Enhancing Computational Thinking Skills using Robots and Digital

Storytelling

Karin Tengler

, Oliver Kastner-Hauler

and Barbara Sabitzer

Department Medienpädagogik, Pädagogische Hochschule Niederösterreich, Mühlgasse 67, 2500 Baden, Austria

Department of STEM Education, Johannes Kepler Universität, Altenbergerstraße 69, 4040 Linz, Austria

Keywords: Computational Thinking, Digital Storytelling, Educational Robots, Primary School.

Abstract: The need for digital education from an early age is undisputed today. In the years to come, computer science

education is to be integrated more intensively into early education and thus find its way into primary school.

Since it is planned to be anchored in the Austrian primary school curriculum, research into teaching methods

and content suitable for this area is becoming increasingly necessary. For this reason, a research project with

programmable robots was developed to support and promote the introduction to computer science education

in primary schools. This study is part of a long-term educational design research project. To examine the

implementation of computational thinking focusing on using programmable robots and digital storytelling a

programming unit with the robot Ozobot for third and fourth graders was developed and analyzed. This

contribution is dedicated to the question of how do Ozobots enhance children’s computational thinking skills

through storytelling activities. Results show that combining educational robotics and storytelling is a

promising approach to promote computational thinking.

1 INTRODUCTION

Computer science education, including coding,

computer science unplugged activities, and

computational thinking, is more and more becoming

the key addition to a twenty-first-century education.

Many governments across the globe now require that

educators teach coding from early education upwards

(Rich et al., 2019). As computer science education is

anchored in the next Austrian primary school

curriculum, the topic of implementation and its

didactic principles are becoming increasingly

important. Even though researchers see the

implementation of computational thinking in

education as one of the most important prerequisites

to foster problem-solving skills at a young age, only

in recent years, this topic has begun to be successively

explored with students in grades K-12 (Bers et al.,

2014; Botički et al., 2018). Nevertheless, experts

agree that playful methods of programming can foster

computational thinking skills. One possibility of their

promotion is the use of educational robots.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-082X

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-3298

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1304-6863

Concerning computational thinking skills, during the

past decade, the research community has embraced

educational robotics with real enthusiasm as an

approach to teaching computational thinking to

young learners (Atmatzidou & Demetriadis, 2014;

Bers et al., 2014, Stoeckelmayer et al., 2011). Besides

the traditional approaches to robotics, students

become motivated when robotics activities are

introduced as a way to tell a story, or in connection

with other disciplines and interest areas (Angeli &

Valanides, 2020; Benitti, 2012; Rusk et al., 2008).

Therefore, this paper describes the application of

the teaching and learning method of digital

storytelling in an interdisciplinary approach and its

insights into how educational robotics can be

combined with storytelling activities to support

students’ development of problem-solving thinking

skills.

Tengler, K., Kastner-Hauler, O. and Sabitzer, B.

Enhancing Computational Thinking Skills using Robots and Digital Storytelling.

DOI: 10.5220/0010477001570164

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 1, pages 157-164

ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9

157

2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Computational Thinking

Computational thinking (CT), first mentioned by

Seymour Papert (1980), inventor of the programming

language LOGO and founder of constructionism, is

considered as an important aspect of developing

problem-solving thinking skills (Lye & Koh, 2014,

Wing, 2006). Since the publication of Jeannette

Wing's article on computational thinking (Wing,

2006), many other educators and researchers have

argued strongly to integrate computational thinking

into the education of students at all levels of education

as a fundamental 21

-century skill (Barr &

Stephenson, 2011; Lee et al., 2014; Shute et al.,

2017). Wing's paper describes computational

thinking as "problem-solving, system design and

understanding human behavior by drawing on the

fundamental concepts of computer science" (Wing,

2006). Brennan and Resnick’s (2012) framework

categorizes computational thinking into three

dimensions: “concepts, practices, and perspectives”.

Another popular definition of computational thinking

developed by the International Society for

Technology in Education and the Computer Science

Teachers Association (ISTE & CSTA, 2011) states

that “Computational thinking (CT) is a problem-

solving process that includes (but is not limited to) the

following characteristics” (Table 1):

Table 1: Characteristics of the problem-solving process.

Characteristics of Computational thinking (ISTE

& CSTA, 2011)

(a) Formulating problems in a way that enables us

to use a computer and other tools to help solve

them

(b) Logically organizing and analyzing data

models and simulations

(d) Automating solutions through algorithmic

thinking

(e) Identifying, analyzing, and implementing

possible solutions to achieve the most efficient and

effective combination of steps and resources

(f) Generalizing and transferring this problem-

solving process to a wide variety of problems

BBC Bitesize (2019) formulates “the four

cornerstones of computational thinking”: First,

problems are broken down into smaller ones

(“decomposition”), then it is considered whether a

solution for a similar problem is available (“pattern

recognition”). After that, only the basic information

remains (“abstraction”). Next, a solution strategy can

be designed (“algorithm”).

Researchers declare the importance of

implementing algorithmic thinking and fostering

problem-solving skills at an early stage to achieve

computational thinking successfully, but also to

develop an interest in technical professions early on

(Bergner et al., 2017; Best et al., 2017; Himpsl-

Gutermann et al., 2017; Kong et al., 2019).

Developing a definition or approach to computational

thinking that is appropriate for K-12 is particularly

challenging given that there is not yet a widely agreed

definition of computational thinking. However,

researchers agree that problem-solving skills, logical

thinking, and algorithmic thinking can be learned by

K-12 students in a variety of disciplines (Barr &

Stephenson, 2011). Furthermore, it is stated that

children from the third grade onwards have no

problems understanding and using the basic elements

of a programming language for controlling activity

flows and naming entities (Futschek, 2016; Lee et al.,

2014; Weigend, 2009). Lee et al. (2014) described,

that many everyday activities can be made more

efficient when the person performing them can apply

computational thinking.

2.2 Educational Robots

One of the emerging resources for problem-solving

thinking skills, as well as students' digital

competence, is educational robotics (Atmatzidou &

Demetriadis, 2014; Lee et al., 2014). A robot enables

to interact with the environment using concrete

instructions, but in less abstractly than a computer and

it playfully serves as a tool for developing problem-

solving thinking skills, creativity and cognitive

competencies. The use of robots is not only

demonstrated by increasing motivation in the

classroom but due to its technological characteristics,

it enables solving tasks that promote computational

thinking as well as skills related to scientific, and

mathematical skills such as social skills,

collaboration, and communication (Esteve-Mon et

al., 2019; Tengler et al., 2020). The use of

programmable robots in education has become more

and more important in recent years. It has been shown

that robotics can increase the motivation of students

because it enables them to work in an integrative way

while developing several additional skills (Stork,

2020; Tengler, et al. 2019). “Robotics activities in

education offer opportunities for students to explore,

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

158

create and apply knowledge to solve real-world

problems” (Stork, 2020, p.2). Contemporary research

studies conducted to investigate this area of research

report that educational robotics is an engaging

approach to the development of young learners'

computational thinking, as children can interact in a

hands-on manner with a robot and observe the impact

of their interactions on the robot's behavior directly

(Bers et al., 2010; Bers et al., 2014; Stoeckelmayer et

al., 2011). To date, several studies have investigated

that the integration of robotics in education promotes

responsibility, collaboration, autonomous learning,

and creativity as well as increases interest in

technology (Anwar et al., 2019; Arís & Orcos, 2019;

Kandlhofer & Steinbauer, 2016). Besides, positive

effects of robot activities are observed in the aspects

of teamwork and social skills (Kandlhofer &

Steinbauer, 2016).

The robot used in this study is the Ozobot (Figure

1). An Ozobot is an approximately 2.5 cm wide robot

that moves on two wheels and uses color sensors to

follow lines and recognize color codes (Ozobot.com).

Working with the Ozobot offers opportunities to

achieve competencies playfully in the area of

computer science and technology, but also to promote

the ability to work in a team, collaboration, and social

competence. Due to the easy entry into programming

the Ozobot, even younger children, recommended

from the 2nd school level, can work with the small

robots. The simple handling of the Ozobot makes it

possible to use the small robot meaningfully in a

single teaching unit and to achieve the learning

objectives set (Geier & Ebner, 2017). Since these

small robots can be used at different levels, they are

suitable for simple programming up to more complex

tasks and programming solutions.

Figure 1: Ozobot.

While tangible floor robots constitute an easy-to-

use tool for young students, at the same time, teachers

must learn how to use them in an appropriate

pedagogical way to maximize their effect on the

development of young children's computational

thinking skills. As it is well documented in the

literature, scaffolding children during learning with

educational technology tools is important (Angeli &

Valanides, 2020). The didactic principle for the use

of this mini-robot very well realizes the important

demands for an age-appropriate introduction into

working with digital media. The playful approach

arouses fascinating and enjoyable, which provides a

neurobiological efficient foundation for successful

learning (Schachl, 2016). Moreover, it is important

that programming in education is designed in such a

way that it promotes children's creativity, that

algorithmic thinking is encouraged and that one does

not stick to reconstruction and deconstruction of

existing content (Brandhofer, 2017).

2.3 Digital Storytelling

Digital storytelling is a teaching and learning method

that combines the traditional form of storytelling with

the use of digital technologies. The aim is to create

digital stories based on a combination of different

artifacts. Although the digital stories are the result of

this process, the added pedagogical value of digital

storytelling lies in the process rather than the final

product (Otto, 2020). “Digital storytelling involves

the combination of technology such as digital audio,

video, movies, multimedia images, among others,

with story creation by developing one’s skills in

organizing thinking patterns and pattern recognition”

(Stork, 2020, p.44). Robin (2006, p.2) classifies

digital stories into three categories: “personal

narratives, stories that examine historical events and

stories, that are primarily used to inform or instruct”.

In any category, digital storytelling can be integrated

into teaching practice in multiple ways. In fact, four

main teaching approaches are proposed: (a) case-

based, (b) narrative-based, (c) scenario-based and (d)

problem-based (Kordaki & Kakavas, 2017).

Several researchers and educators proposed

models for the digital storytelling process. Robin &

McNeil (2012) adapted the ADDIE Design Model for

the digital storytelling process that consists of the

following elements: Analysis-, Design-,

Development-, Implementation- and Evaluation-

Phase. Morra (2017) presented a rather pragmatic but

also very descriptive concept with an eight-step

approach to digital storytelling. Kordaki & Kakavas

(2017) analyzed the stages of digital storytelling and

Enhancing Computational Thinking Skills using Robots and Digital Storytelling

159

proposed an initial framework that highlighted the

relationship between digital storytelling development

and computational thinking skills cultivation.

Digital storytelling allows students to improve

their digital skills by creating interactive stories. It

allows them to effectively demonstrate what they

have learned by technically implementing the story

they have created. "Digital storytelling can encourage

creativity" (Robin, 2016, p.19) as well as it

contributes to fostering other 21st century skills such

as collaboration, communication, and critical

thinking as each group of students shares their

knowledge with the others and reflects on the

outcome (Stork, 2020).

Digital storytelling activities that promote

computational thinking create a link between the real

world and the classroom, making learning more

entertaining and additionally enhancing student

motivation (Parsazadeh et al., 2020). Padilla-Zea et

al. (2014) as well found that including storytelling in

learning activities promotes students’ motivation. To

date, several studies have shown that the combination

of storytelling and technology enables deeper

learning through the synthesis of what is presented

and how it is verbalized (e.g. Kim et al., 2015; Mayer,

2003). “Students make decisions about what content

to include and what is the most effective format to get

their message across. […] The use of technology

allows students to gain a better conceptual

understanding of the technology they are using”

(Stork, 2020, p.45).

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of the Learning

Environment

As this study is part of a longer-term study based on

design research in education (Bakker, 2018), which

aims to investigate the implementation of computa-

tional thinking focusing on using programmable robots

and storytelling in primary school, the participants

were already familiar with programming the Ozobot.

Nevertheless, the functioning and coding of the

Ozobot were repeated at the beginning of the

storytelling unit. After that, the students were divided

into groups of four and given a worksheet with a

problem-based task. The students' assignment was to

create a fairy tale based on the given characters

(princess, dragon) and some facts (e.g., cross over the

river, ...). The task was to depict the story graphically

and to program the story's plot accordingly and to

carry it out with the Ozobot (Figure 2). Students

should use appropriate codes and lines when drawing

the story that the Ozobot changes color, spins, or

changes speed. Finally, the story was filmed using

tablets and presented to the other groups. Then the

students had the opportunity to give feedback.

Figure 2: Storytelling with Ozobots.

3.2 The Study

This exploratory sub-study of the longer-term

educational design research study, which is parted

into several cycles (Bakker, 2018), was conducted at

an Austrian primary school with 16 third grade

students (aged 8-9 years), 5 girls and 11 boys, who

already had experience with the basic functions of

Ozobot programming.

Literature review, classroom experiences and

insights gained from the authors’ previous studies led

to the following research questions:

 Which components of the computational

thinking process can be identified through

storytelling combined with programming

activities?

 How do Ozobots enhance children’s

computational thinking through storytelling

activities?

Classroom observations, teacher interviews,

student reflections, and student-created artifacts

provided the data for this cycle of the research

project. The competencies identified and defined by

the computational thinking framework (Bitesize,

2019; ISTE & CSTA, 2011) relevant to using

educational robots to design stories were the basis for

developing the data collection instrument.

The qualitative research methods used in this

study included the following: interviews,

observations, data collection procedures and data

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

160

analysis (Döring & Bortz, 2016). During the data

collection phase, the interview and observation data

were analyzed, coded, themes for the problem-

solving process developed and interpreted (Mayring,

2015) about the computational thinking framework.

Two key environmental components, educational

robots and digital storytelling were used to influence

the building and enhancement students'

computational thinking skills through an

interdisciplinary approach. Classroom observations

provided data on the stages of the problem-solving

process and indications for communication and

collaboration. Interviews delivered data to answer the

question of how do Ozobots enhance children’s

computational thinking through storytelling

activities. Finally, student-created artifacts provided

data on creativity and problem-solving skills.

4 RESULTS

The Ozobot offers a simple way to teach the basic

concepts of programming or computational thinking

playfully and to build problem-solving skills. Above

all, precise work when drawing the lines is essential

so that the robot can interpret the color codes

correctly.

The research questions of the study will be

answered in more detail in the next chapters.

4.1 Components of the Computational

Thinking Process

The first step was to investigate whether stages of the

computational thinking process (Bitesize, 2019; ISTE

& CSTA, 2011) could be identified in storytelling

activities in combination with Ozobot programming.

The data based on the observation and the interviews

were assigned to the stages of the computational

thinking process and listed in the table below (Table

2).

As shown in Table 2, there seems to be a

relationship between the computational thinking

components and the development of the problem-

solving process supported by Ozobots and digital

storytelling. The steps of the problem-solving process

during the storytelling unit show characteristics of the

computational thinking process. Therefore, the

results indicate that combining educational robotics

and storytelling seems to be a promising approach to

develop and promote computational thinking skills.

Table 2: Evaluation of the problem-solving process.

Stages of the CT-process

(Bitesize, 2019; ISTE &

CSTA, 2011)

Description (Bitesize, 2019; ISTE &

CSTA, 2011)

Observed stages of the problem-

solving process during the storytelling

unit

data collection and

analysis

the process of gathering appropriate

information, making sense of data,

finding patterns,

and drawing conclusions

identifying the problem, analyzing

which characters and details are

relevant to create the story

decomposition

breaking down a complex problem or

system into smaller parts that are more

manageable and easier to understand

defining which sequences are

necessary to create the plot of the story

pattern recognition

finding the similarities or patterns

among small, decomposed problems

that can help to solve more complex

problems more efficiently

thinking about how to represent certain

storylines

abstraction

reducing complexity to define main

idea

graphic representation of the story

based on a plan for the Ozobot

algorithm

series of ordered steps taken to solve a

problem or achieve some end

coding of the sequences of activities,

use of the corresponding codes

evaluation

a process that allows making sure the

solution does the job it has been

designed to do and to think about how

it could be improved

filming and telling the story, checking

that the codes fit the plot of the story,

presentation of the video to the other

groups

Enhancing Computational Thinking Skills using Robots and Digital Storytelling

161

4.2 Enhancing Computational

Thinking with Ozobots

Based on the observation, the interviews, and the

created artifacts, the research question of whether

Ozobots enhance computational thinking through

storytelling activities can be answered as follows.

The easy handling of the Ozobot robot and its

simple functioning contribute strongly to motivation

and committed performance. The students were very

excited about the “small, spacy” robot, and they were

“able to solve any tasks without problems”. The

division into smaller groups effectively fostered

communication as well as successful collaboration, as

each student had the opportunity to contribute story

ideas and try out the programming of the robot.

Furthermore, they had to think carefully about which

action sequences occur in their story and how these

should be represented and programmed. By using the

programmable robot, the problem-based task is

broken down into smaller parts and the development

and writing of the story become more structured.

The following aspects, referred to as MOSAIC-

aspects by the authors, enhancing computational

thinking during the robotics-based storytelling

activities were identified:

Motivation and Enthusiasm. Due to working with

the fascinating robot, the students were motivated to

work on their problem-based tasks, and enthusiasm

for the storytelling activities as a result could be

observed.

Orientation. Due to the programming of the

robots when creating the story graphically systems of

order are built up and spatial abilities are fostered.

Structuring. The students worked in a structured

manner by drawing the plot and by programming the

Ozobots. The task is broken down into individual

work steps and executed one after the other which

corresponds to sequencing in programming. An exact

sequence of action in broad strokes should be planned

first.

Abstraction. The graphic representation abstracts

the plot of the story and by telling the story through

the path of the Ozobot and the codes, the story is

decoded again. Programming and transferring the plot

into a graphic representation stimulates algorithmic

and logical thinking enormously.

Interactivity. An essential aspect is also that of

interactivity. The pupils can intervene at any time in

the presentation and design of the story and change

details. As a result, the process of evaluation is

constantly carried out.

Communication and Collaboration.

Communication and collaboration are important

aspects to achieve a common goal by developing a

problem-solving strategy, discussing details of the

story and its realization, and having an internal

agreement within the group where responsibilities are

defined and accepted.

Furthermore, two other competencies could be

identified in this study. These were, firstly, social

competence, the ability to work in groups and to

divide, assign and fulfill different roles in the process.

The second was technological competence, the ability

to use educational robots and digital media to record

the story. Besides, it was possible to see that the

graphic representation of the story particularly

encouraged creativity, since the groups had special

ideas for the realization of the story.

5 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

It is well known that technology has the potential to

increase learner engagement and interest in young

students’ learning environments. This study aimed to

investigate how the use of robots enhances

computational thinking skills by designing and

building an interactive story using the robot Ozobot.

The results of this study show that the use of

educational robots as support to digital storytelling is

a good possibility to implement computer science

education in primary education in an interdisciplinary

approach, and it supports and promotes the

development of computational thinking skills in the

process. Through the simple introduction to

programming Ozobots, primary learners can easily

work with the little robots and thus gain first insights

into problem-solving skills. Their appearance and

ability to follow lines are fascinating and motivating

for the students. This could be a good way to arouse

interest in programming and computer science

already at the primary level. Due to its diverse

applications and tasks from the children's everyday

life and environment, the Ozobot can be integrated

well into lessons in various subjects. The

interdisciplinary robotics-based approach presented

is thus a good example of implementing computer

science in primary school and developing

computational thinking skills at the same time.

As previously mentioned, this sub-study is one

cycle of a larger educational design research study, so

it is planned to extend the implementation of the

learning environment to several primary school

classes and conduct further research. In a future

approach, it would be interesting to investigate to

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

162

what extent digital storytelling is feasible with other

programmable robots, what insights emerge, and

whether there are differences compared to the use of

the Ozobot.

REFERENCES

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young

children’s computational thinking with educational

robotics: An interaction effect between gender and

scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior,

105, 105954.

Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A.

(2019). A systematic review of studies on educational

robotics. Journal of Pre-College Engineering

Education Research (J-PEER), 9(2), 2.

Arís, N., & Orcos, L. (2019). Educational robotics in the

stage of secondary education: Empirical study on

motivation and STEM skills. Education Sciences, 9(2),

73.

Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2014). How to support

students’ computational thinking skills in educational

robotics activities. Proceedings of 4th International

Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics

& 5th International Conference Robotics in Education,

43–50.

Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A

practical guide for early career researchers.

Routledge.

Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational

thinking to K-12: What is Involved and what is the role

of the computer science education community? Acm

Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential

of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers

& Education, 58(3), 978–988.

Bergner, N., Hilde, K., Magenheim, J., Kathrin, M., Ralf,

R., Ulrik, S., & Carsten, S. (2017). Zieldimensionen für

frühe informatische Bildung im Kindergarten und in der

Grundschule. Informatische Bildung zum Verstehen

und Gestalten der digitalen Welt.

Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program:

Applied computational thinking for young children.

Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), n2.

Bers, M. A., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A.

(2014). Computational thinking and tinkering:

Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum.

Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.

Best, A., Borowski, C., Büttner, K., Freudenberg, R.,

Fricke, M., Haselmeier, K., Herper, H., Hinz, V.,

Müller, D., & Schwill, A. (2017). Kompetenzen für

informatische Bildung im Primarbereich.

Bitesize, B.B.C. (2019). Introduction to computational

thinking. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk

/education/guides/zp92mp3/revision.

Botički, I., Pivalica, D., & Seow, P. (2018). The Use of

Computational Thinking Concepts in Early Primary

School. International Conference on Computational

Thinking Education 2018.

Brandhofer, G. (2017). Coding und Robotik im Unterricht.

Erziehung und Unterricht,

167(7–8), 630–637.

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for

studying and assessing the development of

computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012

annual meeting of the American educational research

association, Vancouver, Canada, 1, 25.

Ching, Y.-H., Yang, D., Wang, S., Baek, Y., Swanson, S.,

& Chittoori, B. (2019). Elementary school student

development of STEM attitudes and perceived learning

in a STEM integrated robotics curriculum. TechTrends,

63(5), 590–601.

Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und

Evaluation. Wiesbaden: Springerverlag.

Esteve-Mon, F. M., Adell-Segura, J., Llopis Nebot, M. Á.,

Valdeolivas Novella, M. G., & Pacheco Aparicio, J.

(2019). The Development of Computational Thinking in

Student Teachers through an Intervention with

Educational Robotics.

Futschek, G. (2016). Computational Thinking im

Unterricht. Schule Aktiv, 4–5.

Geier, G. F., & Ebner, M. (2017). Einsatz von OZOBOTs

zur informatischen Grundbildung. In Erziehung &

Unterricht 167, 7, 109–113.

Himpsl-Gutermann, K., Brandhofer, G., Frick, K., Fikisz,

W., Steiner, M., Bachinger, A., Gawin, A., Gawin, P.,

Szepannek, P., & Lechner, I. (2017). Denken lernen–

Probleme lösen (DLPL) Primarstufe.

ISTE & CSTA. (2011). Operational Definition of

Computational Thinking. Retrieved from:

https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/ct-documents/

computational-thinking-operational-definition-

flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the

impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical-and

social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and

Autonomous Systems, 75, 679–685.

Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai,

C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary

education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement,

learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91,

14–31.

Kong, S.-C., Abelson, H., & Lai, M. (2019). Introduction to

computational thinking education. In Computational

thinking education (S. 1–10). Springer, Singapore.

Kordaki, M., & Kakavas, P. (2017). Digital storytelling as

an effective framework for the development of

computational thinking skills. EDULEARN2017, 3–5.

Lee, T. Y., Mauriello, M. L., Ahn, J., & Bederson, B. B.

(2014). CTArcade: Computational thinking with games

in school age children. International Journal of Child-

Computer Interaction, 2

(1), 26–33.

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and

learning of computational thinking through

programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in

Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.

Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning:

Using the same instructional design methods across

Enhancing Computational Thinking Skills using Robots and Digital Storytelling

163

different media. Learning and instruction, 13(2), 125–

139.

Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen

und Techniken. Beltz. Weinheim, 4, 58.

Morra, S. (2017). Steps to great digital storytelling.

Edtechteacher. Retrieved from: http://edtechteacher.

org/8-stepsto-great-digitalstorytelling-from-samantha-

on-edudemic/.

Otto, D. (2020). Hochschullehre und Digitalisierung:

Digital Storytelling als Lehr-Lernmethode für

Kompetenzen in der digitalen Welt. In Bildung und

Digitalisierung, 135–152.

Ozobot.com. (o. J.). Ozobot.com. https://ozobot.com

Padilla-Zea, N., Gutiérrez, F. L., López-Arcos, J. R., Abad-

Arranz, A., & Paderewski, P. (2014). Modeling

storytelling to be used in educational video games.

Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 461–474.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and

powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Parsazadeh, N., Cheng, P.-Y., Wu, T.-T., & Huang, Y.-M.

(2020). Integrating Computational Thinking Concept

Into Digital Storytelling to Improve Learners’

Motivation and Performance. Journal of Educational

Computing Research, 0735633120967315.

Rich, P. J., Browning, S. F., Perkins, M., Shoop, T.,

Yoshikawa, E., & Belikov, O. M. (2019). Coding in K-

8: International trends in teaching elementary/primary

computing. TechTrends, 63(3), 311–329.

Robin, B. (2006). The educational uses of digital

storytelling. Society for Information Technology &

Teacher Education International Conference, 709–716.

Robin, B. R., & McNeil, S. G. (2012). What educators

should know about teaching digital storytelling. Digital

Education Review, 37–51.

Robin, B. R. (2016). The power of digital storytelling to

support teaching and learning. Digital Education

Review, (30), 17-29.

Rusk, N., Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Pezalla-Granlund, M.

(2008). New pathways into robotics: Strategies for

broadening participation. Journal of Science Education

and Technology, 17(1), 59–69.

Schachl, H. (2016). Neuroscience: A Traditional and

Innovative Approach to Education with Focus on Stress

with Learning. Signum Temporis, 8(1), 9.

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017).

Demystifying computational thinking. Educational

Research Review, 22, 142–158.

Stoeckelmayr, K., Tesar, M., & Hofmann, A. (2011).

Kindergarten children programming robots: A first

attempt. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference

on Robotics in Education (RIE).

Stork, M. G. (2020). Supporting Twenty-First Century

Competencies Using Robots and Digital Storytelling.

Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1–8.

Tengler, K., Sabitzer, B. & Kastner-Hauler, O. (2020). First

programming with Ozobots – a creative approach to

early computer science in primary education.

INTED2020 Proceedings, pp. 5156–5162.

Tengler, K., Sabitzer, B. & Rottenhofer, M. (2019). “Fairy

tale computer science”—Creative approaches for early

computer science in primary schools. ICERI

Proceedings, pp. 8968-8974.

Weigend, M. (2009). Algorithmik in der Grundschule.

Zukunft braucht Herkunft–25 Jahre» INFOS–

Informatik und Schule «.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking, Commun.

ACM, Bd. 49, Nr. 3, S. 33–35, 2006.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

164