Beyond jam sandwiches and cups of tea: An exploration of primary pupils' algorithm‐evaluation strategies

Abstract

The long‐standing debate into the potential benefit of developing mathematical thinking skills through learning to program has been reignited with the widespread introduction of programming in schools across many countries, including England where it is a statutory requirement for all pupils to be taught programming from 5 years old. Algorithm is introduced early in the English computing curriculum, yet there is limited knowledge of how young pupils view this concept. This paper explores pupils' (aged 10–11) understandings of algorithm following their engagement with 1 year of ScratchMaths, a curriculum designed to develop computational and mathematical thinking skills through learning to program. A total of 181 pupils from 6 schools undertook a set of written tasks to assess their interpretations and evaluations of different algorithms that solve the same problem, with a subset of these pupils subsequently interviewed to probe their understandings in greater depth. We discuss the different approaches identified, the evaluation criteria they used, and the aspects of the concept that pupils found intuitive or challenging, such as simplification and abstraction. The paper ends with some reflections on the implications of the research, concluding with a set of recommendations for pedagogy in developing primary pupils' algorithmic thinking.

Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review

“… Green flag, key press, sprite click, keyboard input, mouse, sensing, video and audio events (I/O device use) [3–7,9,14,18,21,22,24,25,28–30] Animations, games, art, stories and simulations (project genres) [3,9]…”

“…Moreover, each coding pattern can be interpreted as a separate solution to a problem (Algorithms), which, in turn, is an abstraction of a real-world phenomenon (Abstraction). Benton et al [5] asked students to rate the difficulty of different kinds of algorithms, which resembled PECT's "Animate Motion" coding pattern. Franklin et al [17] examined the "Breaking down actions" coding pattern, which resembled a combination of PECT's "Collision" and "Animate Motion".…”

“…• Sprite properties, variables and lists (abstractions of properties) [1,3,4,6,8,9,11,14,15,18,20,22,24,25,29,30] • Coding patterns, make-a-blocks and cloning (abstractions of behaviours) [1,[5][6][7][8][9]11,14,[20][21][22]24,25,28,30] • Continuous events (repeat until), discrete events (wait until) and initialisation (abstractions of states) [1,7,8,11,20,22,24,25,28,30] • Complex projects with several scripts and sprites [3,5,9,21,28] Algorithms…”

“…• Green flag, key press, sprite click, keyboard input, mouse, sensing, video and audio events (I/O device use) [3][4][5][6][7]9,14,18,21,22,24,25,[28][29][30] • Animations, games, art, stories and simulations (project genres) [3,9] Collaboration • Publishing projects [2] • Remixing and credit-giving [3,17] • Commenting, requesting friends, favouriting, "love-its" [2,3] Coordination and Parallelism…”

Developing Children’s Computational Thinking using Programming Games

“…This is the approach used byGibson (2012) to successfully teach theoretical abstract CS concepts such as graph connectivity and graph isomorphism to children as young as age 5. Gibson suggests that children have the potential to learn abstract concepts in primary school, even from the point they can read and write, as long as the content is structured correctly.However,Benton et al (2018) suggest that primary school children can strugprimary school children held programming misconceptions about variables, loops and conditionals that caused them to struggle to trace code in Scratch. This reiterates that structured teaching is required for primary school children to develop abstract reasoning skills in CS.…”