4.7 Article

Effects of programming tools with different degrees of embodiment on learning Boolean operations

Journal

EDUCATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 6211-6231

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10639-021-10884-7

Keywords

programming education; embodied learning; degree of embodiment; Boolean operation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores the effects of programming tools with different degrees of embodiment on learning Boolean operations in elementary school. The results indicate that the group using the programming tool with a high degree of embodiment performed better in terms of programming work quality and test scores compared to the group using the tool with a middle degree of embodiment.
One of the aspects of programming that novices often struggle with is the understanding of abstract concepts, such as variables, loops, expressions, and especially Boolean operations. This paper aims to explore the effects of programming tools with different degrees of embodiment on learning Boolean operations in elementary school. To this end, 67 fifth graders were divided into two groups and participated in a 16-week quasi-experiment. The two groups were randomly assigned to two treatments: the Middle Degree of Embodiment class using AS-Block and the High Degree of Embodiment class using Boson Kits. The results indicated that (a) there were no significant differences in learning attitude (p>.05), learning immersion (p>.05), compatibility (p>.05) and cognitive load (p>.05) between the two groups; and (b) the High Degree of Embodiment class performed significantly better in terms of the quality of programming works (p<.01, r(G)=.533) and the final test score (p<.05, r(G)=.860) than the Middle Degree of Embodiment class. The experimental results are presented, and their implications for the instruction and development of programming education and embodied learning are addressed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available