Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren

Hidekuni Tsukamoto; Yasuhiro Takemura; Yasumasa Oomori; Isamu Ikeda; Hideo Nagumo; Akito Monden; Ken Ichi Matsumoto

doi:10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571

Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren

Hidekuni Tsukamoto, Yasuhiro Takemura, Yasumasa Oomori, Isamu Ikeda, Hideo Nagumo, Akito Monden, Ken Ichi Matsumoto

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to compare textual programming languages and visual programming languages from the aspect of motivation. As a textual programming language, Processing programming language was used, and as visual programming languages, Scratch, a derivation of Scratch, Teaching materials offered by code.org, and LEGO Mindstorms EV3 were used. Teaching materials using the textual programming language, and those using the visual programming languages were developed separately. A trial experiment of programming education with the textual programming language was conducted to a cohort of seven primary schoolchildren. Trial experiments with the visual programming languages were conducted twice. In each of them, a cohort of eight primary schoolchildren participated. The motivation of the children was assessed using the questionnaire based on the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) motivation model. The results with the visual programming languages suggested that the motivation scores of the children increased as the class progressed when visual programming languages were used. On the other hand, the results with Processing suggested that the variance of Satisfaction factor increased as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used, which further suggested that the Satisfaction scores of the children spread as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	FIE 2016 - Frontiers in Education 2016: The Crossroads of Engineering and Business
Publisher	Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
Volume	2016-November
ISBN (Electronic)	9781509017904
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571
Publication status	Published - Nov 28 2016
Event	46th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE 2016 - Erie, United States Duration: Oct 12 2016 → Oct 15 2016

Other

Other	46th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE 2016
Country	United States
City	Erie
Period	10/12/16 → 10/15/16

Keywords

Primary education
Programming education
Textual programming language
Visual programming language

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Software
Education
Computer Science Applications

Access to Document

10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Tsukamoto, H., Takemura, Y., Oomori, Y., Ikeda, I., Nagumo, H., Monden, A., & Matsumoto, K. I. (2016). Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren. In FIE 2016 - Frontiers in Education 2016: The Crossroads of Engineering and Business (Vol. 2016-November). [7757571] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571

Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren. / Tsukamoto, Hidekuni; Takemura, Yasuhiro; Oomori, Yasumasa; Ikeda, Isamu; Nagumo, Hideo; Monden, Akito; Matsumoto, Ken Ichi.

FIE 2016 - Frontiers in Education 2016: The Crossroads of Engineering and Business. Vol. 2016-November Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2016. 7757571.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

Tsukamoto, H, Takemura, Y, Oomori, Y, Ikeda, I, Nagumo, H, Monden, A & Matsumoto, KI 2016, Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren. in FIE 2016 - Frontiers in Education 2016: The Crossroads of Engineering and Business. vol. 2016-November, 7757571, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 46th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE 2016, Erie, United States, 10/12/16. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571

Tsukamoto H, Takemura Y, Oomori Y, Ikeda I, Nagumo H, Monden A et al. Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren. In FIE 2016 - Frontiers in Education 2016: The Crossroads of Engineering and Business. Vol. 2016-November. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. 2016. 7757571 https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571

Tsukamoto, Hidekuni ; Takemura, Yasuhiro ; Oomori, Yasumasa ; Ikeda, Isamu ; Nagumo, Hideo ; Monden, Akito ; Matsumoto, Ken Ichi. / Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren. FIE 2016 - Frontiers in Education 2016: The Crossroads of Engineering and Business. Vol. 2016-November Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2016.

@inproceedings{9d0a7a21d62947ecbab138563ce5a85f,

title = "Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren",

abstract = "The purpose of this research is to compare textual programming languages and visual programming languages from the aspect of motivation. As a textual programming language, Processing programming language was used, and as visual programming languages, Scratch, a derivation of Scratch, Teaching materials offered by code.org, and LEGO Mindstorms EV3 were used. Teaching materials using the textual programming language, and those using the visual programming languages were developed separately. A trial experiment of programming education with the textual programming language was conducted to a cohort of seven primary schoolchildren. Trial experiments with the visual programming languages were conducted twice. In each of them, a cohort of eight primary schoolchildren participated. The motivation of the children was assessed using the questionnaire based on the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) motivation model. The results with the visual programming languages suggested that the motivation scores of the children increased as the class progressed when visual programming languages were used. On the other hand, the results with Processing suggested that the variance of Satisfaction factor increased as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used, which further suggested that the Satisfaction scores of the children spread as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used.",

keywords = "Primary education, Programming education, Textual programming language, Visual programming language",

author = "Hidekuni Tsukamoto and Yasuhiro Takemura and Yasumasa Oomori and Isamu Ikeda and Hideo Nagumo and Akito Monden and Matsumoto, {Ken Ichi}",

year = "2016",

month = nov,

day = "28",

doi = "10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571",

language = "English",

volume = "2016-November",

booktitle = "FIE 2016 - Frontiers in Education 2016: The Crossroads of Engineering and Business",

publisher = "Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.",

note = "46th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE 2016 ; Conference date: 12-10-2016 Through 15-10-2016",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren

AU - Tsukamoto, Hidekuni

AU - Takemura, Yasuhiro

AU - Oomori, Yasumasa

AU - Ikeda, Isamu

AU - Nagumo, Hideo

AU - Monden, Akito

AU - Matsumoto, Ken Ichi

PY - 2016/11/28

Y1 - 2016/11/28

N2 - The purpose of this research is to compare textual programming languages and visual programming languages from the aspect of motivation. As a textual programming language, Processing programming language was used, and as visual programming languages, Scratch, a derivation of Scratch, Teaching materials offered by code.org, and LEGO Mindstorms EV3 were used. Teaching materials using the textual programming language, and those using the visual programming languages were developed separately. A trial experiment of programming education with the textual programming language was conducted to a cohort of seven primary schoolchildren. Trial experiments with the visual programming languages were conducted twice. In each of them, a cohort of eight primary schoolchildren participated. The motivation of the children was assessed using the questionnaire based on the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) motivation model. The results with the visual programming languages suggested that the motivation scores of the children increased as the class progressed when visual programming languages were used. On the other hand, the results with Processing suggested that the variance of Satisfaction factor increased as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used, which further suggested that the Satisfaction scores of the children spread as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used.

AB - The purpose of this research is to compare textual programming languages and visual programming languages from the aspect of motivation. As a textual programming language, Processing programming language was used, and as visual programming languages, Scratch, a derivation of Scratch, Teaching materials offered by code.org, and LEGO Mindstorms EV3 were used. Teaching materials using the textual programming language, and those using the visual programming languages were developed separately. A trial experiment of programming education with the textual programming language was conducted to a cohort of seven primary schoolchildren. Trial experiments with the visual programming languages were conducted twice. In each of them, a cohort of eight primary schoolchildren participated. The motivation of the children was assessed using the questionnaire based on the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) motivation model. The results with the visual programming languages suggested that the motivation scores of the children increased as the class progressed when visual programming languages were used. On the other hand, the results with Processing suggested that the variance of Satisfaction factor increased as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used, which further suggested that the Satisfaction scores of the children spread as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used.

KW - Primary education

KW - Programming education

KW - Textual programming language

KW - Visual programming language

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006741496&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006741496&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571

DO - 10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:85006741496

VL - 2016-November

BT - FIE 2016 - Frontiers in Education 2016: The Crossroads of Engineering and Business

PB - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.

T2 - 46th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE 2016

Y2 - 12 October 2016 through 15 October 2016

ER -

Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren

Abstract

Other

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this