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 | |
| 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 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Primary education
- Programming education
- Textual programming language
- Visual programming language
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Software
- Education
- Computer Science Applications
Cite this
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
}
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.
ER -