Textual vs. visual programming languages in programming education for primary schoolchildren

The purpose of this research is to compare textual programming languages and visual programming languages from the aspect of motivation. As a textual programming language, Processing programming language was used, and as visual programming languages, Scratch, a derivation of Scratch, Teaching materi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) pp. 1 - 7
Main Authors Tsukamoto, Hidekuni, Takemura, Yasuhiro, Oomori, Yasumasa, Ikeda, Isamu, Nagumo, Hideo, Monden, Akito, Matsumoto, Ken-ichi
Format Conference Proceeding
LanguageEnglish
Published IEEE 01.10.2016
Subjects
Computer languages
Education
Games
primary education
Production
programming education
Programming profession
textual programming language
visual programming language
Visualization
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The purpose of this research is to compare textual programming languages and visual programming languages from the aspect of motivation. As a textual programming language, Processing programming language was used, and as visual programming languages, Scratch, a derivation of Scratch, Teaching materials offered by code.org, and LEGO Mindstorms EV3 were used. Teaching materials using the textual programming language, and those using the visual programming languages were developed separately. A trial experiment of programming education with the textual programming language was conducted to a cohort of seven primary schoolchildren. Trial experiments with the visual programming languages were conducted twice. In each of them, a cohort of eight primary schoolchildren participated. The motivation of the children was assessed using the questionnaire based on the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) motivation model. The results with the visual programming languages suggested that the motivation scores of the children increased as the class progressed when visual programming languages were used. On the other hand, the results with Processing suggested that the variance of Satisfaction factor increased as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used, which further suggested that the Satisfaction scores of the children spread as the class progressed when textual programming languages were used.
DOI:10.1109/FIE.2016.7757571