Developing computational thinking via the visual programming tool lego education we do

Developing Computational Thinking via the Visual
Programming Tool Lego Education WeDo
Dra. Ana María Pinto Llorente
Dra. Sonia Casillas Martín
Dr. Marcos Cabezas González
Dr. Francisco José García Peñalvo
Salamanca, November 2016

TEEM'16 Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality November 2016
Introduction
The present study is conducted in the framework of Science, Primary Education and
Computational Thinking.
New Curricula in STEM subjects challenges of current and future society
current digital world
→
Digital language and all the necessary skills
Teaching practice must change
Ability to program solve problems
Computational thinking working paradigm
→
→
Abstract, logical, modeling & constructive thinking

Objectives
The aim of the present study was to know the students’ perception about the use of the
software Lego Education WeDo in the subject of natural sciences to promote the
computational thinking.
We tried to test these hypotheses
H1. Students will learn to build and program 3D models with Lego WeDo.
H2. Students will think creatively to solve the problems.
H3. Lego WeDo will help pupils to know the relationship between cause and effect.
H4. The tasks developed will allow pupils to reflect about the possibilities they have,
and to find the correct answer.

Method
The study focused on an innovative project of computational thinking, carried out in the
state-funded school Santísima Trinidad in Salamanca, in Castilla-León, during the academic
year 2015-2016.
Natural Sciences Unit. Forces and machines
1. To understand the importance of machines, and classify them as simple and
complex machines.
2. To list the most important simple machines and know how they work.
3. To know the three types of lever.
4. To understand the contribution of technological progress to meet people’s needs.
5. To become familiar with some mechanical movements.
→

Method
Lego Education WeDo (Lego Group in collaboration with MIT).
To build and program two 3D models
Dancing Birds
Smart Spinner
→
Lego Education materials support a process of learning that includes four phases:
Connect, Construct, Contemplate, and Continue.

Method
We have employed a Quantitative Research
Ex-post-facto, non-experimental design.
Semantic differential and test.
Descriptive and inferential analysis.
Research Phases
1. We established the objectives and hypothesis of our research.
2. We selected the sample and instruments.
3. We carried out the register coding and data analysis to obtain the results and conclusions
of our study.

Sample
• 52 Spanish pupils from the 4th grade of Primary education of the compulsory subject
natural sciences with ages between 9 (53.8%, n=28) and 10 (46.2%, n=24).
• 48.1% were boys (n=25) and 51.9% were girls (n=27).
• All of them had knowledge of the use of computers, tablets and interactive whiteboard.
• The fifty-two pupils had participated in previous projects in which they had the
opportunity to work with the visual programming tool: Scratch.
• 34.6% (n=18) were enrolled in the Robotics workshop, and had experience in the use of
the 3D modeling software, Sketch Up.
Sample

Instrument
Instrument
Semantic differential & Test (adapted from the research led by García-Valcárcel)
Types of questions → open, close, short answers & 7-point Likert scale (1 is the most negative answer,
and 7 is the most positive one).
Internal consistency → Cronbach’s alpha, α=0.870.

Data Collection & Analysis
Data Collection
We collected the data in the subject Natural Sciences during the academic year 2015-2016
Then these data were coded to enter them in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPPS)
version 24.
Analysis
We carried out the statistical analyses: descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages), and
inferential (the non-parametric test: Mann-Whitney U test).

Results
Students’ Perceptions about the Development of the Project
The participants assessed very positively the project carried out about natural sciences and
computational thinking.
The students considered that the project had been funny; they had loved this way of working;
and wanted to learn more about the subject.
Semantic differential
It has been boring 6.77 It has been funny
I do not like this way of working 6.77 I love this way of working
I am no longer interested in this topic 6.77 I want to learn more about this topic

They emphasized that the teacher had explained clearly what they had to do; they considered
that her help had been important; and emphasized her role as a guide, showing them what was
right or wrong.
The teacher has not given us clear
instructions
6.71 The teacher has explained clearly what
we had to do
The teacher has not helped us 5.88 The teacher has helped us
The teacher has not indicated what
was right or wrong in our work.
5.81 The teacher has indicated what was
right or wrong in our work.

The pupils also stated that the project had been useful and interesting; they had understood
the activities, they had maximized time, they had learned more things than usual, and they had
done them working in groups.
It has been useless 6.69 It has been useful
It has not been interesting 6.63 It has been interesting
I have not understood what we have
done
6.65 I have understood what we have done
I have lost time 6.17 I have maximized time
I have learned less things than usual 6.52 I have learned more things than usual
We have not done the exercises well,
working in group
6.46 We have done the activities well,
working in group

Regarding the items that referred to the computational thinking, we emphasized the positive
results of the students’ perceptions about the possibilities offered by Lego WeDo to build
models in 3D and program them, as well as to learn to think creatively to make the 3D models,
to reflect about the activities, to solve problems in a logical way, and to know the results of
their decisions.
I have not learned to build models in
3D
6.31 I have learned to build models in 3D
I have not learned to program 6.50 I have learned to program
I have not learned to think creatively
to make the 3D models.
6.37 I have learned to think creatively to
make the 3D models
The activities done with Lego WeDo
have not allowed us to reflect
6.42 The activities done with Lego WeDo
have allowed us to reflect
The project has not allowed us to
solve problems in a logical way
6.29 The project has allowed us to solve
problems in a logical way
Lego WeDo has not allowed us to
know the results of our decisions
6.38 Lego WeDo has allowed us to know
the results of our decisions

We calculated the Mann-Whitney U test to determine whether there were statistically
significant differences (CI 95%) between boys and girls in their assessments of the items of the
semantic differential. The data analysis indicated that there were statistically significant
differences in the items that referred to:
• I have learned to program (item 15).
• The activities done with Lego WeDo have allowed us to reflect (item 18).
• I have learned to build models in 3D (item 24).
• The project has allowed us to solve problems in a logical way (item 26).
• I have learned to think creatively to make the 3D models (item 27).
• Lego WeDo has allowed us to know the results of our decisions (item 28).

Independent-Samples Mann-Whitney U Test
Gender Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Mann-Whitney U Sig. Z
Item 15
Boy
Girl
35.58
18.09
889.5
488.5
110.50 .000 -4.813
Item 18
Boy
Girl
14.42
37.69
360.5
1017.5
639.50 .000 -6.228
Item 24
Boy
Girl
39.04
14.89
976.0
402.0
24.000 .000 -6.465
Item 26
Boy
Girl
13.80
38.26
345.0
1033.0
655.00 .000 -6.448
Item 27
Boy
Girl
13.42
38.61
335.5
1042.5
664.50 .000 -6.698
Item 28
Boy
Girl
13.98
38.09
349.5
1028.5
650.50 .000 -6.472

Results
Students’ Perceptions about the Strong and Weak Aspects of the Project
61.50% to build &
program 3D
models
23.10% to work
as a team
15.40% to work
playing
Students’ Perceptions about the aspects they liked most

Students’ Perceptions about the aspects they liked least
46.00% nothing
32.70% no
enough time
11.50% to work
as a team
5.80% no enough
tools
3.80% to destroy
the models

Students’ Perceptions about the problems they had
51.90% no
problems
15.40% to
program the
models
13.50% problems
with the
resources
11.50% to work
as a team7.70% no enough
time to finish

Conclusions
The results from the semantic differential suggested the effectiveness of the project carried out in
the subject natural sciences to increase the participants’ awareness of the computational thinking.
There were evidences of the possibilities offered to:
• reflect and think creatively about the opportunities they had to fulfill the activities correctly
• know the results of their personal or group decisions
• solve the problems in a logical way
The students assessed very positively the teacher’s role in the project → guide, and thought that her
help was essential for the success of the project.

Conclusions
There were evidences of the students’ satisfaction towards the project, considering it useful and
interesting, considering it a perfect way of learning which motivated them to learn more about the
discipline of natural sciences.
The use of Lego Education WeDo have allowed them to:
• understand better the activities
• work in groups
• learn more things than usual.
Our study and its results have proved the potential of the software Lego Education WeDo in the
subject of natural sciences to:
• promote the computational thinking
• engage primary education students in programming, and problem solving.

Developing computational thinking via the visual programming tool lego education we do

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Developing computational thinking via the visual programming tool lego education we do (20)

More from Grial - University of Salamanca (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Developing computational thinking via the visual programming tool lego education we do