Abstract:

Physical computing is a wide field and describes the process of programming and developing of computer systems which use sensors and actors. Due almost every computer system has input and output devices (which are technically sensors and actors) the paper focuses on those computer systems which have input and output which go beyond mouse, keyboard and monitor, and which are for example ultrasonic, motors or gyroscope. Another important criterium is that these sensors and actors can directly be accessed and addressed by the user. The so defined class of computer systems will be called physical computing systems (PhCS) in the following. The focus of this paper is on PhCS which can be used in computer science education.

As researchers in the field of curriculum development and instructional design in the field of computer science education at schools, we have observed over the years, that on one hand, there is a plethora of PhCS available, which become better and better. On the other hand, we found out in related research, that the usage of PhCS in German schools is really only taking place in a very narrow field, e.g. freetime work or special projects. This is in hard contrast to the observation, that school kids are in most cases drawn to PhCS. So assumingly, there must be a gap between what the teacher plans and what the kids would prefer. We found out, that in most cases, teachers are simply not aware of how PhCS could be used in their everyday educational work. So our idea has been to look closer at PhCS – and we found out that almost all structure is missing. Working with such type of systems becomes difficult, as the topic is voguish, however, modern techniques are invented from scratch. Currently, no systematic approach for scientifically investigating or developing PhCS can be found. This is likely also a problem of the teachers. The range of those systems is very wide so there is a need of a classification system – especially in order to do a further instructional research on PhCS. Since many devices allow a large variation (e.g. LEGO Mindstorms), it does not make sense to define closed classes; depending on used hardware or software extensions one PhCS could fit into several classes. As a result a system of attributes will be created, which describes the didactical opportunities a concrete PhCS provides. Next to the task of structuring the field, the attributes are extended by an additional (semantical) level, which helps to relate the attributes of a PhCS to the field of instructional design, aka. didactics.

The process of planning lectures consists of four dimensions: The faction dimension, the organizational dimension, the didactical dimension and the methodical dimension. In process of planning lectures, teachers always have to process these four dimensions. PhCS have an impact on each of those dimensions. In order to simplify the planning process the created attribute systems should be connected to those four dimensions.

While attributes which belong to the organizational dimension (such as prize) are trivial in their discussion, especially attributes from the didactical dimension can be discussed from many points of view. Next to motivational potentials of PhCS which are often focused, PhCS provide the potential of opening and reclosing black boxes of computer systems. As a result, the paper is going to focus on attributes of the didactical dimension.

Keywords:

Physical computing, stem, student motivation, blackboxes.