Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

it - Information Technology

Methods and Applications of Informatics and Information Technology

Editor-in-Chief: Conrad, Stefan / Molitor, Paul

6 Issues per year

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 60, Issue 2


Empowering learners with tools in CS education: Physical computing in secondary schools

Mareen Przybylla
  • Corresponding author
  • Universität Potsdam, Institut für Informatik, August-Bebel-Str. 89, D-14482 Potsdam, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ralf Romeike
Published Online: 2018-03-22 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2017-0032


In computer science, computer systems are both, objects of investigation and tools that enable creative learning and design. Tools for learning have a long tradition in computer science education. Already in the late 1960s, Papert developed a concept which had an immense impact on the development of informal education in the following years: his theory of constructionism understands learning as a creative process of knowledge construction that is most effective when learners create something purposeful that they can try out, show around, discuss, analyse and receive praise for. By now, there are numerous learning and programming environments that are based on the constructionist ideas. Modern tools offer opportunities for students to learn in motivating ways and gain impressive results in programming games, animations, implementing 3D models or developing interactive objects. This article gives an overview of computer science education research related to tools and media to be used in educational settings. We analyse different types of tools with a special focus on the categorization and development of tools for student adequate physical computing activities in the classroom. Research around the development and evaluation of tools and learning resources in the domain of physical computing is illustrated with the example of “My Interactive Garden”, a constructionist learning and programming environment. It is explained how the results from empirical studies are integrated in the continuous development of the learning material.

Keywords: tools; media; resources; computer science education; physical computing

1 Introduction

Computer science (CS) education prepares knowledge and insights from computer science for the education of children and adults in diverse contexts. Research in this domain is concerned with the analysis and reflection of educational settings, processes and results of learning in CS and the design, development, testing and evaluation of educational concepts, methods, subject-related teaching and learning processes, resources and media.

Concerning media, hardly any other school subject is shaped as much by its tools as computer science. Presumably there is also no other subject that can make use of such a large variety of available tools to introduce new topics, clarify facts or as a subject of instruction. Numerous tools are available that facilitate the understanding of complex and difficult topics, help to explain concepts with visualization, illustrate application scenarios in simulations, support learning with experimentation platforms or in interactive eBooks, learning tutorials, etc. Additionally, there are also many tools available that empower even the youngest learners to model, design and create their own animations, applications, tools, games, toys or smart devices.

Early successful attempts of using dedicated learning environments for teaching stem from the late 1960s and have influenced the development of educational tools until today. The main idea was to take away unnecessarily complex aspects of programming languages and only provide those elements that support learning in the desired domain. Especially the Logo microworld and the corresponding constructionist approach to learning [11] in the following years had a tremendous impact on both, learning in computer science and in other subject areas. As Papert argues, “[learning] happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” [13]. Hence, the construction of knowledge is based on an active construction process. In such a way, a meaningful artifact is created, which the learner can try out, show around, discuss, analyse and receive praise for. It is the examination of such an artifact that leads to the understanding of a particular phenomenon. Microworlds are computer assisted learning environments in which such learning can happen unhindered by the complexities of the world [12]. This approach was adopted for computing education: Microworlds and virtual interactive robots have been commonly used in introductory courses. With tools like Kara1 and Karel the Robot,2 students in computing education are exposed to programming and basic CS concepts at very early learning stages.

Modern learning environments suitable for novices in computer science and especially programming, for instance, empower their users to create animations and games (e. g. Scratch3 and Greenfoot4), to control robots (e. g. LEGO Mindstorms5), to develop smartphone apps (e. g. AppInventor6) or to create interactive objects and smart devices with physical computing platforms (e. g. Arduino,7 Raspberry Pi8 or BBC MircoBit9). These tools may not only have a strong impact on the motivation of the students, but also affect the extent to which they can contribute creatively in the classroom.

In the following, we give an overview of computer science education research related to tools and media to be used in educational settings. We analyse different types of tools and possible characterizations and adapt them to current developments. A special focus is set on tools for physical computing activities in the classroom. In the second part of this article, we present research around the development and evaluation of tools and learning resources in the domain of physical computing. With the example of “My Interactive Garden”, a constructionist learning and programming environment, we introduce a concept related to design research and explain how the results from empirical studies are integrated in the continuous development of the learning material.

2 Soft- and hardware tools for empowering learners

In their taxonomy of programming environments for novices, Kelleher and Pausch [9] identified two main categories: tools that teach learners how to program for its own sake (“teaching systems”) and those that empower learners to use programming languages in the pursuit of other goals (“empowering systems”). The core idea of this taxonomy can be transferred to computer science learning environments in general: teaching systems for CS education pursue the goal of facilitating learning, understanding and application of CS concepts, methodology and content, such as programming languages, encryption algorithms or logic circuits. Typical tools guide students through exercises, simulations, visualizations or allow experimentation. Empowering systems, in contrast, enable learners to make use of their CS competencies pursuing other goals, i. e. that they apply their knowledge and skills to solve problems, to create systems according to specific goals or even to invent new systems and devices (e. g. apps, games, websites or smart objects).

2.1 Educational software

Different researchers have attempted to capture an overall picture of the available tools and their peculiarities (e. g. [14] and [4]), but, similar to the distinction of teaching and empowering systems, the classification categories are often not clear-cut. For example, Gross and Powers [4] identified the following categories for programming environments for learning: Microworlds (e. g. Logo,10 Karel the Robot, Alice11), Visual programming environments (iconic and textual) (e. g. RoboLab,12 JPie13), Flow Model Environments (e. g. RAPTOR14), Object workbench environments (e. g. BlueJ,15 jGRASP16) and Algorithm realization environments (kinesthetic, multimedia, animation, graphics) (e. g. Lego Mindstorms). Similarly, based on the analysis of publications about introductory programming courses, Pears et al. [14] identified the following categories of tools used in this context: Visualization Tools, Automated Assessment Tools, Programming Environments, Programming Support Tools, Microworlds and Other Tools.

In recent years, many learning environments have incorporated the ideas of empowering learners that led to the development of “Scratch”: tools for learners should reduce entrance barriers as far as possible (“low floors”), should not restrict their interests and creativity (“wide walls”) and at the same time allow the (step-by-step) creation of complex, sophisticated projects (“high ceilings”) [28]. While Scratch is suitable for the creation of multimedia projects (animations and stories, games, simulations and many more), adaptations and extensions of this environment integrate Internet services, social media, interfaces to smart phones and 3D printers or sensors and actuators and thus allow for even wider ranges of projects, e. g. mobile applications, data stream analysis and visualization (e. g. [6], Figure 1), 3D modelling and printing (e. g. [8], Figure 2) or physical computing (Figure 3). In teaching, the newer tools have proven to bring advantages, among other things, especially for student motivation (see [24], [20], [29]).

Programming 3D models with Beetleblocks.
Figure 1

Programming 3D models with Beetleblocks.

Data analysis and visualization with Snap!Twitter.
Figure 2

Data analysis and visualization with Snap!Twitter.

Physical computing in school: welcome servant (top left), sweets dispenser (top right), model airport (bottom left) and planetarium projector (bottom right).
Figure 3

Physical computing in school: welcome servant (top left), sweets dispenser (top right), model airport (bottom left) and planetarium projector (bottom right).

2.2 Toolkits for physical computing

In addition to software tools, hardware may add extra motivation due to its tangibility. In recent years, physical computing has grown in popularity for school education. Physical computing, in our understanding, is the creative design and implementation of interactive, physical objects and systems, which are programmed, tangible media that communicate with their environment through sensors and actuators. In physical computing, many methods and ideas of embedded systems, cyber-physical systems and robotics are used [15]. Examples for interactive objects and installations range from interactive sculptures and sweets dispensers over extensive model building projects to interdisciplinary STEAM projects (e. g. Figure 3). Suitable construction kits and learning environments allow children and teenagers to learn basic concepts of embedded systems, cyber-physical systems or robotics in a creative and motivating manner. Since the early days of tool development for classroom use, also the idea of controlling robots with programs or using programmable bricks as parts of constructionist toolkits have been present. Blikstein’s historical overview of constructionist toolkits, robots and physical computing devices dates back as far as the 1980s when the LEGO/Logo platform was developed [32]. In these early stages, such tools were used for scientific investigations in developmental psychology and building on the constructionist ideas. Later, artists and designers used such tools, as they make electronics more easily accessible and bring the benefits of programming to the physical world. Nowadays, most approaches aim at making physical computing accessible to an even broader range of interested people: the findings from development psychology are combined with an easy access to electronics. Thus, current projects often show deep bonds with the constructionist ideas: In physical computing activities, students learn with and about interactive computing systems by creating concrete, tangible products of the real world that arise from their own imagination and that they can show around and be proud of in a constructionist sense. With physical computing, constructionist learning is raised to a level that enables students to gain haptic experience and thereby concretizes the virtual [17].

As physical computing has only recently been integrated in CS curricula, most teachers are new to the subject. The field is unknown to them and they are often not aware of the different tools that could be used for teaching. Therefore, we systematically analysed tools that were mentioned in selected conference reports, influential research papers or used by different institutions in their physical computing courses with the aim to get an overview of tools and their main characteristics.

By now, there is a large variety of good and affordable hardware on the market, which can be used for physical computing. O’Sullivan & Igoe [10] classified physical computing tools according to the level of abstraction from technology, so that very high-level tools allow their users to immediately start working on the design and configuration process, while very low-level tools require users to deal with ones and zeros and electric circuits. This classification was used as a starting point to investigate physical computing tools that currently are or earlier were available on the market in order to categorize different types of hardware for physical computing activities. Tools of a very low level were excluded from the investigation, as they are neither designed for educational purposes, nor for physical computing in general. A list of mid- to high-level tools was generated and used to classify different types of hardware for physical computing activities technically. We identified various groups of devices and toolkits, which are described below in ascending order concerning the level of complexity in use.

Programmable Toys, such as Cubetto17 or the BeeBot18 are mainly used in primary education and offer children a first opportunity to develop an intuitive understanding of algorithms. They learn to precisely formulate and follow commands and become acquainted with basics of algorithms such as iterations and loops. With programmable toys, learners configure actions and reactions, but do not work on hardware assembly.

Input-/Output-Devices are used to extend the possibilities of stationary or laptop computers. New forms of in- and outputs to and from computers are used: instead of keyboard and mouse, all kinds of sensors are utilized as input and in addition to computer displays, e. g. LEDs or motors can be controlled. For instance, SenseBoard19 or Pico Board20 projects are successful and call for a wide range of creative projects [25], [26]. MaKey MaKey21 is another example with growing popularity. It allows to connect all kinds of electrically conductive material as sensors, e. g. plants or even humans.

Programmable bricks are mainly used in primary education (e. g. LEGO WeDo,22 Pico Cricket23) or for building robots (LEGO Mindstorms) in non-formal educational settings. They are very high-level tools, as users can easily snap the parts together and even program their interactive objects or robots in graphical drag and drop programming environments similar to Scratch.

Standalone microcontroller boards, for example the BBC MicroBit or the Calliope Mini24 have recently found great acceptance because they already contain sensors and actuators. They are particularly suitable for initial teaching, offering an attractive opportunity to discuss the fundamentals of embedded systems in class.

Microcontroller boards with modules simplify the handling of the hardware. When using such modular systems, learners can make use of the complexity offered by microcontrollers such as Arduino Uno and still have the plug and play approach of programmable bricks. This branch of physical computing hardware is particularly interesting for use in school as many tools are developed for exactly this purpose, e. g. Grove Modules,25 TinkerKit26 or MyIG Toolbox.27

Mini computers with modules, e. g. Raspberry Pi with PiFace,28 pursue similar goals, but allow creating even more powerful objects and installations. In addition to the functionalities offered by microcontroller boards, they contain all the features of a multi-purpose computer without taking much space and thus make it a lot easier for their users to integrate cameras, displays, speakers, and many other advanced I/O devices into their projects.

Bare Microcontroller boards can also be used as more demanding mid-level tools that require their users to build the circuits and work on breadboards for prototyping before soldering the parts together manually or ordering manufactured circuit boards.

Mini computers are found in more demanding settings that, similar to the use of microcontroller boards without extension shields and modules, require the user to deal with details of electronics.

Reflecting these findings, we found that the tools we analysed could be sorted into five main categories of physical computing devices and toolkits that are suitable for CS education: programmable toys, input/output devices, programmable bricks, microcontroller boards and mini computers (see Figure 4). Although it is not always possible to assign a tool to a distinct category, taxonomies like the one described above help teachers to reflect on their goals and select the tools that best suit their needs in lesson planning, carefully considering their objectives and intentions, the content in question, competencies and skills to be acquired and external conditions (cf. [7]). Teachers can choose from a large variety of tools: programmable toys offer the lowest entrance barriers possible but allow only a limited range of projects. Mini computers allow the most flexible projects but require advanced knowledge of computing systems.

3 Physical computing in the classroom with my interactive garden

While tools are one major aspect, also contents and pedagogy play an important role for the success of teaching physical computing. There are almost no text books or teaching materials available that help teachers planning their teaching units at secondary school level. Questions that arise when developing scenarios, resources and media for this target group, include:

  • 1.

    How can physical computing be taught at secondary school level?

  • 2.

    Which tools are suitable for the intended goals?

  • 3.

    Which requirements need to be considered in the concrete setting?

With the aim to design and develop suitable material, teaching guidelines and learning environments, and to examine, which opportunities are offered by physical computing for CS education and how these can be used in the classroom, we opted for an approach that is inspired by design research and educational reconstruction. It considers the perspectives of science, students, teachers and society and differs from design research in so far that it investigates a large variety of settings instead of refining only one concrete setting over time [5]. We started with a pre-study of students’ perspectives and found that embedded systems are not in their focus, that none of them had encountered physical computing activities in class, that only few learnt in creativity-rich lessons or constructionist learning environments and that their interests varied a lot, for example depending on gender [16]. With My Interactive Garden (MyIG) we developed an empowering system and learning environment that takes these pre-conditions into account, incorporates the ideas of constructionist, creative learning and supports students’ motivation [15].

3.1 MyIG toolbox

One important aspect of MyIG was the selection and development of appropriate tools for the purpose of teaching physical computing to students in computer science classes in lower secondary education. In tool development, it is always important to consider the needs of the target group. For school settings, where the aim is to empower learners to design and implement sophisticated physical computing projects, we recommend using microcontroller boards with modules. They combine the flexibility of microcontrollers (wide walls) with low entrance barriers similar to programmable bricks (low floors) and allow for elaborated projects (high ceilings). We decided to use Arduino as a microcontroller platform because it was built for educational purposes and there is a large community of educators working on extensions, classroom material and project examples to get inspired from. However, Arduino components are not easy to handle for novice users, e. g. you need to apply knowledge in the field of electrical engineering. For educational settings, especially when electronics is not in focus, it was therefore necessary to develop components that do not require students to solder or to work with breadboards, which quickly gets confusing. Hence, the items of our construction kit were built considering the following principles that were implemented in the development of the MyIG toolbox and later in the further development of the Arduino TinkerKit [15], [19]:

  • Simplicity: Provide easy to use plugs, so that students do not have to handle tiny wires, which break easily or slip off the pins on the Arduino.

  • Flexibility and extensibility: Easily add, remove or exchange items. Provide extension wires to allow users to mount their parts in a distance to the boards.

  • Black/white boxing: Hide circuits of subordinate relevance in a black box. “Open” the black box with templates and data sheets.

  • Emphasize computing principles: Visualize computing principles, e. g. the IPO model.

Thus, the MyIG toolbox and the Arduino Tinkerkit both fall into the category of microcontroller boards with modules. On the software side, we decided to use Snap4Arduino, which fulfils all of the above-mentioned criteria (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Mind Map of Physical Computing Tools.
Figure 4

Mind Map of Physical Computing Tools.

MyIG Toolbox and components of the Arduino TinkerKit.
Figure 5

MyIG Toolbox and components of the Arduino TinkerKit.

Programming with Snap4Arduino.
Figure 6

Programming with Snap4Arduino.

3.2 Learning with MyIG

After the decision for and development of suitable tools for learning computing principles with physical computing, another question to be investigated was “How can physical computing be taught in lower secondary education?” This involves the preparation of new content for the target group and development of suitable teaching methods.

The process in MyIG projects is strongly oriented towards the ideal of physical computing: to focus on ideas, not on the restrictions of tools (cf. [10]). It also takes into account strategies for raising participation based on [27]:

  • 1.

    Focus on themes (not just challenges)

  • 2.

    Combine art and engineering

  • 3.

    Organize exhibitions (rather than competitions)

In such a way, learners are encouraged to not just copy or rebuild systems which they already know, but to use their imagination and creativity in order to develop personally relevant interactive objects in a collaborative way [15]. Content-wise, MyIG incorporates the ideas of physical computing and includes learning phases where pupils decidedly learn and acquire specific concepts and skills.29 Key competencies, which they acquire in projects, include understanding computing systems, algorithmic thinking and formulating problems [17]. Educational standards [2], [3] are followed in various ways: students communicate and cooperate as they have to talk about possible interactions of their projects and explain the functionalities using technical terminology. They further need to distribute tasks in the teams, document and reflect on their progress and finally present the results in an exhibition. From a technical point of view, typical basic concepts revolving around embedded systems and related technologies that learners automatically encounter are, for instance, the calibration of sensors, control of actuators and continuous and discrete signal processing [21]. In the context of information and data, this means that students have to interpret sensor data into useful information, process these data with arithmetic and logic operations and code information to data to control actuators.

Using MyIG, we investigated the possibilities and limits of physical computing in schools and after several iterations, the final lesson plan was structured as follows (cf. [22]):

Introduction and motivation: Learners are introduced to embedded systems, IoT and physical computing.

Project planning: Learners plan their projects according to the process described in [10]. This bears the danger that students might plan projects that are too hard to realize or intend to use components that are not available in the school’s toolkits they later use. However, our experience shows that students’ projects are a lot more diverse and creative when they are not exposed to the tools first and instead plan their projects according to O’Sullivan and Igoe’s process description [10], e. g. in first sketching their ideas with pen and paper (Figure 7).

Students’ sketches during project planning.
Figure 7

Students’ sketches during project planning.

Presentation and discussion: Learners present their project ideas and plans and discuss those with their classmates and teacher.

Learning: In jigsaw classroom and tinkering activities (Figure 8), learners get to know the construction kit and learn about CS concepts and how to program Arduino; they create posters for the classroom; each student group holds one expert for each type of components (analog sensors, digital sensors, servo motors, etc.).

Tinkering and exploring the tools.
Figure 8

Tinkering and exploring the tools.

Creating: In groups, pupils work autonomously and create their own interactive objects (Figure 9); classmates and posters help, the teacher only intervenes when necessary.

Students work on their projects.
Figure 9

Students work on their projects.

Exhibition and reflection: Pupils present and explain their projects and discuss their experience with the classmates and their teacher.

This approach to physical computing in the classroom was tested, evaluated and refined in many iterations over a four-year period and adapted by many teachers in various settings. Contexts that teachers used include smart city, smart home, interactive art, interactive games and saving resources, among others.

3.3 Evaluation of the concept

CS education research is concerned with the questions, which competencies learners gain when and how. Besides the educational content preparation of the subject matter, this includes the development of appropriate tools, media and other resources for CS education. Tool development is usually driven by the idea of solving a certain problem, for example reducing the complexity of mighty tools for the purpose of better learning, for other educational reasons, such as supporting a certain paradigm, triggering motivation and creativity or for pursuing methodological goals. CS education research identifies needs and evaluates the success of new developments to ensure that they actually support learning and fulfil their intended purpose.

The accompanying research of the My Interactive Garden project focused on the evaluation of the settings with regard to the original objectives:

  • minimize entrance barriers

  • emphasize computing principles and basics of embedded systems

  • motivate and excite students

  • trigger creativity

In general, our data shows that the original MyIG lesson series reaches its goal to facilitate the creation of interactive objects. However, if contents are not explicitly taught, students only gain a superficial understanding [18]. Thus, during the project iterations, the material was refined and explicit learning phases were included. In terms of motivation, as explained more detailed in [20], we used a short scale of intrinsic motivation (KIM, [31]) in ex-ante and ex-post evaluations. Overall scores were calculated by summing the mean values of the subscales pressure, competence and freedom of choice and subtracting the mean of the subscale pressure/tension. Also, the values of the single subscales were compared. We found indicators that outsiders in terms of computer use seem to benefit more from the project than insiders, i. e. that students who are not interested in computer science and often perceived the contents as nebulous and hard to understand showed higher intrinsic motivation in MyIG activities, than those who were already interested in the subject. Both groups showed higher motivation than in other computer science classroom activities (Figure 10).

Our overarching research on physical computing in general also deals with the following four dimensions: scientific clarification of real-world innovations (e. g. embedded systems, cyber-physical systems, Internet of Things), educational content preparation (e. g. identification of relevant concepts and ideas), development of learning and teaching scenarios (e. g. resources and media, contexts, best practice examples) and investigation in the classroom (e. g. learning outcomes, lesson planning, problems and solutions). Thus, it not only evaluates the setting described above, but investigates the application and effects of physical computing teaching in various settings. For the evaluation of the settings, we focused on the categories of the Berlin Model developed by Heimann, as it is widely accepted and covers many aspects of lesson planning [30]. In this understanding, all decisions for learning scenarios depend on conditional factors and lead to consequences. Pre-conditions often are out of a teacher’s range, although, of course, they need to be considered when planning lessons or teaching units. Thus, in addition to analysing the overall process, as a starting point we investigated how teachers adjusted their lessons with respect to the decision areas intentions, contents, methods and media. We also included context as a category, as learning in authentic contexts helps to motivate students, shows real-world applications for otherwise often abstract topics and offers anchor points to build on prior knowledge [1]. We identified aspects that all teachers included and dimensions of adjustment to the particular classroom settings (Figure 11).

KIM [31] test results with N=32 students (25 male, 7 female). Project related overall intrinsic motivation (ex-ante: any topic, ex-post: physical computing) (top) and different subscales of the KIM test (bottom).
Figure 10

KIM [31] test results with N=32 students (25 male, 7 female). Project related overall intrinsic motivation (ex-ante: any topic, ex-post: physical computing) (top) and different subscales of the KIM test (bottom).

While the evaluation of the student data is still in progress, we can already reflect on teachers’ experience. The overall tenor is very positive. Teachers are interested in physical computing and the tools that are available for education. They consider it important that tools are reliable, that technical failure can be ruled out and that resources and media are provided, which teachers can reuse for their purpose. The majority of teachers also considered microcontrollers with modules the most useful tools for secondary schools in computer science teaching.

It is also very important for them that projects can be realized in reasonable time spans – both, concerning preparation and in-class execution. Most teachers aim at motivating their students and not so much to introduce new content. Interestingly, there is a difference between teachers with and without prior experience in this domain: those who had already taught physical computing, focused on programming and algorithms while teachers without physical computing classroom experience intended to address sensing and actuation, embedded systems, Internet of Things, etc. Problems that teachers face in class are mainly related to unreliable tools and organizational efforts during the project phase [23].

Typical process and dimensions of adjustments of physical computing projects in school. Dashed lines indicate less frequent appearance.
Figure 11

Typical process and dimensions of adjustments of physical computing projects in school. Dashed lines indicate less frequent appearance.

4 Conclusion

Computer science as a school subject on the one hand is characterized by its tools, but on the other hand also evolves with the innovations outside school. The technological progress of the “digital world” is, of course, also reflected in the tools that are used to teach timely ideas and necessary competencies in school teaching. Modern procedures such as Big Data analysis or 3D printing get into the classroom and prepare today’s students for their future. With physical computing, in particular, aspects of data processing, motivation, creativity and the relevance of computer science in our society become apparent, as the following teachers’ quotes illustrate (cf. [22]):

“We can recapture the physical world, the students can see what happens, measure their environment, brightness, temperature—that gives [my lessons] a completely different quality. It has really done something, the students can now recognize in real contexts how such things work, discover sensor technology in real computing systems [...] This has a whole new quality.”

“Computer science is not just software. We live in a world shaped by computer science [...]. By this I mean the mobile phone, which contains many sensors. There is also the washing machine, the car, the radio set. Computer science permeates all of these devices nowadays, and computer science teaching has to prepare students to understand these devices. Accordingly, the mechanics or certain mechanical problems belong to computer science.”

Additionally, with physical computing, creative and constructionist learning appears to fit perfectly with the scientific aims of CS education. Modern tools, more than ever, allow students to encounter also the design aspects of computer science in the classroom. One teacher summarized his experience as follows and illustrates that in CS classes, students not only acquire skills and competencies, but also create something personally relevant and meaningful:

“Creativity never was so present in the classroom before. Even with projects we made using Scratch, Snap, etc.–It is only through the students’ efforts to put something together and have a thing that they can touch and look at, that we have this new effect in computer science. It was never visible before, not even when we programmed games. There never was this attachment of the students to their projects.”

Computer science is a dynamic school subject that takes into account recent developments and innovations and thus benefits from its media and tools in many ways. The ideas from the 1960s have matured over the years and thus, today, modern CS education offers students the opportunity to stay motivated by creatively designing and implementing things in computer science education that they can explore, be proud of and share in a constructionist sense.


  • 1.

    I. Diethelm, P. Hubwieser and R. Klaus: Students, Teachers and Phenomena: Educational Reconstruction for Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 164–173). Koli, Finland: ACM, 2012. Google Scholar

  • 2.

    T. Brinda, H. Puhlmann and C. Schulte: Bridging ICT and CS: Educational Standards for Computer Science in Lower Secondary Education. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 288–292). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2009. Google Scholar

  • 3.

    Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.: Bildungsstandards Informatik für die Sekundarstufe II [Educational standards for computer science in upper secondary education]. LOG IN 36(183/184), supplement (2016). 

  • 4.

    P. Gross and K. Powers: Work in progress-a meta-study of software tools for introductory programming. In Proc., IEEE, 2006. Google Scholar

  • 5.

    A. Grillenberger, M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Bringing CS Innovations to the Classroom Using the Model of Educational Reconstruction. In A. Brodnik & F. Tort (Eds), Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives, ISSEP 2016 (pp. 31–39). Münster, 2016. Google Scholar

  • 6.

    A. Grillenberger and R. Romeike: Analyzing the Twitter Data Stream Using the Snap! Learning Environment. In Informatics in Schools. Curricula, Competences, and Competitions. ISSEP 2015 (pp. 155–164). Springer, 2015. Google Scholar

  • 7.

    P. Heimann, G. Otto and W. Schulz: Unterricht: Analyse und Planung (10th ed.) Hannover: Schroedel, 1979. Google Scholar

  • 8.

    P. Kastl, O. Krisch and R. Romeike: 3D Printing as Medium for Motivation and Creativity in Computer Science Lessons. In V. Dagiene & A. Hellas (Eds), Informatics in Schools: Focus on Learning Programming. ISSEP 2017 (Vol. 10696, pp. 27–36). Cham: Springer, 2017. Google Scholar

  • 9.

    C. Kelleher and R. Pausch: Lowering the barriers to programming: A Taxonomy of Programming Environments and Languages for Novice Programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83–137, 2005. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    D. O’Sullivan and T. Igoe, Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. Boston: Thomson Course Technology PTR, 2004. Google Scholar

  • 11.

    S. Papert.: Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books, 1980. Google Scholar

  • 12.

    S. Papert: The connected family: Building the digital general gap. Atlanta, GA: Long St. Pr., 1996. 

  • 13.

    S. Papert and I. Harel: Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds), Constructionism Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing, 1991. Google Scholar

  • 14.

    A. Pears, S. Seidman, L. Malmi, L. Mannila, E. Adams, J. Bennedsen, M. Devlin and J. Paterson: A Survey of Literature on the Teaching of Introductory Programming. In Working Group Reports on ITiCSE on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 204–223). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2007. Google Scholar

  • 15.

    M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: My Interactive Garden – A Constructionist Approach to Creative Learning with Interactive Installations in Computing Education. In C. Kynigos, J. E. Clayson, & N. Yiannoutsou (Eds), Constructionism: Theory, Practice and Impact. Proceedings of Constructionism 2012 (pp. 395–404). 2012. Google Scholar

  • 16.

    M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Overcoming Issues with Students’ Perceptions of Informatics in Everyday Life and Education with Physical Computing – Suggestions for the Enrichment of Computer Science Classes. In ISSEP 2014 – 7th Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives (pp. 9–20). 2014. Google Scholar

  • 17.

    M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Key Competences with Physical Computing. In Proceedings of Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT (KEYCIT) 2014. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 2014. Google Scholar

  • 18.

    M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Concept-Maps als Mittel zur Visualisierung des Lernzuwachses in einem Physical-Computing-Projekt. In J. Gallenbacher (Ed.), Informatik allgemeinbildend begreifen – INFOS2015 (pp. 247–256). Darmstadt: Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), 2015. Google Scholar

  • 19.

    M. Przybylla: Physical Computing for Novices: Using the TinkerKit with Snap4Arduino. In A. Brodnik & F. Tort (Eds), Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (ISSEP 2016) (pp. 74–75). Münster, 2016. Google Scholar

  • 20.

    M. Przybylla, P. Israel, J. Streichert and R. Romeike: Bridging Motivation Gaps with Physical Computing in CS Education. In ISSEP 2016 (p. 53). 2016. Google Scholar

  • 21.

    M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: Von Eingebetteten Systemen zu Physical Computing: Grundlagen für Informatikunterricht in der digitalen Welt. In I. Diethelm (Ed.), Informatische Bildung zum Verstehen und Gestalten der digitalen Welt (pp. 257–266). Bonn: Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), 2017. Google Scholar

  • 22.

    M. Przybylla and R. Romeike: The Nature of Physical Computing in Schools. In Proceedings of 17th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (in print). Koli, Finland: ACM2017. 

  • 23.

    M. Przybylla, F. Henning, C. Schreiber, and R. Romeike: Teachers’ Expectations and Experience in Physical Computing. In V. Dagiene & A. Hellas (Eds), The 10th International Conference on Informatics in Schools (in print). Helsinki, Finland: Springer, 2017. Google Scholar

  • 24.

    A. Ruf, A. Mühling and P. Hubwieser: Scratch vs. Karel: impact on learning outcomes and motivation. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 50–59). ACM, 2014. Google Scholar

  • 25.

    M. Richards, M. Petre and A. K. Bandara: Starting with UbiComp: Using the SenseBoards to Introduce Computing (pp. 583–588). Raleigh: ACM, 2012. 

  • 26.

    R. Romeike and D. Reichert: PicoCrickets als Zugang zur Informatik in der Grundschule (pp. 177–186). Münster: Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), 2011. 

  • 27.

    N. Rusk, M. Resnick, R. Berg and M. Pezalla-Granlund: New Pathways into Robotics: Strategies for Broadening Participation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 59–69, 2008. CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    M. Resnick and B. Silverman: Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 117–122). New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2005. Google Scholar

  • 29.

    S. Sentance, J. Waite, S. Hodges, E. Macleod and L. Yeomans: “Creating cool stuff” – Pupils’ experience of the BBC micro:bit. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 531–536). 2017. Google Scholar

  • 30.

    M. Uljens: School didactics and learning. Psychology Press Ltd, 1998. Google Scholar

  • 31.

    M. Wilde, K. Bätz, A. Kovaleva and D. Urhahne: Überprüfung einer Kurzskala intrinsischer Motivation (KIM) (Testing a short scale of intrinsic motivation). Zeitschrift Für Didaktik Der Naturwissenschaften, 15, 31–45, 2009. Google Scholar

  • 32.

    P. Blikstein: Gears of Our Childhood: Constructionist Toolkits, Robotics, and Physical Computing, Past and Future. In J. P. Hourcade, E. A. Miller, & A. Egeland (Eds), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 173–182). New York City: ACM, 2013. Google Scholar

About the article

Mareen Przybylla

Mareen Przybylla is research associate and doctoral student at the professorship for Didactics of Computer Science at the University of Potsdam, Germany. Her main research interest is physical computing in computer science education.

Ralf Romeike

Ralf Romeike is the head of the Computing Education Research Group at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Germany.

Received: 2017-10-16

Revised: 2018-01-19

Accepted: 2018-02-05

Published Online: 2018-03-22

Published in Print: 2018-04-25

Citation Information: it - Information Technology, Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 91–101, ISSN (Online) 2196-7032, ISSN (Print) 1611-2776, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2017-0032.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in