Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning Computational Thinking Without a Computer: How Computational Participation Happens in a Computational Thinking Board Game

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study utilized unplugged computational thinking learning material named Robot City as the instructional material. The board game corresponds to structural programming, including sequential structure, conditional structure, repetitive structure, and the modeling concept of calling a procedure in programming languages. According to the different task assignment methods, the aim of playing the board game is to help instruct the seventh-grade students in computational thinking, and to explore its impact on students’ learning achievements of computational thinking and the behavioral patterns of computational participation. The results revealed that the learning achievements of the students who worked together to solve the clear-ended task objectives were significantly higher than those of the students who cooperated within their groups to solve the open-ended competitive tasks. When the target task is not gained in advance, the students had to compete with other groups and vie for their target task, resulting in students’ logical thinking constantly changing and being interrupted. From the behavioral pattern analysis, it was found that the students continued to discuss the problems during the game. The pattern of collaborative analysis was iterative itself, indicating that the board game can deepen students’ interaction and enhance their higher level thinking. The results also showed that collaborative creation was observed (RO) by others, proving that the game can increase students’ desire to learn, and thus improve their learning achievement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  • Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education,75, 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allsop, Y. (2019). Assessing computational thinking process using a multiple evaluation approach. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction,19, 30–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altintas, T., Gunes, A., & Sayan, H. (2016). A peer-assisted learning experience in computer programming language learning and developing computer programming skills. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,53(3), 329–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries.

  • Anderson, S. P. (2011). Seductive interaction design: Creating playful, fun, and effective user experiences. London: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,75, 661–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2008). ActSds and OdfSds: Programs for converting INTERACT and the observer data files into SDIS timed-event sequential data files. Behavior Research Methods,40, 869–872.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., Quera, V., & Gnisci, A. (2009). Observer agreement for timed-event sequential data: A comparison of time-based and event-based algorithms. Behavior Research Methods,41, 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology,38(6), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, M., & Lee, V. R. (2011). Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL),1(2), 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E. W., Connolly, T. M., Hainey, T., Manea, M., Kärki, A., et al. (2014). A narrative literature review of games, animations and simulations to teach research methods and statistics. Computers & Education,74, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of Computational Thinking Skills through Unplugged Activities in Primary School. In: Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 65–72). ACM.

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burguillo, J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance. Computers & Education,55(2), 566–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S.-C., & Hwang, G.-J. (2017). Development of an effective educational computer game based on a mission synchronization-based peer-assistance approach. Interactive Learning Environments,25(5), 667–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, D., Charles, T., McNeill, M., Bustard, D., & Black, M. (2011). Game-based feedback for educational multi-user virtual environments. British Journal of Educational Technology,42(4), 638–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education,109, 162–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conde, M. Á., Fernández-Llamas, C., Rodríguez-Sedano, F. J., Guerrero-Higueras, Á. M., Matellán-Olivera, V., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017, October). Promoting computational thinking in K-12 students by applying unplugged methods and robotics. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (p. 7). ACM.

  • Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education,59(2), 661–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagiene, V., & Stupuriene, G. (2016). Bebras—A sustainable community building model for the concept based learning of informatics and computational thinking. Informatics in Education,15(1), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology,41(1), 10–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S. (2008). The effects of emphasizing computational thinking in an introductory programming course. In 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. T2C-3)

  • Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research,71, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez, A., Saenz-De-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernandez-Sanz, L., Pages, C., & Martínez-Herraiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education,63, 380–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duan, X., Liao, W., Liang, D., Qiu, L., Gao, Q., Liu, C., et al. (2012). Large-scale brain networks in board game experts: Insights from a domain-related task and task-free resting state. PLoS ONE,7(3), e32532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faria, A. J., & Nulsen, R. O. (1996). Business simulation games: Current usage levels. A ten year update. Paper presented at the Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL conference.

  • Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education,88, 370–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. J. E. R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher,42(1), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gweon, G., Rose, C., Carey, R., & Zaiss, Z. (2006). Providing support for adaptive scripting in an on-line collaborative learning environment. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems.

  • Hammond, J. A., Bithell, C. P., Jones, L., & Bidgood, P. (2010). A first year experience of student-directed peer-assisted learning. Active Learning in Higher Education,11(3), 201–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanus, M. D., & Fox, J. (2015). Assessing the effects of gamification in the classroom: A longitudinal study on intrinsic motivation, social comparison, satisfaction, effort, and academic performance. Computers & Education,80, 152–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. (2018). Computational Thinking Unplugged: Comparing the Impact on Confidence and Competence from Analog and Digital Resources in Computer Science Professional Development for Elementary Teachers: A Education doctoral Dissertation in Executive Leadership. Retrieved from Library in St. John Fisher College (Paper 374). https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/education_etd/374

  • Hinebaugh, J. P. (2009). A board game education. Lanham: R&L Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education,126, 296–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: cooperation, competition, and individualization.

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1984). Building acceptance of differences between handicapped and nonhandicapped students: The effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction. The Journal of social psychology,122(2), 257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. J. G. S. (1986). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school. ASCD.

  • Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences,47, 1991–1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Park, H., & Baek, Y. (2009). Not just fun, but serious strategies: Using meta-cognitive strategies in game-based learning. Computers & Education,52(4), 800–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S., Namukasa, I. K., Somanath, S., Weber, J., et al. (2017). A pedagogical framework for computational thinking. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education,3(2), 154–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., et al. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance Children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology,25(6), 860–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcelino, M. J., Pessoa, T., Vieira, C., Salvador, T., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Learning computational thinking and scratch at distance. Computers in Human Behavior,80, 470–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcallister, W. J. B. E. R. J. (1995). Are pupils equipped for group work without training or instruction? British Educational Research Journal,21(3), 395–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niu, R., Jiang, L., & Deng, Y. (2018). Effect of proficiency pairing on L2 learners’ language learning and scaffolding in collaborative writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,27(3), 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orosz, G., Farkas, D., & Roland-Levy, C. (2013). Are competition and extrinsic motivation reliable predictors of academic cheating? Frontiers in Psychology,4(87), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation,10(3), 187–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellas, N., & Peroutseas, E. (2017). Leveraging Scratch4SL and Second Life to motivate high school students’ participation in introductory programming courses: Findings from a case study. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia,23(1), 51–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2001). Fun, play and games: What makes games engaging. Digital Game-Based Learning,5(1), 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian, M., & Clark, K. R. (2016). Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. Computers in Human Behavior,63, 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramani, G. B., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Promoting broad and stable improvements in low-income children’s numerical knowledge through playing number board games. Child Development,79(2), 375–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, B., & Wiley, D. (2007). The design and use of simulation computer games in education. ITLS Faculty Publications, 1.

  • Slavin, R. E. J. C. E. P. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology,21(1), 43–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Tesler, L. J. C. O. T. A. (2000). Programming by example: Novice programming comes of age. Communications of the ACM,43(3), 75–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., & Ninaus, M. (2018). Training computational thinking through board games: The case of Crabs & Turtles. International Journal of Serious Games,5(2), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Sande, E., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2015). The role of executive control in young children’s serious gaming behavior. Computers & Education,82, 432–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies,20(4), 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children,23(3), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2007). Knowledge convergence in collaborative learning: Concepts and assessment. Learning and Instruction,17(4), 416–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,49(3), 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,366(1881), 3717–3725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, B., Hu, Y., Ruis, A. R., & Wang, M. (2019). Analysing computational thinking in collaborative programming: A quantitative ethnography approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y.-T. C. (2012). Building virtual cities, inspiring intelligent citizens: Digital games for developing students’ problem solving and learning motivation. Computers & Education,59(2), 365–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y.-T. C., & Chang, C.-H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education,68, 334–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagal, J. P., Rick, J., & Hsi, I. (2006). Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games. Simulation & Gaming,37(1), 24–40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology under Contract Numbers—MOST 108-2511-H-003-056-MY3 and MOST 107-2511-H-003-031.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Wei-Chen Kuo & Ting-Chia Hsu

Authors
  1. Wei-Chen Kuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ting-Chia Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ting-Chia Hsu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: A Task Example Taken from the Bebras Contest (International Challenge on Informatics and Computational Thinking, 2016)

Appendix A: A Task Example Taken from the Bebras Contest (International Challenge on Informatics and Computational Thinking, 2016)

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuo, WC., Hsu, TC. Learning Computational Thinking Without a Computer: How Computational Participation Happens in a Computational Thinking Board Game. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 29, 67–83 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00479-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00479-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation