Educational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking

Recently, efforts have been made to add programming activities to the curriculum that promote computational thinking and foster 21st-century digital skills. One of the programming modalities is the use of Tangible Programming Languages (TPL), used in activities with 4+ year old children. In this rev...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Matthias G. Funk, Jose Manuel Cascalho, Ana Isabel Santos, Armando B. Mendes
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:	tangible programming languages educational robotics computational thinking language complexity human computer interaction Mechanical engineering and machinery TJ1-1570 Electronic computers. Computer science QA75.5-76.95
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/244dd8c0817847bf956978b4b6a482be
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:244dd8c0817847bf956978b4b6a482be
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:244dd8c0817847bf956978b4b6a482be2021-11-15T06:58:29ZEducational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking2296-914410.3389/frobt.2021.713416https://doaj.org/article/244dd8c0817847bf956978b4b6a482be2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2021.713416/fullhttps://doaj.org/toc/2296-9144Recently, efforts have been made to add programming activities to the curriculum that promote computational thinking and foster 21st-century digital skills. One of the programming modalities is the use of Tangible Programming Languages (TPL), used in activities with 4+ year old children. In this review, we analyze solutions proposed for TPL in different contexts crossing them with non-TPL solutions, like Graphical Programming Languages (GPL). We start to characterize features of language interaction, their use, and what learning activities are associated with them. Then, in a diagram, we show a relation between the complexity of the languages with factors such as target age and output device types. We provide an analysis considering the type of input (e.g., TPL versus GPL) and output devices (e.g., physical robot versus graphical simulation) and evaluate their contribution to further insights about the general trends with respect to educational robotic systems. Finally, we discuss the opportunities to extend and improve TPLs based on the different solutions identified.Matthias G. FunkJose Manuel CascalhoAna Isabel SantosArmando B. MendesFrontiers Media S.A.articletangible programming languageseducational roboticscomputational thinkinglanguage complexityhuman computer interactionMechanical engineering and machineryTJ1-1570Electronic computers. Computer scienceQA75.5-76.95ENFrontiers in Robotics and AI, Vol 8 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	tangible programming languages educational robotics computational thinking language complexity human computer interaction Mechanical engineering and machinery TJ1-1570 Electronic computers. Computer science QA75.5-76.95
spellingShingle	tangible programming languages educational robotics computational thinking language complexity human computer interaction Mechanical engineering and machinery TJ1-1570 Electronic computers. Computer science QA75.5-76.95 Matthias G. Funk Jose Manuel Cascalho Ana Isabel Santos Armando B. Mendes Educational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking
description	Recently, efforts have been made to add programming activities to the curriculum that promote computational thinking and foster 21st-century digital skills. One of the programming modalities is the use of Tangible Programming Languages (TPL), used in activities with 4+ year old children. In this review, we analyze solutions proposed for TPL in different contexts crossing them with non-TPL solutions, like Graphical Programming Languages (GPL). We start to characterize features of language interaction, their use, and what learning activities are associated with them. Then, in a diagram, we show a relation between the complexity of the languages with factors such as target age and output device types. We provide an analysis considering the type of input (e.g., TPL versus GPL) and output devices (e.g., physical robot versus graphical simulation) and evaluate their contribution to further insights about the general trends with respect to educational robotic systems. Finally, we discuss the opportunities to extend and improve TPLs based on the different solutions identified.
format	article
author	Matthias G. Funk Jose Manuel Cascalho Ana Isabel Santos Armando B. Mendes
author_facet	Matthias G. Funk Jose Manuel Cascalho Ana Isabel Santos Armando B. Mendes
author_sort	Matthias G. Funk
title	Educational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking
title_short	Educational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking
title_full	Educational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking
title_fullStr	Educational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking
title_full_unstemmed	Educational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking
title_sort	educational robotics and tangible devices for promoting computational thinking
publisher	Frontiers Media S.A.
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/244dd8c0817847bf956978b4b6a482be
work_keys_str_mv	AT matthiasgfunk educationalroboticsandtangibledevicesforpromotingcomputationalthinking AT josemanuelcascalho educationalroboticsandtangibledevicesforpromotingcomputationalthinking AT anaisabelsantos educationalroboticsandtangibledevicesforpromotingcomputationalthinking AT armandobmendes educationalroboticsandtangibledevicesforpromotingcomputationalthinking
_version_	1718428482490335232

Educational Robotics and Tangible Devices for Promoting Computational Thinking

Ejemplares similares