Добринка Р. Кузмановић, Универзитет у Београду, Филолошки факултет, Београд, Србија, имејл: dobrinka.kuzmanovic@fil.bg.ac.rs
Александар Д. Бауцал, Универзитет у Београду, Филозофски факултет, Београд, Србија
Иновације у настави, XXXVII, 2024/2, стр. 37–54

| PDF | | Extended summary PDF |
DOI: 10.5937/inovacije2402037K

Резиме: Програмирање је дигитална компетенција од суштинског значаја за живот у 21. веку. Последњих деценија образовни системи широм света реформишу наставне програме и укључују програмирање/кодирање као засебан предмет или интегрисано у друге предмете, у све млађем узрасту. Осим у формалном, програмирање се учи и у неформалном образовном контексту (НОК), а у процесу подучавања све се чешће користе образовни роботи. Циљ овог рада јесте упознавање са предностима и изазовима у коришћењу робота Sphero (BB-8 и SPRK+) у подучавању визуелном програмирању у НОК-у и формулисање практичних препорука. Истраживање је спроведено у оквиру пројекта „Учење за 21. век”, у 17 градова у Србији. У попуњавање упитника укључено је 677 ученика (Музр=12,16; СД=1,10), у фокусгрупне интервјуе 42 ученика и 5 водитеља радионица. Примењена је дескриптивна квантитативна и квалитативна тематска анализа. Резултати показују да коришћење робота има додатну образовну, мотивациону и забавну вредност у процесу подучавања програмирању и алгоритамском мишљењу, и из угла учесника и водитеља радионица. Подучавање у НОК-у има низ предности у односу на традиционалну наставу: учење кроз игру, искуствено, креативно учење и решавање проблема, увид да програмирање може да буде занимљиво и не мора да буде „тешко”. У раду су формулисани изазови у подучавању програмирању у НОК-у уз помоћ робота, као и препоруке за наставну праксу.

Кључне речи: образовни роботи, визуелно програмирање, алгоритамско мишљење, основношколски узраст, неформални образовни контекст

Summary: Programming is a digital competence necessary for life in the 21st century. In recent decades, education systems around the world have redefined curricula to include programming as a standalone subject or integrated into other subjects, from an early age. In addition to formal education, programming is also taught in non-formal educational contexts (NEC) and the use of educational robots is becoming more common. The aim of this paper is to familiarize with the advantages and challenges of using Sphero robots (BB-8 and SPRK+) in teaching visual programming in the NEC and to formulate practical implications. The research was conducted as a part of the Learning for the 21st Century project in 17 cities in Serbia. The quantitative research included 677 students (Mage = 12.16; SD = 1.10), and the qualitative 42 students and 5 workshop leaders. Descriptive quantitative and qualitative, thematic analysis was applied. The results show that using robots has additional educational and motivational value in the process of teaching visual programming and algorithmic thinking. From the point of view of the students and workshop leaders, the NEC has a number of advantages compared to traditional teaching of programming: learning through play, experiential learning, creativity and initiative of participants, insight that programming can be interesting, even though it is “hard”. Challenges are formulated in the paper, as well as practical recommendations for teaching practice.

Keywords: educational robots, visual programming, algorithmic thinking, primary school age, non-formal educational context

Литература

• Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019). A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1223
• Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. European Schoolnet.
• Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M. A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., Masiulionytė-Dagienė, V., & Stupurienė, G. (2022). Reviewing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education. Publications Office of the European Union.
• Bosse, Y., & Gerosa, M. A. (2016). Why is programming so difficult to learn? Patterns of Difficulties Related to Programming Learning. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 41(6), 1‒6. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3011286.3011301
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Brodnik, A., Csizmadia, A., Futschek, G., Kralj, L., Lonati, V., Micheuz, P., & Monga, M. (2021). Programming for All: Understanding the Nature of Programs. ArXiv:2111.04887 [Cs]. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.04887.pdf
• Cárdenas-Cobo, J., Puris, A., Novoa-Hernánde P., Parra-Jiménez, A., Moreno-León, J., & Benavides, D. (2021). Using Scratch to improve learning programming in college students: A positive experience from a non-weird country. Electronics, 10(10), 1180. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10101180
• Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93‒100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
• Cheah, C. S. (2020). Factors contributing to the difficulties in teaching and learning of computer programming: A literature review. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep272. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/8247
• Cheng, G. (2019). Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of visual programming environment among boys and girls in primary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.043
• Elsawah, W., & Hill, C. (2023). Barriers to programming education in UAE primary schools: a qualitative review from ICT teachers’ perspectives. Discover Education, 2(20). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-023-00043-0
• Europska komisija (2020). Akcijski plan za digitalno obrazovanje 2021–2027. Prilagodba obrazovanja i osposobljavanja digitalnom dobu. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/
  PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0624&-from=EN
• Europska komisija / EACEA / Eurydice (2022). Informatičko obrazovanje u školama u Europi. Izvješće Eurydicea. Ured za publikacije Europske unije.
• Gardner, T., Leonard, H. C., Waite, J., & Sentance. S. (2022). What do We Know about Computing Education for K-12 in Non-formal Settings? A Systematic Literature Review of Recent Research. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, Volume 1 (str. 264–281). https://doi.org/10.1145/3501385.3543960
• Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to program ‒ difficulties and solutions. International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007, 7. CEE. https://www.academia.edu/14406171/Learning_to_program_difficulties_and_solutions
• Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• Huang, R., Liu, D., Chen, Y., Adarkwah, M. A., Zhang, X.L., Xiao, G.D., Li, X., Zhang, J. J., & Da, T. (2023). Learning for All with AI? 100 Influential Academic Articles of Educational Robots. Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University.
• Jacob S. R., & Warschauer M. (2018). Computational thinking and literacy. Journal of Computer Science Integration, 1(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2018.01.1.1
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Kuzmanović, D. (2017). Empirijska provera konstrukta digitalne pismenosti i analiza prediktora postignuća (doktorska disertacija). Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.
• Kuzmanović, D., Pavlović, Z., Popadić, D. i Milošević, T. (2019). Korišćenje interneta i digitalne tehnologije kod dece i mladih u Srbiji: rezultati istraživanja Deca Evrope na internetu. Institut za psihologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu.
• https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/eu-kids-online/participating-countries/national-languages/serbia
• Kuzmanović, D. (2023). Informatika i računarstvo u osnovnim školama u Srbiji: empirijski nalazi i praktične implikacije. Zavod za vrednovanje kvaliteta obrazovanja i vaspitanja (u procesu objavljivanja).
• Luo F., Antonenko P. D., & Davis E. C. (2020). Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education, 146, 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103759
• Massoudi, M. (2019). A review on challenges and solutions in learning programming courses at undergraduate level. International Journal of Applied Research, 5(8), 146‒149. https://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/2019/vol5issue8/PartC/5-8-51-648.pdf
• Montuori, C., Ronconi, L., Vardanega, T., & Arfé, B. (2022). Exploring Gender Differences in Coding at the Beginning of Primary School. Front. Psychol, 13, 887280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.887280
• Myers, B. (1990). Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualization. J. Vis. Lang. Comput., 1, 97–123.
• OECD (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en
• Park, I., Kim, D., Oh, J., Jang, Y., & Lim, K. (2015). Learning Effects of Pedagogical Robots with Programming in Elementary School Environments in Korea. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i26/80723
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
• Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Orion Press.
• Piedade, J., Dorotea, D., Sampaio, F. F., & Pedro, A. A. (2019). A Cross-analysis of Block-based and Visual Programming Apps with Computer Science Student-Teachers. Education Sciences, 9(181). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030181
• Rich, P. J., Browning, S. F., Perkins, M., Shoop, T., Yoshikawa, E, & Belikov, O. M. (2019). Coding in K-8: International trends in teaching elementary/primary computing. TechTrends, 63(3), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0295-4
• Sáez-López, J. M., Buceta Otero, R., & De Lara García-Cervigón, S. (2021). Introducing robotics and block programming in elementary education. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 24(1),95‒113. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ried.24.1.27649
• Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 764–792.
• Siegle, D. (2017). Technology: Encouraging Creativity and Problem Solving Through Coding. Gifted Child Today, 40(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217517690861
• Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online, The London School of Economics and Political Science. https://doi.org/10.21953/lse.47fdeqj01ofo
• Sun, L., & Zhou, D. (2022). Effective instruction conditions for educational robotics to develop programming ability of K-12 students: A meta-analysis. Journal Computer Assisted Learning, 39, 380–398.
• Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2022). Programming attitudes predict computational thinking: Analysis of differences in gender and programming experience. Computers & Education, 181, 104457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104457
• Tengler, К., Sabitzer, B., & Kastner-Hauler, O. (2020). Programming in primary schools – challenges and opportunities. ICERI2020 Proceedings, 7556‒7563. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2020.1640
• Vilig, K. (2013). Kvalitativna istraživanja u psihologiji. Clio.
• Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S., & Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens ‒ With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/115376
• Wei X., Lin L., Meng N., Tan W., & Kong, S. C. (2020). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational Thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 160, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023
• Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Copyright © 2024 by the authors, licensee Teacher Education Faculty University of Belgrade, SERBIA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original paper is accurately cited