The effects of WeDo 2.0 robot workshop on Omani grade 5 students’ acquisition of the computational thinking concepts and acceptance of the robot technology

References

• Angeli, C., and N. Valanides. 2020. “Developing Young Children's Computational Thinking with Educational Robotics: An Interaction Effect Between Gender and Scaffolding Strategy.” Computers in Human Behavior 105: 105954. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angeli, C., J. Voogt, A. Fluck, M. Webb, M. Cox, J. Malyn-Smith, and J. Zagami. 2016. “A K-6 Computational Thinking Curriculum Framework: Implications for Teacher Knowledge.” Journal of Educational Technology & Society 19 (3): 47–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atmatzidou, S., and S. Demetriadis. 2016. “Advancing Students’ Computational Thinking Skills Through Educational Robotics: A Study on Age and Gender Relevant Differences.” Robotics and Autonomous Systems 75: 661–670. doi:10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atmatzidou, S., I. Markelis, and S. Demetriadis. 2008, November. “The Use of LEGO Mindstorms in Elementary and Secondary Education: Game as a Way of Triggering Learning.” International Conference of Simulation, Modeling and Programming for Autonomous Robots (SIMPAR), Venice, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Bennedsen, J., M.E. Caspersen, and M. Kölling, eds. 2008. "Reflections on the Teaching of Programming: Methods and Implementations". Vol. 4821. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bers, M.U. 2018. “Coding and Computational Thinking in Early Childhood: The Impact of ScratchJr in Europe.” European Journal of STEM Education 3 (3): 8. doi:10.20897/ejsteme/3868.
   Google Scholar
• Bers, M.U., L. Flannery, E.R. Kazakoff, and A. Sullivan. 2014. “Computational Thinking and Tinkering: Exploration of an Early Childhood Robotics Curriculum.” Computers & Education 72: 145–157. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bers, M., S. Seddighin, and A. Sullivan. 2013. “Ready for Robotics: Bringing Together the T and E of STEM in Early Childhood Teacher Education.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 21 (3): 355–377.
   Google Scholar
• Bickman, L., and D.J. Rog, eds. 2009. The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bocconi, S., A. Chioccariello, G. Dettori, A. Ferrari, K. Engelhardt, P. Kampylis, and Y. Punie. 2016, June. “Developing Computational Thinking: Approaches and Orientations in K-12 Education.” In EdMedia Innovate Learning, edited by G. Veletsianos, 13–18. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, K., and M. Resnick. 2012, April. “New Frameworks for Studying and Assessing the Development of Computational Thinking.” In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vol. 1, 25. Vancouver.
   Google Scholar
• Cavas, B., T. Kesercioglu, J. Holbrook, M. Rannikmae, E. Ozdogru, and F. Gokler. 2012. “The Effects of Robotics Club on the Students’ Performance on Science Process & Scientific Creativity Skills and Perceptions on Robots, Human and Society.” In Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum, 40–50.
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, C. 2018. “Robotics and Computational Thinking in Primary School.” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 17: 93–100. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, G., J. Shen, L. Barth-Cohen, S. Jiang, X. Huang, and M. Eltoukhy. 2017. “Assessing Elementary Students’ Computational Thinking in Everyday Reasoning and Robotics Programming.” Computers & Education 109: 162–175. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, G. 2019. “Exploring Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Visual Programming Environment among Boys and Girls in Primary Schools.” Computers in Human Behavior 92: 361–372. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Coull, N.J., and I.M. Duncan. 2011. “Emergent Requirements for Supporting Introductory Programming.” Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences 10 (1): 78–85. doi:10.11120/ital.2011.10010078.
   Google Scholar
• CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association). 2017. CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards Revised 2017. Computer Science Teachers Association.
   Google Scholar
• Cunha, F., and J. Heckman. 2007. “The Technology of Skill Formation.” American Economic Review 97 (2): 31–47. doi:10.3386/w12840.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eguchi, A. 2014. “Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills.” Journal of Automation, Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems 8 (1): 5–11. doi:10.14313/JAMRIS_1-2014/1.
   Google Scholar
• Fagin, B.S., L.D. Merkle, and T.W. Eggers. 2001. “Teaching Computer Science with Robotics Using Ada/Mindstorms 2.0.” ACM SIGAda Ada Letters 21 (4): 73–78. doi:10.1145/507546.507592.
   Google Scholar
• García-Valcárcel-Muñoz-Repiso, A., and Y.A. Caballero-González. 2019. “Robotics to Develop Computational Thinking in Early Childhood Education.” Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal 27 (1): 1–14. doi:10.3916/C59-2019-06.
   Google Scholar
• González, M.R. 2015. “Computational Thinking Test: Design Guidelines and Content Validation.” In Proceedings of EDULEARN15 Conference, 2436–2444.
   Google Scholar
• González, Y.A.C., and A.G.V. Muñoz-Repiso. 2017, October. “Development of Computational Thinking Skills and Collaborative Learning in Initial Education Students Through Educational Activities Supported by ICT Resources and Programmable Educational Robots.” In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hsu, T.C., S.C. Chang, and Y.T. Hung. 2018. “How to Learn and How to Teach Computational Thinking: Suggestions Based on a Review of the Literature.” Computers & Education 126: 296–310. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kucuk, S., and B. Sisman. 2020. “Students’ Attitudes Towards Robotics and STEM: Differences Based on Gender and Robotics Experience.” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 100167, doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100167.
   Google Scholar
• Kutluca, T., and B. Gökkurt. 2013. “Examining Secondary School Students’ Perceptions of Computer Self-Efficacy in Terms of Gender and Class Level Variables.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 106: 1175–1180. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.132.
   Google Scholar
• Lavonen, L., A. Loukomies, J. Vartiainen, and P. Palojoki. 2021. “Supporting Pupils’ Scientific and Engineering Practices in Everyday Life Contexts at the Primary School Level During a Project-Based Learning Unit in Finland.” Education 3-13, 1–16. doi:10.1080/03004279.2021.1921823.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, H.P., S.M. Perera, and J.W. Klein. 2017. “Using Model-based Learning to Promote Computational Thinking Education.” In Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking, 153–172. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_10.
   Google Scholar
• Mcmillan, J. H., and J. F. Wergin. 1998. Understanding and Evaluating Educational Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Nourbakhsh, I.R., K. Crowley, A. Bhave, E. Hamner, T. Hsiu, A. Perez-Bergquist, S. Richards, and K. Wilkinson. 2005. “The Robotic Autonomy Mobile Robotics Course: Robot Design, Curriculum Design, and Educational Assessment.” Autonomous Robots 18 (1): 103–127. doi:10.1023/b:auro.0000047303.20624.02.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas Basic Books. New York: Harvester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Penmetcha, M.R. 2012. “Exploring the Effectiveness of Robotics as a Vehicle for Computational Thinking.” Doctoral diss., Purdue University.
   Google Scholar
• Prisecaru, P. 2016. “Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Knowledge Horizons. Economics 8 (1): 57.
   Google Scholar
• Relkin, E. 2018. “Assessing Young Children's Computational Thinking Abilities.” Doctoral diss., Tufts University. https://sites.tufts.edu/devtech/files/2015/10/Relkin-thesis.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, M., and E. Rosenbaum. 2013. Designing for Tinker Ability. Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, 163–181.
   Google Scholar
• Ricca, B., E. Lulis, and D. Bade. 2006. Lego Mindstorms and the Growth of Critical Thinking. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems Workshop on Teaching with Robots, Agents, and NLP.
   Google Scholar
• Romero, M., and Y. Dupont. 2016. “Educational Robotics: From Procedural Learning to co-Creative Project-oriented Challenges with LEGO WeDo.” 8th Conference on Education and New Learning Technology, Barcelona. doi:10.21125/edulearn.2016.0318.
   Google Scholar
• Sekaran, S. 2003. Measurement: Scaling, Reliability, Validity. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma, K., S. Papavlasopoulou, and M. Giannakos. 2019. “Coding Games and Robots to Enhance Computational Thinking: How Collaboration and Engagement Moderate Children’s Attitudes?” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 21: 65–76. doi:10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.004.
   Google Scholar
• Tikva, C., and E. Tambouris. 2021. “Mapping Computational Thinking Through Programming in K-12 Education: A Conceptual Model Based on a Systematic Literature Review.” Computers & Education 162: 104083. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran, Y. 2019. “Computational Thinking Equity in Elementary Classrooms: What Third-grade Students Know and Can Do.” Journal of Educational Computing Research 57 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1177/0735633117743918.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, C.Y. 2019. “Improving Students’ Understanding of Basic Programming Concepts Through Visual Programming Language: The Role of Self-efficacy.” Computers in Human Behavior 95: 224–232. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.038.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veselovská, M., and K. Mayerová. 2017, April. “LEGO WeDo Curriculum for Lower Secondary School.” In International Conference on Robotics and Education RiE 2017, 53–64. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62875-2_5.
   Google Scholar
• Wing, J.M. 2006. “Computational Thinking.” Communications of the ACM 49 (3): 33–35. doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wing, J.M. 2008. “Computational Thinking and Thinking About Computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical.” Physical and Engineering Sciences 366 (1881): 3717–3725. doi:10.1109/ipdps.2008.4536091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yesharim, M. F., and M. Ben-Ari. 2018. “Teaching computer science concepts through robotics to elementary school children.” International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools 2 (3): 1–22. doi:10.21585/ijcses.v2i3.30.
   Google Scholar
• Yousafzai, S.Y., G.R. Foxall, and J.G. Pallister. 2007. “Technology Acceptance: A Meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1.” Journal of Modelling in Management 2 (3): 251–280. doi:10.1108/17465660710834453.
   Google Scholar