The effect of programming on primary

school students’ mathematical and

scientific understanding: educational use of
mBot

José-Manuel Sáez-López, Maria-Luisa

Sevillano-García & Esteban Vazquez-
Cano

Educational Technology Research

and Development
A bi-monthly publication of
the Association for Educational
Communications & Technology

ISSN 1042-1629
Volume 67
Number 6

Education Tech Research Dev (2019)

67:1405-1425
DOI 10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Association
for Educational Communications and
Technology. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived in
electronic repositories. If you wish to self-
archive your article, please use the accepted
manuscript version for posting on your own
website. You may further deposit the accepted
manuscript version in any repository,
provided it is only made publicly available 12
months after official publication or later and
provided acknowledgement is given to the
original source of publication and a link is
inserted to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Education Tech Research Dev (2019) 67:1405–1425
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The effect of programming on primary school students’

mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use
of mBot

José‑Manuel Sáez‑López1 · Maria‑Luisa Sevillano‑García1 · Esteban Vazquez‑Cano1

Published online: 24 January 2019

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Abstract
This study highlights the importance of an educational design that includes robotics and
programming through a visual programming language as a means to enable students to
improve substantially their understanding of the elements of logic and mathematics. Gain-
ing an understanding of computational concepts as well as a high degree of student par-
ticipation and commitment emphasize the effectiveness of introducing robotics and visual
programming based on active methodologies in primary education. Implementation of this
design provides sixth-grade elementary education students with activities that integrate
programming and robotics in sciences and mathematics; these practices allow students
to understand coding, motion, engines, sequences and conditionals. A quasi-experimen-
tal design, descriptive analysis and participant observation were applied across various
dimensions to 93 sixth-grade students in four primary education schools. Programming
and robotics were integrated in one didactic unit of mathematics and another in sciences.
Statistically significant improvements were achieved in the understanding of mathematical
concepts and in the acquisition of computational concepts, based on an active pedagogical
practice that instills motivation, enthusiasm, commitment, fun and interest in the content
studied.

Keywords Computational thinking · Elementary education · Programming and

programming languages · Robotics · Teaching/learning strategies

* José‑Manuel Sáez‑López
[email protected]
Maria‑Luisa Sevillano‑García
[email protected]
Esteban Vazquez‑Cano
[email protected]
1
Spanish National University of Distance Education (UNED), C/ Juan del Rosal 14, 28040 Madrid,
Spain

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
1406 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

Introduction

Block visual programming environments allow us to experiment, share and create particu-
lar products with code. Computational models and methods enable us to solve problems
and design systems that humans could not do alone; coding literacy at its base level can
also help students build transferable skills (Freeman et al. 2017). Programming and robot-
ics are used to support learning in schools, especially in the subjects of science, technol-
ogy, engineering, mathematics and informatics (Kimet al. 2015; Kucuk and Sisman 2017).
Programming highlights the advantages of logical thinking, mathematics and creativity.
Teaching approaches such as project-based learning, problem-based learning and col-
laborative learning strategies can be applied to allow greater autonomy and active learn-
ing experiences, in order to promote uncertainty and active methodologies centred on the
student (Grant 2011; Mergendoller et al. 2006; Weng-yi Cheng et al. 2008). Based on these
student-centered learning strategies, computational thinking can be applied from a logical
analysis of data, abstractions and problem solving. All of these practices in an educational
context allow students to develop skills to solve complex problems (Johnson et al. 2014).
Recent years have seen a growing interest in developing problems, applications and games
oriented towards learning to program, due to the many advantages and possibilities they
offer, as well as the opportunities they provide in the present and future world of work.

Pedagogical design and computational thinking

The pedagogical model applied is one based on the theory of meaningful learning (Aus-
ubel 1978), highlighting the essential importance of social interactions in learning environ-
ments from the perspective of sociocultural theories and constructivism (Vygotsky 1978).
Constructivism is a child-centered theory of education in which the child actively pro-
cesses meaning and learning, proceeds at his/her own pace without deliberate instruction
or a prescribed curriculum.
Papert (1980) developed the constructionist theory of learning which demonstrates that
learning occurs when learners are engaged in the creation of meaningful artifacts that can
be probed and shared. The constructionist theory holds that when children work with mate-
rials that allow them to design and construct meaningful artifacts, they learn better (Rogers
and Portsmore 2004). Knowledge is built in the mind through learning, with the use of
specific tools such as robots and computers; this approach is in opposition to the traditional
method of instruction in which students remain passive. Papert’s theory can be summa-
rized in his vision of a new educational environment in which learners build meaningful
knowledge artifacts (Parmaxi and Zaphiris 2014, p. 452).
From these essential foundations, some authors proposed a methodological strategy
centered on project-based learning (Jonassen 1977), with educational activities oriented
to solving problems in real contexts with learning opportunities. This approach is based
on inquiry, to ensure that learning occurs when the subject actively discovers and resolves
situations. According to these fundamentals, learning-by-doing involves an active approach
to teaching and learning as the student seeks to acquire knowledge and skills through the
educational process.
These approaches encourage the development of activities that involve skills and logi-
cal thinking. Computational thinking is defined as problem solving, system design and the

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1407

understanding of human behavior achieved by applying the fundamental concepts of comput-

ing (Wing 2006, p. 33). The International Society of Technology in Education and the Com-
puter Teachers Association (2011) both define computational thinking as: the formulation of
problems in a way that allows us to use a computer and other tools to help solve them; the
organization and logical analysis of the data; the representation of the data through abstrac-
tions such as models and simulations; the automation of solutions through algorithmic think-
ing (a series of ordered steps); the identification, analysis and implementation of possible solu-
tions with the objective of achieving the most efficient and effective combination of measures
and resources; and, the generalization and transfer of this problem-solving process to a wide
variety of problems.
Computational thinking is based on processes, computational methods and models that
enable the solving of problems and design of systems that we cannot do alone. Therefore, it is
a matter of using a computer to solve a series of tasks through problem representation, predic-
tion and abstraction (Kafai and Burke 2014; Sengupta et al. 2013). In this regard, we ask some
questions: why is it important to teach computational thinking in elementary school? What is
it about the world today that requires people who are computational thinkers? Why is compu-
tational thinking such a valuable skill?
The importance of teaching computational thinking skills from an early age is a key ele-
ment that has captured the attention of researchers (Fletcher and Lu 2009). Programming is
not only a fundamental skill of computational science and a key tool to support the cognitive
tasks involved in computational thinking, but also a demonstration of computational compe-
tencies (Grover and Pea 2013). These practices can be a great advantage when integrated into
pedagogical activities to improve skills in logic, mathematics, problem solving and critical
thinking.
Some studies have focused on computing and computational thinking in primary educa-
tion (Han et al. 2016; Maya et al. 2015; Sáez-López et al. 2016), and there is growing evi-
dence to support the integration of computer science into education. Sengupta et al. (2013)
highlight the significant advantages in acquiring an understanding of scientific, mathematical
and computational concepts. Several researchers have emphasized positive computer-related
outcomes (Calder 2010; Chiang and Qin 2018). Lambert and Guiffre 2009; Lin et al. 2005)
and the acquisition of skills related to computer concepts (Baytak and Land 2011; Kwon et al.
2012). Teachers have provided positive feedback on Scratch due to its usability and accessibil-
ity (Clark et al. 2013; Lee 2011; Maya et al. 2015).
In these contexts, visual programming can be used to solve problems, and it enables coding
to be taught in primary schools. When students manipulate pieces in order to fit them together,
this visual block system avoids the compiler error messages that commonly appear in textual
languages. Coding with such applications is easier than using traditional programming lan-
guages because students can play and interact with colored blocks to create scripts. One of the
most popular applications for block programming language is Scratch, created by the Lifelong
Kindergarten group of the MIT Media Lab. Scratch has blocks in eight different categories:
motion, look, sound, control, sensing, operators and variables. mBot provides the application
mBlock, a variant adapted to Scratch 2.0 and which includes an extra category called ‘robots’.

13
 Author's personal copy
1408 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

Programmable educational robots

Papert (1980) suggests that at the same time children actively construct their intellect, they
also construct their meta-cognitive skills. When students master the use of computers,
they transfer their learning to real-life situations, especially to problem solving. Rusk et al.
(2008) define robotics as programmable devices that perform actions depending on sen-
sor inputs. Programming can be defined as providing the solution to a specific problem, in
which the problem must first be understood and analyzed; eventually, the algorithm of the
solution is translated into code (Oddie et al. 2010).
Robots can be used as a resource for programming. Students can probe complex con-
cepts by editing codes and manipulating robots. Robots used in the teaching of program-
ming can provide interesting opportunities and authentic practice situations with imme-
diate feedback. Empirical evidence suggests the effectiveness of robotics as a learning
complementary tool (Mazzoni and Benvenuti 2015; Spolaôr and Vavassori-Benitti 2017)
also with elementary students (Chen et al. 2017; Kucuk and Sisman 2017). These resources
fulfill a supportive role in classroom learning that encourage motivation, good impressions,
positive attitudes (Lin et al. 2005) and can even improve student performance (Kanda et al.
2004).
Rogers and Portsmore (2004) introduced a curriculum for robotics lessons that first
taught students to be curious and creative, and then made the means and engineering skills
available to them to enable them to satisfy their own curiosity. They noted that, in addi-
tion to being exciting, robots make it possible for students to create products and test them
immediately, which engenders collaborative, creative and authentic learning experiences
(Skelton et al. 2010). On the other hand, in terms of academic qualifications, robotics have
not been found to statistically improve student outcomes (Fagin and Merkle 2003).
A series of educational resources and robots can be programmed and manipulated
through block visual programming (Tickle, Blocky, Scratch, M block…), and can facilitate
easy experimentation in primary education settings due to the intuitive nature of this type
of programming (Table 1). Examples of educational robots that use this type of visual pro-
gramming are:

• Dash and dot: this pair of robots teaches young children the basics of programming on
the iPhone, iPad and on some Android devices (https​://www.makew​onder​.com/dash).
Students program robots using the Blockly language.
• Ozobots is an interesting option for robotic programming in class (http://ozobo​t.com/).
This robot has a unique way of being programmed that makes it easy to use.
• Sphero SPRK and BB8 are excellent resources for any type of coding (http://www.
spher​o.com/spher​o-sprk). These small robots are programmable and can be used or
combined with applications such as Tickle.

Table 1  Applications and robots sequenced in early childhood and primary education

Application Primary school

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Dash and dot https://www.makewonder.com/dash
Ozobot http://ozobot.com
Sphero SPRK http://www.sphero.com/sphero-sprk
mBot http://www.makeblock.cc/mbot/

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1409

mBot robot: application in primary school

Here are some examples of the mBot, which focuses on primary education and a visual
block programming, with an adapted version of Scratch 2.0 (mBlock).
This resource is relatively inexpensive and very attractive. The mBot robot (http://
www.makeb​lock.cc/mbot/) has a great advantage in that you can work with an intui-
tive visual language with the ‘mBlock’ app (version 3.2.2.) that is adapted or similar to
Scratch 2.0. With these resources, students find it easy to experiment with it, and it is
suitable for use by students of levels 3 and 4 of primary education onwards. It is an ideal
introduction to robotics, programming and electronics based on Arduino UNO (Fig. 1).
The mBot consists of an Arduino board (see Fig. 1), so all the materials, resources
and advantages of working with this board are actively in use when working with this
robot. Its resources include:

– Brightness sensor
– Proximity sensor
– Sensor that follows lines
– 2 RGB LEDs with choice of color
– Allows user to play musical notes (buzzer)
– A button on the plate

These resources have advantages when it comes to technological integration in edu-

cational contexts, allowing the development of computational thinking, digital com-
petence, logical thinking and problem solving. In terms of curricula, the International
Association of Technologies in Education (ISTE) standards can readily be applied.
Some of these standards relate directly to the practices and activities proposed:

6.a To understand and use technological systems.

6.b To solve systems and applications.
6.c To transfer current knowledge for the learning of new technologies.

Fig. 1  mBot, Arduino board details

13
 Author's personal copy
1410 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

The general perspective of these standards can be of interest and add value to over-
all planning. In addition, and specifying different elements, we can distinguish between
algorithms, loops and events in the stages of primary education. Some standards (CSTA
K-12 Computer Science Standards) that can be applicable to primary education are:

• CT.L2-06—Describing and analyzing a sequence following instructions (algorithm or

sequence).
• CPP.L1: 6-06—Implementing solutions to problems using a block-based visual pro-
gramming language.
• CT.L2-01—Using basic steps in solving an algorithmic problem in order to design
solutions.

In short, research affirms that there are advantages to these approaches for science, tech-
nology, engineering and mathematics, as they enable the acquisition of the basic knowl-
edge and skills considered important for success in today’s society, through effective com-
munication, use of critical thinking skills, problem solving and digital competence.

Aims

The main objective of this study is to analyze the potential of visual block programming
and robotics for use in primary education. The specific objectives are:

• To evaluate activities with programming and robotics, checking their effectiveness

when integrated into science and math.
• To evaluate the acquisition of basic computational concepts through visual block pro-
gramming in primary education.
• To analyze motivation, commitment, participation, critical thinking and problem solv-
ing on the integration of programming and robotics into pedagogical practice.
• In line with these aims, the specific research questions of this study are the following:
• Are there significant improvements in students’ academic results in math with the
application of programming and robotics?
• Are there significant improvements in students’ academic results in science with the
application of programming and robotics?
• Are there improvements related to computational concepts with the application of pro-
gramming and robotics?
• Do programming and robotics enable active methods, motivation, critical thinking
skills and problem solving?

Method

This research process focused on the application of complementary methods that contribute
to the understanding of the interactions taking place in the learning processes. The research
is conducted in the natural setting. Mixed and complementary methods were applied on
the basis of quantitative and qualitative data and instruments (Table 2). In dimension 1,
a quasi-experimental design was applied that analyzed data through the Student’s t test,
assessing the results of exams in mathematics and sciences. In dimension 2, the results

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1411

Table 2  Dimensions, indicators and instruments

Dimensions Indicators Instruments

1. Robotics and programming in sci- Whole numbers Tests: math and science
ences and mathematics Coordinates Quasi-experimental design
Negative numbers - Pretest-post-test
Electronic devices - Control group-experimental group
Motors and electricity Student’s t test
Circuits Descriptive analysis
2. Computational concepts and Sequence Participant observation
practices Iteration (looping) - Scale of estimation
Conditional statements Descriptive analysis
Threads (parallel execution) Mann–Whitney U test
Event handling
Robot programming
3. Robotics and interactions in Active methods Data triangulation
classroom Motivation Participant observation
Critical thinking skills - Scale of estimation
Problem solving
Interest in the subject
Participation
Encouragement
Fun

obtained from a scale of estimation after participant observation were compared to the con-
trol group (Mann–Whitney U test) from data and categorical variables, in order to analyze
improvements in the acquisition of computational concepts. Dimension 3 detailed informa-
tion and data obtained through participant observation in the intervention. The use of par-
ticipant observation in dimensions 2 and 3 facilitated an assessment based on a naturalistic
evaluation model approach, which is carried out with the collaboration of the participating
students and teachers (Guba and Lincoln 1981). Iterative cycles of testing and refinement
of solutions in practice are related to dimensions, indicators and instruments (Table 2).
The proposed evaluation combines methods of qualitative and quantitative assessment,
and participant observation (Fig. 2). The triangulation of data ensures that there is evidence
to support the validity of the results and minimum error variance (Goetz and LeCompte
1988). The triangulation of data by Cohen et al. (2000) was implemented using quantita-
tive information collected in tests.

Participants

The study sample consisted of 93 sixth-grade students in primary education attending four
educational centers in Spain, two in the Community of Madrid and two in the autonomous
region of Castilla–La Mancha. The population is somewhat higher than the 50,000 stu-
dents (36,973 + 16,828) who are sixth-grade students at public schools in both regions. The
sample is non-probabilistic and intentional, so we opted for a quasi-experimental design.
Regarding the gender of the experimental group, 45.2% were female and 54.8% male.
There was an experimental mortality of 16 students. For dimensions 1 and 2, there was a
control group of 36 students from two classes in the Madrid region, of which 47.2% were
female and 52.8% were male. The experimental and control group worked on the same

13
 Author's personal copy
1412 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

Fig. 2  Research design, elements and structure

unit and learning program, there were differences regarding learning resources (described
in this study). Control group worked mainly with textbook, lecturing and notebooks. The
students in the experimental group and control group worked the exact same contents and
they did the same exams/test, the only difference was the technological resources in the
experimental group.
According to data from the contingency analysis, Pearson’s Chi square test showed
there were no significant differences with regard to gender, nor for the educational centers
in the different variables analyzed. The sample size and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test val-
ues meant that normality was assumed.

Application or intervention

We detail a series of activities and practices that were integrated into the curricular area of
mathematics (didactic unit 3, ‘whole numbers’), and in natural sciences (unit 8, ‘electricity
and magnetism’). In both the math and science, we integrated the elements of motion and
ultrasonic sensor, as well as providing a curricular proposal. We apply this intervention in
the experimental group.

Motion

The first example observed in Fig. 3 shows the blocks that give orders to the robot’s
engines. The speed can be 50 (slow), 100 (intermediate) or 255 (fast). The example sets

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1413

Fig. 3  Blocks for mBot engines

the speed at 100. Four events are set in motion by pressing the arrow on the keyboard up,
down, left and right (Fig. 3).
By pressing the ‘up’ arrow, both engines spin the wheels forward (100), and by press-
ing the ‘down’ arrow, both motors turn in the opposite direction (− 100). By pressing the
left arrow, motor 1 (M1) to the left of the robot rotates the wheel backwards (− 100) while
the right wheel in motor 2 (M2) rotates forward (100). On the other hand, by pressing the
right arrow on the keyboard, motor 1 (M1) to the left of the robot rotates the wheel forward
(100) while the right wheel on motor 2 (M2) rotates backwards (− 100).
In this way, the robot is perfectly controlled by the arrows on the computer keyboard.
Users have to take into account the speed, for if we change 100 for 255 in all squares, the
robot will go faster, while reducing it to 50 will obviously slow down all its movements.
The robot’s mode of rotation is entirely on itself as both wheels rotate simultaneously. The
activity enables problem solving, encouragement and fun; students were interested in the
response of the robot, so they showed motivation, interest and active participation.

Ultrasonic sensor

It is necessary to understand how block programming functions in order to enable the

mBot to avoid obstacles by means of the ultrasonic distance sensor. The device can be pro-
grammed into the activity so that when the space bar is pressed, the robot advances. On the
other hand, if the ultrasonic sensor detects that it is near an obstacle (less than 10 cm), the
robot can be maneuvered to avoid contact. When you release the space bar, the robot stops
(Figs. 4, 5).
In short, these activities are planned for sixth-grade primary education students and
integrated transversally in sciences and mathematics; they allow students to understand
the codes that move the robot through the engines. This also helps them understand the

13
 Author's personal copy
1414 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

Fig. 4  Process and structure. Ultrasonic sensor

Fig. 5  mBlock details. Code to rotate when an object is detected

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1415

creation of a variable that depends on the distance registered by the ultrasonic sensor, and
makes the robot rotate if there is an obstacle nearby; it works through a conditional. It
facilitates the understanding of integers by inserting a loop that allows the instructions to
work at all times when the key is pressed.
These programming concepts, sequences, loops and conditionals allowed students
to develop competencies related to mathematics, science and technology, fostering an
interdisciplinary approach. Students were interested in the response of the sensor, show-
ing motivation, interest and encouragement in all the process.

A curricular proposal

Starting from the theoretical references of the ISTE and CSTA K-12 (Computer Sci-
ence) standards, the main context and design relates to the Spanish educational system,
within the regulatory framework of the Organic Law for the improvement of educational
quality (LOMCE) 2013. As the competences for education in Spain are decentralized
across the various autonomous communities, each community can develop and approve
its own curricula. As an example, we highlight the curriculum authorized in Castilla–La
Mancha, Decree 54/2014, 10/07/2014, for primary education students in that autono-
mous community.
According to the different curricular areas, there are blocks of content, evaluation
criteria and learning standards that act as reference points in the evaluation process. The
content and practices related to programming and computational thinking can be inte-
grated in an interdisciplinary way, more coherently in natural sciences and mathematics
through project methods or in didactic units. Some examples are indicated for the sixth
grade (Decree 54/2014):
Natural sciences:

• CN1.4.1. They make adequate use of information and communication technologies

as a leisure resource.
• CN5.1. They identify the sources of energy with which the machines operate.
• CN5.3.1. They use simple resources provided by information technologies to com-
municate and collaborate.

Mathematics:

• MA1.9.3. Resolution of challenges and problems with the precision, care and inter-
est appropriate to the educational level and the difficulty of the situation.
• MA1.10.1. Decision making in problem-solving processes by assessing the conse-
quences of problems and their suitability, for the simplicity and utility of the tools.
• MA1.12.1. Use of simple technological tools for performing numerical calculations,
for learning and solving problems.
• MA2.2.4. Use of negative numbers in real contexts.

In short, it is a question of providing a design in which mathematical- and science-

related content is integrated in line with an interdisciplinary perspective, with the aim
of gaining the advantages that arise from manipulation and experimentation in these
types of activities; such benefits include developing logical thinking, in algorithms,

13
 Author's personal copy
1416 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

sequences and different computational concepts. The advantages deriving from motiva-
tion, enthusiasm, commitment and fun greatly benefit the student and are clear to see
in the approaches that focus on the active teaching of coding and experimenting with
educational robots.

Instruments and reliability

Mixed methods are applied by using a variety of tools and techniques in interventions in dif-
ferent dimensions: ‘It is perfectly logical for researchers to select and use different methods,
selecting them as they see the need, applying their findings to a reality that is both plural and
unknown’ (Maxcy 2003, p. 59). The intervention, or fieldwork, in this study was developed
in academic year 2016–2017. The students belonging to the experimental group worked on
a didactic unit in mathematics and another in sciences, in which programming and robotics
were integrated in the content and activities, including managing the mBot.
The first dimension measured the results of the math test (unit 3) and the science test (unit
8) through a quasi-experimental method. The construct validity was tested by exploratory
factor analysis, using the criterion of extraction of eigenvalues > 1 and the varimax rotation
method. Exploratory factor analysis is a statistical technique that is used to reduce data to a
smaller set of summary variables and to explore the underlying theoretical structure of the
phenomena. It is a method of data reduction which infers presence of latent factors which are
responsible for the shared variance in a set of observed items. It is exploratory because the
user does not specify a structure, and assumes each item could be related to each latent factor.
Varimax rotation is used to simplify the column of the factor matrix so that the factor extracts
are clearly associated and there should be some separation among the variables. In addition, a
Cronbach’s alpha value of 7.18 gave an acceptable level of reliability (Hair et al. 1998). Cron-
bach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency, which is considered to be a measure of scale
reliability.
The second dimension analyzed the values obtained from an estimation scale derived
from the participant observation technique; the 24 items were organized for sequence, itera-
tion, conditional statements, parallel execution, event handling and robot programming. We
analyzed the learning processes and the work with computational concepts in the interven-
tion. This type of research aims to describe the individual experience in particular environ-
ments. Due to the presence of ordinal data in dimension 2, we opted to apply a non-parametric
test (Mann–Whitney U). The qualitative validation of the content by seven experts provided
an Aiken V value (V = S/[n(c − 1)]) greater than 0.7 in all items. Content validity refers to
the extent to which a measure represents all facets of a given social construct. The gener-
ally accepted quantitative index for content is the Aiken’s V index. This index will be used
to quantify the ratings of panel experts constituted for evaluating the items in the instrument
(Aiken 1980). Therefore, the relevance and adequacy of the instrument in the qualitative vali-
dation were deemed acceptable. The construct validity was examined by exploratory factor
analysis, taking the extraction value of eigenvalues > 1 and the varimax rotation method. The
Cronbach’s alpha value of 7.31 certified its reliability.
In the third dimension, participant observation consisted of obtaining data on an estimation
scale from the fieldwork. Here the emphasis was on a methodological and data triangulation
on data and techniques in the three dimensions, thereby obtaining data from different sources,
techniques and instruments to strengthen validity. It is advisable to use more than one method
in order to improve the validation process.

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1417

Results

Dimension 1: robotics and programming in sciences and mathematics

Dimension 1 applied a quasi-experimental design in which the means were compared

using a Student’s t-test, through statistical inference. Differences in the pretest and post-
test were analyzed with a paired sample test. We also analyzed differences between the
control and experimental groups.
The results from the Student’s t-test showed significant improvements in the math
test results, demonstrating that the program implemented improved students’ ability to
understand coordinates, integers and negative numbers. The posttest values provided
the data once the intervention was complete, and they revealed the statistically signifi-
cant differences previously mentioned (0.000) at a significance level of 99% between
paired samples (Table 3). The values for the unit 3 mathematics test on ‘whole numbers’
underlined the advantage of an educational design that includes visual programming
language and robotics in order to understand mathematical elements.
As for the comparison of means between the control group and the experimental
group, the mean in the math test seems to improve appreciably (7.45), while in the sci-
ence test it remains close to 6.7 points, with no apparent differences (Table 4).
Comparing the control group and the experimental group, we verified the homoge-
neity of variances through Levene’s test, assuming homoscedasticity in the math test
(0.899), although it was not assumed in the science test according Levene (Table 5).
From these values, the p value was checked in the math test with a significance of
(0.00) at a significance level of 99% (Table 5). Therefore, the research hypothesis is con-
firmed and the null hypothesis rejected; there are statistically significant improvements

Table 3  Paired differences

Mean Std. Devia- Std. Upper Lower T df Sig
tion Error α = 99% α = 99%
Mean

Math: pre- − 1.204 1.315 .136 − 1.563 − .846 − 8.831 92 .000

test–post-
test
Science: − .129 1.689 .175 − .590 .332 − .737 92 .463
pretest–
posttest

Related samples. Student’s t test

Table 4  Group statistics N Mean SD SE mean

Math: posttest
Experimental group 93 7.45 1.256 .130
Control group 36 6.39 1.225 .204
Science: posttest
Experimental group 93 6.77 1.360 .141
Control group 36 6.69 .980 .163

Control and experimental group

13
 Author's personal copy
1418 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

Table 5  Paired samples

Levene’s test for equal- t-test for equality of means
ity of variances
F Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Math: posttest
Equal variances assumed .016 .899 4.341 127 .000
Science: posttest
Equal variances not assumed 5.607 .019 .369 88.017 .713

Student’s t test. Independent sample testing

in the curricular area of mathematics in the elements measured in this quasi-experimen-

tal design. Therefore, it can be highlighted that there is an improvement in mathematics
when using these resources and activities.
In the results of the science test, the statistical values show that there is no significant
improvement in this curricular area whose content addressed electronic devices, motors,
electricity and circuits. Statistically significant improvements were not observed in the
pretest and posttest, with a value of 0.463 (Table 3), nor in the comparison of means in
the control and experimental groups, with a significance of 0.713 (Table 5). In short,
the null hypothesis is accepted; there are no statistically significant improvements in the
sciences. Therefore, it can be highlighted that there is not an improvement in sciences
when using these resources and activities.

Dimension 2: computational concepts and practices

In dimension 2, we detailed the computational concepts integrated in the intervention.

The values ​​that the frequencies contributed from the scores of the estimation scale are
highly positive in all the units of analysis, especially in robot programming, since more
than 60% of the evaluations are good or excellent (2.6). There were also very positive
results in the work involving sequences and conditionals (2.1 and 2.3), with values
superior to 50% that amounted to good or excellent. Loops and parallel execution have
positive, but more modest values (2.2 and 2.5).
It is worth noting that there were statistically significant improvements in the integra-
tion of computational concepts in the unit applied. There was an improvement over the
control group in the understanding of sequences, loops, conditionals, parallel execution,
events and robotic use, as shown by the Mann–Whitney U test (Fig. 6 and Tables 6, 7
and 8). Therefore, an improvement in the computational concepts is perceived when
using these resources.
Dimension 3, ‘robotics and interactions in the classroom’ (Table 6 and Fig. 7), assessed
elements related to participation, interactions and learning processes. Values above 60%
were obtained, and deemed to be ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, which was particularly positive with
regard to the elements of fun, commitment, participation, interest and motivation for the
students participating in the intervention (3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8). With valuations close to
55%, the application of active teaching–learning methods and problem solving (3.1 and
3.4) were outstanding. Critical thinking skills showed positive but modest values (3.3).

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1419

Fig. 6  Dimension 2. Compu- 100

tational concepts. Percentage 90
(good + excellence) 80

% Good+ excellence
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.5
Dim 2 61.2 54.3 53.5 52.7 41.9 27.9

Table 6  Dimension 2 scales

Items % Mann–Whitney U
1 2 3 4 5

Dimension 2: computational concepts

2.1. Sequence 3.9 15.5 26.4 34.9 19.4 0.00*
2.2. Iteration (looping) 2.3 20.9 24.0 39.5 13.2 0.00*
2.3. Conditional statements 7.0 13.2 26.4 42.6 10.9 0.00*
2.4. Parallel execution 3.9 20.9 33.3 29.5 12.4 0.00*
2.5. Event handling 9.3 28.7 34.1 27.1 0.80 0.00*
2.6. Robot programming 10.9 14.7 13.2 40.3 20.9 0.00*
Dimension 3: participation and interactions
3.1. Active methods 4.7 12.4 29.5 45.7 7.80
3.2. Motivation 7.8 9.30 19.4 25.6 38.0
3.3. Critical thinking skills 2.3 18.6 49.6 26.4 3.10
3.4. Problem solving 0.8 2.30 39.5 51.2 6.20
3.5. Interest in the subject 3.1 8.50 17.8 33.3 37.2
3.6. Participation 2.3 9.30 14.0 31.0 43.3
3.7. Encouragement 0.8 14.0 9.3 31.0 45.0
3.8. Fun 0.0 11.6 10.1 29.5 48.8

Participant observation values. Scale of estimation (1 = poor, 2 = passed, 3 = acceptable, 4 = good, 5 = excel-
lence)
*p < .01

Conclusions and discussion

In this case study we have analyzed 93 primary school students as they worked on con-
tent in mathematics and sciences with robotics and a visual block programming language.
Using various techniques and instruments of analysis, we have detailed the implementation
of programming and robotics, and emphasized the benefits acquired in mathematics, com-
putational concepts and interactions in the classroom. From the analysis of the data, this
research concludes:

13
 Author's personal copy
1420 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

Table 7  Ranks according to Experimental group-control group N Mean rank Sum of ranks
Mann–Whitney U test
2.1. Sequence
Experimental group 93 79.49 7393.00
Control group 36 27.56 992.00
Total 129
2.2. Iteration (looping)
Experimental group 93 80.38 7475.00
Control group 36 25.28 910.00
Total 129
2.3. Conditional statements
Experimental group 93 80.68 7503.50
Control group 36 24.49 881.50
Total 129
2.4. Parallel execution
Experimental group 93 81.29 7560.00
Control group 36 22.92 825.00
Total 129
2.5. Event handling
Experimental group 93 79.16 7361.50
Control group 36 28.43 1023.50
Total 129
2.6. Robot programming
Experimental group 93 82.58 7680.00
Control group 36 19.58 705.00
Total 129

1. There were statistically significant improvements in the mathematics curriculum area

with the integration of programming and robotics. On the other hand, there were no sta-
tistically significant improvements in sciences (Dimension 1, Student’s t-test, Tables 3,
4, 5).
2. Particularly positive results were obtained in robot programming, working with
sequences and conditionals (Dimension 2, Table 6 and Fig. 6).
3. The work on computational concepts when programming improved significantly with
the implementation of the unit. There were statistically significant improvements in
sequences, loops, conditionals, parallels, events and robotics (Dimension 2, Tables 6,
7, 8).
4. In these practices, motivation, commitment, fun, participation and interest in the subject
matter increased (Dimension 3, Table 6 and Fig. 7).
5. Active methods and problem solving were considered to have had a significant presence
in the intervention. The use of critical thinking skills showed positive, but more modest,
results (Dimension 3, Table 6 and Fig. 7).

This study clearly demonstrates that there can be an improvement in understanding

computational concepts, working with robotics and in performance in mathematics when
using approaches that focus on active methods, and where students actively participate and

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1421

Table 8  Contrast of statistics

2.1. Sequence 2.2. Itera- 2.3. Condi- 2.4. Paral- 2.5. Event 2.6. Robot
tion (loop- tional state- lel execu- handling program-
ing) ments tion ming

Mann–Whit- 326.000 244.000 215.500 159.000 357.500 39.000

ney U
Z −7.347 −7.859 −8.071 −8.265 − 7.223 − 8.957
Asymp. sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
(2-tailed)

Grouping variable: control group-experimental group

Fig. 7  Dimension 3. Participa- 100

tion and interactions. Percentage 90
(good + excellence) 80
% Good + excellence

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.3
Dim 3 78.3 76 74.3 70.5 63.6 57.4 53.5 29.5

show motivation, commitment, interest and have fun while involved in the process. These
conclusions lead us to recommend that the educational authorities include robotics and
programming in the educational context of sixth-grade students in the area of mathemat-
ics. The motivation, fun, commitment and enthusiasm showed by the students through this
pedagogical approach indicate the relevance and adequacy of the practices detailed here.
Students are totally in favor of this pedagogical design, which highlights the usefulness of,
and active learning provided by, this approach. This research coincides with recent studies
regarding the benefits of robotics and programming in elementary education (Chen et al.
2017; Kucuk and Sisman 2017; Mazzoni and Benvenuti 2015; Spolaôr and Vavassori-Ben-
itti 2017).
The review of the literature shows several studies that promoted the inclusion of pro-
gramming and robotics in schools, describing their benefits in terms of motivation, com-
mitment and problem solving. Research also reveals problems in implementing robotics
and programming in schools, as their application in the area of sciences in this present
investigation has shown. Future research should analyze these obstacles, which could be
related to attitudes, teacher training or logistical problems in the schools.
Similar works and earlier studies (Maya et al. 2015; Sáez-López et al. 2016) focused on
the advantages of coding in primary school, highlighting benefits related to problem solv-
ing (Kafai and Burke 2014), science (Sengupta et al. 2013) and computer concepts (Baytak
and Land 2011; Kwon et al. 2012). This research coincides with Oddie et al. (2010) on
the advantages of programming robots in educational environments. We also agree with

13
 Author's personal copy
1422 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

other researchers (Kanda et al. 2004; Rogers and Portsmore 2004) regarding significant
improvements in students’ performance, as we have detailed in dimensions 1 and 2. In line
with previous research in this field, the contribution of this study is that we have confirmed
the pedagogical advantages of applying programming and coding using robots in primary
schools, especially in math. These activities enabled students to learn about computational
concepts from an active learning perspective. This type of intervention was motivational
and fun for the students, who felt encouraged and actively participated in solving the prob-
lems presented to them.
This research coincides with Ishii et al. (2007), whose findings showed a significant
increase in the ability of students to construct computational algorithms. We also agree
with Barak and Zadok (2009) who cite the benefits of robotics in science and technology,
and in the acquisition of problem-solving skills. This research provides further implica-
tions for practitioners and educational designers; they should consider integrating program-
ming and robotics in curricula. There are many advantages to teaching computational con-
cepts, coordinates, values and integer numbers as motivation for the student to learn how to
operate the robot. The immediate feedback and response of the robot when operating with
numbers is a powerful and highly motivational tool for students.
There are also implications to researchers working in the field of instructional technol-
ogy, who should consider the integration of coding and robotics in k-12 case studies, start-
ing from basic computational concepts such as sequences and loops, and progressing to
work with intuitive robots such as Bee bot, Ozobot and mBot from the fifth grade in pri-
mary school. From the aforementioned studies and the results of the present investigation,
we recommend the integration of robotics in the pedagogical design for primary education.
We believe it is essential to integrate robotics with visual block programs such as Scratch,
Blockly or mBlock, because it is the only way to enable students at this level to work and
program intuitively.
From the data obtained, we recommend the integration of educational robotics with
visual block programming in mathematics, especially in the subjects or didactic units
related to coordinates and integers. In this way, the students put into practice the math-
ematical concepts they learn, and receive immediate feedback when inserting coordinates
or numbers in the robot. Further research could focus on the analysis of other robots or
resources that use visual block programs, such as Sphero SPRK, Lego Wedo 2.0 or Lego
Mind storms EV3. Their integration and application in mathematics would be of interest to
researchers in this field.
The advantages of the educational approaches that apply robotics are consistent with
the theoretical framework presented here. These resources allow students to manipulate
computational concepts and practices in the real world in order to solve all kinds of situa-
tions and problems. Their application implies the development of a new literacy in the use
of technologies; the visual block code in this case enables students to acquire greater com-
petence in mathematics. In addition to an active methodological approach, their experience
is considerably enriched and made proactive with problem-based learning, project method
and collaborative initiatives. The algorithms and programs are based on logical and math-
ematical concepts, which are learned with greater motivation and enthusiasm with these
resources. In the intervention presented with integers and coordinates, we can see the out-
standing improvements achieved with the implementation of computational concepts from
an active and participatory perspective.

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1423

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
Aiken, L. R. (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and
Psychologial Measurement, 40, 955–959. https​://doi.org/10.1177/00131​64480​04000​419.
Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational
Research, 48, 251–257.
Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and
problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.
Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computer
games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 59, 765–782. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1142​3-010-9184-z.
Calder, N. (2010). Using scratch: An integrated problem-solving approach to mathematical thinking.
Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 15(4), 9–14.
Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary
students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers &
Education, 109, 162–175. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2017.03.001.
Chiang, F. K., & Qin, L. (2018). A pilot study to assess the impacts of game-based construction learn-
ing. Using scratch, on students’ multi-step equation-solving performance. Interactive Learning
Environments, 26(6), 803–814. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10494​820.2017.14129​90.
Clark, J., Rogers, M. P., Spradling, C., & Pais, J. (2013). What, no canoes? Lessons learned while host-
ing a scratch summer camp. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28, 204–210.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge
Falmer.
Fagin, B., & Merkle, L. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science. In
SIGCSE ‘03 proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education,
ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 35(1)).
Fletcher, G., & Lu, J. (2009). Human computing skills: Rethinking the K-12 experience. Communi-
cations of the ACM-Association for Computing Machinery-CACM, 52(2), 23–25. https​://doi.
org/10.1145/14619​28.14619​38.
Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN horizon
report: 2017 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https​://www.
epiph​anymg​mt.com/Downl​oads/horiz​on%20rep​ort.pdf.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1988). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research.
Madrid: Ediciones Morata.
Grant, M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students’ perspectives with project-based learning. Inter-
disciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning. https​://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1254.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12, a review of the state of the field. Educational
Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https​://doi.org/10.3102/00131​89X12​46305​1.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Han, B., Bae, Y., & Park, J. (2016). The effect of mathematics achievement variables on scratch program-
ming activities of elementary school students. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its
Applications, 10(12), 21–30.
International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011).
Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12. http://csta.acm.org/Curri​culum​/sub/CurrF​
iles/CompT​hinki​ngFly​er.pdf.
Ishii, N., Suzuki, Y., Fujiyoshi, H., Fujii, T., & Kozawa, M. (2007). A framework for designing and improv-
ing learning environments fostering creativity. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 11, 59–69.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2014). NMC horizon report: 2014 K-12 edition.
Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2014-nmc-horiz​on-repor​t-he-EN.
pdf.
Jonassen, D. H. (1977). Approaches to the study of visual literacy: A brief survey for media personnel.
Pennsylvania Media Review, 11, 15–18.

13
 Author's personal copy
1424 J.-M. Sáez‑López et al.

Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Kanda, T., Hirano, T., Eaton, D., & Ishiguro, H. (2004). Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors
for children: A field trial. Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 19, 61–84.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary
education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education,
91, 14–31. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2015.08.005.
Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-
one robotics instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31–43. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​
du.2017.04.002.
Kwon, D. Y., Kim, H. S., Shim, J. K., & Lee, W. G. (2012). Algorithmic bricks: A tangible robot pro-
gramming tool for elementary school students. Education, IEEE Transactions, 55(4), 474–479.
https​://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.21900​71.
Lambert, L., & Guiffre, H. (2009). Computer science outreach in an elementary school. Journal of Com-
puting Sciences in Colleges, 24(3), 118–124.
Lee, Y. J. (2011). Empowering teachers to create educational software: A constructivist approach utiliz-
ing Etoys, pair programming and cognitive apprenticeship. Computers & Education, 56(2), 527–
538. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2010.09.018.
Lin, J. M. C., Yen, L. Y., Yang, M. C., & Chen, C. F. (2005). Teaching computer programming in ele-
mentary schools: A pilot study. In National educational computing conference. http://cites​eerx.ist.
psu.edu/viewd​oc/downl​oad?doi=10.1.1.83.3706&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for
multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakkori & C. Ted-
dlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 51–89). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maya, I., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in
school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education,
82, 263–279. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2014.11.022.
Mazzoni, E., & Benvenuti, M. (2015). A robot-partner for preschool children learning english using
socio-cognitive conflict. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 474–485.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruc-
tion: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. The Interdiscipli-
nary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 49–69. https​://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1026.
Oddie, A., Hazlewood, P., Blakeway, S., & Whitfield, A. (2010). Introductory problem solving and pro-
gramming: Robotics vs traditional approaches. Innovations in Teaching & Learning in Information
& Computer Sciences. https​://doi.org/10.11120​/ital.2010.09020​011.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Parmaxi, A., & Zaphiris, P. (2014). The evolvement of constructionism: An overview of the literature.
In International conference on learning and collaboration technologies (pp. 452–461). Springer
International Publishing. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07482​-5_43.
Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Edu-
cation, 5, 17–28.
Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Granlund, M. P. (2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies
for broadening participation. Journal of Science & Educational Technology, 17, 59–69. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1095​6-007-9082-2.
Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages
integrated across the curriculum in elementary school. A two year case study using scratch in five
schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2016.03.003.
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking
with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and
Information Technologies, 18, 351–380. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1063​9-012-9240-x.
Skelton, G., Pang, Q., Yin, J., Williams, B. J., & Zheng, W. (2010). Introducing engineering concepts to
public school students and teachers: Peer-based learning through robotics summer camp. Review of
Higher Education and Self-Learning, 3, 1–7.
Spolaôr, N., & Vavassori-Benitti, F. B. (2017). Robotics applications grounded in learning theories
on tertiary education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 112, 97–107. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compe​du.2017.05.001.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Chapter 6: Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psycho-
logical processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

13
 Author's personal copy
The effect of programming on primary school students’… 1425

Weng-yi Cheng, R., Shui-fong, L., & Chung-yan Chan, J. (2008). When high achievers and low achiev-
ers work in the same group: The roles of group heterogeneity and processes in project-based learn-
ing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 205–221. https​://doi.org/10.1348/00070​9907X​
21816​0.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https​://doi.
org/10.1145/11181​78.11182​15.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

José‑Manuel Sáez‑López is an assistant professor in the faculty of education at the National University of
Distance Education (UNED), Spain. His research lines are the integration of educational technology in
learning processes, gaming and coding in school.

Maria‑Luisa Sevillano‑García is director and full professor in the didactics department, school organization
and special didactics, in the faculty of education at the National University of Distance Education (UNED).
She leads different research groups and organizations.

Esteban Vazquez‑Cano is assistant professor in the didactics department, school organization and special
didactics, in the faculty of education of the National University of Distance Education (UNED).His research
lines are the integration of ubiquitous learning and educational technology.

13