DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of Computer-Based and Robotic Programming

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of Computer-Based and Robotic Programming A COMPARISON OF COMPUTER-BASED AND ROBOTIC PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTION: IMPACT OF SCRATCH VERSUS COZMO ON MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ COMPUTATIONAL THINKING, SPATIAL SKILLS, COMPETENCY BELIEFS, AND ENGAGEMENT A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Shannon Marshall Smith August 2019 © Copyright, 2019 by Shannon Marshall Smith All Rights Reserved ii A dissertation written by Shannon Marshall Smith B.S., Ohio University, 1997 M.A., Muskingum University, 2004 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2019 Approved by _________________________, Director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Elena Novak _________________________, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Chia-Ling Kuo _________________________, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Jason Schenker Accepted by _________________________, Director, School of Lifespan Development and Mary Dellmann-Jenkins Educational Services _________________________, Dean, College of Education, Health, and Human James Hannon Services iii SMITH, SHANNON MARSHALL, Ph.D., August 2019 A COMPARISON OF COMPUTER-BASED AND ROBOTIC PROGRAMMING INSTRUCTION: IMPACT OF SCRATCH VERSUS COZMO ON MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS’ COMPUTATIONAL THINKING, SPATIAL SKILLS, COMPETENCY BELIEFS, AND ENGAGEMENT (249 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Elena Novak, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of coding activities supported by the artificially intelligent, animated emotional-educational robot Cozmo on middle school students’ computational thinking, spatial skills, competency beliefs, and engagement compared to the more traditional computer-based program of Scratch. Two versions of the coding curriculum unit were developed. Both versions shared the same content and instructional features, but differed in the code blocks used in the Scratch and Cozmo programs. Two intact seventh grade classes at a public middle school in the Midwest participated in the study during their regularly scheduled Technology course. One class received the Scratch coding curriculum (N = 21), and the other class received the robotics coding curriculum (N = 22). Results revealed non-significant differences in computational thinking, mental rotation skills and competency beliefs among the Scratch and Cozmo interventions. However, students found Cozmo to be more engaging than Scratch. Both interventions significantly improved students’ computational thinking skills, mental rotation skills, and competency beliefs from pre- to post-test. This study contributes to the scarce literature on programming education in a public school setting with a diverse group of students. The positive gains in both the cognitive and affective domains of learning found in this study are encouraging and can serve as a point of reference for researchers, curriculum designers, and educators with the desire to introduce students to programming. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my dissertation director Dr. Elena Novak for guiding, challenging, and supporting me throughout the entire dissertation process. I gratefully acknowledge my dissertation committee members Dr. Chia-Ling Kuo and Dr. Jason Schenker for their invaluable advice and feedback, my graduate faculty representative Dr. Jong-Hoon Kim for his helpful suggestions, and researchers Anthony Shreffler and Fred Nyangaresi for their assistance and reassurance during this journey. I would also like to thank the Graduate Student Senate for funding and the students and staff at New Philadelphia City Schools for making this study possible. The completion of this dissertation would not have happened without the unconditional love and support of my family. My parents have always been models of the perfect blend of love, humor, fun, and hard work. Doug is still a beacon capable of brightening the darkest day. My children are my greatest inspiration and their love, patience, and support have sustained me throughout this process; from the cups of tea, to the notes and hugs that kept me going through every challenge. The Friday lunches and unending support and laughs made possible by my friend Debbie have also been instrumental throughout my studies and the dissertation process. Words cannot adequately express my love and thanks for the blessing of my family and friends. This dissertation is dedicated to them. In the words of 1 Corinthians 13:13, “And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love.” iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 Background ...................................................................................................................1 Computational thinking .........................................................................................3 Scratch ...................................................................................................................4 Educational Robotics .............................................................................................8 Cozmo ..................................................................................................................14 Emotions, technology, and learning ....................................................................17 Purpose .......................................................................................................................19 Research question .......................................................................................................20 Hypotheses ..................................................................................................................20 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................20 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................................22 STEM ..........................................................................................................................22 Constructionism ...................................................................................................23 Computer programming/Coding .........................................................................28 Tools ...........................................................................................................................30 Scratch .................................................................................................................31 Robotics ...............................................................................................................38 Technology, Emotions, and Learning .........................................................................68 Cozmo ..................................................................................................................72 Computational Thinking .............................................................................................78 Spatial Skills ...............................................................................................................87 Competency Beliefs ....................................................................................................90 Engagement ................................................................................................................92 Research question .......................................................................................................96 Hypothesis 1 ...............................................................................................................96 Hypothesis 2 ...............................................................................................................98 Hypothesis 3 ...............................................................................................................99 Hypothesis 4 .............................................................................................................101 Significance of Study ................................................................................................103 v III. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................105 Introduction ...............................................................................................................105 Research Question ....................................................................................................105 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................105 Participants ...............................................................................................................106 Curriculum Description ............................................................................................107 Instructional methods ................................................................................................111 Computer-based instructional method ...............................................................111
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Moving Beyond Syntax: Lessons from 20 Years of Blocks Programing in Agentsheets
    Moving Beyond Syntax: Lessons from 20 Years of Blocks Programing in AgentSheets Alexander Repenning University of Colorado Boulder, Colorado 80309 [email protected] School of Education University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland (PH FHNW) Brugg-Windisch, Switzerland [email protected] Abstract The blocks programming community has been preoccupied the “compute prime numbers” using C++ and Emacs activity with identifying syntactic obstacles that keep novices from learning which, by the vast majority of kids, is considered to be hard to program. Unfortunately, this focus is now holding back research and boring. In the upper right corner is the elusive holy grail of from systematically investigating various technological affordances Computer Science education providing activities that are easy, that can make programming more accessible. Employing approaches or at least accessible, and exciting. This journey started in the from program analysis, program visualization, and real-time lower left corner and is gradually moving towards the upper interfaces can push blocks programming beyond syntax towards the support of semantics and even pragmatics. Syntactic support could right corner. The path of this journey is not straight. It includes be compared to checking spelling and grammar in word processing. setbacks and detours. Also, while progress has been made, the Spell checking is relatively simple to implement and immediately journey is far from over. useful, but provides essentially no support to create meaningful text. Over the last 25 years, I have worked to empower students to create their own games, simulations, and robots. In this time I have explored, combined, and evaluated a number of programming paradigms.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Visual Languages and Sentient Systems
    Journal of Visual Languages and Sentient Systems Editor-in-Chief Shi-Kuo Chang, University of Pittsburgh, USA Co-Editors-in-Chief Gennaro Costagliola, University of Salerno, Italy Paolo Nesi, University of Florence, Italy Gem Stapleton, University of Brighton, UK Franklyn Turbak, Wellesley College, USA An Open Access Journal published by KSI Research Inc. 156 Park Square Lane, Pittsburgh, PA 15238 USA i VLSS Editorial Board Tim Arndt, Cleveland State University, USA Alan F. Blackwell, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Paolo Bottoni, University of Rome, Italy Francesco Colace, Univeristy of Salerno, Italy Maria Francesca Costabile, University of Bari, Italy Philip T. Cox, Dalhousie University, Canada Martin Erwig, Oregon State University, USA Vittorio Fuccella, University of Salerno, Italy Angela Guercio, Kent State University, USA Erland Jungert, Swedish Defence Research Establishment, Sweden Kamen Kanev, Shizuoka University, Japan Robert Laurini, University of Lyon, France Jennifer Leopold, Missouri University of Science & Technology, USA Mark Minas, University of Munich, Germany Brad A. Myers, Carnegie Mellon University, USA Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., New Mexico State University, USA Genny Tortora, University of Salerno, Italy Kang Zhang, University of Texas at Dallas, USA Copyright ⓒ 2017 by KSI Research Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
    [Show full text]
  • Pedagogy in Teaching Computer Science in Schools: a Literature Review. Royal Society
    Pedagogy in teaching Computer Science in schools: A Literature Review Jane Waite Queen Mary University of London and King's College London Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 5 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 8 4 Discussion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 41 5 Summary. ............................................................................................................................................ 52 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 53 Appendix
    [Show full text]
  • Hacia La Educación Del Futuro: El Pensamiento Computacional Como Mecanismo De Aprendizaje Generativo = Towards the Education Of
    e-ISSN 2444-8729 https://doi.org/10.14201/eks20171823358 Hacia la educación del futuro: El pensamiento computacional como mecanismo de aprendizaje generativo Towards the Education of the Future: Computational Thinking as a Generative Learning Mechanism Eduardo Segredo, Gara Miranda, Coromoto León Dpto. de Ingeniería Informática y de Sistemas, Universidad de La Laguna, Spain. {esegredo, gmiranda, cleon}@ull.edu.es Resumen Abstract La transformación de la educación tradicional en una The transformation of traditional education into a Sensitive, educación “SMART” (del inglés, “Sensitive, Manageable, Manageable, Adaptable, Responsive and Timely (SMART) Adaptable, Responsive and Timely”) implica la modernización education involves the comprehensive modernisation of all integral de todos los procesos educativos. Para dicha educational processes. For such a transformation, smart transformación, la incorporación de nuevas pedagogías se pedagogies are needed as a methodological issue while vuelve imprescindible a nivel metodológico, mientras que el smart learning environments represent the technological uso de entornos interactivos e inteligentes de aprendizaje issue, both having as an ultimate goal to cultivate smart supone un hito fundamental a nivel tecnológico. En learners. Smart learners need to develop 21st century skills cualquier caso, el objetivo último de esta transformación es so that they can become into smart citizens of our changing formar y transformar a los estudiantes del futuro para que world. Technology and computers are an essential aspect for desarrollen habilidades del siglo XXI y puedan convertirse this modernisation, not only in terms of technological support así en ciudadanos de nuestro mundo en continuo cambio. for smart environments but also in terms of offering new La tecnología y las computadoras son un aspecto esencial methodologies for smart pedagogy and the development para esta modernización, no solo en términos de soporte of smart skills.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download
    Reviews/Essays Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the State of the Field Shuchi Grover1 and Roy Pea2 Jeannette Wing’s influential article on computational thinking 6 of the fastest-growing job markets through 2018. This CS impera- years ago argued for adding this new competency to every child’s tive has dovetailed with the science policy attention to STEM analytical ability as a vital ingredient of STEM learning. What is com- learning in the United States since the turn of the 21st century. putational thinking? Why did this article resonate with so many and With CT being viewed as at the core of all modern science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines serve as a rallying cry for educators, education researchers, and (Henderson, Cortina, Hazzan, & Wing, 2007) it appears that policy makers? How have they interpreted Wing’s definition, and computing in K–12 is an idea whose time has come. what advances have been made since Wing’s article was published? Of course, the idea of CT is not new. Back in the 1960s, Alan This article frames the current state of discourse on computational Perlis argued for the need for college students of all disciplines to thinking in K–12 education by examining mostly recently published learn programming and the “theory of computation” (Guzdial, academic literature that uses Wing’s article as a springboard, identi- 2008). However in the context of K–12 education, computing first gained popular traction around Seymour Papert’s MIT work fies gaps in research, and articulates priorities for future inquiries.
    [Show full text]
  • Agentcubes: Raising the Ceiling of End-User Development in Education Through Incremental 3D
    AgentCubes: Raising the Ceiling of End-User Development in Education through Incremental 3D Alexander Repenning1,2 & Andri Ioannidou2 1University of Colorado, Computer Science Department, Campus Box 430 2AgentSheets Inc, 6560 Gunpark Dr. Boulder, Colorado 80301 [email protected], [email protected] Abstract 1.1 Trapped by Affordances Now that we have end-user programming An effect that we have called “Trapped by environments capable of empowering kids with no Affordances” [2] has turned out to be common to many programming background to build games in a matter end-user programming approaches aiming for a low of hours, a new quest for raising the ceiling of end- programming threshold. An affordance is a property of user development is emerging. Environments not only an object that strongly suggests how it could be used. focusing on programming, but also including rich The idea of being trapped by an affordance means that, media such as 3D, could work as compelling tools for while initially the affordance makes a task introducing information technology at the K-12 level, extraordinarily simple, later that same affordance gets addressing even the problem of dwindling numbers of in the way. It either fails to help with more complex computer science student enrollments at universities. problems, or even worse, it actually makes a task The new challenge is raising the ceiling without potentially harder by forcing a user to think about a raising the threshold. Based on our experience with problem in a way that is not compatible with the AgentSheets, which has been used worldwide for problem. Affordances can trap users at the syntactic as computational science and game design applications, well as the semantic level, hence preventing the we created a new authoring tool called AgentCubes.
    [Show full text]
  • Deliverable D4.1 (Ver5) Architecture Analysis and Design
    Ref. Ares(2017)1736640 - 31/03/2017 Digital Fabrication and Maker Movement in Education Making Computer – supported Artefacts from Scratch Deliverable D4.1 (ver5) Architecture Analysis and Design This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 731345. 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Acronym: eCraft2Learn Title: Digital Fabrication and Maker Movement in Education: Making Computer- supported Artefacts from Scratch Coordinator: University of Eastern Finland Reference: 731345 Type: RIA Program: HORIZON 2020 Theme: Technologies for Learning and Skills Start: 01. January, 2017 Duration: 24 months Website: http://www.project.ecraft2learn.eu/ E-Mail: [email protected] Consortium: University of Eastern Finland, Finland, (UEF), Coordinator Edumotiva, Greece (EDUMOTIVA) Mälardalen University of Sweden, Sweden (MDH) Zentrum für Soziale Innovation, Austria, (ZSI) The University of Oxford, United Kingdom, (UOXF) Synyo GmbH, Austria, (SYNYO) University of Dundee, Scotland, (UNIVDUN) University of Padua, Italy, (UNIPD) Technopolis City of Athens, Greece (TECHNOPOLIS) Evothings, Sweden (EVOTHINGS) Arduino, Sweden (ARD) Ultimaker, United Kingdom (ULTIMAKER) © 2017 eCraft2Learn| Horizon 2020 | 731345 3 DELIVERABLE DESCRIPTION Number: D4.1 Title: Architecture Analysis and Design Lead beneficiary: UNIVDUN Work package: WP4 Dissemination level: Public (PU) Type Report (R) Due date: 31.03.2017 Submission date: 31.03.2017 Authors: Andrea Alessandrini, UNIVDUN Contributors: Afshin
    [Show full text]
  • Computing Education in K-12 Schools: a Review of the Literature
    Computing Education in K-12 Schools: A Review of the Literature Varvara Garneli Konstantinos Chorianopoulos Michail N. Giannakos Department of Informatics Department of Informatics Department of Computer and Ionian University Ionian University Information Science Corfu, Greece, Corfu, Greece Norwegian University of Science [email protected] [email protected] and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim, Norway [email protected] Abstract—During the last few years, the focus of computer in promoting computer science concepts and practices or science education (CSE) in primary and secondary schools broadening CSE [34][45]. Additionally, implementing (shortly K-12) have reached a significant turning point. This computing lessons in various ways and in a more regular basis study reviews the published papers on the field of K-12 like in the typical school environment, could enhance learning computing education in order to summarize the findings, guide and benefit students with the development of fundamental future studies and give reflections for the major achievements in skills like computational thinking [21] and creativity [15][16]. the area of CSE in K-12 schools. 47 peer-reviewed articles were Computing education and especially programming could collected from a systematic literature search and analyzed, based support students in many ways in a carefully designed learning on a categorization of their main elements. Programming tools, setting. This perspective does not mean that all learners will educational context, and instructional methods are the main become necessarily professional programmers but that they examined categories of this research. Results of this survey show the direction of CSE in schools research during the last years and will gain useful practices and skills of the digital era.
    [Show full text]