,duringlessons,theytendtousethemfornon-educationalpurposes(Kinash,Brand,&Mathew,2012).

Tabletsarenoteducationaltoolsperse;suitableinteractivelearningcontentisneededtorenderthemassuch.Researchersstressthatcurrentlythereareonlyafewstudiesontheimpactofeducationalapplicationsformobiledevicesandthatthisisafieldwhereacademiaandindustrymustcloselycollaborate(Shuleretal.2012).

Anumberof learning theoriesprovide thenecessary framework for theeducationalusesoftabletsandtheirapplications:

• Constructivism.Accordingtothistheory,learnersbuildpersonalinterpretationsoftheworldbasedontheirexperiencesandinteractions,knowledgehastobeembeddedinthesituationinwhichitisused,effectiveuseofknowledgecomesfromengagingthelearnerinreal-worldsituations,andknowledgeisvalidatedthroughsocialnegotiation(Ertmer&Newby,2013).

• Dualcodingtheory,whichpostulatesthatstudents’learningisadvancedwhenbothvisualandverbalinformationisusedforpresentingthelearningmaterial(Clark&Paivio,1991).

• Game-basedlearningwasalsousedasatheoreticalframeworkinstudies(e.g.,Wojciechowski&Cellary,2013).

Despitetheadvantagesthattabletshavetoofferineducation,theiruseinGreekpublicprimaryschools is still marginal, if non-existent. Other than a handful of research efforts (e.g., Fokides&Atsikpasi,2016;Papadakis,Kalogiannakis,&Zaranis,2016),nostepshavebeentakenbytheauthoritiestoofficiallyintroducetheminprimaryorsecondaryeducation.

MeTHod

Giventhattabletswereconsideredaninterestingtoolforteachingprogramming,inaplayfulway,toprimaryschoolstudents,apilotprojectwasdesignedandimplementedforexaminingwhatmightbethelearningoutcomesofsuchanendeavor.Aquasi-experimentaldesign,withoneexperimentalandtwocontrolgroups,waschosenbecausedataforintactclassroomgroupswasanalyzedfortheirdifferencesintestscores,aswillbefurtherelaboratedinthecomingsections.

Research HypothesesOnthebasisoftheabove,thefollowingresearchhypotheseswereformed:(a)thelearningoutcomeswhen teaching programming concepts to young primary school students using tablets and anapplicationcomparefavorablytootherconventionalteachingmethods,and(b)studentsformpositiveattitudesandperceptionsregardingtheuseoftabletsaspartoftheirlearning.

ParticipantsItwasdecidedthatthetargetgroupshouldbeveryyoungprimaryschoolstudents(ages7-9,secondand third grades), in an attempt to explore the possibility of teaching programming to youngeragesthantheGreekcurriculumdictates.Anemailinvitationtoparticipateinthestudywasissued,addressedtoprimaryschoolsinAthens,Greece.Mostoftheschoolsthatrespondedaffirmativelytotheinvitationhadtobeexcludedbecausetheirsecondandthird-gradeclasseshadtoofewstudents.Schoolswerealsoexcludedbecausetheyweretoofarapartorbecausetheywereprivateschoolsand,consequently,thesamplewouldnotbehomogeneousintermsofthesocio-economicstatusofstudents.Asaresult,threeneighboringpublicschoolswereselectedtoparticipateintheprojectand,toeach,aninstructionalmethod(describedintheResearchdesignsection)wasrandomlyassigned.Thus,theinitialsampleofthestudyconsistedof142students.Priortothebeginningoftheproject,students’parentswerebriefedabouttheproject,itsmethodology,andobjectives.Theirwrittenconsent


38

fortheirchildren’sparticipationwasobtained.Theprojectlastedforabouttwomonths(itwasnotimplementedsimultaneouslyinallschools),fromlateSeptembertolateNovember2016.

Materials, Selection of the ApplicationItwasdecidedtoteachsequences,conditions(if/then)andloops,whichareverybasicand,atthesametime,veryimportantprogrammingconcepts.Anextensivesearchforapplicationsforteachingtheaboveconceptsusingtabletsrevealedthat,whilethereareseveralofthem,veryfewareavailableinGreek,compatiblewithETiE’stablets,freeofcharge,andsuitableforveryyoungstudents.Itwasalsofoundthatsomeapplicationscomewithdetailedlessonplans,learning/teachingmaterial,andin-classroomactivities,featureswhichwereconsideredcrucialfortheimplementationoftheproject. Eventually, SurfScore’s Kodable (https://www.kodable.com/) was chosen, that met thefollowingcriteria:(a)simpletouse,(b)game-likefeatures,(c)completesetsoflessonplansandteachingmaterial,and(d)manylevelsforpracticingtheuseoftheprogrammingconcepts.Althoughitisnottotallyfreeofcharge,theconceptsthatwereselectedforthepilotprogramdidnothavethislimitation.Also,althoughitisinEnglish,theinterfaceandthewholephilosophyoftheapplicationissuchthatitisveryeasyfortheusertounderstandwhathe/shehastodo,renderingtheknowledgeofEnglishunnecessary.

InKodable,theuserguidestheapplication’scharacterthroughlabyrinthinelevels,collectingasmanycoinsaspossible.Eachleveliscompletedwhenthecharacterreachestheexit(Figure1).Theguidanceisdonebyusingtheavailablecommands(toprightcornerofthescreen)asmanytimesastheuserwants.Thecommandsareplacedbydragginganddroppingthematthetopleft,wherethereisalimitednumberofemptyspaces,suggestingthattheprogrammustbecompletedusingalimitednumberofcommands.Aftercompletingthesyntaxofthecommands,theuserexecutestheprogramandseestheresults.Incaseofanerror,he/shecanredotheprogramming.Thelevelsareofescalatingdifficulty(e.g.,morecomplexpaths,feweravailablecommands),thereisnosinglecorrectsolutiontoeachlevel,andtheonlyincentiveisthecollectionofcoinsfor“unlocking”newcharacters.

Ithastobenotedthatforthepurposesofthestudy,Kodable’slessonsplansandactivities(availableathttps://www.kodable.com/curriculum)weretranslatedandadaptedintoGreek.

Research designTheliteraturesuggeststhatinordertofacilitatetheunderstandingofprogrammingconcepts,studentsshouldbeassisted tomake theconnectionbetweenprogrammingconceptsandeverydaylife,byprovidingexamplesofhowtheformercanbeappliedtothelatter(Falkner,Vivian,&Falkner,2015;Kafai&Burke,2013).Thus,atthebeginningofeachsession,teachersmadeashortintroductionabouttheprogrammingconceptthattheywereabouttoteach,drawingexamplesfromstudents’everydaylives.Next, studentsworked, inpairs,with the tablets, resolving the levelsof thecorrespondingconcept.Studentswerefreetoworkattheirownpace,discussandcollaborate.In-classroomactivitiesfollowedwhich,inmostcases,requiredteamworkandincludedworksheetsandgames.Eachsessionlastedfortwoteachinghoursandeachprogrammingconceptrequiredtwosessions.Thus,thetotaldurationoftheproject,foreachgrade,wastwelveteachinghours(2teachinghoursX2sessionsX3programmingconcepts).

Forexaminingthesignificanceoftheproject’sresults,twomoregroupsofstudentswereformed.Thefirstoneusedboardgamesinsteadoftablets.Thismethodhasbeenusedbyotherresearcherswithnoteworthyresults(e.g.,Mavridis,Siribianou,&Alexogiannopoulou,2015).EachboardgamewasaprintedandenlargedKodablelevel.Thesamewasdoneforthecharacters,thearrows(sequences),coloredsquares(conditions),andforalltheotherelementsincludedintheapplication.Thestudents,workinginpairs,placedthevariouselements/commandsontheboardandtheteacher“executed”the“program”determiningifit“worked”properly.Thein-classroomactivities,aswellasthewaystudentsworked,werethesameas in thetabletgroup.Thesecondgroupofstudentswastaughtconventionally,usingnotesinsteadoftabletsorboardgames.Forcompatibilityreasons,thesenotes


39

followedKodable’sphilosophyandwayofpresentingthelearningmaterial(usinglevels,symbolstorepresentcommands,etc.).Onceagain,studentsworkedinpairs.Thein-classroomactivitieswerealsothesameasinthepreviousgroups.

Asaresult,threegroupsofstudentsweretaughtthesameprogrammingconcepts,usingthesameteachingmethodandactivities.Theironlydifferencewasthecontentdeliverymethod(tablets/application, board games, and notes). Finally, in one two-hour session, students of the tablets/applicationgroupexploredtheaffordancesandconstraintsofthesedevices(withoutusingKodable)inordertoproactivelyfacedifficultieswhileusingthem.

InstrumentsImmediatelyfollowingtheendoftheteachingofaprogrammingconcept,studentscompletedanevaluationsheet/test (three in total).Eachtestconsistedof threedistinctparts.Thefirstonehadmultiplechoice,fill-in-the-blanks,andright-wrongquestions.Ineachtest,therewereatleastsixquestionsof thiskind.In thesecondpart, inorder toexamine ifstudentswereable tomaketheconnectionbetweentheprogrammingconceptsandeverydaylife,theywereinstructedtotranscribe,usingprogrammingtermsandconcepts,everydaylifeactivities.Forexample,theyweregiventherecipeformakingapizzaandtheyhadtotranscribeitasasequenceofsteps/events.Asanexampleofhandlingconditions,thefollowingexercisewasincluded:“Theheadmastersaidthattomorrowiftheweatherisnice,wewillgoonafieldtrip.Wewillvisitamuseum,play,eatlunch,andthenwewillreturnback.Iftheweatherisnotgood,wewillstayatschooldoourlessonsandplayduringbreaks.But,ifitrains,wewillstayindoorsallday.Describetheaboveusingtheprogrammingtermsandconceptsthatyouhavelearned.”Ineachevaluationsheet,therewereuptofoursuchexercises.

Figure 1. A Kodable’s indicative level Note: The arrows (top right corner) indicate a sequence and the colored squares a condition.


40

ThethirdpartfollowedKodable’sphilosophyandpresentationlayout.Studentswerepresentedwithalevelandtheyhadeithertocompletethemissingcommandsortocheckwhetherthesolutionwascorrect(identifyinganyerrors).Abouthalfofthequestionswereofthistype.

Also,aboutamonthaftertheendoftheproject,studentscompletedadelayedpost-testwhichhadthesamestructureastheevaluationsheetsbutincludedalltheprogrammingconceptsthattheyweretaught.Theyalsocompletedashortquestionnairefortheevaluationoftheirexperiencesandviewsregardingtheuseoftablets/application(fifteenLikert-typeandopen-endedquestions).Ithastobenotedthatapre-testwasnotusedsincestudentswerenotpreviouslytaughtanythingrelatedtoprogrammingandtherefore,itwasassumedthattheyhadnopriorknowledgeonthissubject.Theevaluationsheetsanddelayedpost-testswerethesameinallgroups.

ReSULTS

Anumberofstudentshadtobeexcludedfromthestudybecausetheywereabsentformorethanonesession.Thefinalsamplesizewas135students,dividedintothreegroups(conventional-Group0,boardgame-Group1,andtablets-Group2)andintotwosub-groups(secondandthird-gradestudents).Fortheanalysisoftheresults,scoresonthebasisofthenumberofcorrectanswersineachevaluationsheetwerecomputed.MeanscorespergroupofparticipantsandpertestarepresentedinTable1.

One-wayANOVAtestsweretobeconductedtocomparethescoresofthethreegroupsinalltests,inordertodetermineiftheyhadanysignificantdifferences.Priortoconductingthesetests,itwascheckedwhethertheassumptionsofANOVAtestingwereviolated.Itwasfoundthat:(a)allsub-groupshadthesamenumberofparticipants,(b)therewerenooutliers,(c)thedatawerenormallydistributedinalltests,and(d)thehomogeneityofvariancewasviolatedintwotests,asassessedbyLevene’stestofhomogeneityofvariance.InthecaseswhereallassumptionsforANOVAtestingweremet,thisanalysiswasconducted.Inthecaseswheretheassumptionofthehomogeneityofvariancewasviolated,theBrown-Forsythetest(1974)wasconducted,whichisrobustincasesofheteroscedasticity.Theanalysesshowedthattheteachingmethodhadasignificanteffectonthescoresinalltests,aspresentedinTable2.

Post-hoc comparisons were conducted using the Tuckey HSD test on all possible pairwisecontrastsinalltestsexcepttheoneswherethehomogeneityofvariancewasviolated.Tothose,theGames-Howelltest(1976)wasconducted.Itwasfoundthat:

• ES1,2ndgrade.ThemeantotalscoreforGroup2(M=17.88,SD=1.34)wassignificantlyhigher(p<.001)thanthatofGroup1(M=15.35,SD=1.85),whilebothweresignificantlyhigherthanthatofGroup0(M=12.48,SD=2.42)(p<.001inbothcases).

Table 1. Means and standard deviations on all evaluation sheets

Test Group0 (N = 45) Group1 (N = 45) Group2 (N = 45)

2nd grade(N = 23)

3rd grade(N =22)

2nd grade(N = 23)

3rd grade(N =22)

2nd grade(N = 23)

3rd grade(N =22)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

ES1(21) 12.48 2.42 13.05 1.88 15.35 1.85 15.18 1.59 17.88 1.34 18.25 1.68

ES2(20) 6.54 1.68 7.15 1.55 9.85 1.48 10.18 1.35 10.56 1.57 10.82 1.36

ES3(20) 9.56 1.52 10.55 1.69 11.38 2.12 11.84 1.45 13.46 1.70 14.05 1.85

Delayedpost-test(22) 10.13 2.45 11.08 2.18 13.58 2.91 14.01 2.57 16.85 2.17 17.15 2.28

Notes. Maximum scores for each test are reported in parenthesis. ES1 = evaluation sheet sequences, ES2 = evaluation sheet conditions, ES3 = evalu-ation sheet loops


41

• ES1,3rdgrade.ThemeantotalscoreforGroup2(M=18.25,SD=1.68)wassignificantlyhigher(p<.001)thanthatofGroup1(M=15.18,SD=1.59),whilebothweresignificantlyhigherthanthatofGroup0(M=13.05,SD=1.88)(p<.001inbothcases).

• ES2,2ndgrade.ThemeantotalscoreforGroup2(M=10.56,SD=1.57)wasnotsignificantlyhigher(p=.286)thanthatofGroup1(M=9.85,SD=1.48),whilebothweresignificantlyhigherthanthatofGroup0(M=6.54,SD=1.68)(p<.001inbothcases).

• ES2,3rdgrade.ThemeantotalscoreforGroup2(M=10.82,SD=1.36)wasnotsignificantlyhigher(p=.302)thanthatofGroup1(M=10.18,SD=1.35),whilebothweresignificantlyhigherthanthatofGroup0(M=7.15,SD=1.55)(p<.001inbothcases).

• ES3,2ndgrade.ThemeantotalscoreforGroup2(M=13.46,SD=1.70)wassignificantlyhigher(p<.001)thanthatofGroup1(M=11.38,SD=2.2),whilebothweresignificantlyhigherthanthatofGroup0(M=9.56,SD=1.52)(p=.003andp<.001respectively).

• ES3,3rdgrade.ThemeantotalscoreforGroup2(M=14.05,SD=1.85)wassignificantlyhigher(p<.001)thanthatofGroup1(M=11.84,SD=1.45),whilebothweresignificantlyhigherthanthatofGroup0(M=10.55,SD=1.69)(p=.034andp<.001respectively).

• Delayedpost-test,2ndgrade.Themean total score forGroup2(M=16.85,SD=2.17)wassignificantlyhigher(p<.001)thanthatofGroup1(M=13.58,SD=2.91),whilebothweresignificantlyhigherthanthatofGroup0(M=10.13,SD=2.45)(p<.001inbothcases).

• Delayedpost-test,3rdgrade.Themean total score forGroup2 (M=17.15,SD=2.28)wassignificantlyhigher(p<.001)thanthatofGroup1(M=14.01,SD=2.57),whilebothweresignificantlyhigherthanthatofGroup0(M=11.08,SD=2.18)(p<.001inbothcases).

Takentogether,theseresultssuggestthatstudentswhousedthetablets/applicationoutperformedstudentsintheothertwogroupsinthreeoutoffourtests,includingthedelayedpost-test.Thus,thefirstresearchhypothesiswasconfirmed.Ontheotherhand,inES2(conditions),theresultsofGroup2andGroup1werenotstatisticallysignificantlydifferent,althoughbothoutperformedstudentsinGroup0.Ithastobenotedthat,inthistest,themeanscoresofallgroupsweresignificantlylowercomparedtoothertests(Table1).Indeed,bytakingacloserlookatthistest,itwasfoundthatmoststudents(inallgroups)failedtotranscribe,usingprogrammingtermsandconcepts,everydaylifeactivitiesandalsofailedtocompletethemissingcommandsortocheckwhetherthesolutiongiventothemwascorrect.Veryfewstudents(34out135)managedtocompletetheexerciseswherenested‘if’statementsshouldhavebeenused(foranexampleofsuchexerciseseesection“Researchrationaleandmethodology”).Thisfindingwillbefurtherelaboratedinthecomingsection.

The data were also analyzed in relation to students’ ages. Since the number of second andthird-gradestudentswasalmostthesame(N=23andN=22respectively),thiswasconsideredasanacceptabledeviationfromtheassumptionsforconductingone-wayANOVAtesting,giventhat

Table 2. One-way ANOVA results

Test Grade Result

ES12nd Brown-ForsytheF(2,51.45)=35.78,p<.001

3rd F(2,63)=50.76,p<.001

ES22nd F(2,66)=42.47,p<.001

3rd F(2,63)=41.76,p<.001

ES32nd F(2,66)=27.10,p<.001

3rd Brown-ForsytheF(2,50.89)=37.54,p<.001

Delayedpost-test

2nd F(2,66)=40.63,p<.001

3rd F(2,63)=37.74,p<.001


42

alltheotherassumptionsweremet.Theanalysisdemonstratedthattherewerenoagedifferencesinallgroupsandinalltestswithoneexception,inwhichthestatisticallysignificantdifferencewasmarginal(Table3).

Thesecondresearchhypothesiswasalsoconfirmed.That isbecausestudentsmadepositiveremarksregardingtheirexperienceswhileusingthetabletsandtheapplication.Morespecifically,theylikedthe:

• Application’sgame-likefeatures(M=4.65,SD=1.14).• Useoftablets(M=4.15,SD=1.34).• Thewholeproject(applicationandin-classroomactivities)(M=4.10,SD=1.25).• Groupwork(in-classroomactivities)(M=3.80,SD=1.10).• Workinginpairs(application)(M=3.75,SD=1.42).

Accordingtostudents’responses,conditionswerethemostinterestingprogrammingconcept,followedbysequencesandloops(N=20,N=14,andN=11respectively).At thesametime,conditionswereconsideredthemostdifficultone,followedbyloops,whilesequencesweretheeasiestprogrammingconcept(N=24,N=13,N=8respectively).Inaddition,studentsstatedthattheylearnedquitealot(M=3.94,SD=0.81)andquiteeasily(M=4.27,SD=0.66).Theyalsofoundtabletseasytouse(M=4.15,SD=1.20),motivational(M=4.07,SD=0.88)andtheystatedthattheywouldliketousetheminotherlessons(M=4.38,SD=0.75).Onlytwostudentsreportedproblemswhenusingtablets,whilenonereportedproblemsregardingcollaborationorwhenworkinginpairs.

Someindicativeresponsestotherelevantquestionswere:

• It was fun. Even if I had to try many times before I was able to solve a puzzle it was still fun.Thestudentisreferringtoprogrammingas“apuzzle”.

• It was like playing a game but I was also able to learn about programming.• With the student sitting next to me we were trying to figure out how to collect all the coins in

the levels.• I didn’t know how games are made. Now I know that everything is done with programming.

Table 3. One-way ANOVA results in relation to age

Test Group Result

ES1

Group0 F(1,43)=0.77,p=.384

Group1 F(1,43)=0.11,p=.743

Group2 F(1,43)=0.67,p=.418

ES2

Group0 F(1,43)=1.60,p=.213

Group1 F(1,43)=0.61,p=.439

Group2 F(1,43)=0.35,p=.557

ES3

Group0 F(1,43)=4.28,p=.048

Group1 F(1,43)=0.71,p=.402

Group2 F(1,43)=1.24,p=.271

Delayedpost-test

Group0 F(1,43)=1.88,p=.177

Group1 F(1,43)=0.27,p=.602

Group2 F(1,43)=1.01,p=.653

Note. The shaded row identifies a statistically significant difference


43

dISCUSSIoN

Educators, researchersand industryareconstantlyseekingways to integratemobiledevices intoeverydayschoolactivities,forsupportingteachingandlearning(Giezma,Malzahn&Hoppe,2013).Thestudyshedsomelighttowardthisdirection.Itwasfoundthattabletstogetherwithaplayful,fun,andcolorfulapplication,outweighedotherteachingmethods.Therefore,itisconcludedthattabletsincombinationwithasuitableapplication,canbecomeausefulandeffectivetoolthatpromotestheteachingofprogrammingconceptstoveryyoungprimaryschoolstudents.Thisconclusionstemsfromthefact that in threeoutof fourevaluationsheets (including thedelayedpost-test)Group2outperformedtheothergroups.Theseresultscanbeattributedtoanumberofreasonsrelatedtotheapplication,totablets,andtotheteachingframework.

Studentsmadehighlypositiveremarksregardingthegame-likephysiognomyoftheapplication.Also,itisworthnotingthattheresultsofGroup1werealsointeresting.AlthoughtheywerenotasgoodastheresultsofGroup2,theywerestatisticallysignificantlybetterthantheonesofGroup0.Consideringthat:(a)Group2wastaughtusingagame-likeapplicationand(b)Group1wastaughtusingboardgames,itcanbearguedthatgame-basedlearningoutperformsconventionalteachingmethods,atleastonthesubjectofprogramming,asothershavenoted(e.g.,Wilsonetal.,2012).

Moreover, the application enabled students to constantly and easily evaluate their progress,becausetheywereabletorepetitivelytestiftheirprogramswereexecutedproperlyandcorrecttheirmistakes.Studentswhousedtheboardgameswerealsoabletoso,buttoalesserdegree.Thewholeprocesswasmorelaboriousandtime-consumingsincetheyhadtowaitfortheteachertocome,checkiftheprogramwascorrect,andredotheplacementofthevariousgameelementstotheboard.Thus,studentswhousedtabletshadmorecontroloverthelearningprocessandmoreautonomy(West,2013).

Thedataanalysisledtoaquiteinterestingfinding.Therewerenonotableagedifferences,meaningthatsecondandthird-gradestudentsperformedthesameonalltestsandtoallteachingmethods.Consequently,itcanbeassumedthat7-9-year-oldshave(moreorless)thesamementalcapabilitiesregardingtheirunderstandingoftheprogrammingconceptsthatweretestedinthisstudy.Ontheotherhand,theconceptofconditions(if/then)appearstohavecausedsometroubletostudents.Themeanscoresofallgroupsintherespectiveevaluationsheetwerethelowestcomparedtothemeanscoresoftheotherevaluationsheets(seeTable1).Itwasalsonotedthatstudentsfailedtograsptheideaofnested‘if’statements.Asothershavepointedout,dependingonthestudents’age,someconceptsareacauseofproblemsandnoteasytograsp(e.g.,Pane&Myers,1996).

Thelearningoutcomesmighthavebeenstrengthenedbytheuseofanewteachingtool,namelytablets,whichmanagedtoattracttheinterestofstudents.Indeed,accordingtotheirresponses,studentsweremotivatedandwillingtousethemasothershavepointedout(e.g.,Goodwin,2012;Heinrich,2012).Theaboveappeartohaveresultedinabetterunderstandingoftheprogrammingconcepts,asJohnsonandhiscolleagues(2013)suggested,which,inturn,ledtobetterlearningoutcomes,asnotedbyotherresearchers(e.g.,Snell&Snell-Siddle,2013).Accordingtostudents’responses,theuseoftabletswasnotacauseofsignificantproblems.Ingeneral,studentsarefamiliarwiththeuseofelectronicdevices(Goodwin,2012;Heinrich,2012).Whileotherresearchersindicatedthatthesimultaneoushandlingofa tablet,whenworkingingroups, isproblematic(Henderson&Yeow,2012),thiswasnotconfirmedinthepresentstudy,sincenosuchproblemwasreported,probablybecausecollaborationworkedwell.Thus,itcanbearguedthatitwasthecombinationoftabletsandofanapplicationthatpromotedlearning,asQuinn(2011)alsopointedout.

Theteachingmethodwasbasedontheprinciplesofconstructivism.Thistheorysupportsthatthelearningenvironmenthastoencouragesocialinteractionandtheengagementofthelearnerinthelearningprocess(Ertmer&Newby,2013).Also,Doise,Mugny,James,EmlerandMackie(2013),supportedtheideathatwhenchildrenworkinpairsforsolvingaproblem,theytendtogeneratemoreadequatesolutionsthanwhenworkingalone.Itseemsthatworkinginpairsandthein-classroom


44

groupactivitiesplayedaroleinachievingthesatisfactorylearningoutcomes,assuggestedbyothers(Kearneyetal.,2012).

Onthebasisofthestudy’sresults,itissuggestedthateducators,aswellaspolicymakers,canconsidertheuseoftabletsandmobileapplicationsforteachingbasicprogrammingconceptstoveryyoungprimaryschoolstudents.Theteachingframeworkcanbebasedontheoneusedinthisstudy;game-based learning, working in pairs when using tablets, activities that require collaboration,andconnectingprogrammingconceptswitheverydaylife.Ontheotherhand,cautionisadvised.Itissuggestedthatyoungchildrenlackthenecessarymentalschemasforfullyunderstandinghowprogrammingworksbecausetheircomplexandcriticalthinkingisnotyetdeveloped(Robinsetal.,2003).Withthatinmindandonthebasisofthestudy’sresults,itissuggestedthatwhiletheteachingofprogrammingcanstartataveryearlystage(primaryschool’ssecondorthirdgrade),thisshouldbedoneinaplayfulandmotivationalway.Also,theprogrammingconceptsshouldbetheonesthatarecompatiblewiththestudents’ageandmentalityorifitisrequiredtoteachcomplexconcepts,theseshouldbeexplainedmorethoroughly.

The implications are not limited only to education. The study had to rely on a ready-madeapplication.Whatbecameevidentwasthatwhiletherearequitealotofrelevantapplications,notallofthemweresuitableforeducationaluseorforveryyoungstudents.Evenso,theapplicationthatwaseventuallyselectedwasnotperfect;certainaspectsofitcouldhavebeenbetter.Therefore,itisimperativeforeducatorsandsoftwareexpertstoworkcloselytogetherasShuleretal.(2012)suggested.Theeducatorscansettheinstructionalguidelinesandsoftwareengineerscaninformtheeducatorsofthetechnology’saffordancesandconstraints.Sharingknowledgeandexperience,aswellasclosecollaboration,arethekeystomaximizingtheeducationalpotentialoftabletsandtheirapplications.

CoNCLUSIoN

Althoughtheresultsarepromising,thestudyhaslimitationsthatneedtobeacknowledged.Eventhoughallnecessaryprecautionsweretaken,onecannotbecertainwhetherthetestsandquestionnairesaccurately recorded students’ knowledge and views. The study’s sample, although sufficient forstatisticalanalysis,wasrelativelysmallandtheparticipatingstudentscamefromonecityinGreece.Therefore,theresultscannotbeeasilygeneralized.Thequestionnairemeasuringstudents’viewsandexperienceswhenusingtabletswasveryshort.Amorecomprehensiveonewouldhaveenabledthecollectionofmoredetaileddata.Finally,sincethefocuswasonstudents’performance,nodatawerecollectedonhowwellteacherswereabletoimplementeachteachingmethod.

Furtherstudiesareneededinordertoidentifydifferencesorsimilaritiestothefindingsofthepresentstudy.Forexample,theeffectivenessofothergame-likeapplicationscanbeexamined.Thetargetgroupcanbeevenyoungerstudents(e.g.,kindergartenorfirst-gradeprimaryschoolstudents),soastodeterminewhatprogrammingconceptsaresuitableforteachingateachageandalsotoestablishtheappropriateteachingmethod.Futurestudiescanuseacombinationofquantitativeandqualitativeresearchtools,suchasinterviewswithstudentsandteachersthatwillallowanin-depthunderstandingofhowtheyviewtheroleoftabletsandtheirapplications.Finally,itwouldbeinterestingtoconductresearchmaximizingorminimizingtheteacher’srole,and/orbyusingcomputersand/orothermobiledevicesandcomparetheresults.Bydoingso,itwouldbepossibletodetermineiftheoutcomescanbeattributedtothemediumusedand/ortothemethod.

Nevertheless,takingintoaccountalllimitationsandinconclusion,theexperimentaldatathatwereobtainedreinforcedtheviewthattabletsandagame-likeapplicationcanyieldsatisfactoryresults,whenteachingprogrammingconceptstoyoungstudents,comparedtotheothermethods.ItshouldbenotedthatETiEisaworkinprogressandthegoalistofurtherinvestigatethematter.Towardthisend,amorecomprehensiveproject,intermsofdurationandinclusionofconcepts,isplannedforthenearfuture,which,will,hopefully,provideamorethoroughunderstandingoftheissue.


45

ReFeReNCeS

Akcaoglu,M.,&Koehler,M.J.(2014).CognitiveoutcomesfromtheGame-DesignandLearning(GDL)after-schoolprogram.Computers & Education,75,72–81.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003

Armoni,M.,Meerbaum-Salant,O.,&Ben-Ari,M.(2015).Fromscratchtorealprogramming.ACM Transactions on Computing Education,14(4),25.doi:10.1145/2677087

Bergin,S.,Reilly,R.,&Traynor,D. (2005).Examining the roleof self-regulated learningon introductoryprogramming performance. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Computing Education Research(pp.81-86).doi:10.1145/1089786.1089794

Blackwell,A.(2002,June).Whatisprogramming?InProceedings of the 14th workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group(pp.204-218).

Brown,M.B.,&Forsythe,A.B.(1974).Robust testfor theequalityofvariance.Journal of the American Statistical Association,69(346),364–367.doi:10.1080/01621459.1974.10482955

Clark,J.M.,&Paivio,A.(1991).Dualcodingtheoryandeducation.Educational Psychology Review,3(3),149–210.doi:10.1007/BF01320076

Denner,J.,Werner,L.,&Ortiz,E.(2012).Computergamescreatedbymiddleschoolgirls:Cantheybeusedtomeasureunderstandingofcomputerscienceconcepts?Computers & Education,58(1),240–249.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.006

Dhir,A.,Gahwaji,N.M.,&Nyman,G.(2013).TheroleoftheiPadinthehandsofthelearner.Journal of Universal Computer Science,19(5),706–727.

Doise,W.,Mugny,G.,James,A.S.,Emler,N.,&Mackie,D.(2013).The social development of the intellect(Vol.10).Elsevier.

Ertmer,P.A.,&Newby,T.J.(2013).Behaviorism,cognitivism,constructivism:Comparingcriticalfeaturesfromaninstructionaldesignperspective.Performance Improvement Quarterly,26(2),43–71.doi:10.1002/piq.21143

Falkner,K.,Vivian,R.,&Falkner,N.(2015,January).TeachingcomputationalthinkinginK-6:TheCSERdigitaltechnologiesMOOC.InProceedings of the 17th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE ’15).

Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 56 years old kindergarten children ina computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016

Flannery,L.,Silverman,B.,Kazakoff,E.,Bers,M.,Bonta,P.,&Resnick,M.(2013).DesigningScratchJr:Supportforearlychildhoodlearningthroughcomputerprogramming.InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children.doi:10.1145/2485760.2485785

Fokides,E.,&Atsikpasi,P.(2016).Tabletsineducation.ResultsfromtheinitiativeETiE,forteachingplantstoprimaryschoolstudents.Education and Information Technologies.

Games,P.A.,&Howell,J.F.(1976).PairwisemultiplecomparisonprocedureswithunequalNsand/orvariances:AMonteCarloStudy.Journal of Educational Statistics,1(2),113–125.doi:10.2307/1164979

Giezma,A.,Malzahn,N.,&Hoppe,U.(2013).Mobilogue:Creatingandconductingmobilelearningscenariosininformalsettings.InL.-H.Wongetal.(Eds.),Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computers in Education.Indonesia:Asia-PacificSocietyforComputersinEducation.

Goodwin,K.(2012).Use of tablet technology in the classroom.NSWDepartmentofEducationandCommunities.

Grgurina,N.,Barendsen,E.,Zwaneveld,B.,vanVeen,K.,&Stoker,I.(2014,November).ComputationalthinkingskillsinDutchsecondaryeducation:exploringteacher’sperspective.InProceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education(pp.124-125).ACM.doi:10.1145/2670757.2670761

Grigoriadou,M.,Gogoulou,A.,&Gouli,E.(2002).Eναλλακτικέςδιδακτικέςπροσεγγίσειςσεεισαγωγικάμαθήματαπρογραμματισμού:Προτάσειςδιδασκαλίας[Alternativeinstructionalapproachesinintroductoryprogrammingcourses:Teachingsuggestions].InA.Dimitrakopoulou(Ed.),Proceedings of the 3rd Panhellenic Conference on ICT in Education(pp.239-248).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2677087

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1089786.1089794

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1974.10482955

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01320076



http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143



http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485785

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1164979

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670761


46

Grout,V.,&Houlden,N.(2014).Takingcomputerscienceandprogrammingintoschools:TheGlyndŵr/BCSTuringproject.Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences,141,680–685.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.119

Heinrich,P.(2012).TheiPadasatoolforeducation:AstudyoftheintroductionofiPadsatLongfieldAcademy,Kent.Nottingham:NAACE:TheICTAssociation.

Henderson,S.,&Yeow,J. (2012, January). iPad ineducation:Acasestudyof iPadadoptionanduse inaprimaryschool.Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS)(pp.78-87).IEEE.

Johnson,L.,Adams-Becker,S.,Cummins,M.,Estrada,V.,Freeman,A.,&Ludgate,H.(2013).NMC Horizon report: 2013 K-12 edition.Austin,Texas:TheNewMediaConsortium.

Kafai,Y.B.,&Burke,Q.(2013).Computerprogramminggoesbacktoschool.Phi Delta Kappan,95(1),61–65.doi:10.1177/003172171309500111

Kalelioğlu,F.(2015).AnewwayofteachingprogrammingskillstoK-12students:Code.org.Computers in Human Behavior,52,200–210.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047

Karsenti,T.,&Fievez,A. (2013).The iPad in education: uses, benefits, and challenges-A survey of 6,057 students and 302 teachers in Quebec, Canada.Montreal,QC:CRIFPE.

Kearney,M.,Schuck,S.,Burden,K.,&Aubusson,P.(2012).Viewingmobilelearningfromapedagogicalperspective.Research in Learning Technology,20.

Keren, G., & Fridin, M. (2014). Kindergarten Social Assistive Robot (KindSAR) for children’s geometricthinkingandmetacognitivedevelopmentinpreschooleducation:Apilotstudy.Computers in Human Behavior,35,400–412.doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.009

Kinash,S.,Brand,J.,&Mathew,T.(2012).Challengingmobilelearningdiscoursethroughresearch:StudentperceptionsofBlackboardMobileLearnandiPads.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,28(4),17.doi:10.14742/ajet.832

Kristi, A. M. (2003). Problems in learning and teaching programming-a literature study for developing visualizations in the Codewitz-Minerva Project. In Codewitz Need Analysis(pp.1–12).Finland:InstituteofSoftwareSystem,TampereUniversityofTechnology.

Liu,C.C.,Cheng,Y.B.,&Huang,C.W.(2011).Theeffectofsimulationgamesonthelearningofcomputationalproblemsolving.Computers & Education,57(3),1907–1918.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002

Margulieux,L.E.,Guzdial,M.,&Catrambone,R.(2012,September).Subgoal-labeledinstructionalmaterialimprovesperformanceand transfer in learning todevelopmobileapplications. InProceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 71-78). ACM.doi:10.1145/2361276.2361291

Mavridis,A.,Siribianou,E.,&Alexogiannopoulou,B.(2015)Διδασκαλίαπρογραμματισμούστονηπιαγωγείοκαιτοδημοτικό,χωρίςτηχρήσηυπολογιστή[Teachingprogrammingtokindergartenandprimaryschoolstudentswithoutusingacomputer].Proceedings of the 9th Panhellenic Conference of ICT Educators.Kastoria,Greece:PEKAP.

OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment-OECD.(2015).Students, computers and learning: Making the connection.Paris:PISA,OECDPublishing.

Pane,J.,&Myers,B.(1996).Usability issues in the design of novice programming systems. Technical report (CMU-CS-96-132).SchoolofComputerScience,CarnegieMellonUniversity.

Papadakis,S.,Kalogiannakis,M.,&Zaranis,N.(2016).ComparingtabletsandPCsinteachingmathematics:Anattempttoimprovemathematicscompetenceinearlychildhoodeducation.Preschool and Primary Education,4(2),241–253.doi:10.12681/ppej.8779

Papadakis,S.,Orfanakis,B.,Kalogiannakis,M.,&Zaranis,N.(2014).Περιβάλλονταπρογραμματισμούγιααρχάριους.Scratch&Aρρ Inventor:Mιαπρώτησύγκριση [Programingenvironments fornovices.Scratch&AρρInventor:Acomparison].InProceedings of the 7th Panhellenic Conference in Teaching Informatics.

Papert,S.(1980).Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas.NewYork:BasicBooksInc.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.119

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500111

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.009

http://dx.doi.org/10.14742/ajet.832


http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2361276.2361291

http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/ppej.8779


47

Pea,R.D. (1986).Language-independentconceptualbugs innoviceprogramming.Journal of Educational Computing Research,2(1),25–36.doi:10.2190/689T-1R2A-X4W4-29J2

Quinn,C.N.(2011).Designing mLearning: tapping into the mobile revolution for organizational performance.JohnWiley&Sons.

Resnick,M.,Maloney,J.,Monroy-Hernández,A.,Rusk,N.,Eastmond,E.,Brennan,K.,&Kafai,Y.et al.(2009).Scratch:Programmingforall.Communications of the ACM,52(11),60–67.doi:10.1145/1592761.1592779

Robins,A.,Rountree,J.,&Rountree,N.(2003).Learningandteachingprogramming:Areviewanddiscussion.Computer Science Education,13(2),137–172.doi:10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200

Seipold,J.,&Pachler,N.(2011).Evaluatingmobilelearningpracticetowardsaframeworkforanalysisofuser-generatedcontextswithreferencetothesocio-culturalecologyofmobilelearning.Medienpaedagogik,19,1–13.

Shuler,C.,Winters,N.,&West,M.(2012).The future of mobile learning: Implications for policy makers and planners.Paris:UNESCO.

Smith,M.,Kukulska-Hulme,A.,&Page,A.(2012).Educationalusecasesfromasharedexplorationofe-booksandiPads.InG.Tiong-Thye(Ed.),E-books and E-readers for E-learning(pp.25–53).Wellington,NewZealand:VictoriaBusinessSchool,VictoriaUniversityofWellington.

Snell,S.,&Snell-Siddle,C.(2013).Mobilelearning:Theeffectsofgenderandageonperceptionsoftheuseofmobiletools.InProceedings of the Second International Conference on Informatics Engineering & Information Science (ICIEIS ’13)(pp.274-281).TheSocietyofDigitalInformationandWirelessCommunication.

van’t Hooft, M. (2013). The potential of mobile technologies to connect teaching and learning inside andoutsideoftheclassroom.InEmerging Technologies for the Classroom(pp.175–186).NewYork:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_12

Vavoula,G.,&Karagiannidis,C.(2005,November).Designingmobilelearningexperiences.InProceedings of the Panhellenic Conference on Informatics(pp.534-544).Berlin-Heidelberg:Springer.

West,D.M.(2013).Mobile learning: Transforming education, engaging students, and improving outcomes.Washington,DC:CenterforTechnologyInnovationatBrookings.

Wilson,A.,Hainey,T.,&Connolly,T.(2012,October).Evaluationofcomputergamesdevelopedbyprimaryschoolchildrentogaugeunderstandingofprogrammingconcepts.InProceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning.AcademicConferencesInternationalLimited.

Wojciechowski,R.,&Cellary,W.(2013).Evaluationoflearner’sattitudetowardlearninginARIESaugmentedrealityenvironments.Computers & Education,68,570–585.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.014

Wong, L. H. (2012). A learner‐centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,43(1),E19–E23.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01245.x

Zhang,J.X.,Liu,L.,OrdóñezdePablos,P.,&She,J.(2014).Theauxiliaryroleofinformationtechnologyinteaching:EnhancingprogrammingcourseusingAlice.International Journal of Engineering Education,30(3),560–565.

Emmanuel Fokides is a lecturer in the Department of Primary School Education, University of the Aegean, Greece. His courses focus on the educational uses of Virtual Reality, digital storytelling, Augmented Reality, and Serious Games. Since 1994, he has been involved in a number of research projects regarding distance and lifelong learning and the educational uses of Virtual and Augmented Reality. His work is published in several conference proceedings, international volumes, and journals.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/689T-1R2A-X4W4-29J2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779

http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4696-5_12


http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01245.x

teaching basic programming concepts to young primary...

Documents