Event Information
This research is grounded in the learning sciences, emphasizing evidence-based design and alignment with national computer science and STEM standards. Computational thinking serves as the guiding framework, with attention to core practices such as abstraction, decomposition, and algorithmic reasoning. The study applies design-based research to evaluate authentic learning outcomes in classroom contexts.
This study follows a mixed-methods design approved by our Institutional Review Board. Participants include middle and high school students engaged in programming with VEX AIM. A research build of VEXcode collects de-identified student data including coding attempts, task completion rates, and time-on-task, adhering strictly to IRB requirements. Additional data sources include teacher observations, student surveys, and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data are analyzed for growth in computational thinking and programming fluency, while qualitative responses are coded thematically to capture student perspectives and contextual factors. Triangulation of data sources strengthens validity and enables replication.
Preliminary results suggest students using VEX AIM demonstrate measurable gains in programming fluency, logical reasoning, and computational thinking. We expect to see increased student engagement, persistence, and confidence as they tackle authentic challenges. Teacher observations and student reflections are anticipated to confirm growth in problem solving and collaboration. Final results will highlight both quantitative improvement and qualitative insights that inform best practices for integrating VEX AIM into diverse classrooms.
This study advances understanding of how students build programming fluency and computational thinking. By combining classroom-based data with teacher and student perspectives, it offers evidence on effective integration of robotics and coding. Findings provide educators and researchers with actionable strategies that support equity, authentic learning, and measurable outcomes in computer science education.
Lin, Y., & McKenna, J. (2025, March). Evaluating the influence of a global online professional development platform on teachers' robotics skills and confidence. In D. Slykhuis & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 807-812). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Lin, Y., Weintrop, D., & McKenna, J. (2022, March). Switch Mode: A visual programming approach for transitioning from block-based to text-based programming. In Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 1342-1348). ACM.
Lin, Y., Weintrop, D., & McKenna, J. (2025). Switch Mode: How one environment supports multiple strategies to transition from block-based to text-based programming. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 34, 100620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2025.100620
Sirinterlikci, A., McKenna, J., Lin, Y., Oravec, R., & Harter, L. (2022, August). Learning robot programming anywhere: VEXcode VR. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education.
Weintrop, D. (2021). Assessing computational thinking: An overview of the field. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 113-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1918380
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2019). Transitioning from introductory block-based and text-based environments in computer science classrooms. Computers & Education, 141, 103613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103613
Garvin, M., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., & Wilensky, U. (2019, February). Primary school teachers' conceptions of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 899-905). ACM.
Other presentations in this group: