Background Studies on the effectiveness of block‐based environments continue to produce inconsistent results. A strong reason for this is that most studies compare environments that are not equivalent to each other or to the level of learners. Moreover, studies that present evidence of the effectiveness of block‐based environments by comparing equivalent environments are limited. Objectives This study aims to scrutinize the effects of programming training to be held in equivalent environments (block‐based and text‐based) with university students who do not have prior programming knowledge and experience on achievement, logical thinking, and motivation. Methods The study was conducted by using an experimental pretest‐posttest control group design. The study was conducted with 60 students, the total consisting of 30 students in the experimental group and 30 students in the control group. In the experimental group, block‐based visual programming training with Scratch was conducted and the control group received text‐based programming training with Small Basic. The training was maintained for 10 weeks, for 4 h a week in each group. The programming achievement test, the logical thinking skills test, and the motivation scale were used to collect the data. Results and Conclusions The results showed that the use of a block‐based environment in programming training contributed positively to the development of students' logical thinking skills, and motivation for learning programming. In contrast, there was evidence that this training did not make a difference on programming success. Implications The findings of the study provided evidence of the effectiveness of block‐based training in comparisons made in equivalent environments. Focusing research on this issue may contribute to the improvement of the current understanding.
In the present study, 36 articles indexed in the Web of Science database were examined in order to reveal the current trend in scientific studies in the field of educational neuroscience. Therefore, the distribution of the articles was examined considering publication years, host journals, the most productive author(s), coauthorship, abstract keywords, collocated keywords, educational attainment of the samples, dependent variables, and the EEG devices used. The data were evaluated with descriptive and bibliometric analysis methods. The findings revealed that the publishing in the field gained an elevation in 2020; the papers were mostly published in Computers & Education; Mayer was the most productive author; Cheng, Lin, Yang, and Huang were those who produced the most collaborative studies in the field. In addition, it was found out that the keyword "cognitive load" was discussed more than the others; it was used with "attention" the most; studies were mostly carried out at university level; cognitive load and attention were the most examined dependent variables; the NeuroSky Mindwave was used in these articles the most. To sum, the present results have the potential to generate an overall perspective to educational neuroscience.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.