1,559
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    5
    shares

      Celebrating 65 years of The Computer Journal - free-to-read perspectives - bcs.org/tcj65

      scite_
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Conference Proceedings: found
      Is Open Access

      Investigating the Use of TUIs and GUIs for 6- to 7-Year-Old Programming Learning

      proceedings-article
      1
      Proceedings of the 32nd International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI)
      Human Computer Interaction Conference
      4 - 6 July 2018
      Tangible interaction, multi-touch interaction, embodied interaction, user interfaces
      Bookmark

            Abstract

            There is persistent interest in tangible approaches to supporting young children’s learning of programming, but there has been mixed evidence about its benefits, and few studies have investigated the specific features that offer learning benefits in classroom contexts. This research will involve the use of programming blocks that can be instantiated in two contrasting types of interface: a tangible user interface (TUI) and a graphical user interface (GUI). The system will be designed to minimize extraneous differences between the two interfaces in order to isolate the variables of interest. Using a between-subjects design, the study will investigate the impact of interface type on learning and on attitudinal outcomes for children aged 6 to 7. From an embodied interaction perspective, the study will analyse the cognitive advantages of each interface, including identifying how and why each interface type might affect learning outcomes. The study will also investigate children’s spontaneous gestures as indicators of understanding. Finally, the research will explore the relationships between interface types, attitudes towards computing, engagement and gender.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Contributors
            Conference
            July 2018
            July 2018
            : 1-6
            Affiliations
            [0001]University of Sussex Brighton, UK
            Article
            10.14236/ewic/HCI2018.192
            7541ca08-74f6-4079-80cc-c1b2021f2d6c
            © Almjally. Published by BCS Learning and Development Ltd. Proceedings of British HCI 2018. Belfast, UK.

            This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

            Proceedings of the 32nd International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference
            HCI
            32
            Belfast, UK
            4 - 6 July 2018
            Electronic Workshops in Computing (eWiC)
            Human Computer Interaction Conference
            History
            Product

            1477-9358 BCS Learning & Development

            Self URI (article page): https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14236/ewic/HCI2018.192
            Self URI (journal page): https://ewic.bcs.org/
            Categories
            Electronic Workshops in Computing

            Applied computer science,Computer science,Security & Cryptology,Graphics & Multimedia design,General computer science,Human-computer-interaction
            Tangible interaction,multi-touch interaction,embodied interaction,user interfaces

            REFERENCES

            1. “Renaissance computing: An initiative for promoting student participation in computing,” SIGCSE‟09 - Proc. 40th ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ. 59 63 2009

            2. “Toward an emergent theory of broadening participation in computer science education,” Proc. 43rd ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ. - SIGCSE ‟12 173 2012

            3. Carnegie Mellon University “Alice – Tell Stories. Build Games. Learn to Program,” Alice 2.X 1999 [Online]. Available: http://www.alice.org/. [Accessed: 02-Nov-2017]

            4. MIT “Scratch,” MIT 2003 [Online]. Available: http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Development_of_Scratch_1.0. [Accessed: 31-Jan-2018]

            5. “Greenfoot,” Companion to 19th Annu. ACM SIGPLAN Conf. Object-oriented Program. Syst. Lang. Appl. - OOPSLA ‟04 73 2004

            6. “Educational robots driven by tangible programming languages: A review on the field,” Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 560 Springer Verlag 205 214 2017

            7. “Computing education in children‟s early years: A call for debate,” Br. J. Educ. Technol. 48 1 191 201 Jan. 2017

            8. “Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform tangible user interface design,” Interact. Comput. 25 1 1 20 Jan. 2013

            9. “A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K-12 education,” Proc. - Front. Educ. Conf. FIE 2016–Novem 1 9 Oct. 2016

            10. “The TangibleK Robotics Program: Applied Computational Thinking for Young Children,” Early Child. Res. Pract. 12 2 2010

            11. “Problem Solving by 5-6 Years Old Kindergarten Children in a Computer Programming Environment: A Case Study,” Comput. Educ. 63 April 2013 87 97 2013

            12. “„It‟s Like a Giant Brain With a Keyboard‟: Children‟s Understandings About How Computers Work,” Child. Educ. 93 4 338 345 2017

            13. “Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum,” 72 145 157 Mar. 2014

            14. “Computational thinking,” Commun. ACM 49 3 2006

            15. “Bringing computational thinking to K-12,” ACM Inroads 2 1 48 Feb. 2011

            16. “Evaluating pre-service teachers‟ computational thinking skills in scratch,” Ubiquitous Learn. 10 2 2017

            17. “Computational Thinking in K-12: A Review of the State of the Field,” Educ. Res. 42 1 38 43 2013

            18. “The effects of computer programming on high school students‟ reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving,” Instr. Sci. 45 5 583 602 2017

            19. “Computational thinking tools,” in Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing, VL/HCC 2016 2016–Novem

            20. “Demystifying computational thinking,” Educ. Res. Rev. 22 142 158 2017

            21. COMPUTING AT SCHOOL Computing A CPD toolkit for primary teachers 2014

            22. Royal Society After the reboot?: computing education in UK schools 2017

            23. “More than Robots: An Evaluation of the FIRST Robotics Competition Participant and Institutional Impacts,” 2005

            24. “Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables,” ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 17 2 2017

            25. “New pathways into robotics: Strategies for broadening participation,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 17 1 59 69 2008

            26. “Designing inclusive STEM activities: A comparison of playful interactive experiences across gender,” in IDC 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Interaction Design and Children 2017

            27. “A Serious Game for Developing Computational Thinking and Learning Introductory Computer Programming,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 47 1991 1999 Jan. 2012

            28. “Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation,” ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 15 2 2015

            29. “Advancing students‟ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences,” Rob. Auton. Syst. 75 661 670 2015

            30. “Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students,” Comput. Sci. Educ. 25 2 199 237 Apr. 2015

            31. “The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school,” in SIGCSE‟12 - Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education 2012

            32. “Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools,” Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 19 1 225 237 Jan. 2015

            33. “Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach,” Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 16 4 379 389 Apr. 2012

            34. “Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: exploring cross-age children‟s preferences,” Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 17 8 1775 1786 Dec. 2013

            35. “the Impact of User Interface on Young Children‟S Computational Thinking,” J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Innov. Pract. 16 16 171 193 2017

            36. “Ph.D. Thesis: Graspable User Interfaces (George Fitzmaurice, 1996),” University of Toronto 1996

            37. “Embodied child computer interaction: Why embodiment matters,” interactions 16 2 27 Mar. 2009

            38. Being there?: putting brain, body, and world together again MIT Press 1997

            39. “The CTI framework: informing the design of tangible systems for children,” … 1st Int. Conf. Tangible … 15 17 2007

            40. “Hands on what?,” in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC ‟09 2009 80

            41. “Balancing justice: comparing whole body and controller-based interaction for an abstract domain,” Int. J. Arts Technol. 6 4 388 2013

            42. Hearing gesture?: how our hands help us think Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2003

            43. “„I want my robot to look for food‟: Comparing Kindergartner‟s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 25 3 293 319 2015.

            Comments

            Comment on this article