Estimating Computational Thinking Ability Using Tablets and Electronic Pens

Authors

  • Kohei Urayama College of information Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, Japan
  • Hiromitsu Shimakawa College of information Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University, Shiga, Japan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.112.16480

Keywords:

Computational Thinking, Handwritten logs, Machine learning model, Education

Abstract

This study proposes a method to estimate a computational thinking ability utilizing handwritten logs. The development of computational thinking skills to build a plan to organize solutions is crucial from an early age. The methods for cultivating these abilities in elementary education are still in the developmental stages. The proposed method analyzes hand-drawing logs obtained through tablets and electronic pens. Participants are assigned illustration tasks utilizing the layer functionality. The transition among layers objectively assesses whether individuals solve tasks in a perspective manner according to a plan. In an experiment involving 24 students and graduate students, an application with seven layers is employed to assign a 20-minute task of replicating a car illustration. From the results, it turns out we can estimate computational thinking abilities from hand-drawing logs. In addition to that, the results reveal the characteristic way of using and holding the pen that occurs when one has a planning perspective unique to computational thinking. This research promotes the ongoing exploration of methodologies for assessing computational thinking skills, particularly in the context of elementary education. It contributes to fostering computational thinking abilities in younger ages.

References

Akahori, K. (2014). Do Digital Devices Work Better Than Paper Materials for Learning? International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 8(1).

BBC: “Introduction to computational thinking”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize

Charoula Angeli, Michail Giannakos, Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 105, 2020, 106185.

Christian P. Brackmann, Marcos Román-González, Gregorio Robles, Jesús Moreno-León, Ana Casali, and Dante Barone. 2017. Development of Computational Thinking Skills through Unplugged Activities in Primary School. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 65–72.

Fagerlund J, Häkkinen P, Vesisenaho M, Viiri J. Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Comput Appl Eng Educ. 2021; 29: 12 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22255

Goshima, R. (2021). Extracting Features of Solving Behavior in Handwriting on Tablets. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(2), 178–193.

Herodotou, C. (2018). Young children and tablets: A systematic review of effects on learning and development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(1), 1–9.

Hiroki Asai and Hayato Yamana. 2013. Detecting student frustration based on handwriting behavior. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '13 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 77–78.

Ito, H., Shimakawa, H., Harada, F. (2023). Estimation of Programming Understanding by Time Series Analysis of Code Puzzles. In: Yang, XS., Sherratt, S., Dey, N., Joshi, A. (eds) Proceedings of Seventh International Congress on Information and Communication Technology. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol 464. Springer, Singapore.

Kafai, Y. B., & Proctor, C. (2022). A Revaluation of Computational Thinking in K–12 Education: Moving Toward Computational Literacies. Educational Researcher, 51(2), 146-151. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211057904

Katerina Tsarava, Korbinian Moeller, Marcos Román-González, Jessika Golle, Luzia Leifheit, Martin V. Butz, Manuel Ninaus, A cognitive definition of computational thinking in primary education, Computers & Education, Volume 179, 2022, 104425, 122

Kleitman, Sabina, and Lazar Stankov.” Self-confidence and metacognitive processes.” Learning and individual differences 17.2 (2007): 161-173.

Kohei Urayama, Hiromitsu Shimakawa and Fumiko Harada, estimating creativity drawing features from hand drawing logs, Proc. of 9th IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (IEEE CSDE 2022), 5 pages, Gold Coast, Australia, Dec.2022.

Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A.H., diSessa, A.A. et al. Computational Thinking Is More about Thinking than Computing. Journal for STEM Educ Res 3, 1–18 (2020).

Lyon JA, Magana AJ. Computational thinking in higher education: A review of the literature. Comput Appl Eng Educ. 2020; 28: 1174–1189.

Mann, Anne-Marie, Uta Hinrichs, and Aaron Quigley.” Children’s Creativity Lab: Creating a ’Pen of the Future’.” Proceedings of the 2014 Workshops on Advancesin Computer Entertainment Conference. 2014. Analyzing Handwritten Log Data for Evaluating Computational Thinking 9

Marcos Rom´an-Gonz´alez, Juan-Carlos P´erez-Gonz´alez, Jes´us Moreno-Le´on, Gregorio Robles, can computational talent be detected? Predictive validity of the Com-putational Thinking Test, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, Volume 18, 2018, Pages 47-58, ISSN 2212-8689, 17.

Maruichi, Takanori, Shoya Ishimaru, and Koichi Kise.” Self-confidence estimation on vocabulary tests with stroke-level handwriting logs. ”2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition Workshops (ICDARW). Vol. 3. IEEE,2019.

R. Konishi, R. Shimmura, K. Nakajima, R. Hayashi, and T. Sato, “A study on inconscient learning behaviors and psychological evaluations using biological datafor an image-based vocabulary building application,” in E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 2017, pp.798– 803.

Read, Janet C.” A study of the usability of handwriting recognition for text entry by children.” Interacting with Computers 19.1 (2007): 57-69.

Sue Sentance. Moving to mainstream: developing computing for all. WiPSCE ’19: Proceedings of the 14th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, October 2019, Article No.12, Pages 1–2.

Wing, J.M., Computational Thinking, Communications of the ACM, Vol.49, No.3, pp.33-35, 2006

Xiaodan Tang, Yue Yin, Qiao Lin, Roxana Hadad, Xiaoming Zhai, Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies, Computers & Education, Volume 148, 2020, 103798.

Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., McLean, T. (2017). Computational Thinking inTeacher Education. In: Rich, P., Hodges, C. (eds) Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham.

Downloads

Published

2024-02-20

How to Cite

Urayama, K., & Shimakawa, H. (2024). Estimating Computational Thinking Ability Using Tablets and Electronic Pens. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(2), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.112.16480