Abstract

An unplugged approach to teaching enables students to explore Computational Thinking without using a computer. It might appear that if students are to learn programming, they should focus on computer-based work; however, it appears that using “unplugged” activities before engaging in computer-based coding (programming) activities for each unit of work leads to better outcomes for students in the same amount of time. In this paper we explore why this could be the case, by reviewing literature that reports on these experiences, and also using different theoretical lenses (Notional Machines, Semantic Profiles, and the Zone of Proximal Development) to analyse how the combination of experiences can engage students. We also explore how the approach integrates with mathematics education.

Keywords

References

• Barcelos, T. S., Munoz, R., Villarroel, R., Merino, E., & Silveira, I. F. (2018). Mathematics Learning through Computational Thinking Activities: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(7), 815-845. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-024-07-0815
• Bell, T. (2018). CS Unplugged and Computational thinking. In V. Dagienė & E. Jasutė (Eds.), Constructionism 2018 (pp. 21–28). Vilnius, Lithuania.
• Bell, T., & Lodi, M. (2019). Constructing computational thinking without using computers. Constructivist Foundations, 14(3), 342-351.
• Bell, T., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS Unplugged—How Is It Used, and Does It Work? In Böckenhauer, H. J., Komm, D., & Unger, W. (Eds.), (2018). Adventures Between Lower Bounds and Higher Altitudes: Essays Dedicated to Juraj Hromkovič on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday (Vol. 11011). (pp. 497–521). Springer.
• Bell, T., Rosamond, F., & Casey, N. (2012). Computer Science Unplugged and related projects in math and computer science popularization. In H. L. Bodlaender, R. Downey, F. V Fomin, & D. Marx (Eds.), The Multivariate Algorithmic Revolution and Beyond: Essays Dedicated to Michael R. Fellows on the occasion of his 60th birthday (Vol. LNCS 7370, pp. 398–456). Springer. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30891-8_18
• Bower, M., & Falkner, K. (2015). Computational thinking, the notional machine, pre-service teachers, and research opportunities. Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2015), CRPIT 160, 37-46.
• Caeli, E. N., & Yadav, A. (2019). Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: A historical perspective. TechTrends, 64(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00410-5
• Conana, H., Solomons, D., & Marshall, D. (2022). Supporting the transition from first to second-year Mathematics using Legitimation Code Theory. In Enhancing Science Education (pp. 206–223). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003055549
• Curzon, P., Bell, T., Waite, J., & Dorling, M. (2019). Computational thinking. In S. Fincher & A. Robins (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research (pp. 513–546). Cambridge University Press.
• Curzon, P., McOwan, P. W., Plant, N., & Meagher, L. R. (2014). Introducing teachers to computational thinking using unplugged storytelling. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education --- WiPSCE ’14 (pp. 89–92). https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670767
• Curzon, P., Waite, J., Maton, K., & Donohue, J. (2020). Using semantic waves to analyse the effectiveness of unplugged computing activities. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3421590.3421606
• Dankenbring, C. A. (2021). Legitimation code theory as an analytical tool for examining discourse within ıntegrated STEM education (Doctoral dissertation). Purdue University Graduate School.
• Doran, Y. J. (2021). Multimodal knowledge: Using language, mathematics and images in physics. In Maton, K., Martin J. R. & Doran, Y. J. (eds) Teaching Science (pp. 162–184). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351129282
• Dorling, M., & White, D. (2015). Scratch: A Way to Logo and Python. Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1145/2676723.2677256
• Du, Y., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Denny, P. (2020). A review of research on parsons problems. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Australasian Computing Education Conference, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373165.3373187
• Du Boulay, B., O'Shea, T., & Monk, J. (1981). The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices. International Journal of Man-machine Studies, 14(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(81)80056-9
• Faber, H. H., Wierdsma, M. D., Doornbos, R. P., van der Ven, J. S., & de Vette, K. (2017). Teaching computational thinking to primary school students via unplugged programming lessons. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network, 12(1), 13-24.
• Falkner, K., Sentance, S., Vivian, R., Barksdale, S., Busuttil, L., Cole, E., Liebe, C., Maiorana, F., McGill, M., & Quille, K. (2019). An international comparison of K-12 computer science education intended and enacted curricula. Proceedings of the 19th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364510.3364517
• Feaster, Y., Segars, L., Wahba, S. K., & Hallstrom, J. O. (2011). Teaching CS unplugged in the high school (with limited success). In Proceedings of the 16th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE 2011, 248-252. https://doi.org/10.1145/1999747.1999817
• Fincher, S., Jeuring, J., Miller, C. S., Donaldson, P., Du Boulay, B., Hauswirth, M., Hellas, A., Hermans, F., Lewis, C., Mühling, A., Pearce, J. & Petersen, A. (2020). “Notional Machines in Computing Education: The Education of Attention”. In: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ITiCSE-WGR ’20. Trondheim, Norway: Association for Computing Machinery, 2020, pp. 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/3437800.3439202
• Goos, M., Galbraith, P., & Renshaw, P. (2002). Socially mediated metacognition: Creating collaborative zones of proximal development in small group problem solving. Educational studies in Mathematics, 49(2), 193-223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016209010120
• Guseva, L. G., & Solomonovich, M. (2017). Implementing the zone of proximal development: From the pedagogical experiment to the developmental education system of Leonid Zankov. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(4), 775-786.
• Hermans, F., & Aivaloglou, E. (2017). To scratch or not to scratch?: A controlled experiment comparing plugged first and unplugged first programming lessons. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 49–56). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137072
• Hestenes, D. (2010). Modeling theory for math and science education. In Lesh, R., Galbraith, P. L., Haines, C. R. and Hurford, A. Modeling students' mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 13–41). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0561-1
• Kukul, V., Gökçearslan, Ş., & Günbatar, M. S. (2017). Computer programming self-efficacy scale (CPSES) for secondary school students: Development, validation and reliability. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 7(1), 158-179.
• Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., ... & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902
• Lerman, S. (2020). Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0
• Lesh, R., Galbraith, P. L., Haines, C. R., & Hurford, A. (2010). Modeling students' mathematical modeling competencies. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0561-1
• Li, F., Wang, X., He, X., Cheng, L., & Wang, Y. (2022). The effectiveness of unplugged activities and programming exercises in computational thinking education: A Meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 7993-8013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10915-x
• Maton, K. (2013). Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education 24(1), 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.005
• Moursund, D. (2006). Computational thinking and math maturity: improving math education in K-8 schools. University of Oregon Press.
• Neophytou, E., Manwell, L. A., & Eikelboom, R. (2021). Effects of excessive screen time on neurodevelopment, learning, memory, mental health, and neurodegeneration: A scoping review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 724–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00182-2
• Nordby, S. K., Bjerke, A. H., & Mifsud, L. (2022). Computational thinking in the primary mathematics classroom: A systematic review. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 8(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-022-00102-5
• Pardhan, S., Parkin, J., Trott, M., & Driscoll, R. (2022). Risks of digital screen time and recommendations for mitigating adverse outcomes in children and adolescents. Journal of School Health, 92(8), 765–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13170
• Parsons, D. & Haden, P. (2006). Parson’s Programming Puzzles: A Fun and Effective Learning Tool for First Programming Courses. In D. Tolhurst & S. Mann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education (Vol. 52, pp. 157-163). Australian Computer Society.
• Pérez, A. (2018). A framework for computational thinking dispositions in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(4), 424-461. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.4.0424
• Ramalingam, V. & Wiedenbeck, S. (1998). Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 367-381. https://doi.org/10.2190/C670-Y3C8-LTJ1-CT3P
• Robins, A. V. (2019). Novice programmers and introductory programming. In Fincher, S. A. & Robins, A. V. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of computing education research, (pp. 327– 376). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.013
• Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200
• Roschelle, J., Kaput, J. J., & Stroup, W. (2012). SimCalc: Accelerating students’ engagement with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobsen & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education, (pp. 60-88). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602671
• Roth, W. M. (2020). Zone of proximal development in mathematics education. In Lerman, S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education, (pp. 913-916). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0
• Sentance, S., Waite, J., & Kallia, M. (2019). Teaching computer programming with PRIMM : a sociocultural perspective. Computer Science Education, 29(2–3), 136–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1608781
• Schulte, C. (2012, November). Uncovering structure behind function: the experiment as teaching method in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE ’12) (pp. 40-47). https://doi.org/10.1145/2481449.2481460
• Schwarzer, R., Schmitz, G. S., & Daytner, G. T. (1999). Teacher self-efficacy. https://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/teacher_se.htm
• Sigman, A. (2012). Time for a view on screen time. Archives of disease in childhood, 97(11), 935–942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2012-302196
• Sorva, J. (2013). Notional machines and introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 13(2), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2483710.2483713
• Steele, D. F. (1999). Research, reflection, practice: Learning mathematical language in the zone of proximal development. Teaching Children Mathematics, 6(1), 38-42. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.6.1.0038
• Stillman, G. A., Blum, W., & Biembengut, M. S. (2015). Mathematical modelling in education research and practice. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18272-8
• Taub, R., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2012). CS Unplugged and middle school students’ views, attitudes, and intentions regarding CS. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 12(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1145/2160547.2160551
• Thies, R., & Vahrenhold, J. (2016, July). Back to school: Computer science unplugged in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ITiCSE ’16 (pp. 118–123). https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899442
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Revised edition). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Winberg, C., McKenna, S., & Wilmot, K. (Eds.). (2020). Building knowledge in higher education: Enhancing teaching and learning with legitimation code theory. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003028215
• Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The link magazine, 6, 20-23. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why
• Wohl, B., Porter, B. & Clinch, S. (2015, November). Teaching computer science to 5-7 year-olds: An initial study with Scratch, Cubelets and Unplugged Computing. In WiPSCE ’15. London, United Kingdom: Association for Computing Machinery, (pp. 55–60). https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818340
• Yadav, A., Hong, H. & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60, 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.