Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Easy Coding in Biology: Pilot Workshop Design and Experiences from Block-Based Programming with in Secondary Education

Eva Schmidthaler 1 * ,
Rebecca Stäter 2,
Martin Cápay 3,
Matthias Ludwig 2,
Zsolt Lavicza 1
1 Johannes Kepler University Linz2 Goethe University Frankfurt3 Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra* Corresponding Author
Download PDF
Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, Volume 6, Issue SI, June 2023, pp. 177-206
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 668 DOWNLOADS: 290 Publication date: 15 Jun 2023
ABSTRACT
Block-based coding is a way to teach Computer Science (CS) concepts and Computational Thinking (CT) skills to K-12 students. Nowadays, there are more and more educational applications (learning apps) to teach programming in STEM subjects, but detailed studies on which and how these can be used successfully in Biology classes are still lacking, because apps and tasks promoting CS and CT concepts in combination with biological teaching content are missing. This mixed-method study aims to close this gap and presents six elaborated exercises of the workshop “Easy Coding in Biology”, employing two task formats (TF), Building Cubes and Drone AR, of the new learning app <colette/>. The app utilizes block-based coding and an additional augmented reality (AR) function to describe several topics in secondary education, for example in the subject Biology. After presenting the workshop and task design, preliminary results of the successful use of the app and the tasks are presented. The pilot workshop was carried out with 51 participants at a Slovakian grammar school. After the implementation in class, 34 students filled in a questionnaire, consisting of open-ended and closed-ended questions. Qualitative data shows on the one hand AR malfunctions and on the other that participants liked the workshop concept. Quantitative findings indicate that the introduced TF Building Cubes and Drone AR of <colette/> have the potential to successfully convey CS and CT concepts in Biology. In addition, the tasks encouraged the female participants in particular to work together because they found the tasks/app interesting, motivating, and fun.
KEYWORDS
Block-based Programming, Computer Science in Biology, Computational Thinking, Augmented Reality, Mobile Coding, Computer Science, Mobile Educational Application, K-12 education
CITATION (APA)
Schmidthaler, E., Stäter, R., Cápay, M., Ludwig, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2023). Easy Coding in Biology: Pilot Workshop Design and Experiences from Block-Based Programming with in Secondary Education. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(SI), 177-206. https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.619SI
REFERENCES
  1. Andersen, R., Mørch, A.I., Litherland, K.T. (2021). Learning Domain Knowledge Using Block-Based Programming: Design-Based Collaborative Learning. In: Fogli, D., Tetteroo, D., Barricelli, B.R., Borsci, S., Markopoulos, P., Papadopoulos, G.A. (eds) End-User Development. IS-EUD 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 12724. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79840-6_8
  2. Ajit, G. (2021). A Systematic Review of Augmented Reality in STEM Education. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348814721_A_Systematic_Review_of_Augmented_Reality_in_STEM_Education accessed, 13.6.2023
  3. Beaufort, J. (2007). Grapes. https://www.publicdomainpictures.net/en/view-image.php?image=223603&picture=grapes last accessed, 22.1.2023
  4. Bergmann, N., Lachmayr, N., Mayerl, M. & Pretterhofer, N. (2021). Frauen in technischen Ausbildungen und Berufen – Fokus auf förderliche Ansätz. https://www.ams-forschungsnetzwerk.at/downloadpub/AMS_Frauen_in_Technik_LR_oeibf_2021.pdf last accessed, 21.1.2023
  5. Blockly, (2022). Introduction to Blockly. Google Developers.https://developers.google.com/blockly/guides/overview last accessed, 12.1.2023
  6. Blockly Games, 2022. About Blockly Games https://blockly-games.appspot.com last accessed, 12.1.2023
  7. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education – Implications for policy and practice. 10.2791/792158
  8. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M.A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., Masiulionytė-Dagienė, V. and Stupurienė, G. (2022). Reviewing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education, Inamorato dos Santos, A., Cachia, R., Giannoutsou, N. and Punie, Y. editor(s), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 10.2760/126955
  9. Borkulo, van, S., Chytas, C., Drijvers, P., Barendsen, E. & Tolboom, J. (2021). Computational Thinking in the Mathematics Classroom: Fostering Algorithmic Thinking and Generalization Skills Using Dynamic Mathematics Software. In M. Berges, A. Mühling & M. Armoni (Hrsg.), The 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3481312.3481319
  10. Boon, P., (2003). “Meetkunde op de computer.” Tijdschrift voor nascholing en onderzoek van het reken-wiskundeonderwijs, 22(1), pp.17-26. https://www.fi.uu.nl/publicaties/literatuur/5787.pdf last accessed, 12.1.2023
  11. Blum, L. and Cortina, T.J. (2007). CS4HS: an outreach program for high school CS teachers. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. Vol. 39(1). 19-23. 10.1145/1227310.1227320
  12. Blume, M., (2019). Conifer in Damgarten. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conifere,_Ribnitz-Damgarten_%28P1070875%29.jpg last accessed, 22.1.2023
  13. Cheli, M., Sinapov, J., Danahy, E. E., & Rogers, C. (2018, March). Towards an augmented reality framework for k-12 robotics education. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality for HRI (VAM-HRI). https://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~jsinapov/papers/Cheli_VAMHRI2018.pdf
  14. Cipollone, M., Schifter, C. C., & Moffat, R. A. (2014). Minecraft as a creative tool: A case study. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 4(2), 1-14. DOI: 10.4018/ijgbl.2014040101
  15. Deutscher Bildungsserver. (2022). Lehrplan Grundschule in Deutschland. https://www.bildungsserver.de/lehrplaene-fuer-die-grundschule-1660-de.html
  16. Colette-Project. (2022). Computational Thinking Learning Environment for Teachers in Europe https://colette-project.eu last accessed, 22.1.2023
  17. Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
  18. Eddy, S.L., Brownell, S.E., Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Gender Gaps in Achievement and Participation in Multiple Introductory Biology Classrooms. Cell Biology Education, 2014; 13 (3): 478 DOI: 10.1187/cbe.13-10-0204
  19. Eldokhny, A. A. (2021). Effectiveness of augmented reality in online distance learning at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(9): 210–213. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i09.17895
  20. Federal Ministry of Education (BMBWF). (2018). RIS. Curriculum for Secondary School. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10008568 last accessed, 1.2.2023
  21. Federal Ministry of Education (BMBWF). (2023). RIS. Curriculum for Primary School. RIS - Lehrpläne der Volksschule und der Sonderschulen - Bundesrecht konsolidiert, Fassung vom 20.02.2023 (bka.gv.at) last accessed, 1.2.2023
  22. Gimmel, B., (2004). Fliegenpilz - Amanita muscaria. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fliegenpilz_Amanita_muscaria.jpg last accessed, 1.2.2023
  23. Goldberg, D.S., Grunwald, D., Lewis, C., Feld, J.A. and Hug, S., (2012). Engaging computer science in traditional education: the ECSITE project. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. (ITiCSE '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York. NY. USA. 17(1). 351-356 . https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325377
  24. Gupta, V., Iimia, J., Pau, I., Rodríguez-Patón, A. (2017). BioBlocks: Programming Protocols in Biology Made Easier. ACS Synthetic Biology. American Chemical Society. 1230-1232. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssynbio.6b00304
  25. Han, S. W. (2016). National education systems and gender gaps in STEM occupational expectations. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.03.004
  26. Hsu, T.C., Chang, S.C., Yu-Ting Hung, Y.T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education. 126(1). 296-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
  27. Ke, F., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2015). Mobile augmented-reality artifact creation as a component of mobile computer-supported collaborative learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 26, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.003
  28. Läufer, T., Stäter, R., Ludwig, M. (2022). Das Projekt <colette/> Computational Thinking (auch) im Mathematikunterricht. Digitales Lehren und Lernen. GDM-Mitteilungen 113. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364598597_Das_Projekt_colette_Computational_Thinking_auch_im_Matheunterricht#fullTextFileContent last accessed, 22.2.2023
  29. Lehman, K. J., Sax, L. J., and Zimmerman, H. B. (2016). Women planning to major in computer science: Who are they and what makes them unique? Computer Science Education, 26(4), 277–298. DOI: 10.1080/08993408.2016.1271536
  30. Leitner, S., Hinterplattner, S., Sabitzer, B., and Schmidthaler, E. (2023). STEM Promotion to Empower and Support Girls and Women: A Cross-University Project in Austria. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE). 14(1). 1415-1420. 10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2023.0580
  31. Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2018). Computational Thinking in Secondary Education: Where does it fit? A systematic literary review. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 2(1), 41-60. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v2i1.26
  32. Materialbörse. (2022). JKU COOL Lab. https://www.cool-lab.net/materialboerse/ last accessed, 22.2.2023
  33. Marini, A., Nafisah, S., Sekaringtyas, T., Safitri, D., Lestari, I., Suntari, Y., ... & Iskandar, R. (2022). Mobile Augmented Reality Learning Media with Metaverse to Improve Student Learning Outcomes in Science Class. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 16(7). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i07.25727
  34. Mayring, Ph. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundformen und Techniken. 11. Aufl. Weinheim: Beltz.
  35. McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.5.889
  36. Milicic, G., Wetzel, S., Ludwig, M. (2020). Generic Tasks for Algorithms. Future Internet. 12(9):152. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12090152
  37. Milicic, G., van Borkulo, S.P., Medova, J., Wetzel, S., Ludwig, M. (2021). Design and Development of a Learning Environment for Computational Thinking: The Erasmus+ COLETTE Project. Proceedings of the Conference EduLearn 2021. 1(1). 7376-7383. DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2021.1495
  38. Minecraft. (2023). http://minecraft.net/ last accessed, 22.2.2023
  39. Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Culture of the state of Schleswig-Holstein, (2022). Curriculum for Secondary School. https://fachportal.lernnetz.de/files/Fachanforderungen%20und%20Leitf%C3%A4den/Sek.%20I_II/Lehrpl%C3%A4ne/Biologie_%28HS%2CRS%2CRegS%2CGym%2CGemS%29.pdf last accessed, 1.2.2023
  40. Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports of the Slovak Republic. (2023a). Curriculum for Secondary Education. https://www.minedu.sk/data/files/5645_rup_a_vs_vzdel_na_zisk_nsv_21122015.pdf last accessed, 26.1.2023
  41. Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports of the Slovak Republic. (2023b). Curriculum for Primary Education. https://www.minedu.sk/data/files/6948_priloha_2_rup.pdf last accessed, 26.1.2023
  42. National Education Association. (2015). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to the “Four Cs”. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf last accessed, 22.2.2023
  43. Schmidthaler E., Andjic, B., Schmollmüller, M., Sabitzer, B. and Lavicza, Z. (2023a). Mobile Augmented Reality in Biological Education: Perceptions of Austrian Secondary School Teachers, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 16(2). 55-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2023.160203, in press.
  44. Schmidthaler, E., van Borkulo, S., Cápay, M.; Kristinsdóttir, B., Stäter, R., Läufer, T., Ludwig, M., Hornsby, D., Skogø, J. and Lavicza, Z. (2023b). Design and Evaluation of Computational Thinking Tasks in the Project: Experiences Gained from Workshops with Secondary and Grammar School Students in Austria, the Netherlands, and Slovakia. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer Supported Education. 1. 297-304. https://10.5220/0011974700003470
  45. Schmidthaler, E., Schalk, M., Schmollmüller, M., Hinterplattner, S., Hörmann, C., Anđić, B., Rottenhofer, M., Lavicza, Z. and Sabitzer, B. (2023c). The interdisciplinary implementation of poly-universe to promote computational thinking: Teaching examples from biological, physical, and digital education in Austrian secondary schools. Front. Psychol. 14:1139884. doi: https://10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1139884
  46. Piaget, J., (1971). Psychology and Epistemology: Towards a Theory of Knowledge. New York: Grossman.
  47. Polat, E., Hopcan, S., Kucuk, S., Sisman, B. (2021). A comprehensive assessment of secondary school students’ computational thinking skills. British Journal of Educational Technology. 52(5). 1965-1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13092
  48. Prokop, P., Prokop, M. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2007) Is Biology boring? Student attitudes toward Biology, Journal of Biological Education. 42(1). 36-39. DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2007.9656105
  49. Qin, H. (2009). Teaching computational thinking through bioinformatics to Biology students. SIGCSE Bull. 41(1). 188–191. https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508932
  50. Rubinstein, A. and Chor, B., 2014. Computational thinking in life science education. PLoS Comput Biol, 10(11), 10(11):e1003897. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003897
  51. Roscoe, J.F., Fearn, S. and E. Posey, E. (2014). Teaching Computational Thinking by Playing Games and Building Robots. International Conference on Interactive Technologies and Games, Nottingham, UK, 14(1). 9-12, doi: 10.1109/iTAG.2014.15
  52. Sabitzer, B. (2013a). A neurodidactial approach to cross-curicual open learning. cool informatics. Habilitation. Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt.
  53. Sabitzer, B., Antonitsch P., (2012). Of Bytes and Brain. In-formatics Meets Neurodidactics. In: L. Gómez Chova,I. Candel Torres, A. López Martìnez (Eds.): INTED2012 Proceedings. Barcelona: IATED, pp. 2003-2012. https://library.iated.org/view/SABITZER2012OFB last accessed, 1.2.2023
  54. Sabitzer B., Pasterk, S. (2014). Mobile Learning For COOL Informatics. COopertive Open Learning in a Vocational High School. CSEDU. https://www.academia.edu/7587771/CSEDU2014_Mobile_Learning_For_COOL_Informatics last accessed, 26.1.2023
  55. Sabitzer, B., Pasterk, S., (2013b). Informatic is COOL: cross-curricular concepts for COmputer-supported OpenLearning in secondary schools. ICERI conference paper. 6(1). 2739-2749. https://library.iated.org/view/SABITZER2013INF last accessed, 26.1.2023
  56. Saidin, N., Noor, A.H. & Noraffandy, Y. (2015). A Review of Research on Augmented Reality in Education: Advantages and Applications. International Education Studies. 8(13). 10.5539/ies.v8n13p1
  57. Statistics of Promotion. German Ministry. (2021). https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/Publikationen/_publikationen-innen-hochschulen-promovierende.html last accessed, 26.1.2023
  58. Scratch. (2022). Scratch - Imagine, Program, Share. https://scratch.mit.edu/ last accessed, 26.1.2023
  59. Shih, W.C. (2017). Mining Learners' Behavioral Sequential Patterns in a Blockly Visual Programming Educational Game. In International Conference on Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Application (ICIMSA) (pp. 1-2). doi: 10.1109/ICIMSA.2017.7985594
  60. Short, D. (2012). Teaching scientific concepts using a virtual world-minecraft. Teaching Science. 58(3). 55-58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236587414_Teaching_Scientific_Concepts_using_a_Virtual_World_-_Minecraft#fullTextFileContent last accessed, 26.1.2023
  61. Stäter, R. S., Läufer, T., & Ludwig, M. (2023a). How <colette/> Facilitates Teaching Computational Thinking. In M. Ludwig, S. Barlovits, A. Caldeira, & A. Moura (Eds.), Research On STEM Education in the Digital Age. Proceedings of the ROSEDA Conference (pp. 197 200). WTM. https://doi.org/10.37626/GA9783959872522.0.25
  62. Stäter, R. S., Läufer, T., & Ludwig, M. (2023b). Teaching Computational Thinking with <colette/>. In M. Ludwig, S. Barlovits, A. Caldeira, & A. Moura (Eds.), Research On STEM Education in the Digital Age. Proceedings of the ROSEDA Conference (pp. 123 130). WTM. https://doi.org/10.37626/GA9783959872522.0.15
  63. University of California San Diego. Biology Meets Programming. Bioinformatics for Beginners. (2023) https://www.coursera.org/learn/bioinformatics last accessed 22.2.2023
  64. University of Zurich. Programming in Biology. (2018). https://mnf.openedx.uzh.ch/courses/course-v1:MNF+BIO134+HS2018/about#:~:text=Programming%20in%20Biology%20is%20an,including%20examples%20from%20recent%20research. last accessed 22.2.2023
  65. Vasconcelos, L., Kim, C. Preparing preservice teachers to use block-based coding in scientific modeling lessons. Instr Sci 48, 765–797 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09527-0
  66. Vetter, T.R. (2017). Descriptive Statistics: Reporting the Answers to the 5 Basic Questions of Who, What, Why, When, Where, and a Sixth, So What? Anesth Analg. 125(5). 1797-1802. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002471
  67. Weintrop, D., Wilensky, U. 2017. Comparing Block-Based and Text-Based Programming in High School Computer Science Classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education. 18(1). 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3089799
  68. Wilson, B. (2010). Strawberry. https://www.flickr.com/photos/billy_wilson/12958149123 22.1.2023
  69. Xu, Z., Ritzhaupt, A.D., Tian, F., Umapathy, K. (2019). Block-based versus text-based programming environments on novice student learning outcomes: a meta-analysis study, Computer Science Education, 29(2-3), 177-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1565233
  70. Yamashita, S., Tsunoda, M., Yokogawa, T. (2017). Visual Programming Language for Model Checkers Based on Google Blockly. In Felderer, M., Méndez Fernández, D., Turhan, B., Kalinowski, M., Sarro, F., Winkler, D. (Eds.), Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10611. 597–601. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_49
  71. Yuen, T.T. and Robbins, K.A., (2015). A Qualitative Study of Students' Computational Thinking Skills in a Data-Driven Computing Class. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE). 14(4). 27. DOI:10.1145/2676660
  72. Zender, R., Höfler, J., Wolfien, P. & Lucke, U.(2014). ScratchDrone - Systematische Programmierung von Flugdrohnen für den Informatikunterricht. In: Trahasch, S., Plötzner, R., Schneider, G., Sassiat, D., Gayer, C. & Wöhrle, N. (Hrsg.), DeLFI 2014 - Die 12. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik. Bonn: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. 109-120. https://dspace.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/2991 last accessed, 1.2.2023
  73. Ziegenfuss, D. H., & LeMire, S. (2019). Backward Design: A Must-Have Library Instructional Design Strategy for Your Pedagogical and Teaching Toolbox
LICENSE
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.