presentation for wipsce 2017 - development of computational thinking skills through unplugged...

Development of Computational Thinking Skillsthrough Unplugged Activities in Primary School

Christian P. BRACKMANN1, Marcos ROMÁN-GONZÁLEZ2, Gregorio ROBLES2, Jesús MORENO-LEÓN2, Ana CASALI3, Dante BARONE1

1(IFFAT, UFRGS - Brazil), 2(UNED, URJC - Spain), 3(UNR - Argentina)

{WiPSCE, Nijmegen, 09th November 2017}

INTRODUCTION

WiPSCE 2017 - The 12th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education - Nijmegen, 9th November

Computational thinking (CT) is nowadays being widely adopted and investigated in many countries

all over the world….

INTRODUCTION


Two main approaches to develop CT skills in school

INTRODUCTION



Computer programming

activities

INTRODUCTION




activities

Fundamental way that enables CT to come alive

A demonstration of computational

competencies

INTRODUCTION




activities



competencies

Unplugged activities

INTRODUCTION




activities



competencies

Unplugged activities

For schools without basic

technology resources

For early ages with limited screen time

BACKGROUND

To what extent has the unplugged approach been investigated regarding CT development?

• SLR (Kalelioglu et al., 2016) 34 of 125 articles (27,2%)

To what extent are in-service teachers using unplugged activities in their CS lessons?

• Survey (Sentance et al., 2015) 47 of 357 teachers (13%)

To what extent do unplugged activities enhance confidence and interest in CS?

• Non conclusive results

To what extent does the unplugged approach works for CS teachers training?

• Survey (Curzon et al., 2013, 2014) Positive results

To what extent are unplugged activities effective to improve CT skills?

• Pre-experimental research: pretest-posttest without control group (e.g., Rodríguez et al., 2017) Positive results in middle-school

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of experimental investigations that prove the effectiveness

of the unplugged activities in the development of CT skills, particularly in

Primary School

RESEARCH QUESTION



Is the unplugged approach effective for developing CT skills, specifically in Primary School?

RESEARCH QUESTION

RESEARCH QUESTION


Co

mp

uta

tio

nal

Th

inki

ngPro

blem

-Solvin

gIs the unplugged approach effective for developing

CT skills, specifically in Primary School?

METHOD {Research Design}




Week #1



Week #1 Week #2 – Week #6



Week #1 Week #7Week #2 – Week #6

METHOD {Participants}


Grade Age ConditionGender

TotalBoys Girls

School A 5th 10-11 y.o.

Control

Experimental

School B 6th 11-12 y.o.

Control

Experimental

Total 73




TotalBoys Girls


Control 10 13

Experimental 10 10


Control 6 8

Experimental 9 7

Total 73




TotalBoys Girls


Control 10 13 23

Experimental 10 10 20


Control 6 8

Experimental 9 7

Total 73




TotalBoys Girls


Control 10 13 23



Control 6 8 14

Experimental 9 7 16

Total 73




TotalBoys Girls


Control 10 13 23



Control 6 8 14

Experimental 9 7 16

Total 35 38 73

METHOD {Teaching Materials}


Example #1: “Decomposition” activity


Example #1: “Decomposition” activity Example #2: “Monica’s Map” activity


Example #1: “Decomposition” activity Example #2: “Monica’s Map” activity

Example #3: “Elephants” activity


Example #4: “Tetris” activity


Example #4: “Tetris” activity Example #5: “Repetition Drawing” activity


Example #4: “Tetris” activity Example #5: “Repetition Drawing” activity

Example #6: “Monica’s Automata”

METHOD {Assessment Instruments}


https://goo.gl/5O06Oh





The CT-test has a precise (although necessarily reductionist) operational definition of CT:





The CT-test has a precise (although necessarily reductionist) operational definition of CT:

“CT is the ability to formulate and solve problems by relying on fundamental concepts of

computation: sequences, loops, conditionals, functions, and variables; and using the inherent

logic of computer programming”



The specifications of the CT-test are:

• Target population: 5th – 10th Grade students (10-16 years old)

• Type of instrument: multiple-choice test.

• Length: 28 items; administered online in a maximum time of 45 minutes.


Computational Concept

• Basic directions

• Loops-Repeat times

• Loops-Repeat until

• If-Simple conditional

• If/else-Complex conditional

• While conditional

• Simple functions














Style of Answers

• Visual arrows

• Visual blocks














Style of Answers

• Visual arrows

• Visual blocks

Required Cognitive Task

• Sequencing

• Completing

• Debugging







Item #8 (‘maze’):loops ‘repeat times’ (nested); ‘visual blocks’; ‘sequencing’.



Item #11 (‘maze’):loops ‘repeat until + repeat times’ (nested); ‘visual arrows’; ‘debugging’.



Item #18 (‘maze’):loops ‘repeat until’ + if/else conditional (nested); ‘visual blocks’; ‘sequencing’.



Item #26 (‘canvas’): loops ‘repeat times’ + simple functions (nested); ‘visual blocks’; ‘completing’.




Reliability :

• Internal Consistency r=.80

• Temporal Stability r=.70

Validity:

• Content Validity

• Criterion Validity

• Cognitive variables

• Non-cognitive variables

• Convergent Validity

• Bebras Tasks

• Dr. Scratch

Ro

mán

-Go

nzá

lez

et a

l. (2

01

5, 2

01

7a,

20

17

b)


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION{Quantitative Results}




d=.17

d=.80



ANCOVAF(1,72) = 11.69**

Global Effect Sized=.59

{moderate-large effect}

d=.17

d=.80



ANCOVAF(1,72) = 11.69**


{moderate-large effect}

d=.17

d=.80

≈Global Effect Size

d=.62

12 weeks quasi-experimentCode.org Course7th & 8th Grade

(Román-González, 2016)



5th Grade


6th Grade


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION{Qualitative Results}


“Decomposition” activity

LIMITATIONS AND THREATS TO VALIDITY


• The CT-test is heavily focused on ‘computational concepts’,only partially covers ‘computational practices’, and ignores‘computational perspectives’.

• The CT-test has a (deliberately) reductionist conception of CT,which puts over-emphasis on path-finding algorithms.

LIMITATIONS AND THREATS TO VALIDITY


• The CT-test is heavily focused on ‘computational concepts’,only partially covers ‘computational practices’, and ignores‘computational perspectives’.

• The CT-test has a (deliberately) reductionist conception of CT,which puts over-emphasis on path-finding algorithms.

• The unplugged activities used along the research might beexcessively aligned with the items of the CT-test, which couldinflate the effect size of the quasi-experiment.

• The unplugged activities were conducted by one of theresearchers, not by the regular teacher.

• Small size of the sample in our quasi-experiment (N < 120).

CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH


• Conclusion #1: The unplugged approach may beeffective to develop computational thinking inPrimary School.




• Conclusion #2: The effect size of the unpluggedapproach to develop CT, seems to be similar to theone of programming.




• Conclusion #2: The effect size of the unpluggedapproach to develop CT, seems to be similar to theone of programming.

• Conclusion #3: This results reinforce the conceptionof CT as a problem-solving cognitive ability whosedevelopment can be disconnected from computerprogramming.



How and when to combine and/or to merge unplugged and plugged activities, in order to

optimize the CT development?



How and when to combine and/or to merge unplugged and plugged activities, in order to

optimize the CT development?

Klopfenstein et al., 2017

REFERENCESPaul Curzon. 2013. cs4fn and computational thinking unplugged. In Proceedings of the 8thWorkshop in Primary andSecondary Computing Education. ACM, 47–50.

Paul Curzon, Peter W McOwan, Nicola Plant, and Laura R Meagher. 2014. Introducing teachers to computational thinkingusing unplugged storytelling. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM,89–92.

Filiz Kalelioglu, Yasemin Gülbahar, and Volkan Kukul. 2016. A Framework for Computational Thinking Based on aSystematic Research Review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing 4, 3 (2016), 583.

Lorenz Klopfenstein, Andiy Fedosyeyev, and Alessandro Bogliolo. 2017. Bringing an unplugged coding card game toaugmented reality. 9800–9805.

Brandon Rodriguez, Kennicutt Stephen, Cyndi Rader, and Tracy Camp. 2017. Assessing Computational Thinking in CSUnplugged Activities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.ACM, Seattle, Washington, USA, 501–506.

Marcos Román-González. 2015. Computational Thinking Test: Design Guidelines and Content Validation. In Proceedingsof the 7th Annual International Conference on Education and NewLearning Technologies (EDULEARN 2015). IATED,Barcelona, Spain, 2436–2444.

Marcos Román-González. 2016. Codigoalfabetización y Pensamiento Computacional en Educación Primaria ySecundaria: Validación de un Instrumento y Evaluación de Programas. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidad Nacional deEducación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain.

Marcos Román-González, Juan-Carlos Pérez-González, and Carmen Jiménez-Fernández. 2017. Which cognitive abilitiesunderlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior72 (July 2017), 678–691.

Marcos Román-González, Jesús Moreno-León, and Gregorio Robles. 2017. Complementary Tools for ComputationalThinking Assessment. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (CTE 2017), S. CKong, J Sheldon, and K. Y Li (Eds.). The Education University of Hong Kong, 154–159.

Sue Sentance and Andrew Csizmadia. 2015. Teachers’ perspectives on successful strategies for teaching Computing inschool. Paper presented at IFIP TCS 2015 (2015).

FOLLOW UP & CONTACT


Thanks for your attention

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]