Abstract
In computer science, computer systems are both, objects of investigation and tools that enable creative learning and design. Tools for learning have a long tradition in computer science education. Already in the late 1960s, Papert developed a concept which had an immense impact on the development of informal education in the following years: his theory of constructionism understands learning as a creative process of knowledge construction that is most effective when learners create something purposeful that they can try out, show around, discuss, analyse and receive praise for. By now, there are numerous learning and programming environments that are based on the constructionist ideas. Modern tools offer opportunities for students to learn in motivating ways and gain impressive results in programming games, animations, implementing 3D models or developing interactive objects. This article gives an overview of computer science education research related to tools and media to be used in educational settings. We analyse different types of tools with a special focus on the categorization and development of tools for student adequate physical computing activities in the classroom. Research around the development and evaluation of tools and learning resources in the domain of physical computing is illustrated with the example of “My Interactive Garden”, a constructionist learning and programming environment. It is explained how the results from empirical studies are integrated in the continuous development of the learning material.
About the authors
Mareen Przybylla is research associate and doctoral student at the professorship for Didactics of Computer Science at the University of Potsdam, Germany. Her main research interest is physical computing in computer science education.
Ralf Romeike is the head of the Computing Education Research Group at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Germany.
Literature
1. I. Diethelm, P. Hubwieser and R. Klaus: Students, Teachers and Phenomena: Educational Reconstruction for Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 164–173). Koli, Finland: ACM, 2012.10.1145/2401796.2401823Search in Google Scholar
2. T. Brinda, H. Puhlmann and C. Schulte: Bridging ICT and CS: Educational Standards for Computer Science in Lower Secondary Education. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 288–292). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2009.10.1145/1562877.1562965Search in Google Scholar
3. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.: Bildungsstandards Informatik für die Sekundarstufe II [Educational standards for computer science in upper secondary education]. LOG IN 36(183/184), supplement (2016).Search in Google Scholar
4. P. Gross and K. Powers: Work in progress-a meta-study of software tools for introductory programming. In Proc., IEEE, 2006.Search in Google Scholar
5. A. Grillenberger, M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Bringing CS Innovations to the Classroom Using the Model of Educational Reconstruction. In A. Brodnik & F. Tort (Eds), Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives, ISSEP 2016 (pp. 31–39). Münster, 2016.Search in Google Scholar
6. A. Grillenberger and R. Romeike: Analyzing the Twitter Data Stream Using the Snap! Learning Environment. In Informatics in Schools. Curricula, Competences, and Competitions. ISSEP 2015 (pp. 155–164). Springer, 2015.10.1007/978-3-319-25396-1_14Search in Google Scholar
7. P. Heimann, G. Otto and W. Schulz: Unterricht: Analyse und Planung (10th ed.) Hannover: Schroedel, 1979.Search in Google Scholar
8. P. Kastl, O. Krisch and R. Romeike: 3D Printing as Medium for Motivation and Creativity in Computer Science Lessons. In V. Dagiene & A. Hellas (Eds), Informatics in Schools: Focus on Learning Programming. ISSEP 2017 (Vol. 10696, pp. 27–36). Cham: Springer, 2017.10.1007/978-3-319-71483-7_3Search in Google Scholar
9. C. Kelleher and R. Pausch: Lowering the barriers to programming: A Taxonomy of Programming Environments and Languages for Novice Programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83–137, 2005.10.1145/1089733.1089734Search in Google Scholar
10. D. O’Sullivan and T. Igoe, Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. Boston: Thomson Course Technology PTR, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
11. S. Papert.: Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, 1980.Search in Google Scholar
12. S. Papert: The connected family: Building the digital general gap. Atlanta, GA: Long St. Pr., 1996.Search in Google Scholar
13. S. Papert and I. Harel: Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds), Constructionism Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing, 1991.Search in Google Scholar
14. A. Pears, S. Seidman, L. Malmi, L. Mannila, E. Adams, J. Bennedsen, M. Devlin and J. Paterson: A Survey of Literature on the Teaching of Introductory Programming. In Working Group Reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 204–223). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2007.10.1145/1345375.1345441Search in Google Scholar
15. M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: My Interactive Garden – A Constructionist Approach to Creative Learning with Interactive Installations in Computing Education. In C. Kynigos, J. E. Clayson, & N. Yiannoutsou (Eds), Constructionism: Theory, Practice and Impact. Proceedings of Constructionism 2012 (pp. 395–404). 2012.Search in Google Scholar
16. M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Overcoming Issues with Students’ Perceptions of Informatics in Everyday Life and Education with Physical Computing – Suggestions for the Enrichment of Computer Science Classes. In ISSEP 2014 – 7th Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives (pp. 9–20). 2014.Search in Google Scholar
17. M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Key Competences with Physical Computing. In Proceedings of Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT (KEYCIT) 2014. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
18. M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Concept-Maps als Mittel zur Visualisierung des Lernzuwachses in einem Physical-Computing-Projekt. In J. Gallenbacher (Ed.), Informatik allgemeinbildend begreifen – INFOS2015 (pp. 247–256). Darmstadt: Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), 2015.Search in Google Scholar
19. M. Przybylla: Physical Computing for Novices: Using the TinkerKit with Snap4Arduino. In A. Brodnik & F. Tort (Eds), Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2016) (pp. 74–75). Münster, 2016.Search in Google Scholar
20. M. Przybylla, P. Israel, J. Streichert and R. Romeike: Bridging Motivation Gaps with Physical Computing in CS Education. In ISSEP 2016 (p. 53). 2016.10.1145/2960310.2960351Search in Google Scholar
21. M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Von Eingebetteten Systemen zu Physical Computing: Grundlagen für Informatikunterricht in der digitalen Welt. In I. Diethelm (Ed.), Informatische Bildung zum Verstehen und Gestalten der digitalen Welt (pp. 257–266). Bonn: Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), 2017.Search in Google Scholar
22. M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: The Nature of Physical Computing in Schools. In Proceedings of 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (in print). Koli, Finland: ACM2017.10.1145/3141880.3141889Search in Google Scholar
23. M. Przybylla, F. Henning, C. Schreiber, and R. Romeike: Teachers’ Expectations and Experience in Physical Computing. In V. Dagiene & A. Hellas (Eds), The 10th International Conference on Informatics in Schools (in print). Helsinki, Finland: Springer, 2017.10.1007/978-3-319-71483-7_5Search in Google Scholar
24. A. Ruf, A. Mühling and P. Hubwieser: Scratch vs. Karel: impact on learning outcomes and motivation. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 50–59). ACM, 2014.10.1145/2670757.2670772Search in Google Scholar
25. M. Richards, M. Petre and A. K. Bandara: Starting with UbiComp: Using the SenseBoards to Introduce Computing (pp. 583–588). Raleigh: ACM, 2012.10.1145/2157136.2157306Search in Google Scholar
26. R. Romeike and D. Reichert: PicoCrickets als Zugang zur Informatik in der Grundschule (pp. 177–186). Münster: Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), 2011.Search in Google Scholar
27. N. Rusk, M. Resnick, R. Berg and M. Pezalla-Granlund: New Pathways into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69, 2008.10.1007/s10956-007-9082-2Search in Google Scholar
28. M. Resnick and B. Silverman: Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 117–122). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2005.10.1145/1109540.1109556Search in Google Scholar
29. S. Sentance, J. Waite, S. Hodges, E. Macleod and L. Yeomans: “Creating cool stuff” – Pupils’ experience of the BBC micro:bit. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 531–536). 2017.10.1145/3017680.3017749Search in Google Scholar
30. M. Uljens: School didactics and learning. Psychology Press Ltd, 1998.Search in Google Scholar
31. M. Wilde, K. Bätz, A. Kovaleva and D. Urhahne: Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer Motivation (KIM) (Testing a short scale of intrinsic motivation). Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 15, 31–45, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
32. P. Blikstein: Gears of Our Childhood: Constructionist Toolkits, Robotics, and Physical Computing, Past and Future. In J. P. Hourcade, E. A. Miller, & A. Egeland (Eds), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 173–182). New York City: ACM, 2013.10.1145/2485760.2485786Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
