Affiliation:
1. University of Hong Kong
2. International Christian School, Hong Kong
Abstract
Computer programming provides a framework for interdisciplinary learning in sciences, arts and languages. However, increasing integration of programming in K–12 shows that the block-based and text-based dichotomy of programming environments does not reflect the spectrum of their affordance. Hence, educators are confronted with a fundamental hurdle of matching programming environments with learners’ cognitive abilities and learning objectives. This study addresses this challenge by analyzing 111 articles evaluating the affordances of programming environments to identify both structural and theoretical models to support educators’ choice of programming environments. The following dimensions of programming environments were identified: connectivity mode, interface natural language, language inheritance, age appropriateness, cost of environment, output interface, input interface, and project types. For each of these dimensions, the synthesis of the literature ranged from examining its nature and effect on learning programming to the implications of choosing an environment and the critical gaps that future studies should address. The findings offer instructors useful parameters to compare and assess programming environments’ suitability and alignment with learning objectives.
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Reference101 articles.
1. Almanie T., Alqahtani S., Almuhanna A., Almokali S., Guediri S., Alsofayan R. (2019). Let’s Code: A kid-friendly interactive application designed to teach arabic-speaking children text-based programming. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications, 10(7), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2019.0100757
2. Angeli C., Valanides N. (2019). Developing young childrenʼs computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, Article 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018
3. Bachiller-Burgos P., Barbecho I., Calderita L. V., Bustos P., Manso L. J. (2020). LearnBlock: A robot-agnostic educational programming tool. IEEE Access, 8, 30012–30026. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2972410
4. Bers M. U., Flannery L., Kazakoff E. R., Sullivan A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72(C), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
5. Bers M., Seddighin S., Sullivan A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355–377. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/41987/