Lego© Mindstorms: Merely a Toy or a Powerful Pedagogical Tool for Learning Computer Programming?

Research world-wide indicates that computer programming is a difficult subject to teach and learners find such modules challenging. The result is that attrition rates are high. South Africa experiences similar problems. These problems are exacerbated by learners entering tertiary institutions under-prepared. Such institutions are under much pressure to transform learners’ academic capabilities. Transformation can be realised through alternative pedagogical approaches as it is well known that these approaches can influence learning outcomes in a positive manner. This paper documents an innovative pedagogical approach to teach computer programming through the use of robotics. Lego Mindstorms robots has been used to further develop learners’ problem solving skills as well as encourage learners to “think out of the box”. The pedagogical approach supports Vygotsky’s philosophy regarding the Zone of Proximal Development. A case study was conducted and learners were expected to complete different projects using the Lego Mindstorms EV3 robots. The aim of each project was twofold. Firstly, to further reinforce fundamental computer programming concepts that had been partially developed. Secondly, to increase interaction between learners and generate higher motivation and interest in computer programming. A qualitative analysis was performed subsequent to the case study. The issues regarding the pedagogical approach are discussed and feedback from learners is analysed. The results are positive and encouraging.

[1]  M. Mason.  Outcomes-based education in South African curricular reform: A response to Jonathan Jansen , 1999 .

[2]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations , 1986, CACM.

[3]  Mordechai Ben-aft,et al.  Constructivism in computer science education , 1998, SIGCSE '98.

[4]  PrestonDavid.  Using collaborative learning research to enhance pair programming pedagogy , 2006 .

[5]  Iwona Miliszewska,et al.  Befriending computer programming: a proposed approach to teaching introductory programming , 2007 .

[6]  L. Thomas,et al.  A cognitive approach to identifying measurable milestones for programming skill acquisition , 2006, ITiCSE-WGR '06.

[7]  Tony Jenkins,et al.  Diversity and Motivation in Introductory Programming , 2002 .

[8]  Martinha Piteira,et al.  Innovate in your program computer class: an approach based on a serious game , 2011, OSDOC '11.

[9]  Anthony V. Robins,et al.  My Program is Correct But it Doesn t Run: A Preliminary Investigation of Novice Programmers Problems , 2005, ACE.

[10]  Lauri Malmi,et al.  A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming , 2007, ITiCSE-WGR '07.

[11]  Lynn Andrea Stein.  What We've Swept Under the Rug: Radically Rethinking CS1 , 1998 .

[12]  RobinsAnthony,et al.  Predictors of success and failure in a CS1 course , 2002 .

[13]  J. Whitney.  Case Study Research , 1999 .

[14]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Kathy Charmaz Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis Sage 224 £19.99 0761973532 0761973532 [Formula: see text]. , 2006, Nurse researcher.

[15]  ชวิตรา ตันติมาลา.  Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis , 2017 .

[16]  David Preston,et al.  Using collaborative learning research to enhance pair programming pedagogy , 2006, SITE.

[17]  Nannette P. Napier,et al.  Integrating authentic learning into a software development course: an experience report , 2013, SIGITE Conference.

[18]  J. Offer.  Mind and Society , 1988, Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind.

[19]  Jan Herrington,et al.  Authentic E-Learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks , 2006 .

[20]  Paul Roe,et al.  Learning to Program: Going Pair-Shaped , 2007 .

[21]  Pamela B. Lawhead,et al.  A road map for teaching introductory programming using LEGO© mindstorms robots , 2002, ITiCSE-WGR '02.

[22]  Janet Rountree,et al.  Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion , 2003, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[23]  Leland L. Beck,et al.  Cooperative learning instructional methods for CS1: Design, implementation, and evaluation , 2013, TOCE.

[24]  Michael de Raadt.  Teaching programming strategies explicitly to novice programmers , 2008 .

[25]  E. Deci,et al.  Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. , 2000, Contemporary educational psychology.

[26]  Nickolas J. G. Falkner,et al.  Identifying computer science self-regulated learning strategies , 2014, ITiCSE '14.

[27]  Raymond Lister,et al.  Concrete and other neo-Piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice programmer , 2011, ACE 2011.

[28]  Janet Rountree,et al.  Predictors of success and failure in a CS1 course , 2002, SGCS.

[29]  D. Perkins.  The Many Faces of Constructivism. , 1999 .

[30]  K. Cockcroft,et al.  Book Review: Finding Your Way in Qualitative Research , 2004 .

[31]  Sin Chun Ng,et al.  Facilitating independent learning with Lego Mindstorms robots , 2010, INROADS.

[32]  Leon E. Winslow,et al.  Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview , 1996, SGCS.

[33]  Alessio Gaspar,et al.  Self direction & constructivism in programming education , 2008, SIGITE '08.

[34]  Michael Goldweber,et al.  A road map for teaching introductory programming using LEGOcopyright mindstorms robots. , 2003 .

[35]  J. Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide,et al.  An evaluation of students' motivation in computer-supported collaborative learning of programming concepts , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[36]  M. Bunge.  Mind and Society , 2010 .

[37]  J. Brown.  New Learning Environments for the 21st Century: Exploring the Edge , 2006 .

[38]  Kirsti Ala-Mutka,et al.  A study of the difficulties of novice programmers , 2005, ITiCSE '05.

[39]  Hu Xiaohui.  Improving teaching in Computer Programming by adopting student-centred learning strategies , 2006 .

[40]  John Maloney,et al.  The Scratch Programming Language and Environment , 2010, TOCE.

[41]  Peggy Cole,et al.  Constructivism revisited: a search for common ground , 1992 .

[42]  A. Stetsenko,et al.  Teaching–learning and development as activist projects of historical Becoming: expanding Vygotsky's approach to pedagogy , 2009 .

[43]  Raymond Lister,et al.  Some empirical results for neo-Piagetian reasoning in novice programmers and the relationship to code explanation questions , 2012, ACE 2012.

[44]  Thomas C. Reeves,et al.  Authentic Tasks Online: A synergy among learner, task, and technology , 2006 .

[45]  A. Nicolaides,et al.  Innovative teaching and learning methodologies for higher education Institutions , 2012 .

[46]  T. Goetz,et al.  Academic Emotions in Students' Self-Regulated Learning and Achievement: A Program of Qualitative and Quantitative Research , 2002 .

[47]  Atsusi Hirumi,et al.  Examining the pedagogical foundations of modern educational computer games , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[48]  Yiasemina Karagiorgi,et al.  Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations , 2005, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[49]  Alex Kozulin,et al.  Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context , 2003 .