Designing Learning Activities to Support

Young Women’s Interest in Programming

and Computational Thinking

Harang Kim

[Media Technology: Strategic Media Development]

[Advanced Level, One-year Master Program]

[15 Credits]

[Spring 2020]

[Supervisor: Daniel Spikol]

[Examiner: Fredrik Rutz]

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Daniel Spikol, for his

continuous support of my thesis and all his valuable feedback and inspiration. I would like to

thank him for his enthusiasm, encouragement, patience, and good sense of humor. Additionally,

his guidance helped me throughout the research and writing of my thesis. I could not have

imagined finishing this thesis without his supervision.

Besides my supervisor, I would like to thank Suzan Boztepe and Fredrik Rutz for their

insightful comments. I would also like to thank all the interviewees, participants, and

organizations for sharing their thoughts.

Thank you.

Abstract Over the last few years, the importance of computer science education for children has been

promoted more and more vigorously. In addition, the demand for technology occupations has

increased rapidly, and there are many job opportunities in computer science. However, there

are not many women working in this field. One of the reasons is young women’s lack of interest

in computer science. This study investigates how to attract young women to computer

programming and support computational thinking through design and develop learning

activities. This study’s approach includes several related researches, theories, and

methodologies. Interviews, workshops, and observations were used to determine design

requirements. The results demonstrate that tangible and meaningful artifacts are effective

educational tools for computer programming. Based on the results, this research developed a

prototype, “TomatoBox,” a do-it-yourself kit that creates toys while providing an enjoyable

activity to learn programming.

Keywords: Computer Programming, Computational Thinking, Tangible Artifacts, Young Women

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF PROGRAMMING AND COMPUTATIONAL THINKING ................................................. 1

1.2 PROBLEM ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION .............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.5 TARGET GROUP .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.6 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

2 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 REASONS FOR THE LACK OF WOMEN IN COMPUTER SCIENCE ..................................................................... 6

2.2 THEORY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

2.2.1 Computational Thinking ................................................................................................................................ 8

2.2.2 Constructionism ................................................................................................................................................ 9

2.2.3 Tangible Artifacts ........................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 RELATED RESEARCH .............................................................................................................................................. 10

2.3.1 Learning Tools ................................................................................................................................................ 11

2.3.2 Gender .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.3.3 Approach .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.4 Organizations .................................................................................................................................................. 13

2.4 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................. 14

3 METHOD .............................................................................................................................................. 16

3.1 DESIGN STRATEGY ................................................................................................................................................. 16

3.1.1. PARTICIPATORY DESIGN ....................................................................................................................................... 16

3.1.2. DESIGN-BASED RESEARCH .................................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.3. THE ROLE OF CHILDREN IN THE DESIGN PROCESS ...................................................................................... 18

3.2 DESIGN PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................... 19

3.3 DESIGN METHOD .................................................................................................................................................... 22

3.3.1. AFFINITY MAPPING AND THEMATIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 22

3.3.2. INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................................................................................. 23

3.3.3. FUTURE TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP (FTW) .................................................................................................... 24

4 DESIGN PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 26

4.1 INTERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26

4.2 WORKSHOPS .................................................................................................................................................................... 28

4.3 DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHOP ..................................................................................................................................... 30

5 RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................. 32

5.1 INTERVIEW RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................. 32

5.1.1. Analysis and Synthesis of Interviews ....................................................................................................... 32

5.2 WORKSHOP RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 36

5.2.1 Participants ..................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.2.2 Themes ............................................................................................................................................................. 38

5.3 ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS OF ORGANIZATION OBSERVATIONS ................................................................. 39

5.4 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 40

6 PROTOTYPE ........................................................................................................................................ 42

6.1 EACH STAGE OF THE PROTOTYPE ............................................................................................................................. 42

6.2 FINAL PROTOTYPE, “TOMATOBOX” ........................................................................................................................ 44

6.3 EVALUATION .................................................................................................................................................................... 46

7 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 47

7.1 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47

7.2 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................... 48

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 50

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW TEMPLATES ............................................................................................... 60

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW NOTES ......................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX C: A BRIEF STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP WITH CHILDREN .............................. 85

APPENDIX D: INFORMED PARENTAL CONSENT FORM ................................................................... 86

APPENDIX E: “TOMATOBOX” EVALUATION FORM .......................................................................... 88

1

1 Introduction

1.1 The Importance of Programming and Computational Thinking Programming is a process of thinking about the fundamentals of problems and

determining solutions. Programming helps people to think and solve problems in an

organized way, and this emphasizes the importance of learning programming at a

young age (Heininger et al., 2017). Programming has positive impacts on children’s

achievements in mathematics and science, their language ability, their creativity, and

their social-emotional interactions (Horn et al., 2009). Learning programming has

become a core and essential component in the curriculum of many countries. In

England, computer science has become a compulsory part of the school curriculum for

children aged between five and sixteen (Brown et al., 2014). The mayor of New York

city declared that computer science classes would be offered to all students by 2025

(Taylor & Miller, 2015). Former U.S. President Obama also emphasized the

importance of computer science education in his weekly address from the White House.

Obama said that “In the new economy, computer science is not an optional skill. It is

a basic skill, right along with the three R’s (reading, writing, arithmetic). Nine out of

ten parents want it taught at their children’s schools. So, I have got a plan to help make

sure all our kids get an opportunity to learn computer science, especially girls and

minorities. It is called Computer Science for All” (2016, paragraphs 5–6).

In the Fourth Industrial Revolution, new technologies have created changes in

society’s ways of living and working. Many jobs are becoming automated and require

people to do something more than simply work with computers. Robots are even

replacing humans in some occupations; robots, rather than bank tellers, assess

customers’ assets (Agarwal, 2017), and chatbots answer questions from consumers

(Legters, 2019). This digitalized new job market has created new requirements for

employee qualifications. Therefore, it is crucial to be familiar with the technology field,

not only for information technology (IT) workers but also for various occupations

(Heininger et al., 2017). For younger generations to compete in this new high-

technology world, programming skills and computational thinking are essential.

2

Computational thinking affects students’ academic skills as well as their problem-

solving abilities (Calao et al., 2015). Computational thinking can be adapted for other

subjects in elementary and secondary schools since it is cross-disciplinary (Yadav et

al., 2016). Computational thinking helps students to deal with complicated problems

and other disciplines and also supports them to succeed in a technological society

(National Research Council, 2011). Computational thinking is based on algorithms,

which are sequences of steps for problem-solving or accomplishing tasks (Yadav et al.,

2016). Denning (2009) claimed that computational thinking is “the ability to interpret

the world as algorithmically controlled conversions of inputs to outputs” (p. 30).

Even though covid-19 has destroyed job markets, technology companies show growth

in job openings (Forbes, 2020). Therefore, the importance of technology is increasing,

and no-one can predict the future, but technology will become a more essential part of

our life. Thus, having skills in this area can be a powerful strength in the unpredictable

job market of the future. To have equal opportunities in future job markets, young

women need to be supported to become involved in the technology field.

1.2 Problem Novice programmers are unfamiliar with programming environments and tools, such

as languages, software, and syntax. Thus, it takes time and effort to study programming.

It is challenging to comprehend programming concepts and structures since

programming needs different ways of thinking and understanding, which are unlike

general situations. Students are unused to dealing with the complicated syntax of

programming (Bosse & Gerosa, 2017). Thus, failure rates in introductory programming

courses and dropout rates after introductory programming courses are high (Nikula et

al., 2011; Yadin, 2011).

Apart from these problems, there is a gender gap in the technological field. Computer

science–related job markets have seen a decrease in the percentage of female employees

since the 1990s (ComputerScience, n.d.). The percentage declined from 35% to 26%

between 1990 and 2013 (ComputerScience, n.d.). Furthermore, only 23% of High

School girls take the advanced placement computer science examination, 19% received

3

a bachelor’s degree in computer and information science, and only 26% of the

computing workforce is female (Conway et al., 2018). In 2016, only 18.7% of women

earned a bachelor’s degree in computer science (National Foundation Science, 2019).

There are many minority groups in computer science, but women are probably the

largest (Kelleher et al., 2007).

The low number of female students in computer science results in reduced gender

diversity at work. According to Statista, only a quarter of the computing workforce is

female across the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

countries. In the United States are found the world’s largest technology companies:

Apple only has female employees in 23% of technology jobs, 21% are female at Google,

and 20% are female at Microsoft (Maxwell, 2019). In England, women only occupy 5%

of leadership positions in the technology industry (Maxwell, 2019). Also, only 11.5%

of game developers were female in 2009 (Tassi, 2014). Everyone has a right to have

the knowledge and experience to make good choices on technological issues.

1.3 Purpose This study supports young women’s interest in computer programming and

computational thinking by designing learning activities. Learning activities can be

specific tools, processes, or programs that make computer science enjoyable for young

women, so that they are willing to learn programming without any fears or worries. It

is vital to keep a balance in the technological field. Technology companies’ imbalances

in diversity create immediate costs, such as low market share, human resource (HR)

costs, and public relations costs (Conway et al., 2018). Furthermore, economies become

more competitive and benefit from equality, as Klaus Schwab says: “The economies

that will succeed in the fourth industrial revolution will be those that are best able to

harvest all their available talent” (Maxwell, 2019).

Many IT jobs offer decent working conditions, and computer science has the smallest

pay gap between men and women (AAUW, 2020). From a business perspective,

women’s choices affect up to 85% of purchasing decisions, and diversity is an engine

of innovation (Paul et al., 2011). Regarding gender diversity, diverse teams are seen as

more creative, innovative, and profitable (Conway et al., 2018). The U.S. Bureau of

4

Labor Statistics said that the employment of software developers is expected to grow

21% from 2018 to 2028. This increase in demand for computer software developers is

much faster than the average increase in demand for all occupations (Software

Developers, 2019). This rapid growth in the need for software developers accompanies

the explosive growth of mobile-based internet usage (O’Brien, 2019). Thus, increasing

young women’s interest in computer science can provide them with more opportunities

in the future job market.

1.4 Research Question Based on the problem of the lack of women in computer science, the research question

that guided the study is as follows:

"How to attract young women to computer programming and support computational

thinking through design and develop learning activities?"

Through this research, learning activities were designed to support young women’s

interest in computer programming and computational thinking.

1.5 Target Group For this research, the focus group was young women, 11–14 years old. There were

several reasons to focus on this age group. Girls show less interest in STEM careers

than boys from early adolescence, so it is essential to arouse their interest in computer

science before they have negative stereotypes about the field of technology (Sullivan

et al., 2015). Many girls lose their confidence and competence during adolescence.

Girls who are nine and ten years old are full of confidence but after puberty they start

to doubt themselves and their thoughts (Margolis & Fisher, 2003). In addition, about

30% of female undergraduate students who decided to major in computer science were

influenced by a high school programming course (Graham & Latulipe, 2014). It is

crucial to interest girls in computer science before they lose their self-confidence.

However, this research also conducted interviews and workshops with women who are

not in this target age group. They were also in this target age group when they were

young. Thus, it is possible to get ideas such as why non-computer-science female

5

college students did not get interested in this field. Also, women experts in the computer

science field can give opinions about what skills are necessary to specialize in this field

or why they get involved in this area. These data can be background and basis for

solutions.

1.6 Limitations There may be several different factors that affect someone’s interest in programming.

These factors include age, environment, culture, instructor, teaching methods, course

structure, type of evaluation, previous knowledge, and external factors. The workshops

took place with young women, and everyone has a different background. Thus, the

results may have been influenced by several factors.

Qualitative methods, such as interviews and workshops, were the right choice for this

study. However, when using these methods, it is difficult to collect hard facts, such as

numerical values. If this study had used quantitative methods, the results could have

more credibility. For instance, the data could have provided stronger evidence if this

study conducted quantitative survey questions and statistical analysis.

There were factors hindering the recruitment of the target group. Because of Covid-19,

some of the schools in Malmö were closed or not allowing visitors. Thus, there was a

time-constraint on the recruitment of participants.

6

2 Background The background chapter considers the following: reasons for women’s lack of interest

in programming; theories; relevant studies; and, to comprehend related concepts,

programming education organizations. This background provides ideas and supports

answers for the research question.

2.1 Reasons for the Lack of Women in Computer Science Women and men show differences in their interests from early elementary school,

which is one of the reasons for the gender gap in the technology industry (Maltese &

Tai, 2010). Girls tend to spend less time playing with computer games, spatial and

science-related games, and technological toys (Cheryan et al., 2015). Since girls are not

interested in the basic premises and rules of computer games, they use a computer only

for homework; therefore, computers are not creative or enjoyable tools for girls

(Sullivan et al., 2003). Boys are likely to spend more time playing with technological

activities, and they thus have more opportunities to increase their self-confidence in

computer science (Nugent et al., 2010; Terlecki & Newcombe, 2005). The gender gap

in the technological field may occur because of this lack of early experience with

computers for girls (Cheryan et al., 2015).

Computer games are effective ways to improve children’s confidence with computers

and also a well-known reason why boys are more familiar with computers than girls.

(Barker &Aspray, 2006). Computer games are usually developed for, purchased by, and

used by boys and young men, almost excluding girls and women (Barker & Aspray,

2006). Henn (2014) states that “the idea that computers are for boys became a narrative.

It became the story we told ourselves about the computing revolution. It helped define

who geeks were, and it created techie culture” (paragraph 7).

Furthermore, girls have a stereotype that boys are better at robotics and programming

(Master et al., 2017). Girls with less motivation than boys for computing do not have

enough experience to create interest and self-efficacy in technology (Barker & Aspray,

2006; Martin & Dinella, 2002). Since personal computers target men and boys, families

7

tend to buy computers for boys rather than for girls (ComputerScience, n.d.). Boys are

more interested and confident in technology than girls. Many studies have talked about

women’s lower self-efficacy in mathematics, engineering, and computers, which are

known as stereotypically male-dominated subjects (Sullivan et al., 2015). Bandura

(1994) defines self-efficacy as “people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce

designated levels of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their

lives” (p. 71). Low self-efficacy in these subjects has created a considerable gap

between men and women in the field of computer science (Sullivan et al., 2015).

In addition to disinterest in computers, fears about computing culture also affect the

lack of young women in the computer science field (Kelleher et al., 2007). According

to Cheryan et al. (2015), “Students’ stereotypes about the culture of these fields—

including the kind of people, the work involved, and the values of the field—steer girls

away from choosing to enter them. Computer science and engineering are stereotyped

in modern American culture as male-oriented fields that involve social isolation, an

intense focus on machinery, and inborn brilliance” (paragraph 1).

Furthermore, Spertus (1991) claims that “factors include the different ways in which

boys and girls are raised, the stereotypes of female engineers, subtle biases that female

face, problems resulting from working in predominantly male environments, and sexual

biases in language” (p. 1). Furthermore, researchers found that the introductory

curriculum for computer science reduces women’s interest in majoring in computer

science (ComputerScience, n.d.).

Margolis and Fisher’s (2003) research considers several reasons for lower enrollments

of young women in computer science. Most computer science courses have only a few

female students, so they are not sufficiently friendly environments for young women.

Courses are too abstract, discussing language details and syntax rather than applications.

Young women think computer science has a “geeky” and boring culture; thus, they do

not want to be included in that image or to be with those types of people. They also

have a stereotype that computing is a male-dominated activity, and even their

counselors or parents do not encourage them to study computer science. Furthermore,

they fear getting low grades and knowing less than others, and some young men

encourage this fear.

8

2.2 Theory Research into programming education deals with various theories, such as those

considering computational thinking, constructionism, and tangible objects. This

research adapts these theories.

2.2.1 Computational Thinking

According to Wing (2006), computational thinking concerns “solving problems,

designing systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on the concepts

fundamental to computer science. Computational thinking includes a range of

mental tools that reflect the breadth of the field of computer science” (p. 33).

Not only computer scientists but everyone should have computational thinking as

a foundational ability (Wing, 2006). Children’s analytical skills in reading, writing,

and arithmetic can be developed by computational thinking (Wing, 2006).

Computational thinking uses abstraction and decomposition to design complicated

tasks or systems (Wing, 2006). Computational thinking is a form of analytical,

mathematical, engineering, and scientific thought that approaches solving problems;

designing and evaluating complex systems; and understanding computability,

intelligence, human behavior, and the mind (Wing, 2008).

Wing (2006) argues that computational thinking is “conceptualizing; fundamental;

a way that humans think; complements and combines mathematical and

engineering thinking; ideas, not artifacts; for everyone, everywhere” (p. 35).

Conceptualizing means thinking abstractly at multiple levels and it is more than

programming alone. The characteristic of fundamental skill is something that

everyone should know in this modernized society (Wing, 2006). Computational

thinking is not about humans thinking like computers, but humans using computers

as equipment to solve problems. Computational thinking is not about software or

hardware artifacts; it is more about solving and approaching problems,

communicating, interacting with others, and handling our daily lives. Tools can be

used for reinforcement of computational thinking concepts, since tools make

abstractions more concrete and dynamic (Wing, 2006). Furthermore, children today

are familiar with the process of using tools and are confident in exploring and

9

playing with them (Wing, 2006). Thus, researchers can use these trends since

children become accustomed to using computational instruments at home and

school.

The research goal is to create methods to support not only programming but also

computational thinking. Computational thinking takes precedence over

programming; since computational thinking provides analytical skills to solve and

approach problems, computational thinking is a critical factor.

2.2.2 Constructionism

Constructionism assumes that children learn more easily when they are required to

make meaningful creations (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2019). According to

constructionism, learners are not passive receivers but dynamic finders, who

discover knowledge (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2019). In addition, learning

effectiveness can be attained by building artifacts, and computational culture uses

digital media and computer-based technologies to support the construction of

artifacts (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2019; Kafai & Resnick, 2012).

Papert (1980) insists that “the vital aspect of constructionism is the requirement of

‘objects-to-think-with’—objects in which there is an intersection of cultural

presence, embedded knowledge and the possibility for personal identification” (p.

11). In a constructionist environment, children can build their knowledge based on

their previous experiences (Papert, 1980). Papavlasopoulou et al. (2019) claim that

“constructionism’s basic idea is that the most effective learning experiences are

those that include active creation, socially meaningful artifacts, interaction with

others, and the use of elements that support one’s learning and thinking” (p. 416).

Constructionism is selected as the background theory for this research. Children

learn something easily by building their creations. This theory is the foundation for

the workshop activities in the research. Based on the concepts of constructionism,

children make paper toys and write songs with a programming robot during the

workshop.

10

2.2.3 Tangible Artifacts

There are several types of research into using tangible user interfaces to improve

learning effectiveness (Tada & Tanaka, 2015). Price (2013) stated that “tangibles

generally refer to interfaces where computational power is embedded in everyday

artifacts or customized objects, which can be wirelessly networked or linked to

various forms of digital representation” (p. 2).

Children can code more directly and less abstractly with tangible programming

than pictures (Wang et al., 2014). Thus, tangible programming makes children

more interested in programming (Wang et al., 2014). Tangible programming has

been created for novice programmers to provide an easier learning process.

Participants improve their skills when they design tasks with physical artifacts,

such as using pen and paper or other tangible materials. These physical artifacts

allow participants to take action immediately (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2019).

Tangible interaction can help children become more actively involved and self-

motivated in educational activities (Horn et al., 2009). Tangible interfaces allow

users to create directly based on current knowledge and real-world experience

(Horn et al., 2009). The prototype idea for this project is based on the theory of

tangible objects that help to explain abstract concepts more concretely.

2.3 Related research Related studies concern programming education for young women and children.

These related studies are based on theories such as computational thinking,

constructionism, and tangible artifacts. Each study uses different workshops and

tools, but their goal is the same: increasing participants’ interest in programming.

These related studies provide insights and guidelines for how the project should

proceed and how it should approach solutions. These associated studies are

categorized according to four subjects: tools, gender, approach, and organization.

These four factors are the critical criteria that were applied when choosing related

research.

11

2.3.1 Learning Tools

The first study used programming robots to increase children’s STEM (science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics) motivation. Children were assigned to

several groups, and each group performed different activities. The results showed

that the robot treatment group had higher technological motivation than other

groups (Master et al., 2017). The robot treatment group played with a pet robot and

programmed a robot using a smartphone. This research shows that playing with

robots can be more practical than other activities. This research was chosen

because it compares robots with other activities. This comparison makes it clear

that using robots is more effective than other methods. This finding needs to be

considered for the project; the results provide a guideline for the research question.

Another study used a Thymio II, which is a miniature robot designed for education.

In the workshop, children were given the opportunity to look at some functions of

the robot, such as light emitting diode (LED), distance sensors, and motors. This

study argued that children joined this workshop not only for fun but also to learn

something, and the Thymio II fit their needs, which span fun and seriousness

(Magnenat et al., 2012). However, although children were able to learn concepts

such as use of the sensor or the loading of a program into the robot, theoretical

concepts were difficult to understand in an hour-long tutorial (Magnenat et al.,

2012). This research provides two notable conclusions: children are willing to learn,

and a programming robot is suitable for that purpose; and a robot was not sufficient

to facilitate the comprehension of theoretical concepts. Based on these results, the

current project should consider what aspects could improve the comprehension of

theoretical concepts.

The third study considered children’s programming learning experience while

using a block-based programming language, Scratch, and building games. This

research was based on constructionism and design-based research. The study

included two coding workshop sessions. The first session concerned interacting

with robots. Children filled in worksheets with some questions about robots and

controlled robots by coding simple loops (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2019). The

second session involved making games using Scratch. This study was reviewed

12

because it uses the same tools, theory, and methods as the present study. Thus, the

project can be compared and can provide insights into what may be lacking in the

present project.

2.3.2 Gender

In this section, studies that focus on young women are reviewed. These studies

were selected because they have the same target group: young women in secondary

schools. The first study used a workshop that introduced computer programming

by using Storytelling Alice, a programming environment used to create 3D

animated stories by providing a set of high-level animations, 3D characters and

scenery, and a tutorial with story-based examples (Kelleher et al., 2007). In this

workshop, participants could build virtual worlds while writing down their

programs. This workshop gave them positive thoughts about interactive graphics

and storytelling elements (Hu, 2008). The authors concluded that storytelling made

syntax more understandable for participants. This result suggested an idea for the

prototype: focusing on the effect of animated stories and interactive graphics could

be one way to approach the prototype for young women.

The second study concerned designing an after-school computing program for

young women in secondary schools. Students researched daily usage of technology

and areas connected with technology, such as medicine and fashion (Sullivan et al.,

2015). They wrote some instructions for their peers to follow and they also had a

session using Scratch programming to make animations and interactive computer

games. This study used post questionnaires, and the results showed some positive

outcomes concerning self-efficacy in computers and careers in computer science

(Sullivan et al., 2015). In this after-school program, students were assigned several

activities, such as researching relevant areas with technology or writing

instructions for peers. These various types of activities provide ideas of what can

be achieved during the current study’s workshops.

2.3.3 Approach

The last study had a unique approach to tools. This study was reviewed because the

approach to solutions can provide insights for the current project. It used a LilyPad

13

Arduino, which is a sewable microcomputer that can be used to learn programming

and engineering concepts (Kafai, Fields, & Searle, 2014). This research used the

concept of electronic textiles that combine “high masculine technologies of

engineering and computing with arguably low feminine technologies of crafting

and sewing” (Kafai, Fields, & Searle, 2014, p. 538).

Electronic textiles help to make abstract aspects of programming more transparent

while emphasizing the significance of aesthetics in learning (Kafai, Fields, &

Searle, 2014). In the workshop, students started by sketching their projects and

drawing circuit schematics. Next, they sewed and crafted with textile materials and

programming the Lilypad Arduino (Kafai, Fields, & Searle, 2014). This electronic

textile broke down students’ prejudices against what can be made and the types of

people who can work in the field of technology (Kafai, Fields, & Searle, 2014).

This study proved that different materials and techniques can combine and create

synergy. This research gives an insight into how to approach a diverse group

without bias. This gender-neutral point of view should be reflected in the current

project, so that is does not become stereotypical in gender.

2.3.4 Organizations

Several organizations teach programming, and some of them are even focused on

women. These organizations try to minimize the gender gap in the computer

science and technology industry while providing free programming workshops. It

was useful to see what activities have been used to help women to get involved in

the technology industry through these organizations.

The first organization was Girls Who Code, a non-profit organization that aims to

increase the number of women in the computer science field. It offers a free seven-

week-long introductory computer science program for girls in grades 10–11 (Girls

Who Code, n.d.). The current study considered this organization because it has the

same target group. They usually provide art, storytelling, robotics, video games,

websites, apps that are related to computer science, guest speakers, workshops, and

field trips.

14

The other organization was Pink Programming, a volunteer-led organization in

Sweden that offers free programming workshops for women (Pink Programming,

n.d.). Through this organization, women who are interested in programming can

learn how to code or build on existing skills. This organization was chosen because

the researcher has experience with their workshops. The method of teaching was

similar to copying and pasting from the teacher’s code; the result was creative, but

the process was not. Based on this workshop experience, this project is more

focused on the learning process rather than solely on outputs.

2.4 Summary Although there are several beneficial aspects to computer science, women are reluctant

to get involved in this area. The reason is that they have low self-confidence,

motivation, and interest in this field (Master et al., 2017; Sullivan et al., 2015).

Therefore, this research aimed to find ways to solve this problem by designing learning

activities to support young women’s interest in computer programming and

computational thinking. Several theories and related studies provided an opportunity

to explore how the learning activities should be designed and developed for young

women.

Theories of computational thinking and tangible artifacts demonstrated that using

physical objects helps to improve learning and interest in programming and

computational thinking. Furthermore, creating personal and meaningful artifacts can

support learning abilities, according to constructionism. These findings are reflected

in this project.

In one of the related studies, a robot was used as an educational tool for programming.

The results proved that tangible objects were useful tools for learning. However, the

researchers used end-products, which were already made. As their tools were produced

by somebody else, their method departs from constructionism, which is learning

something easily by making meaningful artifacts (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2019). To

fill this gap based on the theories previously discussed, this project plans to encourage

participants to create their own significant objects.

15

This study reviewed the related research to define what process and activities should

be done with young women. The findings from the related studies provided an idea to

frame the area of learning activities. The related studies do not use any stereotypical

tools or processes and they try to offer various activities and opportunities to increase

young women’s interest in programming and computational thinking. This project

should also adopt this perspective. There may be certain areas that attract more females

than males, but this research focuses on young women only as a target group.

16

3 Method This chapter describes design strategies, design process, and design methods. Design

strategies are theoretical foundations and provide guidelines. The design process is

based on double diamond design, and it is a background for the research procedure.

Future technology workshop, affinity mapping, thematic analysis, and interviews are

used for design methods to collect data. These methods elicited design requirements

from results. Figure 1 provides a condensed visual depiction of the structure of

strategies and a process that is used for this research.

Figure 1. Description of the structure of the design strategies and a design process.

3.1 Design Strategy 3.1.1. Participatory Design

In participatory design, researchers and users interact closely via interviews,

workshops, prototyping, focus groups, and other techniques, and users create the

project to demonstrate their values and goals (Spinuzzi, 2016). Participatory design

emphasizes participants’ involvement in design approaches. This study selected

participatory design because participants’ commitment is crucial for this project.

The project includes interviews and workshops with non-computer-science college

students, experts in a computer science field, and children. Their role had a

17

significant impact on the design process. By applying participatory design, this

study can acquire knowledge about participants’ work and experiences. The other

reason for choosing participatory design is its feature of iterative experiments to

develop a design. Without iterative reflection and design, participants would not be

able to give their opinions critically or answers efficiently.

Participatory design is a research methodology often used in user-centered design,

human-computer interaction, computer-supported cooperative work, and other

related areas. Participatory design involves users’ design approaches, such as

producing artifacts, structures, practical knowledge, and work organizations

(Spinuzzi, 2016). These methods ensure that participants’ interpretations are

included in the research as a vital part of the process, not only to understand

empirical activity, but also to envision, and shape positively for users (Spinuzzi,

2016). The result of participatory design usually includes designed artifacts and

work arrangements or environments (Spinuzzi, 2016).

There are three primary stages in participatory design: the initial exploration of the

work, the discovery processes, and the creation of a prototype. Initial exploration

work involves meeting designers and users; including technologies; and

developing teamwork, workflow, work procedures, and routines (Spinuzzi, 2016).

In the discovery processes, designers and users apply a variety of techniques and

interact closely to comprehend work organization and imagine the future

workplace (Spinuzzi, 2016). This stage can include several methods, such as role-

playing or organizational games, future workshops, workflow models,

interpretation sessions, storyboarding, and organizational toolkits (Spinuzzi, 2016).

The prototyping stage involves iterative co-exploration by designers and users to

create artifacts that are suitable for the conclusion of the discovery process stage

(Spinuzzi, 2016).

3.1.2. Design-Based Research

Design-based research is a methodology for researching and designing technology-

enhanced learning environments, which are learning, and instructional systems

based on technology (Wang & Hannafin, 2005). Design-based research supports

18

innovative environments and creates new design possibilities. This method was

applied because this project aimed to design learning activities for computer

programming and computer science. By applying design-based research, this

project was able to use a combination of various approaches to accumulate data

from many sources.

Design-based research demonstrates how educational innovations work in real life

and why and when they work (DBRC, 2003). It is a combination of empirical

educational research and the theory-driven design of learning environments

(DBRC, 2003). Design-based research designs and explores every area of designed

innovations, including artifacts, activity structures, institutions, and curricula

(DBRC, 2003). Design-based research is an iterative cycle of design; consecutive

iterative cycles of design provide accumulated data and implementation

experiences, and theories arise based on these data and experiences. This study

tried to identify the target group’s needs and determine solutions by working with

people. This study aimed to design and create something new step by step through

the iterative process.

Design-based research includes various methods, such as “survey, expert review,

evaluation, case study, interview, inquiry methods, and comparative analysis”

(Wang & Hannafin, 2005, p. 10). Quantitative and qualitative methods are used by

researchers to investigate different design aspects, to emphasize related problems

and needs, and to document reasons and methods of adjustment (Collins et al.,

2004).

3.1.3. The Role of Children in the Design Process

It can be challenging to involve children in the design process, but it is vital to

consider the effects of children as new technology learners. That is why this project

chose this method. Children can be users or testers, and researchers can observe

them playing with technologies. Children can help researchers to understand the

effects of current technologies to develop future educational environments; their

answers can be used for technology development.

19

In the technology design process, a child can be a user, tester, informant, and design

partner, and each role can build and affect the technology-design process (Druin,

2002). With the child as a user, researchers can observe, take videos, or test the

child’s abilities when using technology. A tester tests technological prototypes that

researchers have not presented to the industry yet. Druin (2002) stated regarding

the role of tester “children’s relationship to adults can be through indirect

observation or feedback; their relationship to technology can be in using prototypes;

and the goals for inquiry may range from wanting to better understand usability

and design issues, to exploring the educational impact of technology, to using

technology as a tool for inquiry about a larger educational issue” (p. 5). As an

informant, a child can inform the design process by observing current technologies

or making low-technology prototypes to provide ideas on design sketches. In the

role of design partner, a child is a stakeholder contributing to the process (Druin,

2002).

3.2 Design Process Double diamond design is applied to the design process to determine problems and

solutions. The double diamond design diagram has four stages: discover, define,

develop, and deliver (Design Council, n.d.). The prototype is developed and

improved by going through each phase of the double diamond diagram. This method

was chosen for this study because it has four clear stages. This project required a

clear structure for the design process. By diverging and converging with each phase,

this method can help to clarify the design process and answer the research question.

In the “discover” phase, observations of other organizations were made, and

interviews were conducted with non-computer-science college students and

computer science experts to determine current problems. These interviews were also

intended to investigate the target group’s needs. In the “define” stage, positive or

negative perspectives about programming education were elicited and defined as the

foundations for solutions. In the “develop” phase, findings from the “define” stage

were improved to create a prototype. For the last stage, which is the “deliver” phase,

20

the final prototype was tested and evaluated.

Figure 2. The modified double diamond model adjusted for software products and services.

(Week 4, 2017)

Design Council established the double diamond diagram to explain the design process

in a simple, graphical way. Figure 2 provides a brief visual depiction of each stage.

According to the Design Council (n.d.), “the double diamond diagram maps the

divergent and convergent stages of the design process, showing the different modes

of thinking that designers use” (p. 6).

A “discover” stage consists of market research, user research, managing information,

and design research groups. It is a stage that initiates ideas or inspiration to discover

the target market’s needs and to determine current problems (Design Council, n.d.).

The “define” stage transforms needs into business objectives, including project

development, project management, and project sign-off. Based on findings from the

“discover” phase, problems are defined and changed into solutions (Design Council,

n.d.). Design Council (n.d.) states that in the “develop” phase, “design-led solutions

are developed, iterated, and tested within the company. Multi-disciplinary working,

visual management, development methods, and testing are key activities and

objectives” (pp. 19–20). The “deliver” stage includes final testing, approval, launch

of products or services, evaluations, and feedbacks. “Deliver” is the final stage of the

process. This stage is for discovering any limitations before manufacturing and for

damage testing (Design Council, n.d.).

21

This project was divided into two phases. In the first phase, “discover and define”, it

included pre-interviews, workshops, post-interviews, discussion, and analysis of the

results. In the next phase, the “develop and deliver” phase, the prototype was

developed, evaluated, and refined iteratively.

Discover and Define

The “discover and define” phase was an exploration of users’ needs through

interviews and workshops. This phase started with the pre-interviews with non-

computer-science college students, female experts in computer science, and children.

The workshop included two activities: interaction with a programming robot and

making toys. Participants did some programming exercises using a programming

robot, mBot: they wrote songs, turned on different colors of LED lights, and made

several movements. The second activity was making toys. After these two activities,

participants took part in a post-interview session or discussion.

Develop and Deliver

The “develop and deliver” phase encompassed developing the prototype. In the

develop and deliver phase, the prototype was developed, tested, and refined based on

the results from the interviews, workshops, and observations. This process of

improving the prototype was iterative. Figure 3 provides a visual depiction of the

design process.

Figure 3. A description of the design process adapted from double diamond design. (Design

Council, n.d.)

22

3.3 Design Method This research used several methods throughout the design process. Interviews and

workshops are used to collect data. Affinity mapping and thematic analysis are selected

to elicit keywords from interviews and workshop results.

3.3.1. Affinity Mapping and Thematic Analysis

To analyze the interviews and workshops, affinity mapping and thematic analysis

were used. These methods were used to identify keywords for the design requirements.

Affinity mapping and thematic analysis were chosen for this research because they

are effective methods for analyzing qualitative data. Thematic analysis was used to

code the interviews, workshops, and observations; affinity mapping was used to sort

the codes. These procedures identified several keywords, which are essential factors

in the design requirements for the prototype.

Affinity mapping is a method that organizes a large amount of data into relevant

groups (Dam & Teo, n.d.). It analyzes groups to gain insights from user research

(Naylor, 2019). Through affinity mapping, researchers can find patterns and themes

by grouping data and determining connections between groups (Naylor, 2019).

Affinity mapping helps to connect individual factors and define problems to develop

solutions (Dam & Teo, n.d.). Affinity mapping has four steps: recording all notes,

looking for connecting patterns, making a group for each theme, and creating a name

for each theme (Naylor, 2019).

Thematic analysis identifies repeated subjects, ideas, and patterns of meaning

(Caulfield, 2019). It is commonly used for qualitative data, such as interview

transcripts, and has a six-step process: “familiarization, coding, generating themes,

reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing up” (Caulfield, 2019,

paragraph 2). Familiarization requires becoming familiar with the data by transcribing,

reading, or taking notes from interviews (Caulfield, 2019). Coding is highlighting

phrases and summarizing them with shorthand labels (Caulfield, 2019). For example,

one of the interviewees said that she was afraid of programming: this sentence could

be coded as “worry.” Generating themes requires determining patterns among codes

and combining them into themes (Caulfield, 2019). These methods helped this study

23

to consider interviews and workshops thoroughly. Table 1 provides an example of

thematic analysis.

Interview Notes Codes

She said the robot helped her to

understand programming more easily. That

is because the perception of programming

was presented in a practical way. She

argued that programming could sound

scary somehow. There is anxiety connected

with the word.

• Positive perspective of tangible objects

• Fear

Table 1. A thematic analysis from the non-computer-science students’ interviews.

3.3.2. Interviews

Interviews are the most common methods to collect qualitative data (Dörnyei, 2007).

Researchers can investigate people’s opinions thoroughly since interviews are reliable

methods to elicit narrative data (Kvale, 1996). Interviews are useful methods to

construct and negotiate meanings in an ordinary setting (Cohen, 2007). Interviews

enable not only to analyze, and report detailed opinions of interviewees, but also to

make them express their feeling and thoughts (Alshenqeeti, 2014).

The interviewees were non-computer-science college students, female experts in the

computer science (CS) field, and children who have not had any programming

education. It was a one-to-one, semi-structured interview, including several open-

ended questions. There were two interview sessions: the pre-interview and the post-

interview. The aim of the interviews was to understand each group’s perspective on

programming and any changes in the participants’ perceptions and to obtain feedback

on the workshop. This research wrote down interviews on a computer. The researcher

jot down interviewees’ answers and key points. This research did not record interviews,

because of confidentiality of the details or fear of repercussions and intimacy.

Interview answers were used as data to determine the design requirements for

developing the prototype.

24

3.3.3. Future Technology Workshop (FTW)

The future technology workshop method was adopted because it aims to design and

build models for future technologies and it offers several workshop sessions. Future

technology workshop tries to discover solutions for future technology by investigating

the difference between present and future technology. It has three stages:

brainstorming, fantasy, and implementation. These stages are another reason why this

method was chosen. Each stage was applied to the structure of this project’s

workshops.

The first phase is a brainstorming stage, which is called the critique phase. It is a stage

for uncovering current problems connected with the design task. For this project, this

stage encompassed the pre-interview sessions. The second is the fantasy phase, in

which participants picture a future based on problems identified in the critique stage

(Vavoula & Sharples, 2007). In this project’s workshop, this stage involved making

toys. Participants imagined and created their own toys, whatever they wanted to make.

The last phase is the implementation phase. In this phase, there is a discussion about

the results of the critical and fantasy phases and feasible action plans are developed

(Vavoula & Sharples, 2007). This stage embodied the discussion sessions for this

project. In the discussion session, participants shared their opinions about what causes

young women to become interested in programming.

The workshop consisted of programming exercises, paper prototypes, and a discussion.

Participants were divided into two teams: the programming team, and the design team.

Each team had their own mission. After finishing the task, they switched team so that

every participant could experience all the activities. The main concept of the

programming exercise was playing with a robot. The purpose of the paper prototype

session was making toys. Finally, there was a discussion about what motivates young

women to become interested in programming. Participants could talk about their

opinions freely. The researcher observed workshops and took notes about what

participants did during the programming exercises or paper craft sessions.

Brainstorming Stage

Participants used brainstorming to generate ideas about learning programming based

25

on their experiences of the programming session. People can form creative ideas

through brainstorming (Vavoula & Sharples, 2007). During the brainstorming, there

were some questions about previous thoughts concerning programming and personal

interest in programming. There were also open-ended questions that helped

participants to express themselves regarding programming. With the answers from the

open-ended questions, it was possible to analyze what aspects participants had

enjoyed, found interesting, learned, and interpret their perspectives into solutions.

Fantasy Stage (Envisioning)

In the fantasy stage, participants could make their low-technology prototypes. In this

stage, participants were intended to envision future technology and consider how it

supported their lives (Vavoula & Sharples, 2007). The role-play was intended to bring

the future into the present. Participants in this project role-played with the prototypes

while imagining that the prototypes were already existing future technologies to help

to learn programming. This role-play helped participants to engage in future activities

and make their ideas tangible.

Implementation Stage (Discussion)

After making their own toys (the paper prototypes) and the fantasy stage, the

participants took part in a discussion session. In this session, participants discussed a

topic based on their experience related to their needs and prior sessions (Vavoula &

Sharples, 2007). Through a group discussion, it is possible to “reflect and gain insights

into what activities in the far future might be like in relation to the design task at hand”

(Vavoula & Sharples, 2007, p. 18).

26

4 Design Process This research starts with observations of organizations that teach programming to

children. After the observation, this research had interviews and workshops with

college students individually. The next step was interviews with experts. The

following step was also with college students and included craft sessions. Children

were the last participants for this research. Figure 4 provides a visual depiction of a

research sequence.

Figure 4. The sequence of a research.

4.1 Interview Non-computer-science female college students

This interviewee group was female college students who had studied neither computer

science nor engineering. The research chose this interviewee group to figure out the

reason why they did not study in computer science. It is to see what factors made them

not get interested in programming. The pre-interview included nine questions and

asked about participants’ previous experiences, and their current and future interest in

programming. The post-interview was conducted after the programming exercises and

papercraft session. The post-interview included five questions about the participants’

opinions after the workshop. Some of the questions were the same as the pre-interview

questions to discover whether participants’ perspectives had changed after the

workshop. The last question was intended to start a discussion.

Experts in the Technology Field

The experts’ group was women who were professionals in the technology field or

female students who were studying or had studied computer science. This interviewee

group is selected to elicit the necessary skills for studying computer science and see

what made them want to get involved in this field. The interview with experts aimed

Organization Observations

Interviews (Experts)

Interviews Workshops (Children)

Interviews Workshops (Students)

Interviews Workshops (Students)

27

to uncover inspiration, to elicit ideas for solutions, and to discover what aspects

motivated them to contribute to the technology field. The interview had fifteen

questions about what, when, and how they became motivated to participate in this

field. Their experiences in computer science classes or projects were also discussed.

Children

The last group was young women between nine and fifteen years old. This research

decided to interview children since they were the closest to the target group. By

interviewing this target group, their needs could be discovered. This interview was

more like a natural conversation rather than a formal interview since the interviewees

were children. This interview used question cards: every question was written down

on paper to help the children to understand the questions better. Most of the interview

questions were the same as the questions for the non-computer-science female college

students. Several questions about their friends were added to understand what young

women of this age enjoy doing, their favorite toys and hobbies to find out interviewees’

general interests apart from programming. Post-interview questions included

participants’ opinions about the workshop and whether tangible objects were helpful

in understanding programming. Table 2 provides what researches have done with each

group.

Table 2. Number of interviewees and number of times the works were conducted.

Interview (Number of people)

Workshop (Number of times)

Organization observations

(Number of times)

Non-CS students 5 4

(3 individuals + 1)

Experts in CS 6

Children 3 1

Total 14 5 2

28

4.2 Workshops

Programming Exercise

The programming exercise used an mBot, 1 and participants programmed using

mBlock,2 a programming software using Scratch.3 Participants could create music,

turn LED lights on, and make the mBot move forward and backward. Besides these

basic actions, they could code any activities that they wanted to try with mBot, for

example, line followers or obstacle sensing.

Figure 5. The programming exercises.

Making toys

The design team’s activity was to produce toys using paper prototypes. The main

concept of this session imagined that it was possible to create any toy desired. For this

session, a variety of craft tools were prepared: colored paper, colored pencils, stickers,

colored threads, scissors, and glue. Participants could make anything that they wished:

any shapes, colors, animals, or cars. Participants could decorate the mBot to develop

it in any way that they wanted. Participants took part in a role-play imagining that

their toys already existed.

1 mBot [website], https://www.makeblock.com/mbot, (accessed 1 April 2020). 2 mBlock [website], https://www.mblock.cc/en-us/, (accessed 1 April 2020). 3 Scratch [website], https://scratch.mit.edu/, (accessed 1 April 2020).

29

Figure 6. Making toys.

Discussion

In the discussion session, the question “what motivates young women to become

interested in computer programming and computer science?” was discussed.

Participants were encouraged to express their opinions and they could draw a mind

map for brainstorming. The aim of this session was to share everyone’s opinion:

participants could talk about challenges as well as solutions.

Tools

During the workshop, participants played with an mBot. The mBot is a programming

robot for children to learn visual programming, electronics, and robotics. It uses the

programming software mBlock, a drag-and-drop programming language based on

Scratch (Makeblock, 2013). Scratch is a block-based programming language, which

is a programming language where instructions are mainly represented as blocks.

Children can use to make their own interactive stories, games, and animations (Scratch,

n.d.). By coding in Scratch, children can express their thoughts and see the results of

their decisions (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2019). Scratch is a visual programming tool

and it is less cognitively challenging for computational practices, so it is suitable for

problem-solving and creative thinking (Papavlasopoulou et al., 2019).

Papavlasopoulou et al. (2019) argued that “the children had the opportunity to plan,

problem-solve, code, debug, collaborate, communicate, and reflect on their coding

experience using Scratch” (p. 422).

30

The reason for using a robot was based on theories that robots are an effective tool for

developing educational performance. There are many types of research concerning

using robots as an educational tool (for example, Kumar and Meedan, 1998; Beer et

al., 1999; Nostrand, 2000; Weinberg et al., 2001). Some reports show that robotics

projects help to develop performance in mathematics, physics, and engineering

(Nagchaudhuri et al., 2002). Children are attracted by robots because there of the

increasing depictions of robotics in television programs, magazines, websites, robot

toys, and construction sets (Petre & Price, 2004).

Petre and Price (2004) claim that “in robotics, students’ learning is concrete,

associated with phenomena they create, observe and interact with, and so the

abstractions they derive are grounded and relevant. Problems are open-ended,

permitting many solutions and many approaches. Hence, robotics affords

opportunities for learning problem-solving techniques and processes, integrates

several domains, exposes realistic constraints and issues, and leaves room for

creativity” (p. 148).

Robotics is multi-disciplinary and includes many technical topics, such as algebra,

electronics, and programming, so it can make a particular educational impact (Johnson,

2002). Robots have characteristics such as concreteness, complexity, and a connection

to deep human needs that make robots a motivating technology. Furthermore, children

can play with robots without adult intrusion and use robots to extend their knowledge

to solve problems. Thus, robots have robust pedagogic value (Petre & Price, 2004).

4.3 Description of Workshop The First Workshop (Individual)

The participants were women college students who were not studying computer

science. The participants’ goal was to turn on LED lights and play music with an mBot.

The workshop’s goal was to understand the perceptions of women college students

who were unfamiliar with programming and to discuss the design of a better

environment for programming from women’s perspectives. This workshop was also

intended to discover whether tangible objects provide better comprehension of

programming or not.

31

The Second Workshop (Team)

The second workshop’s participants were also female non-computer-science college

students. They worked as a team. Workshop activities were similar to the first

workshop and included two interviews and one programming exercise. Paper

prototypes (creating toys) and discussion sessions were added from the second

workshop. Participants drew anything that they wanted to make as their toys. Next,

they discussed ways of supporting young women’s interest in the computer science

field.

The Third Workshop (Children)

The third workshop’s participants were young women from nine to fifteen years old.

The workshop session consisted of interviews, programming workshops, paper

prototypes, and a discussion. There were more craft materials for the third workshop

than for the second since the target group was children.

32

5 Results In this chapter, the information and data collected are analyzed and synthesized to

determine design requirements for the prototype.

5.1 Interview Results There was a total of thirteen participants for the interviews. Five interviewees were

non-computer-science female college students, six interviewees were female experts

in computer science and three were young women aged between nine and fifteen years

old who had no previous knowledge of programming.

All the interview results were analyzed and synthesized to develop design

requirements for the prototype. By using affinity mapping and thematic analysis, this

research identified several keywords for the problems and solutions. It was vital to

collect information and data to discover the problem and devise solutions; the

collected data provided direction to guide the search for an answer.

5.1.1. Analysis and Synthesis of Interviews

1. The reason why non-computer-science female college students are not

interested in computer science and programming

There were several answers to this question. One was fear and anxiety toward

programming and computer science. These subjects sounded difficult and

reminded the students of mathematics. Most of them did not like mathematics,

or they were not good at mathematics. They thought people who study this field

are smart and superior at mathematics, unlike themselves. They had low

confidence in their academic abilities in general.

Programming could sound scared somehow. Programming is just

the word that people do not know, but there is anxiety behind the

word. She thought she was not that smart enough to study

programming. She is a bit scared of learning programming since

she does not know much about it (Interview notes, 2020)

33

The second reason was that they had not had opportunities to experience

programming. None of their schools provided proper computer science and

programming classes; thus, they had no opportunities to learn it. It was

impossible to say whether they liked programming or not because they had no

idea what programming even looks like or how it works.

From her elementary school to high school, there were any classes

about programming. Her middle school had a computer class, but

it was about Microsoft offices. She does not have any

programming experiences for her entire life. She had never gotten

any programming educations (Interview notes, 2020).

The third reason was that they did not have a willingness to commit their time

to programming. They did not have time for it, or they had never thought about

it. They did not want to spend extra time on programming as they already have

strong interests in their major fields, such as politics or social science. Computer

science and programming were not attractive enough to cause them to change

their interests. However, some interviewees were willing to learn programming

if it was related to their interest fields.

She just never felt that interested in programming. She did not

have a passion for investing her time for it. If someone were

interested in it, they had to do extra-curriculum. It was something

that you have to commit your own extra time (Interview notes,

2020).

2. The reason why women experts in the technology field like computer science

and programming

The majority of answers related to creativity and outcomes. The interviewees

said that programming is a way of making something new; people can create

something that they want to use. In addition, programming shows precise results.

It provides visible outcomes so that people can see their effort. Furthermore,

34

they liked the way of thinking in computer science and programming: it is not

merely memorizing something, but more about thinking logically. As well as

logical thinking, they also enjoyed solving problems: it can be a struggle, but it

is good to feel accomplished after determining a brilliant solution.

The reason why she gets interested in programming is its

creativeness and precise results. She likes programming because

it is a way of solving problems. Furthermore, she said

programming made people be creative and draw smart solutions.

She likes the creativity of programming and problem-solving

(Interview notes, 2020).

The last reason did not concern programming itself but the benefits of being in

this field. There are many job opportunities for those with computer science

degrees. There is a high demand for programmers, and insufficient supply. As

the introduction to this thesis argued, there is a gender gap in the computer

science field, so many companies are trying to hire female programmers. Thus,

once a woman has studied in this field, it is much easier for her to find a job than

it is for a man.

3. Necessary skills to be successful in computer science and programming

The interviewees talked about several different kinds of skills, such as logical

thinking, mathematics, creativity, and a structured mindset for problem-solving.

However, most of them argued that the most crucial ability was motivation.

Motivation can make a significant difference between people who have it and

those who do not have it.

For the skills to be successful in programming, she emphasized

motivations rather than any skills. She said people do not need

skills for programming, but they should have motivations for it.

She also claimed that it is good to have logical thinking and

structured mindset (Interview notes, 2020).

35

4. Suggestions for supporting young women to become interested in computer

science and programming.

The interviewees from the non-computer-science student group said that it

would be beneficial to have programming classes from a young age. To do this,

schools should make computer science classes mandatory, not optional. In

addition to school courses, campaigns regarding the importance of

programming can help young women to understand why they should study this

field. Tools to teach programming that are easy to use and inexpensive could

also be helpful. One interesting point was that most of the students were willing

to learn to program if they needed to do so to accomplish a goal related to their

own field. For example, a student might need to create a website for her social

project or make an application for her thesis project. Thus, it might be valuable

to connect learning activities with personal academic work or interests.

Someday, she wants to work in politics, and social media are

navigations to know what is going on, so she thinks it would be

good to know how to program a website and manage it by

herself (Interview notes, 2020).

The expert group also mentioned providing programming education from an

early age and agreed that it should be obligatory. They also suggested that it is

vital to create environments where young women are not afraid of programming

and feel comfortable with it. Providing good teachers and peers is another

effective way to support young women. The experts also claimed that tangible

objects were useful to help to teach programming. Tangible objects can help to

explain the abstract concepts of programming since they show real outcomes.

This is more practical than simply typing several lines on a computer screen.

Table 3 summarizes key findings from the interviews. More interview notes are

in Appendix B.

She thinks that to make girls get interested in programming, it is

essential to start early and make them feel comfortable with it.

She suggested that start programming from early in schools, not

36

to wait until they come to the university level (Interview notes,

2020).

Table 3. Key findings from the interviews.

5.2 Workshop Results The first workshop was held three times because it was conducted individually with

three non-computer-science female college students: participant 1, participant 2,

and participant 3. The second workshop had two participants, also from the group

of non-computer-science female college students: participant 4 and participant 5.

The third workshop was conducted with three young women aged between nine

and fourteen years old.

5.2.1 Participants

Participant 1

She had a basic tutorial in Scratch and the use of the mBot. The programming

software has a panda figure on the left side of the corner to show programming

results. Before playing with an mBot, she practiced with the panda figure; she

programmed several tasks, such as switching costumes or changing the size of

the panda. Next, she worked on the LED lights of the mBot. She tried to change

several parameters: the LED’s color, the length of time the light was displayed,

and the brightness of the light. When she wrote a program to turn on three

different colors of light, it did not work at first; then she realized that there

were only two LED lights on the mBot. She discovered that there was a code

for controlling the time, such as waiting for specific seconds, and put these

blocks between each LED color. For example, “LED lights up red,” “wait two

Students Experts Suggestions

• Fear and anxiety

• No opportunities

• No time

• Interest fields

• Motivation

• Creativity

• Logical thinking

• Problem-solving

• Clear results

• Early education

• Tangible objects

• Peers

• Teachers

37

seconds,” “LED lights up blue.” There were a few seconds between each color

so that every color could be shown. The next project was making music, and

she even used loops, such as “forever” and “repeat.” In addition, she combined

LED lights and music, so that the mBot was lighting up while singing.

Participant 2

She used only one color for the LED lights in the programming session.

However, she used several different notes and sounds to make music because

music is one of her favorite topics. Unlike participant 1, she did not try various

things; she was focused on programming the music more thoroughly.

Participant 3

In contrast to the other participants, she programmed the robot to move as well

as turning on LED lights and making music. She programmed the mBot to

move forward, backward, and turn left and right. She also discovered how to

turn on the LED lights on each side separately.

Participants 4 and 5

Participants 4 and 5 attended the workshop together. After the introduction of

Scratch, they programmed with a programming robot. The first thing they tried

was turning on LED lights and changing the brightness of the LED lights. They

arranged several different kinds of notes to make a song. They searched music

notes on the internet first, and they programmed the same notes. They were

not confused or afraid of writing notes. They also programmed some actions,

such as moving forward and turning left and right.

After these programming exercises, they had a session making toys. They drew

on paper anything that they would like to create for their toys. They colored

with crayons, made names for the toys, and even wrote several functions for

them. Most of these functions were related to new technology, such as virtual

reality, surveillance cameras, and facial recognition.

38

Child Participants 1, 2 and 3

Participants were recruited through Cool Minds. Cool Minds put a post

advertising this workshop on Facebook, and four participants signed up for the

workshop. However, on the day of the workshop, no one came, so the first

scheduled workshop had to be canceled. Another date was arranged for the

workshop, and three participants joined. For the child participants, informed

parental consent forms were prepared.

There was a short introductory session regarding Scratch and the mBot and

how they worked. After the introductory session, the participants performed

the programming exercise. They turned on LED lights, programmed some

sounds, and made the mBot move. They were fascinated by mBot’s

movements. They tried to program different types of activities. For example,

they programmed the mBot to turn left at 40% power for two seconds, or

programmed mBot’s left wheel to turn at 80% power while the right wheel

turned at 20% power.

The next session was making toys. At the workshop location, at Cool Minds,

there was a variety of materials, such as colorful paper, colored threads, and

stickers. The first participant picked up some colored papers, a pair of scissors,

and glue. The second participant chose white paper and some colored pencils.

The third participant selected paper origamis that were only prepared for this

workshop. The first participant made a three-dimensional heart shape. The

second participant drew a hand-shaped toy. The third participant made a paper

origami animal. Each participant had particular objects that they wanted to

make.

5.2.2 Themes

Through the workshops, it was helpful to see participants’ behaviors toward

computer programming and tangible objects. There were several findings from

the workshops; for instance, the way participants programmed, participants’

different preferences in activities, and participants’ reactions to the

39

programming robot.

Preferences

Everyone had a different preference in the programming exercise. Some of the

participants were more interested in movements, while several participants

liked the LED lights the most. This showed that everyone had their own tastes.

Thus, personalized activities that are based on participants’ preferences might

make help them to enjoy programming more and to concentrate more on

programming.

Positive response to programming robots

Everyone had a positive reaction toward the programming robot. What they

liked the most about it was its outcomes; since the programming robot showed

results immediately, participants could see exactly what they had achieved. For

instance, if participants programmed musical notes, the robot played the song.

The programming robot helped participants to understand what they had

programmed. In interacting with the participants, the robot clearly explained

the abstract concepts of programming. Without this tangible object, the

programming exercise might have presented merely challenging activities that

were difficult to comprehend.

5.3 Analysis and Synthesis of Organization Observations This study gathered observations from two organizations. The first was Coderdojo

Lund, and the second was Cool Minds. These organizations provide technology

education for children. Both provide programming workshops for young women

only. This study made observations of the organizations’ activities and participants.

Through these observations, two main keywords were found: “peers,” and

“teachers.” In the case of Coderdojo Lund, there were more than ten participants

but only two mentors were helping them. Thus, some participants were asking and

teaching each other. However, this peer teaching seemed to work well. Participant

A taught participant B how to make a ping pong game. Participant B also taught

participant C how to create stories using Scratch. It seemed that they were learning

while teaching each other. This finding is a notable point for the research question.

40

5.4 Design Requirements Several design requirements were elicited through the analysis and synthesis of the

results from the interviews, workshops, and organization observations. Key

findings from affinity mapping and thematic analysis became design requirements

and concepts for the prototype. The design requirements were the benchmark for

the prototype and guided its development. All the unified design requirements

described essential elements for solutions and provided integrity to the design of

the prototype. Table 4 briefly describes the design requirements.

Target Group Key Findings Design Requirements

Interviews With Non-CS Students

• Fear, anxiety, difficulty

• No opportunity/time

• Easy to learn

• Easy to access

Interviews With Experts in CS

• Creativity

• Clear results

• Logical thinking

• Problem-solving

• Making new things

• Tangible or visible

• Adapting the way of thinking

Suggestions

• Interest field

• Tangible objects

• Motivation

• Applying various field (e.g., sports, fashion)

• Meaningful objects

Workshop

• Different preferences in

activities

• Positive reactions to a robot

• Personalized activities

• Tangible objects

Organization Observations

• Teachers

• Peers

• Team play

Table 4. Description of the design requirements.

The key findings from the non-computer-science students’ interviews were fear,

anxiety, difficulty, and no opportunities or time to learn programming. These

findings suggested design requirements for an easy way of learning and easy access

to computer science and programming. The experts’ interviews provided key

findings, such as creativity, clear results, logical thinking, and problem-solving.

Based on these keywords, an activity that incorporates creating something new,

using tangible or visible objects, and thinking logically became part of the design

41

requirements.

There were several suggestions from the interviews. For example, it was suggested

that the interest field increases willingness to learn programming, and that tangible

objects and motivation are important factors. Thus, including a variety of different

areas and meaningful objects are also design requirements for the prototype. From

the workshop and observations, the preferences shown for various activities, the

positive reaction to the robot, and the roles of teachers and peers are key findings.

Different choices in various activities elicit personalized actions so that users can

select any exercise that they want to do. Participants’ favorable reaction to the robot

relates to tangible objects again, and team play is also one of the design

requirements based on the keywords “teachers” and “peers.”

42

6 Prototype This chapter describes how the prototype was created and developed. The prototype

followed the design requirements based on the key findings from the interviews,

workshops, and observations. Young women and experts will test this prototype in

future workshops.

6.1 Each Stage of the Prototype Stage 1. D.I.Y. Hobby Kit_v.1.0.

The first concept of the prototype was D.I.Y. Hobby Kit_v.1.0, a hobby kit consisting

of several programming tools. This hobby kit is an empty box in the beginning. The

children complete surveys about their tendencies, and the components of the hobby kit

are decided after analyzing the survey results. This hobby kit is personalized, so every

child has their own unique package. They can share with their friends to see what

others’ kits include. Furthermore, the programming tools can be assembled with each

other so that children can build their own programming tools.

Stage 2. Peer Teaching Platform

This idea was devised after observing that while mentors could help children to solve

problems, participants were also asking each other for help. There are several studies

that discuss learning by teaching peers (Cloward, 1967; Allen, 1976; Cohen, Kulik, &

Kulik, 1982; Goodlad & Hist, 1989). Teaching each other creates improved

experiences and increased learning ability (Duran, 2016). Stock (2019) stated that

“when students teach the content of a lesson, they develop a deeper and longer-lasting

understanding of the material than students who do not teach it” (paragraph 10). Using

this platform, children can code together and share their solutions. They can build

games and stories while teaching each other. This platform gives a role to children, for

instance, as a teacher or as a student. Children can role play on the platform. This

platform includes the functions of chatting, sending files, and posting outputs to share.

43

Stage 3. Paper Puzzles

After considering literature reviews concerning programming tools and workshops,

paper puzzles emerged as a prototype. When children play with puzzles, they have to

determine where each piece fits, and by doing this, they improve the way they solve

problems and think logically (Myers, 2019). Furthermore, block-based programming

languages, such as Scratch, can be easier to connect with puzzles because of their

shapes and logic.

Stage 4. Make a “Living” Toy

This prototype is a mixture of paper toys and microcomputers, such as Micro:bit. The

strength of this prototype is in fulfilling everyone’s individual preferences. For

example, if child A likes animals, she can select an animal paper toy; if child B likes

cars, she can choose a car paper toy. After making their own toys, they can code using

Micro:bit. For example, if child A makes a cat paper toy, she can program a sound like

“meow, meow.” The concept of this prototype is making a personalized toy and making

it alive. They can also create stories with their own toys.

Figure 7. Prototype sketches of each stage.

44

6.2 Final Prototype, “TomatoBox” The final version of the prototype is “TomatoBox.” “Tomato” is an abbreviation of “To

make toys.” It is composed of various materials, craft tools, micro-computers, such as

an Arduino or Micro:bit, and puzzle instruction cards. The “TomatoBox” concept is

based on stage four, which was making personalized toys. One aspect was developed

that departs from stage four: a puzzle instruction card. This card provides guidelines

for users on how to program or create their toys. The instruction card is in the shape

of a puzzle, so to learn how to program, users need to put the puzzle together.

Figure 8. TomatoBox.

This final version of the prototype combines all the design requirements. As seen in

Figure 9, the concept of creating toys arises from keywords, such as “tangible objects”,

“creativity”, “motivation”, and “fears.” Making new objects is a creative activity. As

the toys are personal, users feel motivated and feel happy rather than fearful. The

crafted toys are tangible objects that connect with micro-computers. By creating toys,

users can become involved in the activity and the product while enjoying learning

programming.

45

Figure 9. The connections between the keywords and the prototype.

The female experts in computer science claimed that problem-solving and logical

thinking are necessary abilities for programming. The puzzle instruction cards support

these skills, since puzzles help develop problem-solving and logical thinking (Myers,

2019). The puzzle instruction cards explain each step of how to make toys and the

procedure for programming. Users need to complete the puzzles to see the instructions.

Figure 10. The puzzle instruction card.

This prototype focused on young women by offering a variety of craft tools that they

can create and play. This research tried not to use any educational tools that are more

friendly to boys than girls, for example, computer games. Computer games are

46

effective ways to teach programming, but young women tend to spend less time

playing with computer games than young men (Cheryan et al., 2015; Barker & Aspray,

2006). Thus, by offering various activities, young women can have more options.

Young women can choose what they like to do—not forcing them to play with

computer games.

This final prototype starts with theories of constructionism and tangible artifacts.

Based on these foundational theories, the prototype concentrated on making new

objects. These theories were supported by going through interviews and workshops.

The results of interviews and workshops elicited design requirements. These

requirements became the main factors of the final prototype. Tangible objects,

creativity, motivations come directly from theories, but also the results supported these

factors. Fear, problem-solving, and logical thinking come from results, but these are

also covered in the introduction and background parts. The puzzle card is an output of

interviews and workshop results. Thus, it is difficult to say what factor only comes

from theories or results. Each element of the prototype complements and support each

other.

6.3 Evaluation

Young women and experts in micro-computer companies will test this “TomatoBox”

in a future workshop. This evaluation will refine the prototype and see if the

“TomatoBox” fulfills the design requirements. The evaluation criteria consist of factors

from the design requirements. The assessment will be conducted using an evaluation

form, which has several questions about the “TomatoBox.” Participants will grade from

one to five based on their experiences with the “TomatoBox” in a programming

workshop. The inquiry lists include accessibility, creativity, diversity of components,

and the effectiveness of “TomatoBox” for understanding programming. Appendix E

gives an example of an evaluation form.

47

7 Discussion and Conclusion

7.1 Discussion The purpose of this study was to identify how to design learning activities to motivate

young women in computer programming and computational thinking. The results

demonstrate that the reason for lack of interest in programming is fear and lack of

opportunities to learn. The results also indicate that motivation, creativity, problem-

solving, and logical thinking are necessary skills for programming. The data suggest

that tangible objects are useful educational tools for learning programming.

The results of this study agree with the theory regarding the importance of

constructionism. Papavlasopoulou et al. (2019) claimed that creating meaningful

artifacts could help to make learning easier. The results also fit the theory that tangible

objects can help learners to be self-motivated and to more actively participate in

educational activities (Horn, Solovey, Crouser, & Jacob, 2009). Participants showed

positive reactions to a programming robot, which is consistent with the conclusions

of Master et al. (2017).

This research did not aim to measure participants' abilities in programming. It was

more about transforming their attitudes and perspectives toward programming in a

positive way while providing an enjoyable activity. Following methodological

approaches, this research identified design requirements that guided the development

of the prototype. Thus, the research question was "How to attract young women to

computer programming and support computational thinking through design and

develop learning activities." This research created the "TomatoBox" to answer the

research question.

The "TomatoBox" is a do-it-yourself box that uses the concept of making personalized

toys. This "TomatoBox" provides enjoyable learning activities for young women to

support computer programming and computational thinking. This "TomatoBox" has

a variety of activities that promote creativity, problem-solving, logical thinking, and

motivation. The final prototype, "TomatoBox," aligns with the theory of

48

computational thinking. Wing (2006) argued that computational thinking could be

reinforced by using tools since tools make abstractions more concrete. Also,

computational thinking is about solving and approaching problems, and the

"TomatoBox" provides this approach since "TomatoBox" supports the process of

programming rather than simple outcomes.

7.2 Conclusion This study aimed to answer the research question of “what methods can be used to

attract young women to computer programming, support computational thinking

through design, and develop learning activities.” Based on several theories,

methodological approaches, and the qualitative analysis of empirical research, this

research identified that tangible and meaningful objects are essential factors to

consider when designing and developing learning activities. This research is

connected to media technology since it studies and develops channels that support

programming and computational thinking. Also, this research has a design process

which is based on double diamond design.

While previous research has focused on currently existed programming robots

(Magnenat et al., 2012), this research concentrated on the method of creating personal

artifacts. The results build on existing methods of participatory design, design-based

research, design for children, double diamond design, and future technology

workshops. Design-based research, participatory design, and design for children are

used to provide a theoretical foundation. The future technology workshop concept was

used to design the structure of the workshops. The design process applied the double

diamond design, which has four clear steps from “discover” to “deliver” (Design

Council, n.d.). This research created “TomatoBox” through following the design

process. The “TomatoBox” supports young women to approach computer

programming and computational thinking through creating meaningful artifacts. The

results of the study indicate that tangible objects provide better comprehension to

learners by showing outcomes immediately. Based on this study results, motivation is

one of critical factors for programming, and young women are willing to learn to

program if it is related to their interest area.

49

This research has not tested the “TomatoBox” with a target group of young women

aged between 11 and 14 years old. Thus, future research would address the evaluation

of the prototype. This evaluation would enable the researcher to understand the

implications of the results and refine the prototype. The test group would be young

women and experts. For this evaluation, experts may be employees of micro-computer

producing companies, such as Arduino or Micro:bit.

While this research only focused on young women, this approach provides new insight

into other target groups. Since the failure rates in introductory programming classes

are high (Nikula et al., 2011; Yadin, 2011), the target group could be novice

programmers. In addition, teachers who are required to teach programming but do not

have any experience may be another target group. This study could provide the

foundation for designing and developing more learning activities for computer

programming and computational thinking for various target groups.

50

References

Agarwal, A. (2017). Future of Robotics in Banking. International Journal of Informative &

Futuristic Research (IJIFR), 4(5), 2347–1697, 6297–6320.

Albert Bandura. (1994). Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, VS

Ramachaudran (Ed.). Vol. 4. Academic Press, New York, 71–81.

Allen, V. (1976). Children as teachers: Theory and research on tutoring. New York, NY:

Academic Press

Alshenqeeti, H. (2014). Interviewing as a Data Collection Method: A Critical Review.

English Linguistics Research, 3(1). doi:10.5430/elr.v3n1p39

Barker, L. J., & Aspray, W. (2006). The State of Research on Girls and IT. Women and

Information Technology, 2-54. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262033459.003.0001

Beer, R. D., Chiel, H. J., and Drushel, R. F. (1999) Using autonomous robots to teach science

and engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85–92.

BennettMar, S. (n.d.). 4 ways government can use AI to track coronavirus. Retrieved from

https://gcn.com/articles/2020/03/10/ai-coronavirus-tracking.aspx

Bosse, Y., & Gerosa, M. A. (2017). Why is programming so difficult to learn? ACM

SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 41(6), 1-6. doi:10.1145/3011286.3011301

Brown, N. C. C., Sentance, S., Crick, T., & Humphreys, S. (2014). Restart. ACM

Transactions on Computing Education, 14(2), 1–22. doi: 10.1145/2602484

Calao, L. A., Moreno-Le ́on, J., Correa, H. E., & Robles, G. (2015). Developing

mathematical thinking with scratch an experiment with 6th grade students. In Design for

teaching and learning in a networked world (pp. 17–27). Springer International Publishing.

51

Caulfield, J. (2019, September 09). How to Do Thematic Analysis: A Step-by-Step Guide &

Examples. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/thematic-

analysis/

Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. (2015, February). Cultural stereotypes as

gatekeepers: Increasing girls... Retrieved April 26, 2020, from

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049/full

Cloward, R. D. (1967). Sudies in tutoring. The Journal of Experimental Education, 36, 14–25

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education. (6th ed.).

London: Routledge.

Cohen, P., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis

of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248

Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and

methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

Conway, M., Ellingrud, K., Nowski, T., & Wittemyer, R. (2018, September). Closing the

technology gender gap through philanthropy and corporate social responsibility. Retrieved

April 26, 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-

telecommunications/our-insights/closing-the-tech-gender-gap-through-philanthropy-and-

corporate-social-responsibility

Dam, R., & Teo, Y. (n.d.). Affinity Diagrams – Learn How to Cluster and Bundle Ideas and

Facts. Retrieved May 11, 2020, from https://www.interaction-

design.org/literature/article/affinity-diagrams-learn-how-to-cluster-and-bundle-ideas-and-

facts

Denning, P. J. (2009). The profession of IT beyond computational thinking. Communications

of the ACM, 52(6), 28–30.

52

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative Qualitative, and

Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Druin, A. (2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour &

Information Technology, 21(1), 1-25. doi:10.1080/01449290110108659

Duran, D. (2016). Learning-by-teaching. Evidence and implications as a pedagogical

mechanism. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(5), 476–484. doi:

10.1080/14703297.2016.1156011

Girls Who Code. (n.d.). Girlswhocode. Retrieved April 28, 2020, from

https://girlswhocode.com/about-us/

Goodlad, S., & Hist, B. (1989). Peer tutoring: A guide to learning-by-teaching. London: K.

Page.

Graham, S., & Latulipe, C. (2014, August 14). CS girls rock: Sparking interest in computer

science and Debunking the Stereotypes. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from

https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=611998

Hackos, J. T., M. Hammar, and A. Elser. (1997). Customer partnering: Data gathering for

complex on-line documentation. IEEE transactions on professional communication 40:102-

110.

Harel, I. and Paper, S. (1991) Constructionism. Ablex, New Jersey.

Heininger, R., Prifti, L., Seifert, V., Utesch, M., & Krcmar, H. (2017). Teaching how to

program with a playful approach: A review of success factors. 2017 IEEE Global

Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). doi: 10.1109/educon.2017.7942846

Henn, S. When Women Stopped Coding. (2014, October 21). NPR.Org. Retrieved April 27,

2020, from https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-

stopped-coding

53

Horn, M. S., Solovey, E. T., Crouser, R. J., & Jacob, R. J. (2009). Comparing the use of

tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. Proceedings

of the 27th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI 09.

doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518851

Hu, H. H. (2008). A SUMMER PROGRAMMING WORKSHOP FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL

GIRLS. Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges, 194-202.

JeffCoxCNBCcom. (2020, March 31). Coronavirus job losses could total 47 million,

unemployment rate may hit 32%, Fed estimates. Retrieved from

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-job-losses-could-total-47-million-

unemployment-rate-of-32percent-fed-says.html

Johnson, J. (2002) Children, robotics, and education. In Proceedings of the 7th International

Symposium on Artificial Life and Robotics (AROB-7), pp. 491–496.

Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (2012). Introduction. Constructionism in practice (pp. 13–20).

Routledge.

Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic Textiles as Disruptive Designs:

Supporting and Challenging Maker Activities in Schools. Harvard Educational Review,

84(4), 532-556. doi:10.17763/haer.84.4.46m7372370214783

Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling Alice motivates middle school

girls to learn computer programming. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems – CHI 07. doi: 10.1145/1240624.1240844

Kelly, J. (2020). Thousands of New Jobs Are Being Created in Response to the Coronavirus.

Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/03/27/thousands-of-new-jobs-

are-being-created-in-response-to-the-coronavirus/

Kumar, D. and Meedan, L. (1998). A robot laboratory for teaching Artificial Intelligence. In

54

Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCSE Symposium, pp. 341–344.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Legters, B. (n.d.). Chatbots in Banking Got Smart. This is How They’ll Make Your Bank

Better. Forbes. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/boblegters/2019/07/15/chatbots-in-banking-got-smart-this-is-

how-theyll-make-your-bank-better/

Magnenat, S., Riedo, F., Bonani, M., & Mondada, F. (2012). A programming workshop using

the robot “Thymio II”: The effect on the understanding by children. 2012 IEEE Workshop on

Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO). doi: 10.1109/arso.2012.6213393

Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in

science. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 669–685

Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2003). Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing.

Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience

promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child

Psychology, 160, 92–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013

Maxwell, D. (2019, November 21). We need to close the gender imbalance in the world’s

digital industries. Retrieved from https://www.studyinternational.com/news/closing-digital-

gender-imbalance/

mBlock | Block-based coding platform for teaching & learning coding. (n.d.). Retrieved April

1, 2020, from https://www.mblock.cc/en-us/

mBot. (n.d.). Makeblock. Retrieved April 1, 2020, from https://www.makeblock.com/mbot

55

Movement. (n.d.). CoderDojo. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from

https://coderdojo.com/movement/

Myers, P. (2019). Learn the Benefits of Puzzles for Children and Their Development.

Retrieved from https://childdevelopmentinfo.com/child-activities/why-puzzles-are-good-for-

your-childs-development/#gs.2xc40t

Nagchaudhuri, A., Singh, G., Kaur, M., and George, S. (2002). Lego robotics products boost

student creativity in pre-college programs at UMES. In Proceedings of 32nd ASEE/IEEE

Frontiers in Education Conference. Boston, November, pp. S4D-1–S4D-6.

National Research Council. (2011). Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of

computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://doi.org/978-

0-309-21474-2

National Science Foundation (2017). Bachelor’s degrees awarded, by sex and field: 2006–

2016 [Table 5–1] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/static/data/tab5-1.pdf.

Naylor, Z. (2019, September 30). How to create an affinity diagram for UX Research.

Medium. https://medium.com/@zacknaylor/how-to-create-an-affinity-diagram-for-ux-

research-cdc08489952d

Nostrand, B. (2000). Autonomous robotics projects for learning software engineering. In

Proceedings of IEEE Systems, Cybernetics, and Man 2000 (SMC2000), pp. 724–729.

Paul, A., McElroy, T., & Leatherberry, T. (2011). Diversity as an engine of innovation.

Retrieved March 22, 2020, from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/deloitte-

review/issue-8/diversity-as-an-engine-of-innovation.html

Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2019). Exploring children’s learning

experience in constructionism-based coding activities through design-based

research. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 415–427. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.008

56

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer.

ERIC.

Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using Robotics to Motivate ‘Back Door’ Learning. Education

and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158. doi: 10.1023/b:eait.0000027927.78380.60

Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1966) La Psychologie de L’Enfant. P.U.F., Paris.

Pinkprogramming. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2020, from

https://www.pinkprogramming.se/en/about-us/

Price, S. (n.d.). Tangibles: Technologies and Interaction for Learning. The SAGE Handbook

of Digital Technology Research, 307–325. doi: 10.4135/9781446282229.n21

Schwartz, D. L., Lin, X., Brophy, S., & Bransford, J. D. (1999). Toward the development of

flexibility adaptive instructional designs. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design

theories and models (Vol. II, pp.183–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scratch—Imagine, Program, Share. (n.d.). Retrieved April 1, 2020, from

https://scratch.mit.edu/

Software Developers: Occupational Outlook Handbook. (2019, September 4). Retrieved from

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm

Spertus, E. (1991). Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists? Retrieved 2020,

from https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/7040/AITR-1315.pdf

Stock, E. (2019, January 24). Want Students to Remember What They Learn? Have Them

Teach It. - EdSurge News. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-01-24-want-

students-to-remember-what-they-learn-have-them-teach-it

57

Sullivan, J., Reanon, D., & Louie, B. (2003). Girls embrace technology: A summer internship

for high school girls. 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003. doi:

10.1109/fie.2003.1263375

Sullivan, K., Byrne, J. R., Bresnihan, N., O’Sullivan, K., & Tangney, B. (2015). CodePlus —

Designing an after school computing programme for girls. 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education

Conference (FIE). doi:10.1109/fie.2015.7344113

Tada, K., & Tanaka, J. (2015). Tangible Programming Environment Using Paper Cards as

Command Objects. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 5482–5489. doi:

10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.693

Tassi, P. (2014). Female Game Developers Have Doubled Since 2009, Men Still Dominate

Industry. Forbes. Retrieved April 1, 2020, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/06/25/female-game-developers-have-doubled-

since-2009-men-still-dominate-industry/

Taylor, K., & Miller, C. C. (2015, September 15). De Blasio to Announce 10-Year Deadline

to Offer Computer Science to All Students. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/nyregion/de-blasio-to-announce-10-year-deadline-to-

offer-computer-science-to-all-students.html

Tekniklabb för tjejer. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://coolminds.se/tekniklabb-for-tjejer/

The Simple Truth about the Pay Gap. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2020, from

https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/simple-truth/

Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2007). Future technology workshop: A collaborative method for

the design of new learning technologies and activities. International Journal of Computer-

Supported Collaborative Learning, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9026-0

Wang, D., Wang, T., & Liu, Z. (2014). A Tangible Programming Tool for Children to

Cultivate Computational Thinking. The Scientific World Journal, 2014, 1–10. doi:

10.1155/2014/428080

58

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced

learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

doi: 10.1007/bf02504682

Week 4: Double Diamond Framework. (2017, February 9). The Faces of Amnesty.

https://interactiondesign17.wordpress.com/2017/02/09/week-4-double-diamond-framework/

Weekly Address: Giving Every Student an Opportunity to Learn Through Computer Science

For All. (2016, January 30). Whitehouse.Gov. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-

press-office/2016/01/30/weekly-address-giving-every-student-opportunity-learn-through-

computer

Weinberg, J. B., Engel, G. L., Gu, K., Karacal, C. S., Smith, S. R., White, W. W., and Yu, X.

W. (2001) A multidisciplinary model for using robotics in engineering education. In

Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.

Wing, J. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.

Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. 2008 IEEE

International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing.

doi:10.1109/ipdps.2008.4536091

Women in Computer Science. (2019, October 22). Retrieved April 26, 2020, from

https://www.computerscience.org/resources/women-in-computer-science/

WonderCoders – <discoverYourSuperpower!>. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2020, from

https://wondercoders.org/

Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational Thinking for All: Pedagogical

Approaches to Embedding 21st Century Problem Solving in K-12 Classrooms. TechTrends,

60(6), 565-568. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7

59

11 lessons: Managing design in global brands | Design Council. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28,

2020, from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/11-lessons-managing-design-

global-brands

60

Appendix A: Interview templates

1. Non-computer-science female college students

A pre-interview question:

· Would you tell me about your study background?

(What are you studying, what have you studied before, etc.)

· Have you ever learned programming in school, outside of school, or on your own?

(elementary, middle, high school, summer programs, work, online courses,

communities, etc.)

· Have you ever used programming to create software, applications, games,

websites, or electronics? Why?

· During the week, how often do you use a computer, and for what purpose?

· When you think about people who are doing programming, what do you think

about them?

· How interested are you in learning programming? Why?

· How confident are you to learn programming? Why?

· Do you see yourself having a job someday in the computer science field? Why?

· Would you describe programming?

A post-interview question:

· How interested are you in learning computer science in the future?

· How likely are you to have a job someday when you need to know some computer

science?

· How confident are you to learn programming? Why?

· How helpful were you using programming robots to understand programming?

Why?

· Is there anything that you want to improve the way of learning programming for

young women?

61

2. Experts

Interview questions for experts:

· Would you tell me about your study background?

· When did you get interested in programming?

· What made you get interested in programming?

· Who made you get interested in programming? (Peers, Parents, Teachers, Other)

· What do you like about programming?

· What do you dislike about programming?

· What is your favorite programming class? Why?

· What is your least favorite programming class? Why?

· How would you describe the atmosphere of the programming class?

· If you were to describe the characteristics of students in a programming class,

what would they be?

· What do you regard as your academic strengths? Likes?

· What skills do you find necessary to be successful in programming?

· What helps you learn the material the best?

· What have you done with a Computer Science degree? What are the projects you

are drawn to?

· Any suggestions to make girls interested in programming?

62

3. Children

Pre-interview questions:

· Why did you apply for this workshop?

· What do you like to do when you have free time?

· What do your friends like to do when they have free time?

· What is your favorite toy?

· What do you like to play with?

· Do you like mathematics or science?

· Have you ever learned programming in school, outside of school, or on your

own?

· Have you ever used programming to create software, applications, games,

websites, or electronics? Why?

· During the week, how often do you use a computer and for what purpose?

· How interested are you in learning programming? Why?

· How confident are you to learn programming? Why?

· Do you see yourself have a job in programming someday? What do you like to

be in the future?

· What do you think about people who are doing programming?

· Would you describe what programming is like?

Post-interview questions:

· How interested are you in learning computer science in the future?

· How confident are you that you could learn computer science if you wanted to?

· Do you see yourself have a job in programming someday?

· How helpful were using programming robots to understand programming?

· What do you think about this programming workshop?

Discussion questions:

· Is there anything that you want to develop the way of learning programming?

· What is the opinion that makes you and your female friends get interested in

programming?

63

Appendix B: Interview Notes

1. Non-computer-science female college students Participant 1

Participant 1 is a college student who is studying International Relations. She does

not have any programming experiences. One time she had made a website with her

brother, but she said it was just putting some images. Her middle school had a

computer class, but it was about Microsoft offices. There were several elective

programming classes, but she did not choose these classes. She chose music and

second languages for her elective courses. She did not select programming classes

because she thought she was not that smart enough to study programming. Also,

she did not like math, even though she was not bad at it, and programming sounds

like similar to math. She thinks programming is creating stuff with numbers. She

even did not know when was the last time that she thought about programming. She

just never felt that interested in programming. However, she has positive

perspectives on people who are studying computer science. She thinks thanks to

these people, and she can use a computer that she does not understand how it works.

For the question about interest in learning programming in the future, it was bit

increased after the workshop. She said programming was easier than she thought it

would be. Her confidence in programming also little increased. However, seeing

herself having a job in this field has not changed much. She said it was more

rewarding to see the robot’s moving using a tangible object such as programming

robots. The mBot made her feel like she did something more. Compared to the

panda image figure, which was just a visual object, the robot was more concrete

and easier to adjust.

For the suggestion of improving the way of learning programming, she was talking

about public relations campaign. It is important to let children know about what

programming is and intriguing parts of programming. She also suggested that

making a programming tool that is simpler and less expensive so that more students

can use it.

64

Participant 2

Participant 2 is a college student who is studying Interaction Design. So far, she

has only learned Arduino. Besides school courses, she has watched several tutorial

videos of necessary coding. She is planning to make an application for her thesis.

She thinks programming is making something feasible in real life. She thinks

computer science people are logical and organized. She does not think they are

smarter or more intelligent than her, but they are just interested in that area.

Compared to the participant 1, she was more confident with programming since

she has been studying a similar field. She said programming is an essential tool

nowadays, and it is possible to achieve something with programming. Thus, she is

interested in learning programming and would like to have a job in the future.

There was no significant difference in the percentage of her confidence and interest

in programming before and after the workshop. Also, for the future job in the

programming field. She said the robot helped her to understand programming more

easily since the perception of programming was more practical. For the suggestion

part, she argued that programming could sound scared somehow. Programming is

just the word that people do not know, but there is anxiety behind the word. She

claimed that if programming was connected with something familiar within daily

life, such as cooking. Then it would have more accessible for everyone. She also

argued that programming classes should be mandatory in schools.

Participant 3

Participant 3 is studying Leadership and Sustainability, and she does not have any

programming experiences for her entire life. She never had interests in computer

science or engineering fields, even though her boyfriend is studying computer

science. She has been interested in social science, which is related to her major

field. However, she is planning to take a programming course after being done with

her school because of her future dream job. She wants to work as a social project

manager in women politics. For this job, she thinks that data analysis skill is a

crucial quality for it. She thinks it would be easier to get this position if she knows

to program. Thus, she has been thinking of taking some online programming

65

courses. She thinks programming is something about computers, for instance, web

designing, software, and system design. She thinks computer science people are

smart and geek.

Her interest in programming has not changed after the workshop. She said this

workshop gave her curiosity about programming for 100%, but there should be a

passion for it. She thinks programming is exciting, but she does not want to pay

attention to curiosity. One interesting thing about confidence, her confidence was

bit decreased after the workshop. Before the workshop, she was confident, and she

said she was a fast learner and not afraid of programming. However, after the

workshop, she felt that programming was so much work to do. Programming needs

a considerable time to accomplish it and more than passion. She compared

programming with her social science field. She thinks social issues have more

solutions, role models, and theories that worked before. Social issues have a

hypothesis that tells people how they would work. On the other hand, computer

science is always trial. In this field, people have to keep testing on their own. Thus,

she thinks that social science has more explicit directions than computer science,

and she prefers something more apparent. She does not see herself in the computer

science field since she has an intense passion for social science.

One thing she liked in programming, programming tells people what to do, unlike

social issues. Social issues ask people and give them what they want. Programming

determines what happens, and that makes programming a bit easier. She also talked

about the merits of programming robots. Since mBot showed results that she told

to do, that made it easier to understand programming. She said it would be difficult

to learn programming without seeing it. She thinks tangible objects are practical.

For the suggestion of developing a learning environment in programming, making

something seems easy and giving people proper reasons why they should learn

programming.

Participant 4

The participant 4 is studying psychology in sports and science in college. She had

66

never gotten any programming educations. For the questions about experiences in

creating websites, she said she had done something similar to HTML. She wanted

to know how many people visited her tumbler, so she had to do something like

“coding.” She changed some backgrounds and made sparkling things too. She also

has created a macro in excel for her project. The project name was ‘Athletes’

monitoring program.’ It was to check athletes’ conditions and to see they had

enough training or not. She formulated several graphs that showed different colors

by athletes’ sleeping hours. To make this macro, she watched some tutorial videos

on YouTube. She felt it was easy to follow it because tutorial videos shared screens

so she could simply write it. If there were errors, she tried it over and over. After

that project, she was bit confident with computers and motivated for failure and

trials. She uses her laptop for ten hours on average daily, and most of the time, she

uses it for pleasures, such as watching Netflix or Skype.

A question for her interest in programming, even though she had a bit “similar”

experiences in programming, she said it was not for me. She thinks programming

is tedious. She said that when she got not employed, she might get interested in it.

She heard that there were many job opportunities for female cyber securities. She

thinks people who are in technology field, they can be picky with their job options

compared to social science people. She also thinks these people are smart and

genius. They can create everything and make something that a lot easier for

everyone. The reason why she has not interested in programming or computer

science, she said she never had time for it. From her elementary school to high

school, there were any classes about programming. If someone were interested in

it, they had to do extra-curriculum. It was something that you have to commit your

own extra time. She was not afraid of learning programming, but she did not have

a passion for investing her time for it.

After the workshop, she said it was fun to play with a programming robot. Her

interest and confidence in programming got increased, but it was not enough to see

herself having a job in technology areas in the future. She said it was simple since

she dragged several block-based languages, and the robot showed results

immediately. For the suggestion to support learning activities to increase young

67

women’s interests in programming, she thinks it would come naturally. Since every

industry is switching to online markets, there would be more and broader

opportunities for women. Thus, women can just choose which sector they would

like to participate in for careers.

Participant 5

Participant 5 is doing her master’s degree in international relations. She had her

bachelor’s degree in law and political science. When she was in high school, she

had an algorithm class. She said it was a basic class and used an advanced

mathematic calculator, but she felt like that class was similar to programming class.

Except for that class, she had not any programming experiences. She usually uses

her laptop for watching movies, checking emails and Facebook, and for her classes.

On average, she uses her laptop four to five hours a day. She thinks computer

science people are smart and have a good sense of logic. They are passionate and

good at concentrate on something. She also thinks they contribute to societies and

daily lives since they make many useful things, such as her phone. She also added

that it depends on how they use their skills; it could be good or not. That is why

she thinks programming is significant, and people have to be smart and have a

scientific mind.

About her interests in programming, she said it would be nice to make a website.

Someday, she wants to work in politics, and social media are navigations to know

what is going on, so she thinks it would be good to know how to program a website

and manage it by herself. However, she has low confidence in programming. That

is because her experience in algorithm class was not good. She said she was terrible

for the algorithm class, and she had difficulty getting logic. She also added that she

was not interested in science areas, and these fields were not attractive to her.

Furthermore, she is a bit scared of learning it since she does not know much about

it. Thus, she thinks she needs an excellent teacher and enough time to understand

if she wants to learn to program. She does not see herself having a job as a

programmer, but she might hire someone who can program for her campaign

website in the future. She thinks she is more like a strategic and philosophical

person. However, she still thinks it is good to know how to do it, in any case.

68

She said it was only short programming exercise, so it was challenging to say that

there were differences between her interests and confidence in programming before

and after the workshop. However, she said that she enjoyed programming with a

mBot. She said it was exciting and she really liked to make her own toy. She thinks

it is helpful to use a robot since she can see its actions.

For the suggestion to support women in the computer science field, she said

education was important. It is good to start from a younger age so that young

women can have many programming activities and experiences from an early age.

She also argued that since there were more men in technology fields, it was not

easy to find female role models for women. Thus, to make more women get

interested in these areas, show them successful women in technology fields. By

showing women experts who are reputable in these fields, young women can get

motivated by them.

69

2. Experts

1st Interviewee

The first interviewee was a master's student in Computer Science. She has done her

bachelor with Interaction Design. She has been interested in computers since she

was fourteen years old. She had always liked computers and used to like fix

computers when her computer O/S had problems. She has enjoyed installing and

repairing Windows. She was also interested in computational terminology and

structures of websites. She wanted to know what was beyond a website, understand

it, and change it directly as she wanted to build. Thus, she was familiar with this

programming environment.

Her first experience in programming was in high school. She had an engineering

class and learned C++. However, the C++ class did not give her freedom and was

not creative work. This C++ class was more like you should do this and this. This

type of education method made her bored in this class. She did her bachelor in

Interaction Design, and her passion for programming started at that time. Her

classes went so fast, so she had to study programming on her own. She used books,

online sources such as Youtube, some tutorial websites, and google search.

She said programming helped her to do more than just design, so she did not have

to rely on someone else. Also, Arduino made her more get interested in

programming. She likes to prototype with Arduino. According to her, the most

beautiful part of programming was the final results. Everything worked together

what it supposed to do. When she made a Virtual Reality gamify application for her

bachelor's thesis, she was proud that she could do programming and make

something feasible. She used to think like she would fail somehow and not expect

much from herself. However, if she made something with programming, she felt

proud and accomplished. She also likes logic behind programming.

On the other hand, she does not like small symbols and syntax in programming.

For example, programming does not work because of a semicolon, curly brackets,

70

or indentation. Operations and symbols are too complicated sometimes. If you

misplaced these symbols, you did not get results. Thus, she claimed that if someone

wanted to be successful in programming, they should not afraid of these failures.

There would be many frustrating situations in programming, so perseverance and

being persistent are the necessary skills to succeed. She also added analytical and

logical mindset as requirements for being successful in programming. Her favorite

programming class was prototyping with Arduino and embodied tangible

interaction. She liked the characteristic of tangible because she felt like these

tangible things were alive.

2nd Interviewee

The second interviewee is studying Computer Science for her master's degree. She

had her bachelor's degree with information architecture. When she was doing her

bachelor's, she had learned several programming languages such as Python, HTML,

JavaScript, and PHP. Before studying Information Architecture, she had one year a

distance course for Java and studied on her own.

She has been enjoying playing computer games, so she ended up owing to a gaming

community. In this gaming community, she had to deal with the community's

website. She said she was forced to do it. This was her first time to get to know

about programming and have an interest in it. To manage the website, she had to

find out some programming tutorials and study by herself. She wanted to learn more,

so she applied for a one-year program and did her bachelor's in information

architecture. When she studied by herself, she used the online tutorials most. Also,

she tested several times to see what happened and determine her mistakes. She likes

programming because it is a way of solving problems. Furthermore, she said

programming made people be creative and draw smart solutions. However, she

does not like poorly written code in programming. It is not written in a way that

easy to read it. It is difficult to understand, and it makes her get frustrated.

Her favorite programming class was Java, which was a distance course. She has

not just learned a language from this class but also learned general programming

structures. The Android programming class was her least favorite because it had

71

constant problems with the software. She said it was very problematic and poorly

developed. About the atmosphere of the programming class, it is very focused and

quiet, and many of her classmates were gamers. She also added there were more

guys in her class. With her programming ability, she has done a lot of website

development and web-based application programming. For her master thesis, she

is doing a machine-learning algorithm to predict changes in stock markets. She

uses Python for this project.

For the necessary programming skills, she claimed that the ability to think

specifically and some level of creativity were needed. Programming is a way of

finding solutions on your own, and no one tells you what to do. It does not mean

you have to be super smart, but you need to have an overall thought process to find

the keys to problems.

She suggested mandatory programming courses to make girls get interested in

programming. She argued that it was essential to teach them programming before

they have a stereotype of programming that it is for boys. Thus, she said

programming classes should be introduced early in school, so everyone can have

an equal chance to know it. These days, programming is essential skills for the

future, and there is a lack of programmers in job markets, so there need to be more

programming classes in schools, also for the outside of schools. She insisted again

that at least give girls trials before someone tells them that programming is boys'

stuff. She also added an idea for the workshop; using tangible objects can help to

understand abstract concepts of programming. Using tangible objects is way better

than just writing a text on the screen.

3rd Interviewee

The third interviewee is a master's student who is majoring in computer science and

engineering. Her program is a whole five years, including a bachelor's and a

master's degree. Now it is her last semester, so she has been studying programming

for the last five years. She has made several applications, such as selling your old

books. She also created some websites for charity organizations and her own

photography website.

72

She got interested in programming when she was in high school. She did not learn

to program from the school, however. She studied by herself. Her father asked her

to make a website for his company, so she had to give it a try. She made small

webpages and had fun making them. That was her first time to learn programming,

which was HTML. Her father was the one who made her get interested in

programming since he asked her to make his company's website. Also, her father

had a little knowledge about programming even though he was not in that field.

That made her more get interested in programming. When she studied by herself,

she used Google the most. She searched for questions, read online forums about

programming, and then found solutions. In the online forum that she used, she

could write her questions and get answers. She said if you could not find anyone to

ask, that would be the most challenging time in programming.

She likes programming because she can create something by herself. If she wanted

to do something, she could do it in real. If she would like to make an application,

she could do it actually. She creates something that she wants. Also, if she had ideas,

she made something that people could use. She can make something that her friends

might use in daily life. Furthermore, she likes the creativity of programming and

problem-solving. She thinks problem-solving is fun. If someone could do

programming, that means you have a tool to solve problems.

However, she does not like to spend much time finding tiny errors in programming.

Also, she does not like men dominate that programming. She said it was not about

programming itself, but she did not like this tendency. She wants more women

colleagues. In her program, there is a total of 200 students, but only four women.

She said it was so dull to have few girls as classmates.

She thinks why girls are less than boys in the computer science field because girls

are not encouraged to do programming as much as boys. Boys have many male

friends who are doing programming so that they can get encouraged by their friends.

On the other hand, since girls do not have many female friends who are studying

programming or good at it, so it is hard to do it for them that none of their friends

73

are doing. She said it could be a matter of social perspective. She also said many

of her female friends think they are not good at programming and have low self-

esteem. Thus, she added that girls need encouragement from their parents and

teachers. She still remembers that her middle school teacher told her that she was

good at science. Even though she did not see herself good at it, but it cheered her

up. She thinks most of the girls do not get these kinds of encouragement.

For the skills to be successful in programming, she emphasized motivations rather

than any skills. She said people do not need skills for programming, but they should

have motivations for it. That is the most critical thing in programming, and it makes

a difference. She also claimed that it is good to have logical thinking and structured

mindset, but programming is just dividing abstract and big problems into smaller

and more concrete ways. Furthermore, it is not about mathematics, and it is more

about enjoying problem-solving and determining solutions.

She thinks that to make girls get interested in programming, it is essential to start

early and make them feel comfortable with it. If they are good at programming,

they should hear about it from their parents and teachers. Girls tend to have low

self-esteem, so encouragement should come along. Girls do not have to be super

smart or good at math, if they think programming is fun, that is enough to start

programming.

4th Interviewee

This interviewee is studying computer science for a master's degree. She has been

studied computer science since high school. Most high schools in her hometown

had literature classes, not computer science classes, so she went to the high school

that was specialized in mathematics and programming. The high school was four

years, and her class was a total of 30 students and nine girls. She started to learn

programming from her second year and learned C, C++, C#. That was her first time

to learn to program. She also chose this high school because it had excellent

curriculums to help a student can have enough skills and knowledge for universities.

She said that people still could take general IT exams without programming and

get into universities, but these people had many problems in learning since

74

universities' curriculums went so fast. After high school, she went to the university

in the capital and studied computer science and engineering, which were seven

semesters program. She said it was a large university, and each year about 500

students started a computer science program. Most of them went to work from the

second year and got a part-time job quickly. There were high demands for

programming teachers, so she also worked as a teacher for two years. After her

bachelor's, she started a two-year master's program. However, there were only two

students, including herself, and no one cared about them. She said they even did

not have any lectures, so she dropped out after one semester. She had to look up

for other master's programs.

When she was young, she was interested in so many different things. However, she

got interested in programming because of her family. Her parents and also one of

her grandparents, they were engineers. They were like her role models. Her

younger sister also started to study computer science after her. She said she might

not study computer science if she did not have this family. Besides her family, the

reason why she gets interested in programming is its creativeness and precise

results. She thinks it is fun to solve problems and enjoys brainstorming for solutions.

She likes the processes and learning curve of programming.

She also likes the professionalism of this field. She said it is easy to get hired with

a computer science major. There are so many opportunities since programming is

a trend now. There are many options to choose from, and it is possible to work at

home. This job would not be disappeared. It is like a security for the future to study

computer science. However, she said there are difficulties in communications

between management and engineers. It is missing fields for both areas, so they do

not have insights for each other. These misconceptions are her dislike parts of the

computer science field. She thinks this often happens in many IT companies. She

said this is a huge problem to solve. She also added that in this field, there are lots

of new technologies, so it might be challenging to start to learn by yourself.

Nowadays, there are many startups, but they are not ready for you to teach

everything, and that makes you get to struggle with learning.

75

She said when you learn by yourself, it is essential to have someone to ask. During

her bachelor's, she had three roommates, and they were all studying computer

science. Thus, they could ask each other when they had problems in programming.

She emphasized that if you had mates that could help you, it was easier to learn

than just studying by yourself. All of her roommates graduated, including herself.

She said they might encourage each other, which might be one of the reasons

everyone could graduate.

Her favorite computer science class was a database, and her least favorite class was

GPU, a graphical process unit. She did not like it because it required an advanced

level of mathematics and coding. In high school, she had an excellent teacher, and

he was always helpful to everyone, even in his free time. He also encouraged many

female students. Even at her university, some of her professors especially supported

female students to promote their academic achievement. She emphasized that it is

crucial to have a good teacher that can help you. About the characteristics of her

classmates, she said some people were a stereotypical computer science student,

but she did not see anyone like that from her female classmates. People have

stereotypes about computer science people, so when someone was surprised after

hearing what she was studying, she felt she broke the stereotype. She thinks her

academic strength is good because she had gotten scholarships since the second

year of college. She said that it was also because of her student housing. This

residence was only for students who were on the top of 40% among 500 students,

so she studied hard.

During her bachelor's, she has done tons of projects, such as developing games.

One of her most proud work is a banking application. It was the biggest bank in

her country, and she developed something that connected resellers and public

infrastructures that were running by governments. She said she had learned a lot

from that project. She has worked using a surveillance camera that was connected

with Spotify. If a camera recognizes someone's faces, it plays a song from Spotify.

That was one of her projects from her master's.

For the skills to be successful in programming, she said logical thinking is

76

definitely necessary. She also said willingness to learn new skills all the time. It is

also good to have friends or classmates that can help you and work together. Team

player behavior or mind is necessary. She said that you do not need too many

extraordinary things. However, she emphasized that the most important thing is

motivation. If someone has motivation for this area, he or she could start right now.

Based on her experience, she suggested that it is good to have people around who

know about the computer science field. Since her parents are engineers so she could

get interested in this field naturally. However, it is not adaptable for everyone, so

she thinks schools are the best place to have experiences in this area. She said it

was helpful to have programming classes from her high school, but she thinks

earlier is better. Schools should introduce computer science or programming to

students from an early age. Computer science is a bit abstract, unlike other fields,

so if schools teach what it is and its concept, it would be constructive.

5th Interviewee

She is studying computer science at university. It is her second year, and her

program is a total of seven semesters. She said her university is one of the best

schools for computer science in her country. She is more focused on system design,

which is a way of making sure about safety. She had the first programming class

when she was eleven years old in fifth grade. She learned ‘Logo,’ which was an

educational programming language. In fourth grade, if her elementary school, she

had to choose to specialize in English or Information Technology, and she chose

IT. She had several female classmates who chose information technology, just like

her. However, most of them are not studying computer science. They are in

psychology, economics, and pharmacy. She said that computer science is

challenging since you keep failing things. Sometimes you have to understand

something without being explained enough. There were not enough materials to

get through depends on subjects. She thinks that is why her classmates have not

ended up with computer science.

She is the fourth Interviewee's sister, so she was surrounded by people who are

doing computer science and engineering. She went to a specialized high school to

77

get more knowledge in computer science. This school also taught an advanced level

of mathematics. Besides her technology family background, she was interested in

making computer games. She likes to play games and create something with games.

That is the most compelling reason that she got interested in programming and

computer science field. She had her first computer when she was six years old.

From that time, she was into playing and designing computer games.

What she likes about computer science is its creativity. It is easy to create

something, and it has clear outputs. She said that you could just make it right with

programming. It is a creative field. On the other hand, she was not satisfied with

her school’s academic schedule. She has to study one language only for one

semester. She thinks one semester is not enough time to master programming

languages. If you do not keep using it, you would not be an expert for any of these

languages. She has learned C, C++, C#, and Java, but she thinks that she is not that

good for any language. She tried to study independently, and if she had some

questions, she asked her peers or searched on the internet. She does not mind asking

her peers, but she tries to solve it by herself first. Her favorite class is the operating

system because she never had any experience in these kinds of things before.

However, she does not like physics since she feels like she would never use it. She

has done some projects, such as farming games and 3D modeling. She said it was

challenging to create a computer game, and it was written poorly, but it was worth

it to do and definitely enjoyable.

Her university is enormous, and there are about six hundred people in the same year.

About 15% of the students are women. In high school, there were a total of thirty-

two students, and eight students were only women. None of them went to computer

science. They went for environmental engineering, economics, law, or did not go

to universities. About the characteristics of her computer science class, she said

most of them are nerds, but they love social things. It was easy to get to know

people from the first semester of school. A few people are a bit arrogant, but most

of them are helpful and active. She had never felt disrespectful for being a minority

group as a woman. About her female classmates, she said they are very determined

and ambitious. Also, they are good at keeping up with new kinds of stuff. They are

78

in a high rank with exams.

For the skills to be successful in this field, she said you do not have to be smart,

but you need to want it. Talking about herself, if she wants to something, then she

has confidence that she could probably do it. Also, she hates to fail something. She

added that after you have to understand how it works, it would not be that difficult

to keep going on. Logical thinking and determined mindset could be useful to have.

Also, the way of thinking to solve problems can be a helpful skill to have.

Mathematics skill might also be necessary, but it does not come naturally. You have

to keep doing it and practicing it, and then you would be good at it. It would become

interesting for you. However, motivation is the most important thing to be

successful in the computer science field. You have to want it. She said if you want

it enough, then you can do it.

She suggested supporting more women can join in computer science, it is crucial

to teach them from a younger age. They should know that programming is not just

typing. They need to see results. It is also vital to have good teachers and offer

many programming camps and workshops. When she was twelve years old, she

has joined a programming camp, and she learned Scratch and 3D. She said it was

helpful and fun. Thus, if young women have more chances that they can have

programming experiences from an early age, it might give more opportunities for

young women to participate in the technology field.

6th Interviewee

Interviewee 6 has a master’s degree in teacher education and English. She also did

her Ph.D. in information sciences, which is a computing background. It is about

technology-assisted language learning. She chose to do her Ph.D. within the

information sciences rather than pedagogy. She was lecturing language classes at

the university for several years. Mostly she was teaching online, and she realized

that students might need another kind of support to learn. It is something like tools

that they need to manage on their own. Thus, she started to develop several

applications. She studied with some books about the development of applications.

Then she decided to do a Ph.D. in the department of informatics within the field

79

that balanced her language education career. She developed some kinds of tools for

supporting high educational students who were taking second language courses.

She thinks skills for good programmers are solid skills in self-dedication,

mathematics, and theoretical background. She said that excellent mathematicians,

they have an outstanding philosophical mind as well as a logical mind. She thinks

people who lead project development are essential, but they are not the ones who

have these innovative ideas. They may have ideas in terms of how to do it, but not

exactly what to do. Thus, she thinks it is crucial to find a perfect combination of

people with different backgrounds.

She suggested that start programming from early in schools, not to wait until they

come to the university level. Making programming classes like a continuous and

integral part of education is because there are many fun things students can do. She

said that programming is just the same as second languages. If you start to study

when you were young, you would be fluent in several months. However, if you

start when you are old, it would take some years to get fluent.

She said that today women with a programming background could easily get a job.

Companies want to keep balance. Women have advantages for it. Also, this field

has a good salary. Thus, in terms of motivating students, you have to tell them more

about what the beneficial things are. For example, what you can achieve or what

you can be. It can give young women tips for future life.

80

3. Children

Three young women joined for the workshop. The interview was held before and

after the workshop. The first interviewee is fourteen years old, and she is in seventh

grade. The second interviewee is twelve years old and she is in fifth grade. The last

interviewee is nine years old and she is in first grade. It was a little bit difficult to

communicate with these interviewees. Only the second interviewee could speak

English fluently. The first and second interviewees are sisters, so the second

interviewee tried to translate the first interviewee’s answers. The third interviewee

came with her grandfather, so he translated her responses. These interviewees are

recruited through ‘Cool Minds,’ which is a technology education organization.

The first and second interviewees’ mother let them know about this workshop. She

showed, and they thought it looked interesting, so they signed up for the workshop.

They also had visited this organization before and made LED lights without

programming. The third interviewee was a visitor to Cool Minds. I had a chance to

talk about the workshop with her grandfather. After heard it from her grandfather,

she wanted to join it, so I invited her.

To discover the general interests of young women around their ages, I asked them

what they liked to do when they had free time. The first interviewee likes writing,

drawing, and origami. The second interviewee likes to listen to music and also

writing. The third interviewee likes Virtual Reality games. Questions for what they

like to play with, everyone said TikTok, which is a short-form video platform that

people can share their personalized videos. They all have smartphones, so they like

to watch videos on Youtube or TikTok. The third interviewee likes to play games

using a tablet computer. Also, they use their computers for Youtube, TikTok, and

Netflix. They use computers every day for two to three hours per day on average.

For the questions of having a job as a programmer in the future, none of them said

yes for it. The first interviewee wants to be a nurse, the second interviewee wants

to be a lawyer, and the third interviewee wants to be a teacher. She thinks her

father’s occupation as a programmer is cool and nice, but she does not know what

81

he is doing for it correctly.

The first and second interviewees do not like mathematics, but the third interviewee

like mathematics. The third interviewee has never learned programming from her

father, or her school. The second interviewee also does not have any programming

experience. The first interviewee had a Scratch class just once. The only one-time

class was not enough to know about programming, but at least she does know what

Scratch is and how it works. She had a bit of experience compared to other

interviewees, so she showed the highest interest and confidence in programming.

The second interviewee also has a high interest, but low confidence in

programming. She said that she wants to learn it and it looks fun, but she does not

know, so it might be difficult to learn. The third interviewee is also interested in

programming. However, she does not know how to do it, and she thinks it is

challenging to learn.

Their interests and confidence in programming have a bit increased after the

workshop, but there were no huge gaps between before and after the workshop.

However, they said it was fun to do it, and the third interviewee said that it was

easy to understand. Also, the second interviewee said that programming was not

that difficult than she was expected to be. She thinks it is enjoyable to see a

programming robot, singing, and dancing. The third interviewee suggested that if

a programming robot was an animal, such as a mouse, it might attract her more.

She thinks a programming robot is still a little bit abstract for her. Thus, she wants

something more precise, easier, and more evident than a mBot.

82

4. Programming organizations

CoderDojo Lund

To determine young women's general opinion about programming, I visited the

'CoderDojo' in Lund and interviewed with mentors and some students. The

'CoderDojo' is a global community that offers free programming workshops for

young people who are in the age of seven to seventeen. In 'CoderDojo,' teachers

are volunteers, and they teach how to code, create a website, build an app or game.

Young people can have experience in the technological field in an informal and

social environment (CoderDojo, 2020).

The 'CoderDojo in Lund' workshop was a two-hour program with two mentors and

fourteen students. Students could use any programming languages, but most of

them were using 'Scratch,' which is educational block-based programming for kids.

Most students were creating some computer games such as a ping-pong game. One

girl was making short stories using Scratch. She is in 6th grade, and she has never

learned any programming before coming to the 'CoderDojo.' After joining several

times in 'CoderDojo,' she has got interested in programming. In the beginning, she

had to learn some necessary tools for Scratch. After she got used to it, she has been

studying by herself. Her school does not have a programming class, and there are

no teachers who can teach programming. She said that her school had a sort of a

programming class, but it was just writing down commands on papers, so she said:

"It was so boring." One day, she had a chance to teach Scratch to her classmates,

and she enjoyed it a lot. Almost everyone in her class did not know anything about

programming, but they ended up making some games by themselves.

She also talked about the reason why their friends are not interested in

programming. They think programming is another mathematic class or after school

class. Programming sounds like just typing on computers, which is so dull.

However, she thinks that programming is creative, and people can make something

with it. She also thinks that it is also fun to show off your programming projects.

Furthermore, she likes programming since she can learn from mistakes and solve

83

problems while programming.

Cool Minds

Cool Minds is a non-profit association that provides courses and workshops about

science, technology, and IT for young people aged between 5 and 15. They started

in 2015, and their idea was to increase young people's interest in technology while

giving them more playful learning to enjoy. They have several programming

courses, such as robot building and Arduino. Also, they offer a technology lab

workshop only for girls (Cool Minds, 2020). In this workshop, they have different

courses every Friday, and subjects are something related to technology. For

example, Scratch, Soldering, Arduino, Robots, and 3D printers.

When I visited there, they had an Arduino workshop for girls. It was about turning

on LED lights using buttons on Arduino. There was one teacher who was a

computer science college student and two participants. One girl was 11 years old,

and the other girl was nine years old. They usually have 6 to 7 participants aged

between 10 to 12, but because of Covid-19, there were not many participants these

days. They also have workshops for students who are around 15 years old, and

sometimes they have programming workshops for adults. They teach different

programming languages to depend on participants' ages. Scratch is for younger kids,

and Unity and Processing are for older students. In general workshops, there are

more boys (75%) than girls.

There were two participants in the Arduino workshop, and they were sisters. It was

their first time to come to Cool Minds programming workshop. The older sister

who is 11 years old, she has a programming class in her school. Her mathematics

teacher teaches programming. She likes programming, and she thinks

programming is not that difficult for her. She also likes mathematics. The reason

why she likes programming is that she can see something that is happening. That

is the attractive part of programming for her. She also enjoyed this Arduino

workshop, and she said it was fun to do it and not that hard.

The way of teaching programming was simple. The teacher taught about the basic

84

concepts of Arduino first. After that, she showed some examples on the screen, and

students followed it using their computers. When they had problems, they just

asked, and the teacher let them know about problems. This workshop taught in

Swedish, so I could not understand what problems they had. After finishing the

workshop, they had a chance to experience Virtual Reality games. It was like a

mixture of a lecture and activities.

85

Appendix C: A brief structure of the workshop with children

When 2020. 04. 18. 14:00-16:00 (2hr)

Where Cool Minds

(Norra Parkgatan 2 214 22 Malmö)

Who Girls around ages 11 to 15 2~4

people

Why

Designing attractive learning activities to

support young women’s interest in computer

programming and computational thinking

What

Pre-interview 14:00-

14:15

Introducing mBot & Installing mBot software

Þ mBot is a STEAM education robot for

beginners, that makes teaching and learning robot

programming simple and fun

14:15-

14:30

Programming using mBot

• Turn on LED display

• Play Music

Designing own Robots

• Paper Prototype

14:30-

15:00

Break 15:00-

15:10

Discussion

• Developing the way of learning programming

for young women

15:10-

15:30

Post-interview 15:30-

15:45

Table 5. Description of workshop program with children.

86

Appendix D: Informed Parental Consent Form

INFORMED PARENTAL CONSENT FORM

We invite you and your child to take part in a research study being conducted by Harang Kim, who is a student at Malmö University, as part of her research project for a master's thesis. The study, as well as your rights as a participant, are described below. Description: This study is testing the designing environment to support young women to get interested in programming. The aim is that your child will participate in small interviews and programming with 'mBot,' which is a programming robot. This study will examine children’s reactions to learning to program using a robot. Children will play with a ‘mBot’ and then answer questions posed by the investigator about how they would think about programming. Your child’s interview will be written down for use in standard research procedures (e.g., analysis of responses). Your child’s identity will not be revealed to anyone but the principal investigator. Confidentiality: Children's answers will be not to be associated with their names. Instead, each child will be given an identification number on the interviewer's sheet. All results of the interview and observations will remain confidential. Articles and presentations that reference and report research findings from this investigation will not use the full names of any of the volunteers who participate in the discussion. The investigator is mainly concerned with reporting on the interaction phenomena and attitudes, not the volunteers. Any comments relating to individual behavior will not be identifiable. This workshop will be photographed, but the photo will be more focused on children’s activities, not their faces (e.g., hands), so children will not be identifiable. I agree to have you photo my child during this study. I understand this photo will only be used for the purposes of research (e.g. analysis of responses, transcriptions of responses, etc.) and will not be available to anyone aside from the researcher: __________________________________ Signature Risks & Benefits: There are no risks to your child’s safety. The story raises no sensitive or controversial issues and does not contain elements typically frightening to children. There is no monetary or otherwise material reward for participating in this study. We hope though that you will find it rewarding to participate in pushing the knowledge barrier of this particular field of research and help us make an impact on current education standards, practices, and policies. Voluntary Participation: Your child’s participation is voluntary. If you feel your child has in any way been coerced into participation, please inform the faculty advisor. We also ask that you read this letter to your child (if age-appropriate) and inform your child that participation is voluntary. At the time of the study, your child will once again be reminded

87

of this by the researcher. Freedom to Withdraw or Refuse Participation: I understand that my child has the right to refuse to answer any of the interviewer’s questions without prejudice from the investigator. Termination of participation: If at any point during the study you or your child wishes to terminate the session, we will do so. Questions? Please feel free to ask the investigator any questions before signing the consent form or at any time during or after the study. Harang Kim Malmo University, Faculty of Technology and Society Mobile: +46 072 364 23 95 hipsterrang@gmail.com Informed Consent Statement I, ______________, give permission for my child, _______________ to participate in the research project entitled, “[Designing programming environment for young women]." The study has been explained to me, and my questions answered to my satisfaction. I understand that my child's right to withdraw from participating or refuse to participate will be respected and that his/her responses and identity will be kept confidential. I give this consent voluntarily. Parent/Guardian Signature:

_________________________________ _______________________ Signature Date Investigator Signature:

_________________________________ _______________________ Signature Date

88

Appendix E: “TomatoBox” Evaluation Form

“TomatoBox” Evaluation Form (All feedback will be treated in strict confidence)

1. “TomatoBox” Rating

Grading Rubric

1 2 3 4 5

Poor Fair Satisfactory Good Excellent

No Area of Rating 1 2 3 4 5

1 TomatoBox had various craft tools

2 TomatoBox had craft tools that I liked to use

3 I like the toy that I made using the TomatoBox

4 TomatoBox was fun to play

5 TomatoBox was easy to play

6 TomatoBox was creative

7 TomatoBox showed clear results

8 TomatoBox helped to understand programming

9 TomatoBox worked the way that I wanted to do

10 The instruction puzzle card was helpful to program

Total

Overall Evaluation � Excellent � Competent � Not Acceptable

2. Your suggestions for improvement (If any functions or features need to be deleted or added)