Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Exploring children's learning experience in constructionism-based coding T

activities through design-based research
Sofia Papavlasopoulou∗, Michail N. Giannakos, Letizia Jaccheri
Department of Computer Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Over the last few years, the integration of coding activities for children in K-12 education has flourished. In
Constructionism addition, novel technological tools and programming environments have offered new opportunities and in-
Coding creased the need to design effective learning experiences. This paper presents a design-based research (DBR)
Computational thinking approach conducted over two years, based on constructionism-based coding experiences for children, following
Engagement
the four stages of DBR. Three iterations (cycles) were designed and examined in total, with participants aged
Children
8–17 years old, using mixed methods. Over the two years, we conducted workshops in which students used a
Design-based research
block-based programming environment (i.e., Scratch) and collaboratively created a socially meaningful artifact
(i.e., a game). The study identifies nine design principles that can help us to achieve higher engagement during
the coding activity. Moreover, positive attitudes and high motivation were found to result in the better man-
agement of cognitive load. Our contribution lies in the theoretical grounding of the results in constructionism
and the emerging design principles. In this way, we provide both theoretical and practical evidence of the value
of constructionism-based coding activities.

1. Introduction Pioneered by Seymour Papert (Papert, 1980), computer program-

ming in education has received a lot of interest from educators and
There is growing evidence supporting the introduction of computer researchers seeking alternative ways of teaching complex problem-
science (CS) and computational thinking (CT) into K-12 education solving skills and providing dynamic learning experiences (Kalelioğlu,
(Hubwieser, Armoni, Giannakos, & Mittermeir, 2014); (Horizon, 2015). 2015; Lye & Koh, 2014). Nowadays, there are a variety of technological
According to Wing (2006 p.33) “CT represents a universally applicable tools and child-friendly programming environments (Papavlasopoulou,
attitude and skill set everyone, not just computer scientists, would be eager to Giannakos, & Jaccheri, 2017b). Many introductory experiences for K-12
learn and use”. CT involves problem solving, design of systems and have been designed around the use of block-based programming en-
understanding human behavior by employing central concepts of CS vironments, such as Scratch, Alice, Blocky, and App Inventor (Zhang,
(Wing, 2006). Organizations like the Computer Science Teachers As- Liu, de Pablos, & She, 2014); (Fields, Vasudevan, & Kafai, 2015)
sociation (CSTA), Informatics Europe, the Cyber Innovation Center, and (Wagner, Gray, Corley, & Wolber, 2013). These environments do not
the National Math and Science Initiative have developed standards require any special expertise but do require careful thinking to tell the
applied to coding education (Hubwieser et al., 2015). Increasing in- computer what to do step by step. Papert's (1980) constructionism ar-
terest in learning coding in pedagogical contexts has also been driven gues that through coding, children have an “object-to-think-with”; in
and disseminated by organizations like [Link] and Codeacademy, the process, they learn about their own thinking (Guzdial, 2004).
which argue for the need to create skills that support future career Constructionism-based learning activities have been widely studied in
opportunities while highlighting the educational advantages that both formal and informal education (Papavlasopoulou, Giannakos, &
coding offers. CT and coding in education have become integral parts of Jaccheri, 2017a). Integrating coding into pedagogical contexts in an
the school curricula in many countries. For example, the United intuitive and engaging experience enhances children's logic, critical
Kingdom has integrated computer programming as a mandatory course thinking, problem-solving, math, and higher-order skills and can
starting from primary school (Jones, 2013), while Denmark promotes change their attitudes towards computing (Sáez-López, Román-
digital literacy, focusing on the knowledge gained from building tech- González, & Vázquez-Cano, 2016); (Kafai & Burke, 2015). There are
nologies (Tuhkala, Wagner, Nielsen, Iversen, & Kärkkäinen, 2018). strong arguments for children to learn how to code, supported by the

∗
Corresponding author. Sem Sælands vei 7-9, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway.
E-mail addresses: spapav@[Link] (S. Papavlasopoulou), michailg@[Link] (M.N. Giannakos), [Link]@[Link] (L. Jaccheri).

[Link]
Received 2 May 2018; Received in revised form 26 December 2018; Accepted 13 January 2019
Available online 16 January 2019
0747-5632/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
([Link]
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

constructionist approach (Kafai & Burke, 2015) (Gallup, 2015). Chil- fourth section presents the results based on the theory of con-
dren need to acquire 21st-century skills, empowering themselves with structionism and the main design principles that guided each of the
the required competences related to the digitalization of our society. iterations. In the fifth section, we discuss and highlight the design im-
Learning how to code has become equally valuable as learning math, plications, derived from this intervention research. We conclude with
reading, and writing (Horizon, 2015). the limitations of our study and avenues for future work.
Several studies have focused on introducing computational literacy
to children in different ways (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017a). Various
programmable and interactive objects exist showing the importance of 2. Related work
involving children from a young age in learning coding (Fessakis, Gouli,
& Mavroudi, 2013). In addition, environments like LiliPad Arduino 2.1. Theoretical framework: constructionism
(Buechley, Eisenberg, Catchen, & Crockett, 2008) have been developed
to attract more girls to CS and CT. The combination of physical fabri- Our theoretical grounding is constructionism, which was developed
cation and coding has proven valuable for increasing engagement in by Papert (Papert, 1997), (Papert, 1980). Constructionism assumes that
programming concepts and practices (Kafai & Vasudevan, 2015), knowledge is better gained when children are deeply and actively in-
especially when it incorporates social and creative dimensions of volved in building their own meaningful constructions. Based on Pia-
learning (Giannakos & Jaccheri, 2018). In a study with sixth-grade get's (1954) theory, which focuses on how mental constructions are
students in Scotland, Robertson and Howells (Robertson & Howells, formed in someone's mind, Papert (Papert, 1980) focuses on explaining
2008) found that making a game is an authentic learning activity of- how construction is a valuable way to create mental constructions. The
fering motivation, enthusiasm, and engagement with learning. There- learner discovers their own knowledge, rather than being a passive
fore, to overcome the various barriers with learning coding (e.g., dif- receiver. Papert's constructionism sees the effectiveness of learning as
ficulty, boredom, confusion, etc.), we need appropriately designed and achieved through making, where learners experience the active con-
engaging coding activities for children. struction of visible-to-the-world artifacts. Computational culture sup-
Constructionism theorizes that learner is seen as an active con- ports the creation of building those artifacts by using digital media and
structor of knowledge rather than being a passive recipient of in- computer-based technologies (Kafai & Resnick, 2012). The vital aspect
formation (Papert, 1993), with making and coding being the areas that of constructionism is the requirement of “objects-to-think-with” – “ob-
constructionism theory has been widely applied (Kafai & Burke, 2015). jects in which there is an intersection of cultural presence, embedded
Almost three decades after Papert's original ideas on constructionism, knowledge and the possibility for personal identification” (Papert, 1980), p.
the idea remains relevant and has become ubiquitous in how learning 11). The role of this object in Papert's Mindstorms is the “turtle”, a di-
theorists and educators aim to empirically ground and revamp con- gital animal within the Logo programming environment that can be
structionism-based teaching (Kao & Harrell, 2017). Such grounding controlled and moved by giving the appropriate commands. The
would result in methodological advancements and a comprehensive “turtle” acts as a means to think, supporting and promoting a new way
understanding of children's experience in constructionism-based of thinking and learning. In Papert’s (1980, p. 76) words: “the child's
making activities. In this paper, we present a design-based research encounter with this theorem is different in several ways from memorizing its
(DBR) effort comprising three cycles (iterations) conducted over two Euclidean counterpart ‘the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180
years. DBR combines empirical educational research with theory-driven degrees.’ First (at least in the context of Logo computers), the Total Turtle
design in learning contexts to understand how, when, and why edu- Trip Theorem is more powerful: The child can actually use it. Second, it is
cational innovations work in real settings (Collins, 1992). The main more general: It applies to squares and curves as well as to triangles. Third, it
characteristic of DBR is the systematic and iterative cycle of design, is more intelligible: Its proof is easy to grasp. And it is more personal: You
exploration, and redesign (Collective, 2003). Many studies have used can ‘walk it through,’ and it is a model for the general habit of relating
DBR in educational contexts (Grover, Pea, & Cooper, 2015; Parmaxi & mathematics to personal knowledge.”
Zaphiris, 2015) (Sáez-López et al., 2016); (Parmaxi, Zaphiris, & Constructionism is not only valuable for the individual in building
Ioannou, 2016) (Schmitz, Klemke, Walhout, & Specht, 2015), empha- knowledge through experience and engagement in creating artifacts but
sizing the need for well-designed studies characterized by objectivity, also for enhancing the social setting (Kafai, 2006). Like in the well-
reliability, and validity and providing critical evidence to establish known samba school example, a social setting strengthens the sense of
outcomes beneficial for others. belonging to a group with a common purpose, where learning becomes
This research aims to contribute to the theoretical notions of con- important for all and connections are made under the learning culture
structionism with regard to the effects of coding activities on children's (Papert, 1980). In the same line (Kafai & Burke, 2015), mention three
learning experience. We designed and evaluated coding workshops for dimensions of constructionism involved in the process of making games
children (aged 8–17 years old). Both qualitative and quantitative for learning: personal, social, and cultural. More specifically, “personal”
methods were employed to evaluate our workshops, including inter- refers to the learning and the attitudes related to learning, “social”
views, surveys, observations, and physiological data (eye tracking). The refers to the collaborative aspects in creating a shared artifact, and
coding activities were designed to impact children's learning outcomes, “cultural” relates to how gender and race could influence the activity
cognition, and social and emotional development. Thus, the over- and the possible cultural aspects that could influence participation.
reaching goal of the study was framed with the following research In the process of making computer games, children plan and
questions: manage this complex development, placing themselves in control of
their own leaning and thinking (Kafai & Kafai, 1995). Robertson and
− What elements of engagement exist in constructionism-based coding Howells (Robertson & Howells, 2008) argue that game design is a
activities? powerful learning activity that provides motivation, engagement, and
− What principles can guide us to facilitate constructionism-based enthusiasm. Constructionism's basic idea is that the most effective
learning environments that support children's learning experience? leaning experiences are those that include active creation, socially
meaningful artifacts, interaction with others, and the use of elements
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: the next section pro- that support one's own learning and thinking. Game-making activities
vides an overview of related work on the theoretical framework of not only involve learning how to use technological tools but also using
constructionism and previous research on similar coding activities. The these tools to discover new ways of thinking. In such activities, children
third section describes the methodology used, the designed coding ac- are introduced to a culture that permits them to become producers of
tivities in the three cycles, and the data collection and analysis. The their own artifacts while building their knowledge in a social context.

416
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

2.2. Qualities of constructionism-based coding activities for children the use of a technological tool for making a game and CT. For instance,
when children negotiate artifact construction in a supportive environ-
Computer game design and development have been increasingly ment, they gain a sense of self-efficacy and belief in their capacities;
introduced in both formal and informal educational settings, supporting they learn how to solve a problem, manage difficulties, cope with
everything from programming courses and STEM educational topics to “failure”, share resources, and communicate with peers (Chu, Schlegel,
broader contexts of problem solving and arts (Papavlasopoulou et al., Quek, Christy, & Chen, 2017); (Çakır, Gass, Foster, & Lee, 2017); (Bers,
2017a). The various technological tools available nowadays allow us to 2012). These practices exist in constructionist learning and can be ap-
support learning activities based on constructionism and provide plied in subjects like math, language, arts, and others. The value is in
meaningful learning experiences for children. In these types of educa- the transferable skills uncovered through the experience of completing
tional activities, children are the protagonists, as they have control of a successful project.
their own products. Coding activities for children not only relate to CS In a nutshell, constructionism-based coding activities, particularly
but also allow the development of computational competences and when the focus is on game-making, provide a fruitful learning en-
higher-order thinking skills (Grover & Pea, 2013). Children who ac- vironment in which children are stimulated to use a technological tool,
tively participate in game-making activities enhance, among others, affecting their learning experience. Therefore, there is a need to in-
their problem-solving, critical thinking, CT, and collaborative skills vestigate and get a deep understanding of how we can help learners to
(Papavlasopoulou et al., 2017a); (Grover & Pea, 2013). acquire knowledge, skills, and competences in coding in an engaging
The benefits of educational activities in which children use tech- and meaningful manner.
nological tools and digital fabrication to construct their own games are
many and vary from learning programming concepts to behavioral and
3. Methodology
perceptual changes towards career paths in computing (Sáez-López
et al., 2016) (Kafai & Vasudevan, 2015); (Denner, Werner, & Ortiz,
3.1. Design based research (DBR)
2012). Making games can be more beneficial than other project-based
activities, supporting learning about storytelling, artwork, sound, me-
DBR is a systematic but agile methodology widely used in educa-
chanics, and math (Sung & Hwang, 2013). Moreover, children are fa-
tional contexts (Fig. 1) (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012) (Wang &
miliar with video games from an early age (Granic, Lobel, & Engels,
Hannafin, 2005); (Reeves, 2006). DBR offers a strategy to understand
2014). Visual programming environments provide opportunities for
learning processes through design, exploration, enactment, evaluation,
children to be introduced to programming concepts; owing to the fun
and redesign (Anderson, 2005). DBR is a hybrid method, as it is not a
and usefulness of the activity, children are highly motivated and have
replacement of other methodologies but builds on the use of multiple
positive attitudes towards coding (Sáez-López et al., 2016). Block-based
procedures and methods from both design and research methodologies
visual programming languages (like Scratch) have the advantage of
(Wang & Hannafin, 2005). The purpose of DBR is to influence real
using shapes that fit properly only when they make a logical sequence
educative interventions and validate theoretical concepts. The differ-
of orders. This gives relief to users and saves them from much of the
ence between DBR and formative assessment is that it also has a the-
heartache traditionally forced on learners by textual languages (Wilson
oretical goal (Barab & Squire, 2004). Researchers are actively involved
& Moffat, 2010), p. 70). However, even advanced text-based pro-
and maintain constant collaboration with participants, other re-
gramming languages like Java have been used to engage children aged
searchers, and practitioners to manage the research process in real-
9–10 in coding (Esper, Foster, Griswold, Herrera, & Snyder, 2014). A
world settings. Their aim is to implement interventions with refined
combination of physical fabrication and coding can engage and en-
and improved designs that influence practice. In short, there are five
hance children's competences in programming concepts (e.g., loops,
basic characteristics of DBR: 1) it refines theory and practice, 2) it
conditionals, and events) and practices (e.g., remixing, testing, and
happens in real-world settings and is grounded in relevant contexts, 3)
debugging) (Kafai & Burke, 2015); (Denner et al., 2012). In addition,
it is interactive, iterative, and flexible, 4) it uses mixed methods in
digital game development was found to be beneficial for special edu-
accordance with potential new needs and emerging issues, and 5) it is
cation students, increasing their problem-solving skills through a pro-
contextual, meaning that the research findings are connected with the
cess of representation, planning, execution, and evaluation of an arti-
design process (Wang & Hannafin, 2005).
fact (Ruggiero & Green, 2017). Hence, further empirical studies are
In our approach, based on all the above, we used constructionism
needed to investigate the different aspects and advantages of con-
theory and applied the DBR methodology to guide our iterations. More
structionism-based activities.
specifically, our research process used DBR methodology as it deals
Gender discrepancy in coding has been related to negative educa-
with the complexity of real-world educative contexts (in our case
tional experiences in early childhood (Teague, 2002). CS careers still
coding workshops) and it is grounded in theory (in our case con-
tend to be highly stereotyped, with girls being less likely to choose this
structionism theory). In addition, DBR approach is in line with the
career path. However, studies have found that both girls and boys who
needs of our study, allowing a long period of time with continuous
get involved in different kinds of software development practices show
design, evaluation and redesign of our interventions. In this way, we
a better understanding of and positive attitudes towards CS (Bonner &
had also the opportunity to conduct iterative and flexible revisions of
Dorneich, 2016); (Eordanidis, Gee, & Carmichael, 2017); (Robertson,
the research design applying research methods from both qualitative
2013); (Papavlasopoulou, Sharma, Giannakos, & Jaccheri, 2017).
and quantitative research. DBR methodology needs a detailed and
Scaffolding examples can help girls' engagement and confidence when
comprehensive documentation of the whole process; this action helped
using a programming environment. Studies specifically focusing on
girls have found that game design experiences intended to enhance
computational skills affect their perceptions in seeing themselves as
able to design computer games and encourage them to pursue careers in
CS-related professions (Stewart-Gardiner, Carmichael, Latham, Lozano,
& Greene, 2013). In a study involving middle-school girls creating
games (Denner et al., 2012), found that they were engaged in the
process and demonstrated adequate levels of complex programming
activity. Thus, designing appropriate activities can be a promising ap-
proach to attracting and encouraging girls' interest in computing.
Generally, the skills gained in these educational contexts go beyond Fig. 1. The research cycle of DBR (Reeves, 2006).

417
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

the analysis of our data and especially the retrospective analysis, both (meaning “the path towards coding”). The workshop activities were
to contribute to theory and practice. For all the four stages of the DBR based on the constructionist approach, as one of the main principles of
(Fig. 1), constant collaboration with other researchers, experts in the this is learning by making. The workshop was conducted in a largely
field and instructors is required; this was essential aspect of our study in informal setting, as an out-of-school activity, and lasted for four hours
order to be able to improve the impact of the interventions, understand in total. Various student groups, in the range 8–17 years old, were in-
the learning experience processes, advance the initial designs and vited to NTNU's specially designed rooms for creative purposes to in-
provide theoretical and practical impact extracting design principles. teract with digital robots and to create games using Scratch and the
We conducted three cycles (iterations) over two years, evaluating Arduino hardware platform. Specifically, Arduino was attached to the
and refining our coding workshops with children. We applied theore- digital robots to connect them with the computer. At that point, an
tically and pedagogically aligned tasks to investigate their effectiveness extension of Scratch called Scratch for Arduino (S4A) provided the
on children's learning engagement, overall learning experience, and extra blocks needed to control the robots. The Scratch programming
collaboration while developing an artifact (a game in our approach). language uses colorful blocks grouped into categories (motion, looks,
The main aspects of this study were: 1) the design of the coding sound, pen, control, sensing, operators, and variables), with which
workshops to facilitate children's use of the programming tool and to children can develop stories, games, and any type of animation. In
introduce them to coding, 2) the researchers working in close colla- general, the children who attended the workshop worked collabora-
boration with the participants and assistants who ran the workshops, 3) tively in triads or dyads (depending on the number of children). The
the use of different methods to evaluate the effectiveness of our ap- workshop was designed for children without (or with minimum) pre-
proach to increase the sustainability and scalability of this program, 4) vious experience in coding. The design of the activity (interacting with
grounding our findings in theory, and 5) identifying general design robots and creating games), and the use of Scratch programming lan-
principles for future similar activities. guage (suitable for all ages) provided flexibility and allowed the suc-
cessful implementation of the workshop with participants from 8 to 17
3.2. Description of the workshops years old students. Each of the workshops, had a specific age group of
students, carefully selected, being within a small age range. During the
The participants' goal was to create an artifact, which in our case workshop, student assistants were responsible for supporting each team
was a game using the Scratch programming tool. Students worked in as needed. Approximately one assistant observed and helped one or two
teams for the development of the artifact. Teaching assistants, specifi- teams. Three researchers were also present throughout the intervention,
cally trained, led the process and assisted students in achieving their focusing on observing, writing notes, and taking care of the overall
goals. execution of the workshop. The workshop had two main sections
Regarding the process of construction in the workshops, the most (Fig. 3).
influential to our pedagogical approach was what Resnick calls the Interacting with the robots: In the first section, the children inter-
“kindergarten approach to learning”, with a spiral cycle of imagine, acted with digital robots made by an artist (using recycling materials). The
create, play, share, and reflect – a process that is repeated over and over different robots were placed next to the computers (one for each team).
(Resnick, 2007). Children imagine what they want to do and then When the children entered the room, one assistant welcomed them, told
create a project with their ideas, play/interact with their own creations, them to be seated, and briefly presented an overview of the workshop. The
share their creations with others, and reflect on their experiences, assistants then advised the children to pay attention to the paper tutorial
leading to new ideas and projects. Adapting Resnick's spiral, ours also and the worksheets placed on the desks (one for each student). First, the
started with “inspire” to characterize the warming-up and inspiring children filled in the worksheet to answer questions regarding the exact
activities that kicked off the children's creativity. In addition, to char- places and numbers of sensors and lights on the robots. The tutorial
acterize the coding process and the use of the Scratch tool specifically, contained instructions with examples and pictures, similar to the robots
we focused on constantly experimenting and iterating: the children they were using. The examples had little text and more images and de-
developed their artifacts gradually by trying new elements, using dif- scribed exactly how the children could interact with the robots. The
ferent concepts, and revising them (Fig. 2). children accomplished a series of simple loops that controlled the robots
and made them react to the environment with visual effects (such as
turning on a light when sensors detected that the light was below a certain
3.2.1. Cycles 1 and 2
threshold). Children could touch and play with the robots but not change
We designed and implemented a coding activity in conjunction with
any parts of them. Although the duration of the session was different for
an initiative organized at the Norwegian University of Science ans
each team, it lasted between 45 min and 1.5 h and ended with a break
Technology (NTNU), in Trondheim, Norway, named Kodeløypa
before the next session.
Creating games using Scratch: This session focused on the creative
implementation of simple game development concepts using Scratch.
All children took another paper-based tutorial containing examples and
visualizations to help them to ideate their own games. The tutorial
comprised simple text explanations and included basic CT concepts and
possible loops that the children were supposed to use in their own
games. First, the assistants advised the children to concentrate on un-
derstanding the idea of the game, to discuss it with their team members,
and to create a draft storyboard. The children then developed their own
games by collaboratively designing and coding using Scratch. To ac-
celerate the children's progress, they were given existing game char-
acters and easy loops. While the children worked on their projects, help
was provided whenever they asked for it, and complex programming
concepts were introduced on an individual level according to the re-
levance to their project. Children created their games step by step by
iteratively testing and coding them. After completing the games, all
teams reflected on and played each other's games. This section lasted
Fig. 2. Description of the three DBR cycles. approximately three hours.

418
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

Fig. 3. Example of an interactive robot (left), children collaborating on game

creation (middle), and example of a created game (right).
Fig. 4. Girls participating in the workshop (left), creation of the storyboard
(middle), and game created using Scratch (right).
3.2.2. Cycle 3
We designed and implemented a two-day workshop in conjunction 3.3. Sampling
with the local library of Trondheim, Norway. The workshop activities
focused on coding including artistic elements and were based on the All the participants of the three cycles were students from
constructionist approach. The call for participation was made to Trondheim region. The first two cycles took place at NTNU in specially
middle-school girls of the Trondheim region during the autumn 2017 designed rooms, and the last cycle took place in the local library. The
school break. Previous experience was not a prerequisite for the girls' data related to the three cycles were collected after receiving permis-
participation. The activities of each day were conducted in an informal sion from the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD), following all
setting and lasted for approximately five hours, including breaks. the regulations and recommendations for research with children. When
Female instructors, with previous experience in similar activities (also the participants had been selected, a researcher contacted their teachers
involved in Kodeløypa), facilitated the workshop and were responsible and parents in order to obtain the necessary consent from both the child
for supporting the girls during the process. During the workshop, the and the legal guardian for the data collection. Their participation in the
girls had to create storyboards based on solving particular environ- research project was voluntary and they could drop out at any time,
mental problems and then, based on their stories, create games using with no consequences on their participation in the workshop.
the Scratch programming language (Fig. 4). For the development of the
storyboards, the girls could use different types of materials, like rib- 3.3.1. Participants of cycle 1
bons, colored cardboard, stickers, drawing pencils, etc., as provided by Children from 3rd to 12th grade (aged 8–17 years old) participated
the library. The girls worked collaboratively in teams of two or three in the coding activity. The activity took place during autumn 2016 with
(depending on the number of participants). Two researchers were a sample of 12 girls (mean age: 12.64, SD: 2.838) and 32 boys (mean
present for the whole duration of the workshop, assisting when needed age: 12.35, SD: 2.773). Five workshops took place over two weeks,
for the smooth execution of the activities, including the data collection. following the coding activity described in the previous section.
The workshop is described below, based on the two days of activities.
First day of the workshop: On the first day, we introduced the 3.3.2. Participants of cycle 2
basic skills of coding and other non-technical aspects of game devel- In autumn 2017, children from 8th to 10th grade (aged 13–16 years
opment, like storyboard creation. The workshop started with a story old) participated in the coding activity. The sample consisted of 105
from a book, based on a woman with children and everyday problems, participants in total, 69 boys and 36 girls (mean age: 14.55, SD: 0.650).
who was also a mentor and a superhero helping people to succeed with Kodeløypa workshops were conducted every Friday for six weeks.
their technology projects. The girls were inspired and were informed
that they had to think of their own characters who needed to save the 3.3.3. Participants of cycle 3
world from environmental issues of their choosing. Then, in order to The sample of the third study consisted of eight girls from 6th to
give an introduction to coding, the instructors presented an example of 10th grade (aged 10–14 years old) (mean age: 12.135, SD: 1.389). Girls
a functional game with Scratch on a relevant environmental topic. participated in the two-day workshop during autumn 2017, following
Then, the girls were asked to individually complete basic coding ex- all the activities of the workshop described in the previous section at
ercises using Scratch. At the end of the first day, the teams prepared and the local library.
presented their storyboards with three different scenes on paper/card-
board, including the title, theme, character, plot, conflict, and solution. 3.4. Data collection
Second day of the workshop: Starting the second day of the
workshop, the girls had to update, if they wanted, their storyboards and Following the DBR methodology described by (Reeves, 2006), our
finalize them. Then, the rest of the day was dedicated to their game study involved four stages (Table 1). In stage 1, we conducted a critical
creation using Scratch. The girls completed a paper-based tutorial, literature review to identify theoretical and practical problems in con-
created by the instructors, with simple text explanations and examples structionism-based coding activities. Then, in the second stage, after
of basic CT concepts and possible loops that the girls were supposed to discussions with instructors and with experts in human–computer in-
use in their own games, all based on Scratch. During the creation of teraction (HCI) and technology-enhanced learning (TEL), we developed
their games, the girls had to use their storyboards exactly and “transfer” the design of the intervention based on constructionism. Stage 3 in-
their ideas into games using Scratch. At any time, the girls could ask for volved the testing and refinement of the iterative cycles in practice.
help from the instructors, who even introduced complicated program- Qualitative and quantitative data were collected during the three cycles
ming concepts, if it was necessary for their games. The girls created using various instruments, including pre and post knowledge acquisi-
their games step by step and continuously testing and coding them. At tion tests, attitudinal questionnaires, eye-tracking data, semi-structured
the end of the day, all teams prepared presentations of their games and interviews, field notes from observations, instructors' reflections, and
everyone played each other's games. the artifacts constructed by the children in different phases of the
process. All data focused on exploring the children's learning experience

419
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

Table 1
Description of the different DBR stages.
Stage Data collection method Participants Purpose

Analysis Literature review Researchers Analyze and identify problems and gaps in constructionism-
HCI experts based coding activities
TEL experts
Instructors
Development Literature review Researchers Identify the theoretical framework
Discussions HCI experts Design the interventions
Focus groups TEL experts
Instructors
Iterative cycles of testing and refinement in Iteration 1 Iteration 1 Get a comprehensive view of students' learning experience
practice Eye tracking 44 children aged 8–17 years Design elements for the next iteration
Attitudinal questionnaire old
Knowledge acquisition test (pre Instructors
and post) Iteration 2
Artifact collection 105 children aged 13–16
Instructors' reflections years old
Iterations 2 and 3 Instructors
Semi-structured interviews Iteration 3
Field notes from observations 8 girls aged 10–14 years old
Artifact collection Instructors
Instructors' reflections
Development of design principles Focus groups Researchers Identify the prominent design principles
Discussions HCI experts
Reflections and notes from all TEL experts
cycles Instructors

in our coding workshops and guided us to the improvement of the Halverson, & Graham, 2015). According to (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, &
design of the next iteration. The fourth stage of DBR is the development Paris, 2004), there are three types of engagement: behavioral, emo-
of design principles that intend to provide feasible solutions with re- tional, and cognitive, which are interrelated within the individual.
spect to the theoretical goals. This final stage contains all the reflections “Behavioral engagement” refers to participation, involvement, and at-
from the previous stages, including notes of the design issues that tention, among others. “Emotional engagement” refers to the learner's
emerged from the analysis of the results at each iteration. feelings, like frustration or interest, expressions of positive effects, and
social connection. “Cognitive engagement” refers to the learner's in-
vestment in understanding what they have been taught, their efforts
3.5. Data analysis
related to the mind, their strategy use, and their self-regulatory and
meta-cognitive behaviors.
In the DBR methodology, all stages, from the analysis to the de-
Each idea was connected with one of the three types of engagement,
velopment of design principles, include interactive and iterative for-
depending on its content. For example, ideas representing children's
mative evaluations. From the beginning of the cycles' implementation,
cognitive processes, like the use of different gaze patterns during the
starting with the design, to the execution and evaluation of each
coding activity, were placed under cognitive engagement. Respectively,
workshop, the researchers and instructors were in constant collabora-
we followed the same procedure to place, if possible, all ideas under the
tion. Their involvement throughout the project allowed them to gain
appropriate type of engagement, which also allowed us to see possible
valuable knowledge and competence in the analysis and interpretation
interconnections. Consequently, the most prominent themes emerged.
of the data gathered in each cycle. All data collected from the three
It was an iterative process, with constant refinement and reflection on
cycles were respectively analyzed according to their type. For example,
the ideas and themes during the three cycles. This helped us not only to
quantitative data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance
see the connections and make decisions for the design but also to
(ANOVA) and Pearson correlation coefficient among other; while qua-
identify the most important theoretical aspects in our studies. The final
litative data were analyzed based on Saldaña (2015). All data were
step of the analysis, after removing similar themes, involved categor-
compared and cross-checked for triangulation. For this paper, the
ization to identify the most important findings. The categories were
qualitative analysis was manually conducted by the researchers using
interpreted according to Papert's (1980) theoretical framework, with
both inductive and deductive approaches, based on (Saldaña, 2015)
the agreement of the instructors and the HCI and TEL experts (Fig. 5).
(Mayring, 2014).
During the two years of the project, after the end of each iteration
(cycle), the researchers and instructors participated in focus groups
discussing and revealing all the growing ideas emerged from the out-
comes of the iteration. All ideas were connected to the results of the
respective iteration, representing the codes for our qualitative analysis
for this study. In order to synthesize the ideas and formulate themes, we
focused mainly on the students' engagement in the coding activities.
The students' engagement included interaction with the instructor and
the learning tool and interaction with other students in the creation of
an artifact. In our approach, we adopt the term “academic engagement”
(Turner, Christensen, Kackar-Cam, Trucano, & Fulmer, 2014) to de-
scribe how the students were involved in and put effort into learning,
understanding, and collaborating with their peers. Engagement during
educational activities has many aspects and is connected with other
theoretical constructs, like motivation and self-regulation (Henrie, Fig. 5. Data analysis process.

420
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

In the next section, we present the findings for the first cycle, presents a resemblance with juggling: “It always takes time to learn ne-
showing the important contributions based on the theoretical frame- cessary component skills. What can be eliminated are wasteful and in-
work of Papert's constructionism. Then, for cycles 2 and 3, we first efficient methods. Learning enough juggling skill to keep three balls going
present the key findings emerging from the respective previous cycle takes many hours when the learner follows a poor learning strategy. When a
related to the design of the activities and then the important con- good one is adopted the time is greatly reduced, often to as little as twenty or
tributions based on the theoretical framework. thirty minutes” (Papert, 1980). Finding the appropriate methods to help
children of different age groups will result in efficient and effective
4. Iterative design cycles, theoretical findings, and design learning processes.
elements 2) Cognitive effort and affective engagement: Positive attitudes and
motivation are important to cognitive learning. There is a relation be-
For each of the three cycles, we present the most prominent results tween children's attitudes and their cognitive processes while coding.
as linked to Papert's constructionism. Therefore, there is no detailed Highly motivated children with positive attitudes have the ability to
representation of the results, as they were respectively analyzed ac- handle cognitive load and better manage the construction of their ar-
cording to their type during the process. However, when needed, there tifacts. This idea appeared in our findings from the measures used to
is a reference to the findings related to the data collection method in examine cognition through the eye-tracking data and the relation with
order to help the proper explanation of the specific outcome. attitudes of perceived learning (seen as confidence, the degree that
children indicate their performance), intention to perform coding
4.1. Cycle 1 again, and excitement. The children who were highly engaged and
motivated during the construction of the artifact exhibited gaze beha-
Two theoretical ideas emerged from this cycle: vior that showed lower cognitive overload. Papert (1980) describes the
1) Learning to learn (different coding approaches result in different notion of “bricolage”, which represents a qualitative way of organizing
learning gain): According to Papert (Papert, 1980), in a constructionist and planning when problem solving by constantly experimenting until
learning environment, the child is able to construct their own knowl- finalizing the artifact. Effort and difficulty are prominent during the
edge and build on what they already know. In our workshop, the stu- whole coding process and require motivational goals and determination
dents produced socially meaningful and engaging artifacts: games. The from a child to commit themselves to the learning. This is an expected
findings from this study (cycle 1) showed that depending on their age, notion, as “You can't learn bread-and-butter (basic) skills if you come to
the students used different gaze patterns in the coding process, had them with fear and the anticipation of hating them” (Papert, 1980). The
different approaches to coding, and had different learning gain from the design of the coding activity of our workshop had an overall cognitive
activity. load that could become overwhelming for children, especially those
The younger students (kids) focused on the appearance of their who are novices to coding. From the complexity of the task, children
games' characters, while the older ones (teens) had more-structured might reach a point of feeling overloaded, which can lead to a critical
coding behavior. This was evident in the proportion of time that the condition where, without the proper pleasant and motivating environ-
kids and teens spent in specific areas of interest (based on eye tracking) ment, the learning experience can fail. It is not a surprising result that
in the Scratch programming environment and the transitions between the children with more difficulties and cognitive load had lower scores
them. The teens presented more “hypothesis-testing” behavior during in their attitudes.
their efforts in making the games and could shift their attention to the
more-“meaningful” parts of the Scratch screen. By “the meaningful 4.2. Cycle 2
parts of the screen”, we mean specific areas of interest in the Scratch
interface that indicate the main areas of attention in coding: scripts, The key findings, as design elements, that emerged from cycle 1 and
output, and commands. In addition, the teens were able to collaborate guided the refinement of the design of cycle 2 are described below.
better than the kids were (had higher similarity gaze). The teens had a Structured assistance, pleasant environment, and revised learning
higher level of shared understanding and could communicate better materials to:
during the coding activity. This confirms the teens' attitude towards
helping each other more, contrasting with the kids, who wanted to have a Guide students to focus on structured coding behavior.
greater individual control. Eventually, “by deliberately learning to imitate
mechanical thinking, the learner becomes able to articulate what mechanical Students should put a lot of effort and thinking into learning the
thinking is and what it is not. The exercise can lead to greater confidence necessary component skills, and they should be cognitively supported
about the ability to choose a cognitive style that suits the problem” and during the coding activity. As shown in the results of the eye-tracking
“what is most important in this is that through these experiences these data, those who shifted their attention to the meaningful parts of the
children would be serving their apprenticeships as epistemologists, that is to screen (such as commands and output) had better learning gain, based
say learning to think articulately about thinking” (Papert, 1980). Children's on their knowledge acquisition tests. Therefore, the design of the ac-
coding processes represent their way of “thinking mechanically” and tivity should support students efficiently to ensure that they can take
adopting the educational advantage of this way of deliberately appropriate actions and know where to pay attention when they code to
thinking. Using a simple description of the process, trying to create/ have an effective approach that is suitable for the task.
make a game is a way to combine appropriate orders and create pro-
grams to tell the computer what to do, step by step. This process in- b Avoid cognitive overload.
cludes logic, math, problem-solving, and critical thinking skills. In
order for children to achieve their goals in such environments, they Students can become easily overwhelmed in the process of creating
should find the appropriate cognitive style that will support them in the an artifact, especially when they are new to coding. By using the
coding process of creating a shared artifact. This shows the importance “bricolage” style, in which they are constantly experimenting, students
of having appropriate tools and instructions for each age group. Dif- can feel overloaded as they seek to find the appropriate commands in
ferent age groups differently organize their thinking and consequently the tool, manage different tasks, and make decisions during the activity.
their coding, so the way they approach the process of creating an ar- Consequently, supporting students when needed and providing relevant
tifact can be instrumental to their learning and the successful comple- learning materials can reduce their cognitive load and provide a scaf-
tion of the artifact. This notion is in accordance with Papert, as he fold for managing their learning and thinking.

421
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

c Keep the participants motivated.

“If I had my own project, I would probably not find anything”
Students' positive attitudes are related to their cognitive load, as “It is easier to code with someone than to code by yourself; if I had been
represented by their eye movements, based on the results from cycle 1. alone, I wouldn't have managed to do the same”
Highly motivated students with positive attitudes have better man-
“We both came up with ideas and equally contributed to the design and
agement of cognitive load. Hence, providing a pleasant environment
coding parts”
that enhances students' enthusiasm for and engagement with learning
will help students to have a fruitful experience. “I coded more, while they contributed with ideas on what should be in-
corporated. We were all important members of the team”
d Enhance collaboration within the teams.
An important aspect of the good collaboration was the fact that the
As students collaborate in teams to create a shared artifact, social team members knew each other from before and/or had done other
interaction in learning during the coding activity is not something we projects together.
can overlook, as it also unfolds team dynamics. Teams with better “We knew each other, and we felt pretty safe around each other. We
collaboration (higher gaze similarity) had higher team average learning could discuss and agree easily on what had to be done”
gain, as calculated by the knowledge acquisition tests. It is important to
encourage collaboration and good communication among team mem- Nevertheless, there were some indications of bad collaboration that
bers so that they can benefit from each other's help. caused frustration. This was mainly caused from having a “bad leader”
In this cycle, the duration of the workshop for all groups of students in the group who wanted control. This was expressed from both sides.
was the same, as an out-of-school one-day activity. The results were “It was maybe that I took too much control. I should have let my partner
based on the qualitative analysis of the interviews, observations, and decide a bit more”
evaluations of the students' artifacts. The children were able to express
exactly their struggles and ways of thinking during the artifact creation, “He didn't let me finish my task; he just wanted to have the control back”
allowing us to detect the exact behavior of the children as they ex-
Papert's (Papert, 1980) notion of the importance of social norms and
pressed it to reflect their cognitive processes (noticing debugging be-
interaction in learning is reflected in his research on samba schools:
havior and specific difficulties). Triangulation of the data helped us to
“These are not schools as we know them; they are social clubs with mem-
validate our findings. The implementation of the Kodeløypa coding
berships that may range from a few hundred to many thousands”. The
workshop took place over two years, with few differences in the design
construction of games and other artifacts is not an isolated action but
of the activity but with differences in the research design, evidence
happens in a social context.
descriptions, and results of the different instruments used for data
This resonates with Papert's (Papert, 1980) notion of social inter-
collection.
action: “Although the work at the computer is usually private it increases the
Two theoretical ideas emerged from this cycle:
children's desire for interaction. These children want to get together with
1) Social aspect of creating an artifact: The “social” dimension refers
others engaged in similar activities because they have a lot to talk about. And
to the role of collaboration in the coding activity. Children worked in
what they have to say to one another is not limited to talking about their
teams of three (or two, depending on the total number of participants)
products: Logo is designed to make it easy to tell about the process of making
to create a shared artifact. Collaboration and social interaction for a
them”.
common goal have many benefits, including interacting with others,
2) Powerful thinking (or learning about thinking): Papert (Papert,
examining different perspectives, expressing understandings, and in-
1980) argues that children are able to recognize the different proce-
terpreting things differently. During the coding activity, the children
dures in code, understand when the code does not run as expected, use
were encouraged to work collaboratively to create a shared artifact that
debugging strategies, and act intentionally to improve the code. For the
was meaningful for their peers too. The process also offered the op-
construction of their artifacts during the coding activity, the children
portunity to all participants to play each other's games and reflect on
worked with programming concepts and practices to successfully
them. Collaboration was primarily examined between the members of
complete their task. Making a game requires deep engagement and
the groups but also among the different teams. From the observations
strategy use to successfully manage the completion of the task. The
and interviews, the help they got from other team members was im-
children iteratively organized and documented their code. As described
portant. Half of the children expressed the highest level of satisfaction
by Papert (1980, p. 28) regarding the Logo environment: “teaching the
with the collaborative process in their team, while 72% showed high
Turtle to act or to ‘think’ can lead one to reflect on one's own actions and
levels regarding being able to develop skills from the other members of
thinking. And as children move on, they program the computer to make more
the team. This interaction, which shows collaboration and help among
complex decisions and find themselves engaged in reflecting on more com-
the teams, had various aspects, from practical (what command they
plex aspects of their own thinking.”
should use in Scratch to accomplish a task) to ideas for their games.
For the construction of the artifacts, the children had the opportu-
This finding was confirmed from the artifact analysis: teams who were
nity to plan, problem solve, code, debug, collaborate, communicate,
sitting close to one another had similarities in the programming con-
and reflect on their coding experience using Scratch. The participants
cepts they used, as well as in their main game ideas (such as a maze or
realized that this was an iterative process, and for some it appeared to
jumping on platforms). In addition, through the different versions of the
be difficult and challenging. Some found it fun to try out the different
artifacts, we observed that elements changed based on other teams'
blocks, discovering the different functionalities. Whatever they made
suggestions.
seemed to be suitable for their code; at the same time, the need to add a
“When we didn't find anything, we looked at another group and saw how new function changed everything and triggered a new thinking and
they did it” debugging process.
“The hardest thing was to put the different pieces of code together and
For the team members, the construction of the artifact was not an make them work as one game”
individual task: it was a social interaction with a shared goal to create a
“It was very challenging when we started to change different things to see
game. The results showed that, most of the time, collaboration was
what happened with the other code”
efficient. The children acknowledged and expressed how valuable it
was that they were working together to complete their artifacts. The most prominent difficulties related to movement, jumping, the

422
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

use of loops, and hiding/showing different sprites. These actions were “geeks.” In their eyes, only boys like video games. To encourage interest
the main problems that the children had to deal with from the begin- and get the girls inspired and engaged, a storyboard and a game were
ning of their game creation and defined their thinking processes. This used as examples, with the main character a heroine who had powers
was also indicated by the artifact analysis of the first versions of their that could “solve problems”.
games. In order to make a character move and jump in Scratch, you
often have to have an event block with a conditional combined with d Focus on the design part of the game in a structured way (i.e. spend
motion blocks for moving the sprite x steps or to place it in a certain y- sufficient time on creating the storyboard first and having a pre-
or x-coordinate in a chosen direction. Observations showed that sentation on it).
movement and jumping were the most common reasons the children
asked for help, indicating that it was hard for them to articulate their The results from the data from cycle 2 (interviews, observations,
knowledge about conditionals (if _ then; repeat until; and when key is and game versions) showed that the teams who followed a more-
pressed, do this), direction, and the coordinate system to achieve an structured approach (creating a draft storyboard with their idea before
appropriate order of blocks. starting coding) were able to successfully manage and finish on time, as
Coding in Scratch enables children to articulate their thoughts and well as being less overwhelmed. Moreover, based on the different
watch the outcomes of their own decisions. versions of the collected games, these students had a greater capacity to
develop their initial ideas (designed in the storyboards), and this re-
“If you did something, the result wasn't always what you expected”
sulted in higher-quality games (more complete/advanced).
After the initial trials with coding, by being more and more engaged
in the process, the children had the opportunity to clarify their thinking e Introduce coding individually.
and interpret the immediate feedback, acting accordingly.
The students participating in the workshop did not have the same
“Before, I didn't understand that things wouldn't happen if you didn't
experience with coding. This approach was geared towards helping the
explicitly give instructions”
participants individually to familiarize themselves with the tool (in our
“The ideas and code come really fast when you realize what kind of case, Scratch), gain insights on what they could create, and develop
options you have” basic skills. Having a common ground of basic knowledge among the
team members will make everyone engaged and active. Thus, it is very
important to have some individual activities at the beginning that
4.3. Cycle 3 prevent students with experience from dominating their teams, which
could disengage novices.
The key findings, as design elements, that emerged from cycle 2 and One theoretical idea emerged from this cycle:
guided the refinement of the design of cycle 3 are described below: 1) Use of powerful ideas: “Powerful ideas”, as described by Papert
(Papert, 1980), are central concepts of learning and should be a ne-
a Allow an adequate amount of time for engagement during the cessary part of constructionist activities. A “powerful idea” must be
workshop. both personally and epistemologically useful, giving the opportunity to
organize a way of thinking, appropriate each time for the specific task,
The analysis of the interview data revealed that the time the stu- building on previously gained skills and knowledge. Learners need to be
dents had to complete the tasks was an important issue for them, as the highly explorative before they gain expertise; therefore, the task they
allocated time was limited. More precisely, at the beginning of the are required to do needs to be engaging enough in order to commit
activity, they spent a lot of time trying to familiarize themselves with them to the learning process. In his book Mindstorms, Papert shows the
the tool and the tasks and to bond with team members, especially in importance of powerfulness and the powerful nature of children's use of
teams where they did not know each other from before. Giving addi- computers as tools and the Logo programming language, as well all the
tional time for social engagement between the team members will allow powerful ideas that emerge from children's engagement with computer-
students to build common understanding and be more creative. based activities.
What is important is to make a powerful idea part of intuitive
b Provide a specific theme for the game creation. thinking (Papert, 1980). In the design of the activity in the third cycle,
“powerful” was a quality gained from the girls, as they were allowed to
As mentioned earlier, the students spent a lot of time at the begin- closely engage with the creation of the artifacts in multiple stages, using
ning of the workshop. One of the time-consuming actions was to decide Scratch. This process brought the learners in touch with some powerful
the theme of the game. Time management is very important in such general ideas, for example planning an exciting project, using pro-
workshops: on the one hand, students need to have the freedom to gramming instructions, debugging, and designing, to mention a few.
decide their own themes; on the other hand, it is critical to have an The girls had an experience outside of the classroom in a local li-
adequate amount of time for the follow-up tasks. Therefore, having a brary, collaborating with girls of a similar age but with varied interests
specific theme for the game creation that is sufficiently broad, inspiring, and background knowledge, which was in contrast with a single
and meaningful will give them the freedom to be creative but at the classroom experience. The duration of the workshop was critical not
same time will prevent them from “getting lost.” In addition, it will give only for learning purposes but also because it allowed the participants
a meaningful social and personal context to the learning process, foster to bond and exchange interests and gave them the proper amount of
their interest, and create a common ground for all teams. time to interact, negotiate, learn from each other, and finally achieve
the goal of the creation of the artifact. In addition, by having a concrete
c Inspire the participants with an example of a female game hero and context for the game (create a game that reflects an environmental
a demonstration of a similar game by female assistants (as role issue) and a tool (Scratch) embedded in a meaningful environment,
models). they could see the project's relevance to their lives.
“It was so fun and exciting to make a game for saving the world with
From cycle 2, focusing on the analysis of the data collected from the
Scratch and with new friends, who taught me so much about computers”
teams consisting only of girls, it is evident that stereotypes exist. Most
of them expressed that they had not tried coding before and did not The girls gradually discovered the Scratch tool and how they could
know what to create, as they thought game creation was only for use it. As they became more engaged in the process and saw their

423
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

artifact become a reality, they enhanced their feelings of self-achieve- with the use of such tools, during the coding process, cognitive load can
ment and self-confidence. They found themselves confronting difficul- be critical, as students use the “bricolage” style by constantly experi-
ties and learning things that they did not know about game design. The menting and trying different patterns. Instructors can help students to
use of Scratch gave them new possibilities and made them “walk it manage their learning and thinking and to adopt an effective approach
through” and relate their personal knowledge to thinking effectively to coding. This is not a new practice, as previous studies with Logo have
and happily to achieve the artifact construction. used precise instructions for computational practices such as testing and
debugging (Fay & Mayer, 1994) (Carver & Mayer, 1988).
“I thought it was much harder to make a game, but I could understand
Cognitive effort, as shown in our study, is also linked with students'
how to use it and at the end we managed to do everything we wanted”
behavioral and emotional engagement because positive attitudes have
“… some things were difficult, but we tried and made things happen” an effect on their load management. Students should be persistent, put
effort in, and deal with difficulties; therefore, having positive attitudes
“… we find out how things worked, and many times we had to go back
and keeping themselves motivated result in better management of their
and change stuff”
cognitive load (Papavlasopoulou, Sharma, & Giannakos, 2018). In the
“I am so proud of what I did today … When you design a game in a same vein, Robertson and Howells (2008) argue that the game design
storyboard, you don't think about using a timer, but with Scratch you can experience is a powerful learning environment that supports motiva-
… you can do everything you can think of” tion, engagement, and enthusiasm. Using a visual programming en-
vironment, students can be introduced to programming concepts in a
fun and useful way through a design activity, making them highly
5. Discussion motivated and positive towards coding (Giannakos & Jaccheri, 2018)
(Sáez-López et al., 2016).
The intended outcomes of this DBR were twofold: 1) to ground the Social engagement is important as students work in front of the
main findings of interventions conducted over two years in con- computer and reflect on their progress as a team, sharing the same goal
structionism, and 2) to identify reusable design principles that can in- to successfully create an artifact. Working as a team, in our workshops,
form coding activities for children and pedagogical tasks. In this study, the students built a group identity and at the same time engaged in
we aimed to investigate children's learning experience as they con- social comparison with their peers. Students, especially novices to
structed their own knowledge by using a digital programming tool coding, usually have difficulties with simple coding actions, from re-
(Scratch) and collaboratively creating socially meaningful artifacts: lating different commands together to completing more-advanced ac-
games. tions, like debugging; collaboration helped the students in this study to
Analysis of the different data collected from the various instruments confront those difficulties. In a similar study with girls creating games,
over the two-year intervention helped us to explore the effectiveness of good collaboration in debugging resulted in the girls being more per-
our coding workshops on children's engagement. We focused on how sistent when coding on their own, without help from the instructors
they enhanced participants' knowledge of basic programming concepts, (Denner, 2007). In the present study, helping each other and sharing
their coding behavior, their social interaction and collaboration, and their challenges and successes were critical for our students, nurturing
how they perceived their coding experience as a whole when in- social engagement and avoiding a sense of isolation. Collaboration and
troduced to coding. reflection lead to better learning and powerful thinking. Reflection re-
It is important to have appropriate educational designs aiming to lates to their own learning experience or reflecting on their peer's code
promote active learning with the support of constructionism. Including and actions. Previous studies have shown that students performed
components like a balance of individual and social involvement and the better when they were working in pair programming (Lye & Koh, 2014)
use of a visual programming language, all employed under the common (Werner, Denner, Campe, & Kawamoto, 2012); in a game-making study,
goal of creating an artifact, fosters children's deeper transferable CT when taking into account peers' recommendations and spending time
skills, which are vital for our society's information revolution. Engaging applying these changes, girls produced higher-quality games
children in a learning environment that embraces creative design, (Robertson, 2012). Over time, the students in our workshops were able
problem solving, collaboration, and communication strengthens their to understand more about coding and became more behaviorally and
sense of competence and confidence, their compassion for others, and emotionally engaged. They were able to reflect on the more-complex
their moral character (Bers, 2010). Together with achieving a sig- aspects of their own thinking accordingly by making decisions and
nificant improvement in students' understanding of computational controlling the outcomes. Students who are actively part of game-
knowledge, like programming concepts and practices, it is essential to making activities strengthen their problem-solving, critical thinking,
create high levels of motivation, fun, and commitment as part of an and CT skills (Grover & Pea, 2013). During construction, students have
efficient pedagogical design, as reflected in our study. to investigate different strategies, negotiate and make decisions about
possible solutions, confront problems, and organize their thoughts and
5.1. Engagement in constructionism-based coding activities actions (Bers, Flannery, Kazakoff, & Sullivan, 2014).
One of the core aspects of a learning activity is the fact that the
Below we summarize the main characteristics of student engage- problem should be meaningful to the learners. In our case, they con-
ment, as shown in our DBR approach and according to constructionism. structed shared artifacts that mattered to them. Different studies have
The students indicated that they were cognitively engaged during used problems like designing games (Denner & Werner, 2007) or stories
the workshops; they managed to adopt deliberative thinking and to (Burke, 2012). A “powerful idea” must be both personally and episte-
understand and imitate mechanical thinking while coding. In order to mologically useful to ensure engagement. The students in our work-
achieve this, they had to use an appropriate cognitive strategy (e.g., a shops saw themselves gaining a powerful quality by organizing a new
“hypothesis-testing” gaze pattern, as shown by the eye-tracking data) to way of thinking, building on their previous knowledge and skills.
approach the task and achieve some level of self-regulation Nowadays, significant value is placed on transferable skills related to
(Papavlasopoulou, Sharma et al., 2017). There are different ways to digital technology, as they are vital for children's role in the digital
approach a problem, and it takes time to learn the necessary skills. In world and should be enhanced through activities that are connected to
our workshops, we used a visual programming tool (Scratch); one of the their lives (Iversen, Smith, & Dindler, 2018). In constructionist learning,
strengths of such tools is that computational practices become less students deal with difficulties, learn step by step to solve problems,
cognitively challenging (Kelleher & Pausch, 2005), so students can develop belief in their skills, and share ideas with peers (Çakır et al.,
focus on problem solving and creative thinking (Lin & Liu, 2012). Even 2017) (Chu et al., 2017). In our study, this was confirmed: the students

424
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

increased their sense of achievement, self-confidence, and self-efficacy. tasks should make the children both interested and able to learn.
At the end of the workshops, the students felt competent and proud of The process should afford participants the opportunity to apply as-
their achievements. After the workshop, compared to the boys, the girls pects of problem solving, coding, debugging, collaborating, plan-
expressed lower self-efficacy (a belief in one's capacity to succeed in ning, communicating, and reflecting on their work. The tasks should
tasks), possibly due to the fact that most of them did not have any support children's and instructors' ability to work through the pro-
previous experience with coding. A sense of self-efficacy is important cess of creating an artifact and benefit from an appropriate sequence
and should be enhanced, as it is related to cognitive strategies, effort, of tasks that allows the maximum use of their abilities. The proposed
and persistence in learning environments (Bandura, 1997). tasks are: 1) a warm-up activity and an inspiring introduction, 2)
explore/design, 3) construct/create the digital artifact, and 4)
5.2. Principles to facilitate constructionism-based learning environments evaluate/get feedback from peers, all alongside collaborating with
that support children's learning experience team members and receiving support from assistants/instructors.
9) Meaningful framework for the involvement of the instructors: In the
In summary, we identified the following nine principles emerging construction of an artifact, children are not alone: practitioners (e.g.,
from our DBR study, which shed light on best practices in the design of teachers and assistants) and anyone else who is responsible for the
coding activities for children based on constructionism. The principles learning task are also involved. Therefore, they should strive to
emerged represent the knowledge gained from the two years of inter- create more-articulate and -honest teaching relationships. Working
ventions and the comparative and retrospective analysis of the out- with digital tools allows the teacher and the learner to share a
comes based also on the literature: common goal by trying to get the computer to do what they want
and trying to understand what it does. As they create the artifact and
1) Social interaction: Collaboration between team members is a vital encounter “bugs”, children engage in conversations and develop the
part of coding activities. It is essential to enhance this and to ensure appropriate language to ask for help when they need it. As each
that there is a sense of equality of effort, involvement, and partici- artifact process is unique, new situations might occur that neither
pation between team members and among teams. the teacher nor the learner has faced before. So, the teacher should
2) Appropriate design according to age: Different age groups (teens and be dynamically involved in the creation and the discussions that
kids) need different approaches and designs in order to engage with occur. In that way, there is an opportunity to find new ways to
a coding activity. The instruction should consider the characteristics explain and show in real time the concepts needed to the children.
of each age group. One example is to promote a focus on function- As noted by Papert (Papert, 1980): “sharing the problem and the ex-
ality rather than graphics from the beginning of the activity to aid perience of solving it allows a child to learn from an adult not ‘by doing
younger participants. Instructors should ensure that children receive what teacher says’ but ‘by doing what teacher does.’”
guidelines on where to focus their attention when they code (such as
commands and output in Scratch). 6. Limitations
3) Duration of the activity: According to constructionism (Papert, 1980),
when having children use technological tools, duration is key for This study had some limitations. First, our workshops were designed
them to become personally, intellectually, and emotionally in- for children who had no previous experience of coding. The participants
volved. Workshops with longer hours can enable children to learn were randomly selected; therefore, the sample was not consistent in
strategies, gain technological skills, make connections with their terms of the children's prior knowledge and interaction with coding.
own practices, and engage with coding, helping to increase their Even though we had an indication in our data collection to measure the
knowledge. children's previous knowledge, we could have used other methods to be
4) Relevance of the activity and meaningful content: Offering a supportive more accurate. Second, the factors that might affect children's self-
theme for the artifact creation process, in which participants can perceptions are much more complex than we might assume. Third, al-
meaningfully participate in real-life settings, is a key factor sup- though the participants of the third cycle were committed for the two
porting the psychological and sociocultural elements for effective days' workshop and gave us high quality data, the sample is not large;
learning. Children become engaged and actively involved in the this is due to unexpected matters from the participants' side prior to the
process of artifact creation when it is meaningful for them and re- scheduled dates of the workshop. In addition, the age range of the
lated to a real-life context. students in the study is big (8–17), maybe, focusing on a smaller range
5) Physical and digital artifacts: The results of the present study showed would have given a different perspective. Demographic variables and
that the inclusion of physical tasks was engaging and enabled the other characteristics (cognitive and motivational) that distinguish them
participants to enhance their skills. The initial task of designing and from the rest of the population could have confounded the findings.
drawing in the traditional way (using pen and paper, as well as other Artifacts like games might be imperfect examples of what children
tangible materials) immediately put players into action and created learn, especially when they receive help during the process. Despite the
a physical and emotional peak in the process. fact that we observed the teams and made notes on the help they re-
6) Children's attitudes and motivation: The learning process should be ceived, we might have underestimated or overestimated their under-
supported by providing tasks that encourage children to reflect, standing of programming concepts.
motivate them to collaborate, and give them meaningful reasons to In addition, limitations due to the types of data collection methods
complete their artifacts. In this vein, Papert (1980, p. 42) high- and instruments used apply in our case. One limitation related to the
lighted a resemblance with juggling: “in a learning environment with eye tracking: the young age of the participants, their enthusiasm during
the proper emotional and intellectual support, the ‘uncoordinated’ can the activities, and the fact that eye trackers are designed for adults
learn circus arts like juggling and those with ‘no head for figures’ learn made it difficult to gather good-quality data. Moreover, this project
not only that they can do mathematics but that they can enjoy it as well.” used Scratch as a programming environment for the development of the
7) Cognitive overload: Coding activities for children can have a high artifact: another technological tool might have had a different impact
cognitive load, which affects their performance and overall experi- on the children's experience. Our choice was based on our literature
ence with the tasks. Proper organization and integration of the review and the acknowledged benefits of this programming environ-
learning materials, with a coherent representation and instruction of ment, which has been widely used over the last few years. Although we
the related digital tools, tasks, and activities, are required to avoid tried to apply all aspects of the DBR methodology in our study, showing
unnecessary streams of information and cognitive overload. the relationship between theory and practice (of the artifact construc-
8) Appropriate tasks: To effectively implement a coding workshop, the tion activity), there were still some limitations. The data were extensive

425
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

and comprehensive, requiring extended time for collection and ana- the middle school classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(2), 121–135.
lysis; consequently, because time and resources were limited, some data Çakır, N. A., Gass, A., Foster, A., & Lee, F. J. (2017). Development of a game-design
workshop to promote young girls' interest towards computing through identity ex-
might have been discarded or received less attention. Lastly, we defined ploration. Computers & Education, 108, 115–130.
in detail the setting of our study and how theory was linked with the Carver, S., & Mayer, R. (1988). Learning and transfer of debugging skills: Applying task
context; by default, this has a bias, as it presents our own understanding analysis to curriculum design and assessment. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.). Teaching and
learning computer programming: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 259–297). Hillsdale,
of contextualizing the theory. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chu, S. L., Schlegel, R., Quek, F., Christy, A., & Chen, K. (2017). 'I make, therefore I Am':
7. Future work The effects of curriculum-aligned making on children's self-identity. Paper presented at
the proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems.
Collective, D.-B. R. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational
Future research should further explore gender differences. Although inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
the main focus of our study was not to investigate gender differences in Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. New directions in educational
technology (pp. 15–22). Springer.
the process of creating an artifact, we found that girls like to make
Denner, J. (2007). The Girls Creating Games Program: An innovative approach to in-
different type games from boys, in terms of both content (story/purpose tegrating technology into middle school. Meridian: A Middle School Computer
of the game) and elements (colors and main character), and tend to Technologies Journal, 1(10).
handle the process slightly differently. In addition, future plans should Denner, J., & Werner, L. (2007). Computer programming in middle school: How pairs
respond to challenges. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 131–150.
include conducting our coding workshops in school settings to explore Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls:
their effects under a traditional teaching approach. Among other as- Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers
pects, researchers could explore the correlations with students' perfor- & Education, 58(1), 240–249. [Link]
Eordanidis, S., Gee, E., & Carmichael, G. (2017). The effectiveness of pairing analog and
mance in the form of grades. Finally, in terms of theory, it would be digital games to teach computer science principles to female youth. Journal of
interesting to see more studies in the area that ground their findings in Computing Sciences in Colleges, 32(3), 12–19.
constructionism. This would bring together researchers in the same Esper, S., Foster, S. R., Griswold, W. G., Herrera, C., & Snyder, W. (2014). CodeSpells:
Bridging educational language features with industry-standard languages. Paper
area to build a common ground regarding outcomes. presented at the proceedings of the 14th Koli calling international conference on computing
education research.
Acknowledgements Fay, A. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1994). Benefits of teaching design skills before teaching logo
computer programming: Evidence for syntax-independent learning. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 11(3), 187–210.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all of the chil- Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kin-
dren, teachers and parents for volunteering their time. Our very special dergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers
& Education, 63, 87–97. [Link]
thanks go to Kshitij Sharma, Uyen Dan Nguyen, Kristin Susanne
Fields, D., Vasudevan, V., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). The programmers' collective: Fostering
Karlsen, Ioannis Leftheriotis, Amanda Jørgine Haug, Lidia Luque participatory culture by making music videos in a high school Scratch coding
Fernandez, An Nguyen, Ton Mangmee, Marjeris Sofia Romero, Eline workshop. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 613–633.
Stenwig and Kristoffer Venæs Monsen. The project has been re- Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of
the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
commended by the Data Protection Official for Research, Norwegian Gallup, G. a. (2015). Searching for computer science: Access and barriers. U.S. K–12
Centre for Research Data (NSD), following all the regulations and re- education.
commendations for research with children. Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2018). From players to makers: An empirical ex-
amination of factors that affect creative game development. International Journal of
This work supported from the "Learning science the fun and creative Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 27–36.
way: coding, making and play as vehicles for informal science learning, Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. C. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American
in the 21st century" Project, under the European Commission's Horizon Psychologist, 69(1), 66.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12 a review of the state of the
2020 SwafS-11-2017 Program (Project Number: 787476). This article field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. [Link]
reflects the views only of the authors and it does not represent the 0013189X12463051.
opinion of neither the European Commission nor NTNU, and the Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended
computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education,
European Commission and NTNU can not be held responsible for any
25(2), 199–237.
use that might be made of its content. This work is also supported from Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming environments for novices. Computer Science Education
the Norwegian Research Council under the project FUTURE LEARNING Research, 2004, 127–154.
Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in
(number: 255129/H20), and by NOKUT under the Centre for Excellent
technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36–53.
IT Education (Excited) (number: 16/02049). Horizon, M. (October 5, 2015). Horizon Media study reveals Americans prioritize STEM
subjects over the arts; science is “cool,” coding is new literacy. PR Newswire. Retrieved
References from [Link]
americans-prioritize-stem-subjects-over-the-arts-science-is-cool-coding-is-new-
[Link].
Anderson, T. (2005). Design-based research and its application to a call centre innovation Hubwieser, P., Armoni, M., Giannakos, M. N., & Mittermeir, R. T. (2014). Perspectives
in distance education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue cana- and visions of computer science education in primary and secondary (K-12) Schools.
dienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 31(2). ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 7.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., &
education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. Jasute, E. (2015). A global snapshot of computer science education in K-12 schools.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on working group reports.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2018). From computational thinking to com-
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. putational empowerment: A 21st century PD Agenda. Paper presented at the partici-
Bers, M. U. (2010). Beyond computer literacy: Supporting youth's positive development patory design conference.
through technology. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2010(128), 13–23. Jones, S. P. (2013). Computing at school in the UK. [Link] us/
Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen um/people/simonpj/papers/cas/[Link].
to playground. Oxford University Press. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: instructionist and construc-
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking tionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40.
and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of
Education, 72, 145–157. making games for learning. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 313–334. [Link]
Bonner, D., & Dorneich, M. (2016). Developing game-based learning requirements to 10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022.
increase female middle school students interest in computer science. Paper presented Kafai, Y. B., & Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for
at the Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. children's learning. Routledge.
Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., Catchen, J., & Crockett, A. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (2012). Introduction. Constructionism in practice (pp. 13–20).
Using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in Routledge.
computer science education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI con- Kafai, Y. B., & Vasudevan, V. (2015). Constructionist gaming beyond the screen: Middle
ference on Human factors in computing systems. school students' crafting and computing of touch pads, board games, and controllers.
Burke, Q. (2012). The markings of a new pencil: Introducing programming-as-writing in Paper presented at the proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing

426
S. Papavlasopoulou et al. Computers in Human Behavior 99 (2019) 415–427

education. 12.020.
Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code. Robertson, J. (2013). The influence of a game-making project on male and female lear-
org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210. ners' attitudes to computing. Computer Science Education, 23(1), 58–83.
Kao, D., & Harrell, D. F. (2017). MazeStar: A platform for studying virtual identity and Robertson, J., & Howells, C. (2008). Computer game design: Opportunities for successful
computer science education. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 12th international learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 559–578.
conference on the foundations of digital games. Ruggiero, D., & Green, L. (2017). Problem solving through digital game design: A
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of quantitative content analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 28–37.
programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Sáez-López, J.-M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming
Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83–137. languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case
Lin, J. M.-C., & Liu, S.-F. (2012). An investigation into parent-child collaboration in study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141. https://
learning computer programming. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1). [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2016.03.003.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, Schmitz, B., Klemke, R., Walhout, J., & Specht, M. (2015). Attuning a mobile simulation
41, 51–61. game for school children using a design-based research approach. Computers &
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and Education, 81, 35–48.
software solution. Stewart-Gardiner, C., Carmichael, G., Latham, J., Lozano, N., & Greene, J. L. (2013).
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017a). Empirical studies on the Influencing middle school girls to study computer science through educational
maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. computer games. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(6), 90–97.
Entertainment Computing, 18, 57–78. [Link] Sung, H.-Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017b). Reviewing the affordances improving students' learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education,
of tangible programming languages: Implications for design and practice. Paper pre- 63, 43–51.
sented at the global engineering education conference (EDUCON), 2017. IEEE. Teague, J. (2002). Women in computing: What brings them to it, what keeps them in it?
Papavlasopoulou, S., Sharma, K., Giannakos, M., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Using eye-tracking ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 147–158.
to unveil differences between kids and teens in coding activities. Paper presented at the Tuhkala, A., Wagner, M.-L., Nielsen, N., Iversen, O. S., & Kärkkäinen, T. (2018).
proceedings of the 2017 conference on interaction design and children. Technology comprehension: Scaling making into a national discipline. Paper presented
Papavlasopoulou, S., Sharma, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2018). How do you feel about at the proceedings of the conference on creativity and making in education.
learning to code? investigating the effect of children’s attitudes towards coding using Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Trucano, M., & Fulmer, S. M. (2014).
eye-tracking. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 50–60. Enhancing students' engagement: Report of a 3-year intervention with middle school
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc. teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 51(6), 1195–1226.
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. ERIC. Wagner, A., Gray, J., Corley, J., & Wolber, D. (2013). Using app inventor in a K-12
Papert, S. (1997). Why school reform is impossible (with commentary on O'Shea's and summer camp. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium
Koschmann's reviews of" the children's machine. JSTOR. on Computer science education.
Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2015). Developing a framework for social technologies in Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced
learning via design-based research. Educational Media International, 52(1), 33–46. learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 53(4), 5–23.
Parmaxi, A., Zaphiris, P., & Ioannou, A. (2016). Enacting artifact-based activities for Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The fairy performance
social technologies in language learning using a design-based research approach. assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. Paper presented at
Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 556–567. the proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education.
Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. Educational design re- Wilson, A., & Moffat, D. C. (2010). Evaluating Scratch to introduce younger school-
search (pp. 64–78). Routledge. children to programming. Proceedings of the 22nd annual psychology of programming
Resnick, M. (2007). All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by interest group. Leganés, Spain: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
studying how children learn) in kindergarten. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
6th ACM SIGCHI conference on Creativity & cognition. Zhang, J. X., Liu, L., de Pablos, P. O., & She, J. (2014). The auxiliary role of information
Robertson, J. (2012). Making games in the classroom: Benefits and gender concerns. technology in teaching: Enhancing programming course using Alice. International
Computers & Education, 59(2), 385–398. [Link] Journal of Engineering Education, 30(3), 560–565.

427