See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324485359

Bots & (Main)Frames: Exploring the Impact of

Tangible Blocks and Collaborative Play in an
Educational Programmin....

Conference Paper · April 2018

DOI: 10.1145/3173574.3173840

CITATIONS READS

0 38

2 authors:

Edward Melcer Katherine Isbister

New York University New York University
19 PUBLICATIONS 55 CITATIONS 116 PUBLICATIONS 1,920 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Embodied Educational Game Design View project

Game Field Bibliometrics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Edward Melcer on 12 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Bots & (Main)Frames: Exploring the Impact of Tangible
Blocks and Collaborative Play in an Educational
Programming Game
Edward F. Melcer
New York University
Brooklyn, USA
eddie.melcer@nyu.edu
ABSTRACT
While recent work has begun to evaluate the efficacy of
educational programming games, many common design
decisions in these games (e.g., single player gameplay using
touchpad or mouse) have not been explored for learning
outcomes. For instance, alternative design approaches such
as collaborative play and embodied interaction with
tangibles may also provide important benefits to learners.
To better understand how these design decisions impact
learning and related factors, we created an educational
programming game that allows for systematically varying
input method and mode of play. In this paper, we describe
design rationale for mouse and tangible versions of our
game, and report a 2x2 factorial experiment comparing
efficacy of mouse and tangible input methods with
individual and collaborative modes of play. Results indicate
tangibles have a greater positive impact on learning,
situational interest, enjoyment, and programming self-
beliefs. We also found collaborative play helps further
reduce programming anxiety over individual play.
Author Keywords
Educational Programming Game; Tangibles; Embodied
Interaction; Physical Embodiment; Collaborative Play.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI):
Miscellaneous.
INTRODUCTION
Programming presents many challenges to novice learners,
with issues arising due to the radical novelty of concepts
and material [12], as well as from difficulty in
understanding the syntax [57]. These issues result in a
mismatch between what programs do and what novices
think they do [11,33,64], evoking strong negative feelings
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for
components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be
honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior
specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
Permissions@acm.org.
CHI 2018, April 21–26, 2018, Montreal, QC, Canada
© 2018 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights
licensed to ACM.
ACM 978-1-4503-5620-6/18/04…$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173840.
Katherine Isbister
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, USA
katherine.isbister@ucsc.edu
[31,40,68] and creating barriers to learning [74]. In recent
years, there have been a number of educational
programming games created to simplify presentation of
these concepts and address the growing needs of computer
science education [4,22,35,44]. However, while there has
been some work evaluating the efficacy of these
educational programming games [4,15], relatively little has
been done to explore the impact of different design
decisions within them. For instance, a recent survey
examining the designs of existing Computer Science (CS)
games [21] found that the majority feature a number of
identical design decisions such as: 1) playable characters
(robot); 2) genre (puzzle); 3) mode of play (single player);
and 4) input method (touchpad or mouse and keyboard).
In contrast to these common design decisions, recent
research has shown substantial promise from alternative
input methods (e.g., tangibles) and modes of play (e.g.,
collaborative). For example, tangible programming
interfaces have been shown to prevent syntax errors [92]
and increase active player engagement in an informal
learning context [26]. In non-programming domains,
tangibles have also been found to result in benefits for a
wide range of factors such as engagement [18], interest [3],
and collaboration [78]. On the other hand, collaborative
play has been shown to reduce program errors [42] and
increase performance when programming [54], as well as
increase learner enjoyment, engagement, and motivation in
non-programming contexts [32,76].
With these potential advantages in mind, we wanted to
systematically explore how modulating a subset of common
design decisions in educational games (i.e., input methods
and mode of play) could impact learning outcomes and
important related factors such as programming self-beliefs
[75], situational interest [10], and enjoyment [1]. For this
paper, we first present the design of mouse and tangible
versions of our educational programming game, Bots &
(Main)Frames. Then, we describe a 2x2 factorial
experiment conducted with 80 novice programmers that
varied game design in the form of input method (use of
tangible programming blocks vs. mouse) and mode of play
(individual vs. collaborative pairs). This allowed us to
isolate the impact of utilizing tangibles vs. mouse for input
and individual vs. collaborative forms of gameplay, keeping
all other mechanics, aesthetics, etc. identical. Results show
that tangibles have a substantial positive impact on players’
perceptions of their own programming abilities, situational
and programming interest, enjoyment, intentions to replay
and recommend the game, and performance/learning
outcomes. We also found collaborative play was beneficial
for reducing players’ anxiety towards the overall act of
programming. Finally, we conclude the paper with a
discussion of design implications based on study results.
RELATED WORK
Tangibles and Computational Concepts
Tangible user interfaces (TUIs) are advantageous in that
they utilize both physical representation (through objects or
the space) and manipulation of digital data to offer
interactive couplings of physical artifacts with
computationally mediated digital information [27]. Building
on this notion within HCI, there is notable work by the
tangible and embodied interaction (TEI) community on the
creation of tangibles to teach computing concepts. For
instance, roBlocks [72] and Electronic Blocks [92] allow
learners to connect tangible blocks embedded with sensors,
actuators, and logic to explore physical computing and
programming concepts. Tools such as Note Code [41] have
also used music as a metaphor for learners to program by
connecting ―noteboxes‖ to play musical sequences. Thingy
Oriented Programming [20] was designed for prototyping
simple electronics applications and systems that involve
networks of sensors and actuators by using recorded
sequences of actions with tangible objects. Additionally,
TanProRobot 2.0 [88] allows children to program a toy car
with physical blocks. It is interesting to note that concepts
covered by these tools focus more on physical computing,
electronics, and music rather than explicit use of
programming or games.
Considering related research within the domain of tangibles
that involve programming and games, some of the earliest
work was Suzuki and Kato’s AlgoBlock system [85,86]—
for which they coined the term Tangible Programming to
describe it [77]. In AlgoBlock, children used large
computational building blocks to direct a submarine
through a maze [48]. More recently, tools such as E-Block
[89] provide children with tangible programming blocks to
solve an isometric maze game. Tangible programming
languages and interfaces such as TurTan [17] and Tern [26]
have also been employed to afford creative exploration, and
encourage users to more actively engage in an activity and
groups than they would when using a graphical interface.
Strawbies [29] (now Osmo) utilizes wooden tiles to
program a game character to solve mazes. However, this
was only evaluated through qualitative descriptions of play
sessions at local schools. Melcer et al. created a similar type
of programming game that uses wooden blocks with hooks
instead of tiles to qualitatively explore differences between
tangibles and mouse on interactions underlying player
collaboration [52], as well as explore collaborative impacts
of tangibles on enjoyment and some dimensions of
programming self-beliefs [49]. However, they did not
compare the efficacy of tangible and collaborative designs
against individual designs. Given the notable relationship
between use of tangibles and teaching computational
concepts, we feel they are an important design decision that
should be explored for educational programming games.
Collaboration
Collaboration has been a long standing variable of
importance for learning, where collaborative learning can
be viewed as the synchronous interaction of two or more
learners to negotiate shared meaning and jointly solve
problems [13]. Prior work has suggested that collaborative
learning environments are more likely to elicit increased
intrinsic motivation [80], and working together in small
groups has been shown to increase a learner’s enjoyment,
engagement, and motivation [32,76]. In contrast to
individual study, group collaboration also appears to be
well suited for problem-solving since it encourages learners
to articulate and rationalize their thinking in order to engage
in joint elaboration on their decision making [53]. The
beneficial nature of collaboration for problem solving may
also lend itself particularly well to programming, where
recent work has shown a significant correlation between
computational thinking and problem-solving ability [69].
For collaborative learning of programming, Lin and Liu
[42] found that children spent more time on analysis/design
of their programs, solutions contained fewer errors, and
they tended to reflect on their solutions more often than if
they worked alone. Additionally, pair programming (two
programmers working collaboratively at a shared computer
on the same task [7]) has been shown to improve self-
sufficiency, performance, and overall grades for students in
an introductory CS course [54]. Based on these previous
findings of collaborative benefits, we believe collaborative
play is an important design decision that should be explored
for educational games in our study.
Programming Self-Beliefs
Learner self-beliefs play an important role in academic
development and learning outcomes [9]. Programming in
particular presents many challenges to learners' self-beliefs
as the radical novelty [12] of the concepts and material can
evoke strong negative feelings [31,40,68], creating barriers
to learning [74]. To better assess and understand these
complex affective issues, Scott and Ghinea [75] used the
Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions [58,59] to
develop and validate an instrument that assesses
programming self-beliefs. Underlying the self-beliefs model
of their scale are five core dimensions: 1) debugging self-
efficacy—learners' cognitive self-assessments of whether or
not they are confident in their ability to write and debug
simple programs; 2) programming self-concept—a
composite of self-perceptions that are formed through
experience with and interpretations of one’s environment
[46]; 3) programming interest—the extent to which an
individual enjoys engaging with a set of programming tasks

Figure 1. The Bots & (Main)Frames interface. (A) The
puzzle/level to solve. (B) The commands available to use. (C)
The display box for the current program. (D) The indicator
for number of commands available to use in that level. (E) The
additional box for creating a function—only visible if the
function command is available that level.
[75]; 4) programming anxiety—a self-reflected state of
experiencing negative emotions while writing and
debugging programs; and 5) programming aptitude—based
on Dweck’s [14] notion of mindsets where students have
either a growth mindset (i.e., belief that their capacities can
be improved through practice) or a fixed mindset (i.e.,
belief that their capacities are inherent). Students with a
growth programming aptitude tend to maintain practice
when they encounter difficulty while those with a fixed
programming aptitude do not [73]. Given the direct
influence these self-beliefs have on learning programming,
we measured it in our study to compare outcomes.
Situational Interest
Interest (i.e., liking and willful engagement in a cognitive
activity [71]) is an important motivation factor that guides
individuals to learn [65]. More specifically, it has a central
Figure 2. The 10 training levels used to teach programming concepts. Levels 1 – 3 introduce basic algorithm building; levels 4 – 6
teach looping concepts; and levels 7 – 10 cover functions.
role in determining our emotional engagement during a task
[70], what we choose to learn [87], and how well we learn
such information [2]. Two important forms of interest are
personal or individual interest—characterized by an
intrinsic desire and tendency to engage with a particular
topic that persists over time [60]—and situational
interest—characterized by the context-specific, affective
and attentional reactions elicited by the environment (i.e.,
the appealing effect of an activity on the individual, rather
than the individual’s personal preference for the activity)
[23,43,71]. Situational interest in particular is critical to
education and the design of educational tools since it is
essential for developing personal interest in learners, which
in turn positively impacts learning as discussed above [24].
In the vein of situational interest and games, Plass et al.
[60] examined the impact of individual, collaborative, and
competitive modes of play on situational interest in an
educational mathematics video game. They found that
collaborative and competitive forms of play elicited greater
situational interest than individual play. Additionally,
physical activity has also been found to have a positive
relationship with situational interest in exergames [56],
commercial dance games [30], and active educational video
games (AVGs) [83].
DESIGN OF BOTS & (MAIN)FRAMES
We designed Bots & (Main)Frames (see Figure 1) to
incorporate common design characteristics of existing
educational programming games (i.e., players program a
virtual robot to solve puzzles [21]), while also providing a
comparison point for differing input methods and modes of
interaction. We chose to utilize the robot aesthetic that is
common in most programming games to ensure results
mirror existing real world applications, since recent work
has shown that changing avatars in educational
programming games can impact player affect [36,37].
During gameplay, players are presented with a series of
levels in the form of puzzles (Figure 1A), with the goal of
programming a virtual robot to reach all red tiles from a
 Figure 3. The 5 additional challenge levels used to evaluate performance and learning outcomes during the performance task.
given starting point. Each puzzle presents players with a set
of different programming commands (Figure 1B), and a
number limiting how many commands they can use to solve
the level (Figure 1D). Limiting the number of useable
commands for a level was done in order to prevent players
from brute forcing answers rather than learning to use
intended programming concepts (e.g., using 5 individual
forward commands rather than looping one forward
command 5 times).
For the study, we created two sets of game levels. The first
was a 10 level training set (see Figure 2) designed to teach
fundamental introductory programming concepts and
computational thinking skills—i.e., algorithm building,
loops, and functions [6,8,19]. The second was a 5 level
performance set (see Figure 3) consisting of more
challenging levels to evaluate players’ performance and
learning after completing the training levels. In the training
set, as players progressed through levels they were
presented with a variety of programming commands to
control the robot that corresponded with a specific
programming concept (see Figure 4). More specifically, the
commands consisted of: moving/translating forward in the
direction the robot is facing (Figure 4A); rotating the robot
90 degrees left or right (Figure 4B); using a loop to repeat
Figure 4. The programming concepts/commands introduced in
Bots & (Main)Frames. (A) Forward: moves the robot one tile
forward. (B) Left/right: rotates the robot 90 degrees left or
right. (C) Loop: repeats a single command a specified number
of times. (D) Function: use commands from the function.
one command a specified number of times (Figure 4C); and
using a function to abstract and reuse patterns (Figure 1E
and Figure 4D). Level progression was also designed to
either introduce a new concept or reiterate a previous one
using a more challenging puzzle. Designing the complexity
of each level was based on the notions of depth (the total
number of solution commands needed for the optimal path),
breadth (the number of unique solution commands needed
for the optimal path), and obfuscation (presenting unique
additional potential paths that appear correct but are
incorrect)—which [52] identified as effective principles for
designing challenge into puzzle-based programming levels.
Block-Based Programming Interface
Block-based programming interfaces are well represented
in educational programming games and environments
today—with notable examples being Scratch [66], Blockly
[16], Reduct [4], BOTS [22], and Tern [26]. These
interfaces utilize graphical or physical, block-based
manipulatives where the visual properties of the blocks
indicate how they are supposed to connect [48]. One of the
notable advantages to this block-based manipulative design
approach is that it helps to eliminate syntax errors [92], a
major barrier to entry for novice programmers [57].
Therefore, our interface for programming (Figure 1C)
similarly adopts usage of block-based manipulatives both
digitally (e.g., commands are represented as digital blocks,
and specific commands such as loops indicate syntax using
an arrow with automatic indentation of the looped
command) and physically (in the design of the physical
blocks which is discussed in more detail below and shown
in Figure 5).
Figure 5. The tangible programming blocks used in Bots &
(Main)Frames. Players must physically chain blocks together
in order to program.
 Figure 6. (A) A typical command block with a metal hook on
the right side and eye on the left. (B) The Loop programming
block where players insert a command that will be repeated a
specified number of times. (C) The Function and Use Function
programming blocks connected by a chain.
Design of the Tangibles Version
One of the primary challenges and reasons we decided to
design a new game, rather than use an existing one, was to
create a system that supports both analog and digital
interfaces. In contrast to the mouse version of Bots &
(Main)Frames where players click buttons with iconic
representations of programming commands (Figure 1B), the
tangibles version has players physically connect wooden
blocks to program (see Figure 5). Fiducial markers on top
of the blocks are utilized in conjunction with tracking from
the ReacTIVision framework [34] to detect block
placement on the table and determine connections/ordering.
Notably, other than these differences in input method
(tangibles vs. mouse), the graphical UI and gameplay are
identical for both versions.
The blocks themselves utilize a similar design approach to
[26,29,41,88,92], taking advantage of many physical
affordances that tangibles provide [50,51,61,63]. For
instance, there are several aspects of the block’s physical
properties intended to eliminate syntax errors and more
clearly illustrate programming concepts. All programing
command blocks have a hook on the right side and eye on
the left side (see Figure 6A). This helps illustrate to players
that commands are executed in a sequential order along the
―chain of execution‖, as well as prevents players from
connecting blocks in incorrect ways (e.g., facing the wrong
direction). Similarly, we created special blocks for the
usage of loops and functions. Loop blocks have an
additional slot connected that allows players to insert a
single command (see Figure 6B). This helps physically
illustrate how in-game loops take a single command to
repeat a specified number of times. Contrary to most other
educational block-based programming interfaces, the loop
command in the digital mouse-based version also only
enables looping of a single command rather than a variable
number of commands since it would be difficult to create an
equivalent variable width slot for the physical blocks. For
functions, we connected two blocks (Function and Use
Function) together with a longer chain to visually illustrate
how code execution transitions from one function to
another on a function call (see Figure 6C).
METHODOLOGY
For this study, we wanted to explore the effects of
incorporating tangibles and collaborative play into
Figure 7. Overview of the 2x2 factorial design for the study.
Consists of 4 conditions: (A) Individual Mouse Condition. (B)
Collaborative Mouse Condition. (C) Individual Tangibles
Condition. (D) Collaborative Tangibles Condition.
educational programming games, comparing them to the
traditional single player, touchpad or mouse experience.
Considering the physical nature of manipulating and
interacting with tangibles and prior work showing the
positive effect of physical activity on situational interest
[30,56,83], we hypothesized the use of tangibles might have
a similar positive outcome in our educational programming
game. Furthermore, since collaboration has been shown to
have a positive impact on situational interest [60], we also
believed that collaborative play might have a similar
beneficial effect here. Earlier research findings also led us
to hypothesize that both the tangible input method and
collaborative mode of play were likely to have positive
impacts on programming self-beliefs [49] and enjoyment
[32,62,76,93]. On the other hand, while previous studies
have found positive learning outcomes from the use of
tangibles [79], collaboration has shown very mixed
effectiveness [45,60,90]; sometimes even showing negative
effects. As a result, we hypothesized that tangibles may
have a positive effect on learning and performance
outcomes while collaboration would have little to no effect.
Experimental Design and Procedure
In order to evaluate the influence of input methods and
mode of play on various outcomes in an educational
programming game, we used a 2x2 between subjects
factorial design (see Figure 7 for the four study conditions).
The key differences between the four conditions were the
use of a mouse or tangible programming blocks to program
(input methods) and playing individually or collaboratively
in pairs (mode of play). To facilitate a valid comparison, all
other aspects of design—levels, mechanics, aesthetics,
feedback, and so forth—remained constant. When playing
the game, participants had to either share the set of blocks
for the collaborative tangibles condition or share a single
mouse for the collaborative mouse condition. This design
choice was made in order to mirror real world collaborative
play contexts of educational programming games as closely
as possible [67,81], rather than create a custom
collaborative environment which did not accurately
represent how learners would cooperatively use an
educational programming game elsewhere. Additionally,
comparisons between collaborative use of a single mouse
and tangibles have frequently been utilized in existing HCI
literature (e.g., [26,55,93]). However, the single access
point of a mouse and shared access of tangibles during
collaborative play could have differing impacts on the
equity of interactions between participants [28,47,82].
Learners who do not have active control of input during
collaborative play may exhibit off-task behavior—which
can impact overall activity, engagement, and performance
outcomes [32]. Our process to identify this potentially
confounding factor and control for it during analysis is
discussed further in the results section.
For the study, participants were first randomly assigned to
one of the four conditions: individual play with mouse (MI),
collaborative play with mouse (MC), individual play with
tangibles (TI), and collaborative play with tangibles (TC).
We then asked them to fill out a demographics
questionnaire collecting information such as prior
programming experience, prior video game experience, and
initial programming self-beliefs. Participants were then
asked to complete 10 training levels (see Figure 2) which
introduced them to the game mechanics and introductory
programming concepts. They were given as much time as
necessary to complete this training task, and most
participants finished the levels in 10 – 20 minutes. This was
followed by a post-test survey assessing programming self-
beliefs, situational interest, and enjoyment/replayability of
the game. In order to assess performance and learning
outcomes after the survey, we also had participants
complete a post-test performance task where they were
presented with 5 new levels and instructed to complete as
many of the levels as possible in 10 minutes. These levels
were designed to be more complex than the prior training
levels, requiring longer programs and more complicated
paths to solve (see Figure 3). In order to mitigate social
loafing and other biases from collaborative play,
participants in the two collaborative conditions took turns
completing the performance task individually while the
other participant waited in a separate room. Finally, the
study concluded with a short interview asking participants
about their play experience and for any suggestions to
improve the game. The entire study lasted approximately 1
hour, and was video recorded to capture interview data and
player performance during the training/performance tasks.
Participants
A convenience sample of 80 undergraduates (18–24 years
old, 52 female) was recruited for the study from several
introductory classes at a large university. All participants
were novice programmers (having less than 6 months of
prior programming experience). From our participant pool,
76 came from non-mathematical backgrounds such as
Psychology, Biology, and Film while the remaining 4 were
from Engineering, Economics, and Math. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of the four study conditions (18
participants in MI, 22 in MC, 18 in TI, and 22 in TC). Only
2 pairs of participants in the collaborative conditions knew
each other before beforehand.
Measures
Programming Self-Beliefs
We used a programming self-beliefs scale [75] to measure
participant self-beliefs about their programming ability both
before the training task (pre-test) and after (post-test). The
scale consists of 19 5-point Likert type items (1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree) that measure the five
dimensions of programming self-beliefs mentioned earlier
in related work: debugging self-efficacy, programming self-
concept, programming interest, programming anxiety, and
programming aptitude. Scott and Ghinea [75] established
the construct validity with confirmatory factor analysis, in
addition to showing reasonable internal consistency for all 5
dimensions of programming self-beliefs (Cronbach's α
ranging from .703 to .888). We had to slightly modify a few
questions in the scale for novice programmers by removing
wording that was course specific. E.g., ―In my
programming labs, I can solve even the most challenging
problems‖ became ―I can solve even the most challenging
programming problems‖. We also had to remove one
debugging self-efficacy question that was programming
language specific (i.e., ―I am confident that I can
understand Java Exceptions‖).
Situational Interest
To assess situational interest of the participants after
completion of the training task, we used the Situational
Interest Scale [10]. The scale consists of 24 5-point Likert
type items (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) that
measure five dimensions of situational interest: exploration
intention (i.e., I want to analyze it to have a grasp on it),
instant enjoyment (i.e., it is an enjoyable activity to me),
attention demand (i.e., my attention was high), challenge
(i.e., it is a complex activity), and novelty (i.e., this activity
is new to me). Chen et al. [10] established the construct
validity of the Situational Interest Scale on multiple student
samples using both exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses, in addition to reporting internal consistency for all
situational interest dimensions (Cronbach's α of .78 to .91).
Enjoyment and Replayability
After completing the training task, we also asked
participants three qualitative 7-point Likert scale questions
(1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree) relating to their
enjoyment and intentions to replay or recommend the
version of Bots & (Main)Frames that they played:
1. Playing the game was enjoyable.
2. I would like to play this or a similar game again in the
future.
3. I would recommend this game to a friend.
 Programming Self-Beliefs Mouse Individual Mouse Collaborative Tangibles Individual Tangibles Collaborative
Subscales M SD M SD M SD M SD
Debugging Self-Efficacy 5.625 2.091 5.055 2.42 6.563 2.658 5.091 2.369
Programming Self-Concept 5.56 2.159 6.182 2.26 7.56 2.28 6.364 2.735
Pre-test

Programming Interest 11.188 3.28 10.41 3.157 12.438 2.683 12.546 3.514
Programming Anxiety 13.75 2.517 13.136 2.295 12.313 3.32 14.182 2.363
Programming Aptitude 5.75 1.95 6.409 2.34 7.062 2.205 6.818 2.26
Debugging Self-Efficacy 6.88 2.729 7.64 2.92 9.13 2.68 8.55 3.334
Programming Self-Concept 7.75 2.49 8.68 2.418 9.94 1.879 9.32 2.191
Post-test

Programming Interest 13.88 3.879
Programming Anxiety 14.44 2.732
Programming Aptitude 6.375 2.68
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for pre- and post-test scores on the five dimensions of programming self-beliefs [75] across the four
study conditions. Note: programming aptitude is reverse scored for clarity, so higher scores indicate beneficial growth mindset.
RESULTS
Of the 80 participants, two subjects in the individual mouse
condition and two subjects in the individual tangibles
condition were unable to complete the 10 training levels
during the 60-minute study period. As a result, they were
removed from subsequent analysis, leaving us with 16
participants in each of the individual conditions and 22
participants in each of the collaborative conditions.
As mentioned earlier, participants who did not actively use
the interface in the collaborative conditions could also be
confounding results. In order to control for this potential
confounding factor, we identified participants who did not
actively engage with the interface during training levels
(e.g., rarely used the mouse or blocks). We found a total of
1 participant in the TC condition and 4 participants in the
MC condition that did not actively use the interface—all
other pairs had a fairly even split in usage. As a result, the
following statistical tests we use to assess condition
differences control for usage and non-usage of the interface
(e.g., as a covariate in an ANCOVA). To further ensure the
validity of our results, we also removed the participants
altogether from a reanalysis, and found the exact same
results as presented here with almost identical p values.
Participant Experience and Prior Self-Beliefs
According to a series of ANCOVA tests, participants in the
four experimental groups did not differ with regard to prior
13.91 3.663 16.31 2.676 16.18 2.63
11.55 3.051 12.375 3.757 12.27 2.898
7.14 2.8 8.56 2.421 8.59 2.384
programming experience [F(3, 71) = .111, p = .953], prior
video game experience [F(3, 71) = 1.217, p = .31], and on
the five pre-test self-beliefs subscales:
 Debugging self-efficacy: F(3, 71) = 1.187, p = .321
 Programming self-concept: F(3, 71) = 2.195, p = .10
 Programming interest: F(3, 71) = 2.104, p = .11
 Programming anxiety F(3, 71) = 1.735, p = .168
 Programming aptitude: F(3, 71) = 1.232, p = .305
We can therefore assume that participants in all four groups
had similar prior experience and programming self-beliefs.
Programming Self-Beliefs
We first examine participant’s post-test programming self-
beliefs across the four conditions. Table 1 shows
descriptive statistics for pre-test and post-test scores on the
five dimensions of programming self-beliefs. To analyze
differences between post-test scores for the five
dimensions, we used a series of 2x2 ANCOVA tests with
input method and mode of play as the factors and the
corresponding pre-test score as a covariate to control for
individual differences in programming self-beliefs. Results
found a significant main effect for tangibles with respect to
improving debugging self-efficacy [F(1, 70) = 4.49, p =
.038, p2 = .06], programming self-concept [F(1, 70) = 4.17,
p = .045, p2 = .056], programming interest [F(1, 70) =
4.088, p = .047, p2 = .055], and programming aptitude

Mouse Individual Mouse Collaborative Tangibles Individual Tangibles Collaborative

Situational Interest Scores
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Exploration Intention 4.844 0.531 4.523 .631 5.328 0.472 5.216 .553
Instant Enjoyment 4.663 0.809 4.345 0.693 5.013 0.7284 5.209 0.507
Attention Demand 5.063 0.887 4.739 1.042 5.5 0.5 5.148 0.454
Challenge 3.594 1.31 3.216 0.943 3.938 1.135 3.466 1.081
Novelty 4.667 0.741 4.167 1.012 5.021 0.803 4.818 1.012
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for post-test scores on the Situational Interest Scale [10] across the four study conditions.
 Figure 8. Means of 7-point Likert scale ratings (+/- SEM) for enjoyment and intentions to replay/recommend across conditions.
[F(1, 70) = 5.689, p = .02, p2 = .075]. No other significant
effects or interactions were found for these four dimensions
(all other p’s > .36). We also found a significant main effect
for mode of play with respect to collaboration substantially
decreasing programming anxiety [F(1, 70) = 6.231, p =
.015, p2 = .082], but no significant main effect for input
method or interaction effect (all p’s > .28). Overall, it
appears that while tangibles aided players in feeling better
about their own programming abilities and increasing
interest, collaborative play helped players to feel less
anxious about the actual act of programming.
Situational Interest
For situational interest, we analyzed post-test scores for the
five source dimensions of the Situational Interest Scale
[10] (see table 2 for descriptive statistics of scores across
conditions). A series of 2x2 ANCOVA tests (input method
and mode of play as factors) showed a significant main
effect in favor of tangibles increasing 4 of the 5 dimensions:
exploration intention [F(1, 71)=19.42, p < .001, p2 = .215],
instant enjoyment [F(1, 71) = 13.876, p < .001, p2 = .163],
attention demand [F(1, 71) = 5.365, p = .023, p2 = .07],
and novelty [F(1, 71) = 5.556, p = .021, p2 = .073]. There
were no other significant main effects or interactions found
for the four dimensions (all p’s > .09). The last dimension
of challenge showed no significant main effects for input
method [F(1, 71) = 1.079, p = .302, p2 = .015] or mode of
play [F(1, 71) = 1.817, p = .182, p2 = .025], and no
significant interaction effect [F(1, 71) = .081, p = .776, p2
= .001]. This makes sense considering that participants
were playing the same educational programming game with
identical levels, so perceived challenge of the game activity
should be roughly the same.
Enjoyment and Replayability
We also collected and analyzed subjective ratings on player
enjoyment, desire to play a similar or the same game again,
and intention to recommend the game to a friend (see
Figure 8). A series of 2x2 ANCOVA tests found a
significant main effect on all three questions for input
method in favor of higher ratings after using the tangibles:
enjoyment [F(1, 71) = 14.02, p < .001, p2 = .165], play
again [F(1, 71) = 15.166, p < .001, p2 = .176], and
recommend to friend [F(1, 71) = 7.019, p = .01, p2 = .09].
Notably, while there were no significant interaction effects
(all p’s > .08), Figure 8 shows a similar pattern for all 3
questions with MC scoring lowest and TC scoring highest.
This suggests that use of tangibles when playing
collaboratively might increase enjoyment and replayablity
for learners, while use of a single mouse when playing
collaboratively might be detrimental. There were also no
significant main effects for mode of play (all p’s > .4).
Performance and Learning Outcomes
To better understand players’ learning and performance
after training, we also analyzed their ability to apply the
concepts learned to more a more complex set of problems
on a post-test performance task. For the performance task,
participants were instructed to complete as many of five
levels as possible within a ten-minute time limit (see Figure
3 for the levels). We first consider the average number of
completed levels for the conditions with input and mode of
play as factors (see Figure 9). A two-way ANCOVA shows
no main effect for input method [F(1, 71) = .002, p = .968,
p2 < .001] or mode of play [F(1, 71) = 2.404, p = .125, p2
= .033]. Similarly, there was no interaction between the
factors [F(1, 71) = .122, p = .728, p2 = .002]. This suggests
that neither form of input (mouse and tangibles) nor mode
of play (individual and collaborative) impacted the number
of levels completed by players on the performance task.
Figure 9. Means for number of levels completed in the
performance task out of 5 possible levels (+/- SEM).
Figure 10. Means for number of mistakes made per completed
level in the training and performance tasks across conditions.
However, when examining the average number of mistakes
per completed level made by players in the four conditions,
there is a notable increase in mistakes for mouse conditions
during the post-test performance task (see Figure 10). A
two-way ANCOVA to control for individual differences in
mistakes made during training confirms this, revealing a
significant main effect of input method in favor of tangibles
making less mistakes during performance [F(1, 70) =
26.711, p < .001, p2 = .276]. Mode of play and interaction
between the factors was not significant (all p’s > .24).
Additionally, we also examined the average playtime taken
to successfully complete a level in the performance task.
When computing the playtime of players, we excluded
uncompleted levels (i.e., where the participant ran out of
time) from the playtime calculation since it is unclear how
long it would actually take that participant to complete the
level. Using a two-way ANCOVA to control for individual
differences in time taken to complete the training levels, we
found a significant main effect in favor of the tangibles
taking less time to complete a level when compared to the
mouse [F(1, 70) = 4.419, p = .039, p2 = .059]. Again, mode
of play and interaction between the factors were not
significant (all p’s > .434). Looking at the average training
and performance times per completed level in Figure 11, we
see that tangibles remained relatively consistent for time
taken, regardless of training or performance level
complexity. On the other hand, the mouse conditions were
substantially faster during training—which is reasonable
considering the physical differences in speed with which
players can program using a mouse in comparison to
tangible blocks—but players appear to have struggled with
retaining and applying knowledge more during the
challenging performance levels; taking substantially longer
per level than on the training levels.
DISCUSSION
Tangible Programming Blocks Rock
Our results highlight that incorporating tangibles into the
design of an educational programming game can have
significant impacts on performance and learning outcomes,
as well as on important related factors such as programming
self-beliefs, situational interest, enjoyment, and intentions
to replay/recommend the game. For programming self-
beliefs, tangibles are beneficial for increasing participants’
Figure 11. Means for average time taken to completed a level
in the training and performance tasks across conditions.
interest in programming and aiding participants in feeling
better about their own programming abilities.
Similarly, for situational interest, use of tangibles showed
greater exploration intention, instant enjoyment, attention
demand, and novelty. No condition showed any difference
in challenge—which would be expected for different
versions of the exact same game. One aspect to note is that
prior work has shown the impact of exergames [56],
commercial dance games [30], and active educational video
games (AVGs) [83] on situational interest. However, to our
knowledge, the effects of tangibles on situational interest
have not previously been explored. While these games are
more focused on physical activity’s influence on situational
interest, it would appear that the physicality of
manipulating tangibles might have a similar effect.
We also saw that enjoyment and intentions to replay and
recommend the game were positively influenced by use of
tangibles. This aligns with previous research that has shown
1) tangibles to be more enjoyable than a mouse [32,49,76];
and 2) tangible programming interfaces to be more actively
engaging for learners [26,94].
Finally, players performed best when using tangibles. For
participants in the tangible conditions, levels were
completed in roughly the same amount of time and with
roughly the same amount of mistakes regardless of
difficulty (i.e., similar performance for both training and
challenging performance levels). On the other hand,
participants in the mouse conditions appear to have
struggled with retaining and applying knowledge from the
training levels; taking substantially longer per level and
making significantly more mistakes during the harder
performance levels.
Advantages and Drawbacks of Collaborative Play
One notable advantage of collaborative play was in its
ability to reduce participants’ anxiety towards the overall
act of programming (programming anxiety), while tangible
programming blocks did not demonstrate this effect. Prior
work has shown cooperative learning to be an effective tool
for reducing participant anxiety towards learning foreign
languages [84] and basic computer skills [38]. Our results
suggest that this similarly applies towards learning
programming in an educational programming game.
On the other hand, collaborative play with a single mouse
showed notably poor results when compared to the other
conditions for performance, situational interest, and
enjoyment/replayability. In our study, use of a single mouse
(i.e., single access point) in the collaborative play
conditions resulted in one player dominating control of
input more frequently than the use of tangibles (i.e., shared
access). This mirrors findings from existing single-display
groupware, multiple-mice, and multiple-device research
which has shown that group usage of a single access point
such as a mouse can negatively impact interaction equity
when compared to shared access [28,39,47,82].
Ultimately, our results bolster existing research which has
suggested that while tangibles are flexible and useful tools
for facilitating and enhancing collaboration [25], simply
adding additional players to individual single-mice games
might not achieve the desired benefits of collaborative play
[32].
Future Design Improvements
From our interviews with participants and observations of
their behavior during gameplay, we found a few notable
design suggestions that would help to both further refine the
design of Bots & (Main)Frames, as well as guide future
designs for educational programming games. One common
suggestion made by almost all participants in the tangible
conditions was to make connecting the blocks easier. For
participants, connecting blocks was an extraneous and
sometimes difficult task that took too long for rapid
experimentation. By using some other physical form of
connection with similar syntax enforcing properties (e.g.,
magnets), participants may be able to manipulate the blocks
more quickly and effectively for improved performance.
Another frequently made suggestion by more than half of
participants in the tangibles conditions was to color code
the blocks based on functionality. We created over 40
tangible programming blocks, and participants noted that
the space frequently got messy during more challenging
problems. This ultimately made identifying desired blocks
difficult. Color coding is used in popular educational
programming environments (e.g., Scratch [66] and Blockly
[16]) as well as some tangible programming interfaces (e.g.,
Tern [26]), and would likely further benefit players’
performance in Bots & (Main)Frames as well.
Finally, while the input design of the tangibles encouraged
parallel play and problem solving, collaborative play using
a single mouse encouraged a far greater number of
instances with sequential turn taking. As a result, future
work would also benefit from examining additional
collaborative multi-device input designs for educational
programming games (e.g., supporting multiple inputs with
two mice or using a multi-touch tabletop device).
LIMITATIONS
One of the primary limitations in this paper was the
differing forms of access between the mouse (single access
point) and tangibles (shared access) for the collaborative
conditions. Although comparisons between collaborative
use of a single mouse and tangibles have been commonly
utilized in existing HCI literature [26,55,93], single access
point interfaces have been shown to be detrimental in
existing literature due to negative impacts on the equity of
participation [28,47]. Specifically, limited access to and
control of input has been shown to result in off-task
behavior and lower engagement for learners [32]. However,
in our analysis we explicitly control for participants that do
not actively engage with the interface, so it is unlikely that
single access and shared access differences between the
mouse and tangibles influenced our results.
Another limitation of this work is the novelty of using
tangible interfaces and the potential effects it could have on
our results. Addressing the issue of novelty is complicated
since doing new things is fun for many people, and would
require a longitudinal study design to explore impacts.
However, novelty is also a notable component of situational
interest [10], and as a result desirable for beneficial long-
term learning outcomes.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, we presented a study that systematically
explored how modulating input methods and mode of play
in an educational programming game can impact learning
outcomes and important related factors. Our results provide
concrete evidence that incorporating tangibles into the
design of an educational programming game can improve
programming self-beliefs (i.e., debugging self-efficacy,
programming self-concept, programming interest,
programming aptitude), situational interest (i.e., exploration
intention, instant enjoyment, attention demand, novelty),
subjective feelings towards enjoyment, and intentions to
replay/recommend the game in the future. They also
provide evidence that, while not as effective in other
aspects, collaborative play does reduce players’ anxiety
towards the act of programming.
Ultimately, we have only just begun to touch upon the
impact of tangibles and collaborative play in educational
programming games. One notable aspect of our study was
the university age group of participants. However, many of
the current CS education initiatives—such as Hour of Code
[91]—are geared towards the K-12 demographic [5]. In
future work, we plan to test our tangible and collaborative
designs on younger audiences who may benefit more
strongly from such approaches.
REFERENCES
1. Mary Ainley and John Ainley. 2011. Student
engagement with science in early adolescence: The
contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing
interest in learning about science. Contemporary
Educational Psychology 36, 1: 4–12.
2. Patricia A Alexander and Tamara L Jetton. 1996. The
role of importance and interest in the processing of
text. Educational Psychology Review 8, 1: 89–121.
3. Alissa N. Antle, Milena Droumeva, and Greg Corness.
2008. Playing with The Sound Maker: Do Embodied
Metaphors Help Children Learn? In Proceedings of the
7th international conference on Interaction design and
children - IDC ’08, 178.
4. Ian Arawjo, Cheng-Yao Wang, Andrew C Myers, Erik
Andersen, and François Guimbretière. 2017. Teaching
Programming with Gamified Semantics. In
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 4911–4923.
5. David Barr, John Harrison, and Leslie Conery. 2011.
Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for
Everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology 38, 6:
20–23.
6. Valerie Barr and Chris Stephenson. 2011. Bringing
computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and
what is the role of the computer science education
community? ACM Inroads 2, 48–54.
7. Andrew Begel and Nachiappan Nagappan. 2008. Pair
programming: what’s in it for me? In Proceedings of
the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on
Empirical software engineering and measurement,
120–128.
8. Matthew Berland and Victor R. Lee. 2011.
Collaborative Strategic Board Games as a Site for
Distributed Computational Thinking. International
Journal of Game-Based Learning 1, 2: 65–81.
9. Lisa S Blackwell, Kali H Trzesniewski, and Carol
Sorich Dweck. 2007. Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A
longitudinal study and an intervention. Child
development 78, 1: 246–263.
10. Ang Chen, Paul W Darst, and Robert P Pangrazi. 1999.
What constitutes situational interest? Validating a
construct in physical education. Measurement in
Physical Education and Exercise Science 3, 3.
11. Michael Clancy. 2004. Misconceptions and attitudes
that interfere with learning to program. Computer
science education research: 85–100.
12. Edsger W Dijkstra and others. 1989. On the cruelty of
really teaching computing science. Communications of
the ACM 32, 12: 1398–1404.
13. Pierre Dillenbourg. 1999. What do you mean by
collaborative learning. In Collaborative-learning:
Cognitive and computational approaches. 1–15.
14. Carol S Dweck. 2000. Self-theories: Their role in
motivation, personality, and development. Psychology
Press.
15. Michael Eagle and Tiffany Barnes. 2009. Experimental
evaluation of an educational game for improved
learning in introductory computing. In ACM SIGCSE
Bulletin, 321–325.
16. N. Fraser. Blockly: A visual programming editor.
Retrieved October 9, 2016 from
https://developers.google.com/blockly/
17. Daniel Gallardo, Carles F Julia, and Sergi Jorda. 2008.
TurTan: A tangible programming language for creative
exploration. In Horizontal Interactive Human
Computer Systems, 2008. TABLETOP 2008. 3rd IEEE
International Workshop on, 89–92.
18. Alessandro Gnoli, Anthony Perritano, Paulo Guerra,
Brenda Lopez, Joel Brown, and Tom Moher. 2014.
Back to the future: Embodied Classroom Simulations
of Animal Foraging. In Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and
Embodied Interaction - TEI ’14, 275–282.
19. Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Computational
thinking in K--12: A review of the state of the field.
Educational Researcher 42, 1: 38–43.
20. Florian Güldenpfennig, Daniel Dudo, and Peter
Purgathofer. 2016. Toward Thingy Oriented
Programming: Recording Marcos With Tangibles. In
Proceedings of the TEI’16: Tenth International
Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied
Interaction, 455–461.
21. Casper Harteveld, Gillian Smith, Gail Carmichael,
Elisabeth Gee, and Carolee Stewart-Gardiner. 2014. A
Design-Focused Analysis of Games Teaching
Computer Science. In Proceedings of Games+
Learning+ Society 10.
22. Andrew Hicks, Barry Peddycord, and Tiffany Barnes.
2014. Building games to learn from their players:
Generating hints in a serious game. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science 8474 LNCS: 312–317.
23. Suzanne Hidi and Valerie Anderson. 1992. Situational
interest and its impact on reading and expository
writing. The role of interest in learning and
development 11: 213–214.
24. Suzanne Hidi and K Ann Renninger. 2006. The four-
phase model of interest development. Educational
psychologist 41, 2: 111–127.
25. Michael S Horn, R Jordan Crouser, and Marina U Bers.
2012. Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a
hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
16, 4: 379–389.
26. Michael S Horn, Erin Treacy Solovey, R Jordan
Crouser, and Robert J K Jacob. 2009. Comparing the
use of tangible and graphical programming languages
for informal science education. In Proceedings of the
SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 975–984.
27. Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a grip on
tangible interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on Human Factors in computing systems -
CHI ’06.
28. Eva Hornecker, Paul Marshall, Nick Sheep Dalton, and
Yvonne Rogers. 2008. Collaboration and interference:
awareness with mice or touch input. In Proceedings of
the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work, 167–176.
29. Felix Hu, Ariel Zekelman, Michael Horn, and Frances
Judd. 2015. Strawbies: Explorations in Tangible
Programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on Interaction Design and Children - IDC
’15, 410–413.
30. Chaoqun Huang and Zan Gao. 2013. Associations
between students’ situational interest, mastery
experiences, and physical activity levels in an
interactive dance game. Psychology, health & medicine
18, 2: 233–241.
31. Meriel Huggard. 2004. Programming trauma: Can it be
avoided. Proceedings of the BCS Grand Challenges in
Computing: Education: 50–51.
32. Kori M Inkpen, Wai-ling Ho-Ching, Oliver Kuederle,
Stacey D Scott, and Garth B D Shoemaker. 1999. This
is fun! we’re all best friends and we’re all playing:
supporting children’s synchronous collaboration. In
Proceedings of the 1999 conference on Computer
support for collaborative learning, 31.
33. Lisa C Kaczmarczyk, Elizabeth R Petrick, J Philip
East, and Geoffrey L Herman. 2010. Identifying
student misconceptions of programming. In
Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on
Computer science education, 107–111.
34. Martin Kaltenbrunner and Ross Bencina. 2007.
reacTIVision: a computer-vision framework for table-
based tangible interaction. Proceedings of the 1st
international conference on Tangible and embedded
interaction: 69–74.
35. Dominic Kao and D. Fox Harrell. 2015. Mazzy: A
STEM Learning Game. In Foundations of Digital
Games.
36. Dominic Kao and D Fox Harrell. 2015. Exploring the
impact of role model avatars on game experience in
educational games. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual
Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play,
571–576.
37. Dominic Kao and D Fox Harrell. 2016. Exploring the
Impact of Avatar Color on Game Experience in
Educational Games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI
Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 1896–1905.
38. Carolyn M Keeler and Robert Anson. 1995. An
assessment of cooperative learning used for basic
computer skills instruction in the college classroom.
Journal of Educational Computing Research 12, 4:
379–393.
39. Lucinda Kerawalla, Darren Pearce, Nicola Yuill,
Rosemary Luckin, and Amanda Harris. 2008. ―I’m
keeping those there, are you?‖ The role of a new user
interface paradigm--Separate Control of Shared Space
(SCOSS)--in the collaborative decision-making
process. Computers & Education 50, 1: 193–206.
40. Paivi Kinnunen and Beth Simon. 2010. Experiencing
programming assignments in CS1: the emotional toll.
In Proceedings of the Sixth international workshop on
Computing education research, 77–86.
41. Vishesh Kumar, Tuhina Dargan, Utkarsh Dwivedi, and
Poorvi Vijay. 2015. Note Code – A Tangible Music
Programming Puzzle Tool. In Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and
Embodied Interaction - TEI ’15, 625–629.
42. Janet Mei-Chuen Lin and Shu-Fen Liu. 2012. An
investigation into parent-child collaboration in learning
computer programming. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society 15, 1: 162.
43. Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia, Amanda M Durik,
AnneMarie M Conley, Kenneth E Barron, John M
Tauer, Stuart A Karabenick, and Judith M
Harackiewicz. 2010. Measuring situational interest in
academic domains. Educational and psychological
measurement 70, 4: 647–671.
44. H Lode, G Franchi, and N Frederiksen. 2013.
Machineers: playfully introducing programming to
children. In CHI ’13 Human Factors in Computing
Systems, 2639–2642.
45. Yiping Lou, Philip C Abrami, John C Spence,
Catherine Poulsen, Bette Chambers, and Sylvia
d’Apollonia. 1996. Within-class grouping: A meta-
analysis. Review of educational research 66, 4: 423–
458.
46. Herbert W Marsh and Andrew J Martin. 2011.
Academic self-concept and academic achievement:
Relations and causal ordering. British Journal of
Educational Psychology 81, 1: 59–77.
47. Paul Marshall, Eva Hornecker, Richard Morris, Nick
Sheep Dalton, and Yvonne Rogers. 2008. When the
fingers do the talking: A study of group participation
with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. In
Horizontal Interactive Human Computer Systems,
2008. TABLETOP 2008.
48. Timothy S McNerney. 2004. From turtles to Tangible
Programming Bricks: explorations in physical language
design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8, 5: 326–
337.
49. Edward F Melcer, Victoria Hollis, and Katherine
Isbister. 2017. Tangibles vs . Mouse in Educational
Programming Games: Influences on Enjoyment and
Self-Beliefs. In CHI’17 Extended Abstracts.
50. Edward Melcer and Katherine Isbister. 2016. Bridging
the Physical Learning Divides: A Design Framework
 for Embodied Learning Games and Simulations. In
Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference
of DiGRA and FDG.
51. Edward Melcer and Katherine Isbister. 2016. Bridging
the Physical Divide: A Design Framework for
Embodied Learning Games and Simulations. In
CHI’16 Extended Abstracts, 2225–2233.
52. Edward Melcer and Katherine Isbister. 2017.
Embodiment, collaboration, and challenge in
educational programming games: exploring use of
tangibles and mouse. In Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on the Foundations of Digital
Games, 62.
53. Dejana Mullins, Nikol Rummel, and Hans Spada.
2011. Are two heads always better than one?
Differential effects of collaboration on students’
computer-supported learning in mathematics.
International Journal of Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning 6, 3: 421–443.
54. Nachiappan Nagappan, Laurie Williams, Miriam
Ferzli, Eric Wiebe, Kai Yang, Carol Miller, and
Suzanne Balik. 2003. Improving the CS1 experience
with pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 35, 1:
359–362.
55. Izabel C Olson, Zeina Atrash Leong, Uri Wilensky,
and Mike S Horn. 2011. It’s just a toolbar!: using
tangibles to help children manage conflict around a
multi-touch tabletop. In Proceedings of the fifth
international conference on Tangible, embedded, and
embodied interaction, 29–36.
56. Denis Pasco, Cédric Roure, Gilles Kermarrec, Zachary
Pope, and Zan Gao. 2017. The effects of a bike active
video game on players’ physical activity and
motivation. Journal of Sport and Health Science 6, 1:
25–32.
57. Arnold Pears, Stephen Seidman, Lauri Malmi, Linda
Mannila, Elizabeth Adams, Jens Bennedsen, Marie
Devlin, and James Paterson. 2007. A survey of
literature on the teaching of introductory programming.
ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 39, 4: 204–223.
58. Reinhard Pekrun. 2006. The control-value theory of
achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and
implications for educational research and practice.
Educational psychology review 18, 4: 315–341.
59. Reinhard Pekrun and Elizabeth J Stephens. 2010.
Achievement emotions: A control-value approach.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass 4, 4: 238–
255.
60. Jan L. Plass, Paul A. O’Keefe, Bruce D. Homer,
Jennifer Case, Elizabeth O. Hayward, Murphy Stein,
and Ken Perlin. 2013. The impact of individual,
competitive, and collaborative mathematics game play
on learning, performance, and motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology 105, 4: 1050–1066.
61. Wim T. J. L. Pouw, Tamara van Gog, and Fred Paas.
2014. An Embedded and Embodied Cognition Review
of Instructional Manipulatives. Educational
Psychology Review 26, 1: 51–72.
62. Sara Price, Yvonne Rogers, M. Scaife, D. Stanton, and
H. Neale. 2003. Using tangibles to promote novel
forms of playful learning. Interacting with Computers
15, 2: 169–185.
63. S Price, J G Sheridan, T Pontual-Falcao, and G
Roussos. 2008. Towards a framework for investigating
tangible environments for learning. International
Journal of Arts and Technology 1, 3/4: 351–368.
64. Vennila Ramalingam, Deborah LaBelle, and Susan
Wiedenbeck. 2004. Self-efficacy and mental models in
learning to program. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 171–
175.
65. Ann Renninger, Suzanne Hidi, and Andreas Krapp.
2014. The role of interest in learning and development.
Psychology Press.
66. Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-
Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen
Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, J a Y Silver,
Brian Silverman, and Yasmin Kafai. 2009. Scratch:
Programming for All. Communications of the ACM 52:
60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
67. Janko Roettgers. 2016. Tangible Play, Maker of Osmo
Augmented Reality Toys, Raises $24 Million From
Sesame Workshop, Others. Variety. Retrieved from
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/osmo-25-million-
funding-1201936425/
68. Christine Rogerson and Elsje Scott. 2010. The fear
factor: How it affects students learning to program in a
tertiary environment. Journal of Information
Technology Education 9, 1: 147–171.
69. Marcos Román-González, Juan-Carlos Pérez-
González, and Carmen Jiménez-Fernández. 2017.
Which cognitive abilities underlie computational
thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational
Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior 72:
678–691.
70. Ulrich Schiefele. 1999. Interest and learning from text.
Scientific studies of reading 3, 3: 257–279.
71. Gregory Schraw and Stephen Lehman. 2001.
Situational interest: A review of the literature and
directions for future research. Educational psychology
review 13, 1: 23–52.
72. Eric Schweikardt and Md Gross. 2008. The robot is the
program: interacting with roBlocks. In Proceedings of
the second international conference on Tangible,
embedded, and embodied interaction - TEI ’08, 167–
168.
 73. Michael J Scott and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2014. On the
domain-specificity of mindsets: The relationship
between aptitude beliefs and programming practice.
IEEE Transactions on Education 57, 3: 169–174.
74. Michael James Scott and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2013.
Educating programmers: A reflection on barriers to
deliberate practice. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual
HEA STEM Conference.
75. Michael James Scott and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2014.
Measuring enrichment: the assembly and validation of
an instrument to assess student self-beliefs in CS1. In
Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on
International computing education research, 123–130.
76. Stacey D Scott, Regan L Mandryk, and Kori M Inkpen.
2003. Understanding children’s collaborative
interactions in shared environments. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning 19, 2: 220–228.
77. Orit Shaer and Eva Hornecker. 2010. Tangible user
interfaces: past, present, and future directions.
Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer
Interaction 3, 1--2: 1–137.
78. Tia Shelley, Leilah Lyons, Moira Zellner, and Emily
Minor. 2011. Evaluating the Embodiment Benefits of a
paper-based TUI for Spatially Sensitive Simulations. In
Extended Abstracts of the 2011 Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, 1375.
79. Alexander Skulmowski, Simon Pradel, Tom Kühnert,
Guido Brunnett, and Günter Daniel Rey. 2016.
Embodied learning using a tangible user interface: The
effects of haptic perception and selective pointing on a
spatial learning task. Computers & Education 92–93:
64–75.
80. R J W Sluis, Ivo Weevers, CHGJ Van Schijndel,
Lyuba Kolos-Mazuryk, Siska Fitrianie, and JBOS
Martens. 2004. Read-It: five-to-seven-year-old children
learn to read in a tabletop environment. In Proceedings
of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and
children: building a community, 73–80.
81. Taylor Soper. 2015. Microsoft, UW participate in
―Hour of Code‖ events to get students interested in
computer science. GeekWire. Retrieved from
https://www.geekwire.com/2015/microsoft-uw-
participate-hour-code-events-get-students-interested-
computer-science/
82. Danae Stanton and H R 2003 Neale. 2003. The effects
of multiple mice on children’s talk and interaction.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19, 2: 229–
238.
83. Haichun Sun and Yong Gao. 2016. Impact of an active
educational video game on children’s motivation,
science knowledge, and physical activity. Journal of
Sport and Health Science 5, 2: 239–245.
84. Ornprapat Suwantarathip and Saovapa Wichadee.
View publication stats
2010. The impacts of cooperative learning on anxiety
and proficiency in an EFL class. Journal of College
Teaching and Learning 7, 11: 51.
85. Hideyuki Suzuki and Hiroshi Kato. 1993. AlgoBlock: a
tangible programming language, a tool for
collaborative learning. In Proceedings of 4th European
Logo Conference, 297–303.
86. Hideyuki Suzuki and Hiroshi Kato. 1995. Interaction-
level support for collaborative learning: AlgoBlock—
an open programming language. In The first
international conference on Computer support for
collaborative learning, 349–355.
87. Suzanne E Wade, Gregory Schraw, William M Buxton,
and Michael T Hayes. 1993. Seduction of the strategic
reader: Effects of interest on strategies and recall.
Reading Research Quarterly: 93–114.
88. Danli Wang, Lan Zhang, Chao Xu, Haichen Hu, and
Yunfeng Qi. 2016. A Tangible Embedded
Programming System to Convey Event-Handling
Concept. In Proceedings of the TEI’16: Tenth
International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and
Embodied Interaction, 133–140.
89. Danli Wang, Yang Zhang, Tianyuan Gu, Liang He, and
Hongan Wang. 2012. E-Block: a tangible programming
tool for children. In Adjunct proceedings of the 25th
annual ACM symposium on User interface software
and technology, 71–72.
90. Chun-wang Wei, Hsin-hung Chen, and Nian-shing
Chen. 2015. Effects of Embodiment-Based Learning
on Perceived Cooperation Process and Social Flow. In
7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, 608–
613.
91. Cameron Wilson. 2014. Hour of code: we can solve the
diversity problem in computer science. ACM Inroads 5,
4: 22.
92. Peta Wyeth. 2008. How Young Children Learn to
Program With Sensor, Action, and Logic Blocks.
Journal of the Learning Sciences 17, 4: 517–550.
93. Lesley Xie, Alissa N Antle, and Nima Motamedi.
2008. Are tangibles more fun?: comparing children’s
enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical
and tangible user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2nd
international conference on Tangible and embedded
interaction, 191–198.
94. Oren Zuckerman and Ayelet Gal-Oz. 2013. To TUI or
not to TUI: Evaluating performance and preference in
tangible vs. graphical user interfaces. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 71, 7: 803–820.