Creativity development on the informatics teach using the project focus

Walfredo Gonzlez Hernndez

Educational Technology Laboratory. University of Matanzas.
Walfredo.glez@umcc.cu
Vivian Estrada Sent
Informatics University
Cuba
Summary
The development of creativity is necessary for all professionals and universities can not be exempted from it. According
to studies (Acentura, 2007) is one of creativity does not develop skills in universities. This urgency becomes even more
pressing when it comes to career information in the present conditions of production and consumption of information.
This paper presents a practical implementation of the project approach in two countries to develop creativity in students
of public universities.
Keywords: Informatic's Teach, Creativity
Introduction
The use of projects in teaching computer science is called by different authors (Expsito, 2005; Gonzlez, 2006;
Estrada, 2005) and the project approach. This element considers the pursuit of future projects to be undertaken by
students in practice. Projects are determined by the students in their interaction with the practice to the needs and
possibilities of computerization. The determination of future projects without even mastering the tools necessary to
promote student intellectual audacity.
In this way, reality becomes a source of man's creation and the students are educated in search of new problems,
whereas according to Lerner (Martinez, 1988; Hernandez, 1999; Mitjns, 1997) among other authors develop creativity .
The integration of student - really - teaching, encourages the students' work to acquire a social character by both the
involvement of the software developed for the school or the company and the system of relationships to develop with the
rest of the group in the solution of problems (Craft, 2008; Gonzlez, 2004, Gonzalez 1997; Kampylis, P., E. Berki,
Saariluoma P., 2009, Martinez, 1999). The above presented analysis leads to the situation and a reflective stance to
criticism and questioning.
The transformation of reality by the student from the process of computerization and the selection of necessary tools
show the active nature of the regulatory function of his personality matters necessary in the development of creativity.
This process of transformation must occur in the mental plane play an important role of the imagination, thus contributing
to its development.
Projects are under consideration by the teacher who determines if they are in correspondence with the student and
programming skills to get. From the search begins the life cycle of a software until it concludes with the set-up and
maintenance. The problems of individual projects motivate students towards a solution and they are the knowledge of
the course, which in turn generate problems for other situations which students develop the cognitive activity necessary
for creativity. (Gonzalez, 1999; Zorana, 2009; Glazer, 2009; Gonzlez, 2006; Zorana, 2009; Kampylis "et al. & Rdquo,
2009)
At each meeting, from the prior interaction between student - teacher - group, determine the problem situation for the

remaining students. It is the teacher who decides to present the problem situation based on the meeting earlier in the
group interaction and the development of student projects.
For the solution of programming project is necessary for students to master the techniques of software engineering that
enables them to design the software and then schedule and in this process, the formation of an object-oriented design
which allows a better model reality programming.
The project-based learning is that teaching which builds on a project where the contents are expressed to teach students
and the solution of each of the parties of this project is the new knowledge which they are appropriated. Has its roots in
the problem based learning in which the author adds as minimum requirements should be in line with the objectives and
the knowledge system of the year.
The bill defines the task at hand throughout the course by the student, in the case proposed by the author, comes from a
company or school. In this context the student is solving a real problem which has a dual function, one side is a student
who is taking over the contents and on the other side is as a computer in a process of computerization in a social context
where carries most of the decisions. This dual role of student conducive for students to acquire professional skills in their
training which is an element that contributes to the formation of career interests among students. (Craft, 2008; de la
Torre, 2002; Martinez, 1999, Shari, 2001).
Assuming the project approach implies for the student to have experience in programming, managing the software build
process formulated objectives to accomplish, consider the solution of these objectives by regulating their actions
consciously. This action by the student in locating the student practice promotes "... in the context of everyday social
relations as being transformative and, therefore, critical, reflective, problematizing and proactive, able to reshape and
find new meaning to interactive situations of their environment, occupation and personal life "(D'Angelo, 2002) related to
what he calls Personal Development (Professional) Creator (DPC)
Method
Two experiments were conducted to demonstrate the validity of the theoretical underpinnings discussed in the
introduction in the Republic of Cuba and the Republic of Angola. In the Cuban case is taken as follows groups of the
third year of study during the course Industrial Engineering 2004 - 2006 which is the population of this race. The first
experiment will be discussed hereafter and will be treated from the second indicated.
Shares of implementation of the outcomes proposed in the current conditions of teacher training aims of the experiment:
to compare the results obtained by students in the experimental group using the methodology proposed in the teaching
of programming content with those obtained in the control group that runs the traditional way of teaching.
The experience applied to the two groups, the following variables were controlled for others:
Ratio of number of students per computer, set at four, achieving this balance is maintained in independent activities.
Bibliography supplement the shortfall with the help of digital teaching materials on the Intranet and among them,
obtained on the Internet.
Similar teaching hours for the subject in the control group that remained with the traditional way of teaching and the
experimental group which introduced the proposal.
Hypothesis of the experiment: If in the process of teaching - learning of programming is introduced by the teacher
developed the project approach will help to develop creativity in students of higher education.
Independent variable is identified as the proposed project approach to help develop creativity in students of higher

education as the dependent variable and the development of student creativity in the learning process of content.
Initial test is applied to the two groups is where they have a problem, the results are tabulated in (Table 5). In the test the
students do not develop efficient algorithms and models suitable for the situation they are faced. Few students can
express various solutions to the issues raised. From the results of the survey and the initial diagnosis was decided to
choose the I - 21 and Control and the I - 22 as experimental.

Experiment II
In the case of Angola is taking a group for the years 2006 -2008 for being the people in this career for the Faculty of
Engineering of the University Augustino Neto. For this experiment had no control group and were not performed on
subjects but Database Programming, Software Engineering and Information Processing to do in different subjects.
Groups were taken third year of Engineering courses 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Given these characteristics of the experiment aims: to compare the results obtained by students in the group at different
periods in the teaching of computer content.
The experience applied to these groups, the following variables were controlled for others:
Ratio of number of students per computer in each case, all students had a personal computer.
Bibliography supplement the shortfall with the help of digital teaching materials obtained on the Internet.
Similar teaching hours for different subjects over the years.
Hypothesis of the experiment: If in the process of teaching - learning the computer is introduced by the teacher
developed the project approach will help to develop creativity in students of higher education.
Independent variable is identified as the proposed project approach to help develop creativity in students of higher
education as the dependent variable and the development of student creativity in the learning process of content.

Results and discussion

Experiment I
They applied the second screening test in order to assess the implementation of the methodology. The results of the
tabulation of the second screening test (Table 5) allow to state that:
1. The results on the test on the experimental group students show progress compared to the results of the startup,
which argues the influence of the application of the methodology.
2. The results of the second test amount assessed (Table 5) shows that the number of students expressed in percent is
not much higher in the experimental group, the results of the control group, but denotes best results in the experimental
group in the control group.
A third application on students assessment results were obtained in the (Table 5) to accomplish the following results:
1. The results on the test on the experimental group students show progress compared to previous test results, which
argues the influence of the application of the methodology.
2. The results of this evaluation (Table 5) shows that the number of students is expressed in percent and higher in the
experimental group than the control group results.
By applying the last control students obtained the results expressed in (Table 5) that it is legitimate to ask:
1. The results on the test on the experimental group students showed significant progress compared to previous test

results and the initial test, which argues the influence of the application of the methodology.
2. The second test results in the amount of assessed (Table 5) shows that the number of students is expressed in
percent and higher in the experimental group than the control group results.
At the end of this experiment is applied to a survey of students whose results (Table 6) allow students to express
programming considered as important for your life, are interested in the subject and has application in their professional
lives.
During the experiment was monitored computer creativity development students from the guidance of classroom
observation by the teacher taking into account indicators and other important indicators set forth in this article.
Professional interests in conjunction with cognitive interests are important indicators to diagnose emotional guidance
programming skills shown in Table 7.
Based on the results of observation to the class the author believes that students achieved in professional intentions
related to programming, allowing you to claim that changes occurred during the experiment in psychological training of
students. This conclusion is an element to consider when asserting that the proposed methodology helps to develop
creativity in students.
Experiment II
We start the experiment from August 2006 through December 2007 with the group of third year computer engineering
and take the second group in January 2007 to December 2008. SE students choose to apply an amount of 10 cuts to
standardize the number of tests performed as part of the outside variables involved. In this experiment, subjects used
different to those used in Cuba. This ensures that the results are independent of a specific knowledge of computing.
It applies to students in both groups a first cut which gives a low level of development of the dimensions that characterize
creativity in computing. The second cut is done in order to assess the implementation of the methodology. The results of
the tabulation of the second screening test (Table 8 and 9) which allow to state that:
1. The results in the second cut made to group students show progress compared to the results of the startup, which
argues the influence of the implementation of the proposal.
A third application on students assessment results were obtained in the (Table 8 and 9) to accomplish the following
results:
1. The results in the cut made to group students show progress compared to previous test results, which argues the
influence of the implementation of the proposal.
A third cut from the students obtained the results expressed in (Table 8 and 9) that it is legitimate to ask:
1. The results of further cuts made to group students showed significant progress compared to previous test results and
the initial test, which argues the influence of the implementation of the proposal.
During the experiment was monitored computer creativity development students from the guidance of classroom
observation by the teacher taking into account indicators and other important indicators set forth in this article.
Professional interests in conjunction with cognitive interests are important indicators to diagnose emotional guidance
programming skills shown in Table 10 and 11.
Based on the results of observation to the class the author believes that students achieved in professional intentions
related to programming, allowing you to claim that changes occurred during the experiment in psychological training of
students. This conclusion is an element to consider when asserting that the proposed methodology helps to develop

creativity in students.
Which concluded that:
1. The proposal contributes to the development of creativity in computer literacy among students from raising the number
of students with the dimensions proposed in this thesis and taking into account the previously expressed indicators
(flexibility, generation, size and autonomy).
In general, one can conclude that the results obtained by the experimental group at the end of the subjects are higher
than the control group compared with those obtained at the beginning of the course and during the experiment if the
experiment in Cuba, arguments allow compliance support the hypothesis for this stage and say that the target of the
experiment in the validation stage. Although it demonstrates the development of creativity in the experimental group
students did not reach the same development in all three groups can be fundamental creative students based on
classroom observation and experiments:
Level I:
These students have a high level of cognitive interests that makes owning a computer depth information and use in
solving problems. They are highly independent in finding and resolving problems that occur in the program succeeded in
developing various models, algorithms and codes that result in obtaining more efficient systems from theoretical
considerations. Reception capabilities are critical to optimally improve the system components resulting in a marked
increase in quality.
The integration of the programming is done to her career in its own way, quickly incorporates programming skills to their
specialty. Define the different problems and solutions taking into account the conditions under which they operate. They
are very persistent in solving problems and its integration with knowledge of their specialty.
Level II:
These students have a good level of cognitive interests that makes them hold information about the programming
language and use it in solving problems. They are independent in finding and resolving problems that have succeeded in
developing the programming models, algorithms and codes that result in obtaining more efficient systems from
theoretical considerations. Receives criticism and improve the system components identified that result in an increase in
quality.
The integration of the computer to his career is done in its own way but sometimes must rely on help, incorporates the
knowledge of their specialty programming. Define the different problems and solutions taking into account the conditions
under which they operate. They are persistent in solving problems and its integration with knowledge of their specialty.
Level III:
These students developed a low level of creativity in information technology and behavior are not part of the indicators
analyzed above. They have no depth information about the programming language and although the information they
have at certain times they can use in solving problems. They are dependent on finding and resolving problems that have
their practice so they can not develop their own computer problems and elements of programming for the solution of
problems. Reception capabilities are critical although the low level of knowledge gained does not allow them to optimally
improve the system elements listed.
The integration of the computer to his career is not done in its own way. Achieved with difficulty defining problems and
their solutions for it taking different models, algorithms or coding of the classes. There are persistent in solving problems.

The number of students achieving at different levels in the experiment can be broken down into 9 students in the first
level, 7 in the second level and 3 students in the third level.
Conclusions:
the development and completion of this research has allowed to reach the following conclusions:
we propose a structure of knowledge, prior to computer education, taking into account the approach system composed
of the guidelines and conceptual cores, ensuring a high level of computer literacy among students which contributes to
the development of creativity .
The structuring of knowledge about computer-based integrated project approach to the problems approach, allows
contextualizing the creative activity of stimulating student interest in programming depth and create new scenarios from
the baseline, which contributes to development of creativity.
The introduction of software engineering in the teaching of programming that allows the formation of an object-oriented
design and the logical tools needed in the process of problem solving using a programming language that favor the
development of creativity.
The results obtained in experiments allow to assert the validity of the proposal.
Bibliography
Betancourt, J. (1997). La creatividad: bloqueos y temores. En La creatividad y sus implicaciones. La Habana: Academia.
Bracho, M. A. (2003). Proyecto de un programa de gestin empresarial. http://www.uhu.es/17117/Proyecto%20de%20un
%20programa%20de%20gestion%20empresarial.ppt. Consultado en: 26/10/2004.
Brito, H., Viviana, M. (1999). Psicologa para los ISP. Tomo I. La Habana: Pueblo y Educacin.
Craft, A. (2008). Studying collaborative creativity: Implications for education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 241245.
Crespo, T. (2000). La heurstica en la enseanza de la programacin. Ponencia presentada al IV Evento Internacional
La Enseanza de la Matemtica y la Computacin. ISP Juan Marinello. Matanzas.
DAngelo, O. (2002). El Desarrollo Profesional Creador (DPC) como dimensin del Proyecto de Vida en el mbito
profesional. En: http://www.clacso.edu.ar/~libros/cuba/angelo2.rtf. Consultado 15/04/2006
De Bono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity. Publisher: Harper Business.
de

la

Torre,

S.

(2002).

Creatividad

en

la

reforma

espaola.

En

http://educacion.jalisco.gob.mx/consulta/educar/10/10saturn.html. Consultada 12/02/2007

De Prado, D. (2003). Creatividad para transformar sustancialmente las curriculares: una estrategia. En
http://www.iacat.com/webcientifica/educrea%20capitulo%20V.pdf. Consultado 12/06/2007
Deheane, S., Changeux, J., Naccache L., Sackur J., Sergent C. (2006) Conscious, preconscious, and subliminal
processing: a testable taxonomy. Trends in cognitive sciences, 105, 204 210.
Echaluce, A. (2002). La elaboracin de un proyecto informtico. http://web.jet.es/inforpesca/pagina_n.htm. Consultado
en: 20/12/2004
Expsito, C. (2006). Elementos de Metodologa de la Enseanza de la Informtica. Ciudad de la Habana: Pueblo y
Educacin..
Glazer, E. (2009). Rephrasing the madness and creativity debate: What is the nature of the creativity construct?
Personality and Individual Differences. 468, 755-764.

Gonzlez, W. (2005). Implicaciones de la inteligencia lgica matemtica en el desarrollo de la creatividad informtica.

Recrearte. En: http://www.iacat.com/Revista/recrearte/recrearte02/walfredo01.htm.
Gonzlez, W. (2005). La formacin de conceptos y definiciones informticas. Revista Atenas, 12, 13-45
Gonzlez, W., Estrada, V. y Martnez, M. (2005). Propuesta metodolgica para la formacin del profesional informtico
desde la produccin. Revista Atenas, 12, 64 72.
Gonzlez, F. (1985). Psicologa de la personalidad. Fernando Gonzlez Rey. Ciudad de la Habana: Pueblo y
Educacin.
Gonzlez, F. (1994). Psicologa Humanista. Actualidad y desarrollo. Fernando
Gonzlez, F. (1995). Comunicacin, personalidad y desarrollo. La Habana: Pueblo y Educacin.
Gonzlez Valds, A (1994). Prycrea. Desarrollo multilateral del pensamiento creador. La Habana: Ciencias Sociales.
Gonzlez, A. (1995). Prycrea: pensamiento reflexivo y creatividad. La Habana: Academia.
Gonzlez, A. (1990). Cmo propiciar la creatividad. La Habana: Ciencias Sociales.
Gonzlez,

A.

(1999).

Conceptualizacin

de

la

creatividad

en

PRYCREA.

http://www.clacso.edu.ar/~libros/cuba/gonza2.rtf. Consultado 12/09/2007

Gonzlez, C. A. (2002). Creatividad en el escenario educativo Colombiano. Pedagoga y Currculum. OnLine:
http://educacion.jalisco.gob.mx/consulta/educar/10/10carlos.html. Consultado 12/09/2007
Kampylis, P., Berki E., Saariluoma P. (2009) In-service and prospective teachers conceptions of creativity.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 15-29
Kudriatsev,T.V.(1967) Algunos aspectos psicolgicos y didcticos de la enseanza problmica. Pedagoga Sovitica,
810, 34-56.
Labarrere, A. F. (1987) Bases psicopedaggicas de la enseanza de la solucin de problemas matemticos en la
escuela primaria. La Habana: Pueblo y Educacin.
Lee, J. (2003) Cognitive Complexity and Methodical Training: Enhancing or Suppressing Creativity. Jungwoo Lee, Duane
P. Truex.. http://www.computer.org/proceedings/hicss/0493/04937/04937007.pdf. Consultado en: 22/9/2005
Majmutov, M. I. (1983) La enseanza problmica. La Habana: Pueblo y Educacin.
Martnez, M. (1980). La enseanza problmica de la filosofa marxista leninista. La Habana: Ciencias Sociales.
Martnez, M. (1999). El desarrollo de la creatividad mediante la enseanza problmica en la actualidad. Teora y
prctica. Curso 6 Pedagoga 1999. La Habana.
Martnez, M. (1995). Calidad educacional, actividad pedaggica y creatividad. La Habana: Academia.
Pantoja, A. (2003). Influencia del LOGO en la capacidad creativa del nio del Tercer Ciclo de Educacin Primaria. Tesis
en Opcin al grado cientfico de Doctor en Pedagoga. Universidad de Jan.
Romo, M. (1997). Psicologa de la creatividad. Barcelona: Paids.
Zorana, I. (2009). Creativity Map: Toward the Next Generation of Theories of Creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity and the Arts. 31, Pages 17-21

Tables
Table #1: Results of the interview and provincial competitions.
Results Matanzas provincial competitions in 1999 and 2000 show the number of students in each grade range of
scores:
Years

(0-20)

(20 - 40)

(40 - 60)

(60 - 80)

(80 100)

1999

17

2000

15

Table #2: Results of the survey.

The survey results are formulated in terms of number of students who responded positively and negatively to questions
except 3.
1

Affirmatively

Negatively

10

For question 3, nine students marked the middle and a high level.
Table # 5: Results of assessments applied to students in the experiment.
The start of the experiment results are shown below the indicators taken into account. They express the number of
students who meet the indicator and the percentage it represents in the group.
Group

Flexibility

Autonomy

Generation

Extention

Control

23.5%

17.6%

17.6%

23.5%

Experimental

10.5%

5.2 %

10.5%

10.5%

The results obtained using a programming language were lower as shown in the table below:
Group

Flexibility

Autonomy

Generation

Extention

Control

23.5%

17.6%

17.6%

23.5%

Experimental

0%

5.2 %

10.5%

10.5%

In the following evaluations are obtained the results shown below in the following table:
Evaluations Group

Flexibility

Autonomy

Generation

Extention

Segunda

29,41%

29,41%

23,52%

35,29%

Tercera

E
C

6
6

35,29%
35,29%

7
5

41,17%
29,41%

6
6

35,29%
35,29%

6
6

35,29%
35,29%

Cuarta

E
C

12
7

70,59%
41,18%

13
6

76,47%
35,29%

11
7

64,70%
41,18%

14
6

82,35%
35,29%

16

94,12%

16

94,12%

15

88,23%

16

94,11%

Table # 6: Results of the survey.

In the table below are expressed in numbers of students the results of the survey administered at the end of the

experiment.
1
C
6
11

Affirmatively
Negatively

2
E
15
4

C
6
11

4
E
17
2

C
8
9

E
16
3

C
8
9

E
16
3

For question three of the experimental group 15 students marked her as a high level of programming, three as
medium and only one as low, unlike the control Gro where there was a slight improvement with 6 students as high,
medium and two as 9 and low.
Table # 7: Results of observation of students in classes.
Experimental and control group...
Group

Cantidad
era

Professionals 1
Skill

2
3
4

Cognitive
Interest

1
2
3

Motivation

1
2
3
4

Others

Indicators
2
3
4

da

1 -2
3

da

era

percertagems
era

ta

2 -3
4

3 -4
6

E
C
E
C
E

5
4
4
4
5

10
5
11
5
12

14
5
15
6
16

C
E
C
E

6
5
4
5

7
12
5
10

7
15
6
18

C
E
C
E
C

5
6
3
5
3

6
11
6
12
4

7
16
7
16
6

E
C
E
C
E

4
4
4
4
6

12
5
12
5
14

15
5
16
6
18

C
E
C
E

6
4
4
5

7
11
5
11

7
16
6
17

C
E
C
E
C
E

5
6
5
4
4
5

6
12
6
11
5
10

6
17
6
15
5
16

era

da

2da - 3era

3era - 4ta

17,65
26,32
23,53
21,05
23,53

23,53
52,63
29,41
57,89
29,41

35,29
73,68
29,41
78,95
35,29

26,32
35,29
26,32
23,53

63,16
41,18
63,16
29,41

84,21
41,18
78,95
35,29

26,32
29,41
31,58
17,65
26,32

52,63
35,29
57,89
35,29
63,16

94,74
41,18
84,21
41,18
84,21

17,65
19,05
23,53
19,05
23,53

23,53
57,14
29,41
57,14
29,41

35,29
71,43
29,41
76,19
35,29

28,57
35,29
19,05
23,53

66,67
41,18
52,38
29,41

85,71
41,18
76,19
35,29

26,32
29,41
31,58
29,41
21,05
23,53
26,32

57,89
35,29
63,16
35,29
57,89
29,41
52.63

89,47
35,29
89,47
35,29
78,95
29,41
84,21

1 -2

Second Experiment
Table 8: Results form the I in the Angola Republic
Cort

Group

Flexibility

Autonomy

Generation

1
2
3
4
Year Corts
1
2007
2
3
4

I
I
I
I
Group

1
14,29%
2
28,57%
3
42,86%
4
57,14%
Flexibility

2 28,57%
2 28,57%
3 42,86%
3 42,86%
Autonomy

1
1
2

Year
2006

I
I
I
I

5
5
5
6

71,43%
71,43%
71,43%
85,71%

5
5
6

71,43%
71,43%
85,71%
7 100,00%

Extention

14,29%
14,29%
28,57%
3 42,86%
Generation

2
2
4

28,57%
28,57%
57,14%
5
71,43%
Extention

4
4
5

6
6
6

85,71%
85,71%
85,71%
85,71%

57,14%
57,14%
71,43%
6 85,71%

Table 9: Results of group I in the Angola Republic during 2008 and 2009
Year Corts
1
2007
2
3
4
Year Corts
1
2008
2
3
4

Group

Flexibility

II
II
II
II
Group
II
II
II
II

Autonomy

Generation

2
16,67%
2
16,67%
3
25,00%
5
41,67%
Flexibility

1
2
4

8,33%
16,67%
33,33%
5 41,67%
Autonomy

2
3
5

16,67%
25,00%
41,67%
7 58,33%
Generation

3
3
4

25,00%
25,00%
33,33%
5
41,67%
Extention

6
8
10
11

8
9
9
10

7
8
10
11

7
7
8

58,33%
58,33%
66,67%
75,00%

50,00%
66,67%
83,33%
91,67%

66,67%
75,00%
75,00%
83,33%

58,33%
66,67%
83,33%
91,67%

Extention

Table 10: Results of observation of students in classes for the Group I

Group Cuantity

percertagems

by Corts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 #
1 1 2 3 3 4 4 5 6

1 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 1 3 3 4 5 5 6 6

Professionals 1
Skill

4
Cognitive Inte- 1

I
I

3
28,

4
42,

6 14,3 14,3

6
28,

9 42,9 1
1 71,4 85,7
28,
57, 71,

85,7

7 14,3 28,6

6
42,

6 42,9 1
4 85,7 100,0
42,
71, 71,

100,0

6 14,3 14,3

9
14,

9 57,1 4
4 85,7 85,7
28,
57, 57,

85,7

6 14,3 14,3

3
42,

6 28,6 1
1 71,4 85,7
42,
57, 57,

85,7

7 28,6 28,6

9
28,

9 42,9 1
1 57,1 71,4
42,
71, 71,

100,0

6 28,6 28,6

6
42,

9 57,1 4
4 71,4 71,4
57,
57, 71,

85,7

7 28,6 42,9

1 1 1 2 2 4 4 5 6
2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5

rest
2

2 2 2 3 4 5 5 5 5

2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6

57,1

6
7
57, 57,

71,4 85,7

10

100,0

Motivation

1
2
3

I
I
I

1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5

42,

42,

6 14,3 28,6

9
28,

9 42,9 1
1 71,4 71,4
42,
71, 71,

85,7

7 28,6 28,6

6
42,

9 57,1 4
4 71,4 85,7
57,
57, 71,

100,0

6 14,3 28,6

9
42,

1 57,1 1
4 85,7 85,7
42,
71, 85,

85,7

7 14,3 14,3

9
28,

9 57,1 4
7 85,7 100,0
42,
57, 57,

100,0

6 14,3 28,6

6
42,

9 42,9 1
1 71,4 71,4
42,
57, 57,

85,7

7 28,6 28,6

9
42,

9 42,9 1
1 57,1 85,7
42,
57, 71,

100,0

7 14,3 14,3

9
28,

9 57,1 1
4 71,4 71,4
28,
42, 57,

100,0

6 14,3 28,6

2 2 2 3 4 5 5 5 6
1 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 6

1 1 3 3 4 5 6 6 7

Others Indica- 1

1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5

2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 6

1 1 3 3 4 4 5 5 5

1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 6

tors

57, 57,

42,9

57,1 85,7

85,7

Table 11: Results of observation of students in classes for theGroup II

Group Cuantity

Professionals 1

II

percertagems

by Corts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 #
1 3 5 5 5 6 7 7 9 1

Skill

3
41,

4
41,

6
7
50, 58,

10

II

1 4 4 5 6 7 7 8 1

1 8,3 25,0 7
1
33,
0 8,3 33,3 3
1
33,

7 50,0 3
3 66,7 83,3
41,
50, 66,

83,3

II

0
1 2 4 5 5 6 8 8 1

II

2 8,3 16,7 3
1
33,

7 41,7 0
7 66,7 91,7
33,
50, 58,

100,0

1
1 2 4 4 6 6 7 8 1

II

0
2 3 5 5 6 7 8 9 1

1 8,3 16,7 3
1
41,

3 50,0 0
3 66,7 83,3
41,
58, 66,

91,7

Cognitive Inte- 1

II

1
2 5 7 7 8 8 9 9 1

1 16,7 25,0 7
1
58,

7 50,0 3
7 75,0 91,7
58,
66, 75,

91,7

II

0
2 4 5 6 6 6 8 8 9

2 16,7 41,7 3
1
41,

3 66,7 7
0 75,0 83,3
50,
50, 66,

100,0

II

1 4 4 5 7 7 7 8 1

1 16,7 33,3 7
1
33,

0 50,0 0
7 66,7 75,0
41,
58, 58,

91,7

2 8,3 33,3 3
1
50,

7 58,3 3
3 66,7 83,3
50,
66, 66,

100,0

II

0
2 3 6 6 7 8 8 9 9

0 58,3 7
7 75,0 75,0
41,
50, 66,

83,3

1 2 5 5 6 6 8 8 8

0 16,7 25,0 0
1
41,

7 50,0 0
7 66,7 66,7
50,
58, 58,

91,7

1 3 4 6 6 7 7 8 1

1 8,3 16,7 7
1
33,

2
3

rest

Motivation

2
3
4

II
II

2 8,3 25,0

7 41,7 0
3 58,3 75,0
41,
58, 58,

91,7

50,0

66,7 91,7

100,0

Others Indica- 1

II

1 2 6 6 6 6 7 9 1

1 8,3 16,7 0
1
41,

0 50,0 0
3 75,0 83,3
41,
58, 66,

91,7

II

0
2 3 5 5 5 7 8 8 1

0 16,7 25,0 7
1
50,

7 41,7 3
7 66,7 83,3
50,
50, 58,

83,3

II

0
1 4 6 6 6 6 7 8 9

0 50,0 0
3 66,7 75,0
41,
58, 58,

91,7

1 3 5 5 6 7 7 9 1

1 8,3 33,3 0
1
41,

tors
2
3
4

II

50,

1 8,3 25,0

50,

50, 58,

50,0

75,0 83,3

Table # 12: Results of assessments applied to students in the experiment.

The start of the experiment results are shown below the indicators taken into account. They express the number of
students who meet the indicator and the percentage it represents in the group.

Group

Flexibility

Autonomy

Generation

Extention

Control

19,4

13,8

16,6

22,2

Experimental

11,11

8,3

13,8

25

The results obtained using a programming language were lower as shown in the table below:
Group

Flexibility

Autonomy

Generation

Extention

Control

5,0

13,9

6,0

16,7

6,0

16,7

8,0

22,2

Experimental

2,0

5,6

4,0

11,1

3,0

8,3

4,0

11,1

In the following evaluations are obtained the results shown below in the following table:

Evaluations Group

Flexibility

Autonomy

Generation

Extention

Segunda

16,7

13,9

11,1

22,2

Tercera

E
C

4
7

11,1
19,4

6
7

16,7
19,4

4
6

11,1
16,7

6
9

16,7
25,0

Cuarta

E
C

15
9

41,7
25,0

13
7

36,1
19,4

17
7

47,2
19,4

19
6

52,8
16,7

27

75,0

25

69,4

28

77,8

30

83,3

Table # 13: Results of the survey.

In the table below are expressed in numbers of students the results of the survey administered at the end of the
experiment.

91,7

1
C
6
11

Affirmatively
Negatively

2
E
15
4

C
6
11

4
E
17
2

C
8
9

5
E
16
3

C
8
9

E
16
3

For question three of the experimental group 15 students marked her as a high level of programming, three as
medium and only one as low, unlike the control Gro where there was a slight improvement with 6 students as high,
medium and two as 9 and low.
Table # 14: Results of observation of students in classes.
Experimental and control group...
Group
Professionals 1
Skill

2
3
4

Cognitive
Interest

1
2
3

Motivation

1
2
3
4

Others

Indicators
2
3
4

Cantidad

percertagems

1era - 2da
5

2da - 3era
6

3era - 4ta
7

E
C
E
C
E

3
6
4
4
3

16
8
15
7
19

28
8
24
9
28

C
E
C
E

6
5
6
7

7
18
8
19

9
28
11
29

C
E
C
E
C

5
4
6
5
4

6
18
9
20
7

12
31
12
32
9

E
C
E
C
E

2
4
2
7
4

17
9
22
7
18

30
13
31
9
31

C
E
C
E

6
4
3
2

8
19
5
17

12
32
7
30

C
E
C
E
C
E

8
5
5
4
7
5

10
17
10
19
10
21

10
31
15
32
12
32

1era - 2da

2da - 3era

3era - 4ta

13,9
8,3
16,7
11,1
11,1

16,7
44,4
22,2
41,7
19,4

19,4
77,8
22,2
66,7
25,0

8,3
16,7
13,9
16,7

52,8
19,4
50,0
22,2

77,8
25,0
77,8
30,6

19,4
13,9
11,1
16,7
13,9

52,8
16,7
50,0
25,0
55,6

80,6
33,3
86,1
33,3
88,9

11,1
5,6
11,1
5,6
19,4

19,4
47,2
25,0
61,1
19,4

25,0
83,3
36,1
86,1
25,0

11,1
16,7
11,1
8,3

50,0
22,2
52,8
13,9

86,1
33,3
88,9
19,4

5,6
22,2
13,9
13,9
11,1
19,4
13,9

47,2
27,8
47,2
27,8
52,8
27,8
58,3

83,3
27,8
86,1
41,7
88,9
33,3
88,9