Analysis of the Learning Process of Computer Programming Logic in an 8-Year-Old Elementary School Student at Home through the Scratch Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and it is well written. The topic is of high interest at the moment.

The structure of the paper and the use of references is correct.

However, the main problem with this paper is the focus on only one student.

There are many differences among 8-year old students giving results only on one student makes it difficult to generalize the results.

I would advise the authors to repeat the experiment with more students, at least 5-10 with different profiles, for instance, 8-year old student who likes videogames versus 8-year old student who does not like videogames as the results may be different.

Moreover, why a boy? I would like to have the results of a girl too. 

At the moment there is important information missing to answer the questions formulated in the paper.

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your detailed feedback on my article titled "Analysis of the Learning Process of Computer Programming Logic in an 8-Year-Old Elementary School Student at Home through the Scratch Program."

I understand and share your concern regarding the focus on a single student in my study. The choice of a sole participant was due to logistical and resource limitations, as my role as an educator is currently confined to my own son. However, I acknowledge the importance of generalizing the results, and I agree that a broader study involving multiple students would significantly enhance the conclusions.

Although I have carefully considered your suggestions and agree that it would be more interesting and valuable to expand the application of the guide to more elementary school students for a more comprehensive and representative view, implementing this poses significant logistical challenges, such as the need to involve other parents and adapt to diverse educational contexts.

In response to these limitations, first, I have introduced a wide justification of the one-case study in the "Guide Design" and "Participant Selection" paragraphs of the "6. Research Methodology" section, highlighting the merits of the single-case study and referencing instances where such studies have been used. Additionally, I have incorporated your observations into the limitations section of the paper. Furthermore, I am committed to conducting future research that includes gathering data from other parents using the guide, aiming to enrich and further validate my findings; therefore, I have also created a "Future Research Directions" section to specify these future research lines.

Regarding the suggestion to include both boys and girls in the study, I agree that it would be beneficial to broaden the diversity of participants. I will consider this recommendation and seek opportunities to involve a more varied group in future research, ensuring the exploration of different motivations and learning approaches.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, and I am committed to enhancing and enriching my work in response to your constructive suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the article title will be interesting to the potential readers. However, several contents of the article should be re-organized. Suggestions were:

1. In the part of the introduction, it is suggested that the bullet-point discussion should be re-written into paragraph format. 

2. In the part of the methodology, the educational methodology should be a independent discussion, which we called "theoretical discussion."

3. Several past studies regarding children scratch were not extensively reviewed. 

4. The most weakness of the article is the research design. So far, the data collection process is ambiguous. What were the research instruments? How to obtain and analyze qualitative data? Also, there should be one research design to guide the research process. The article looked like a mixed-method approach.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is fine. 

Author Response

Thank you for your careful review and insightful feedback. I sincerely appreciate your valuable comments, which have undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the overall quality of the article. I have carefully considered each of your suggestions and made the necessary revisions to address the concerns raised. Here are my responses to your feedback:

1. In the part of the introduction, it is suggested that the bullet-point discussion should be re-written into paragraph format.

I have re-formatted this section into paragraph format as suggested.

2. In the part of the methodology, the educational methodology should be a independent discussion, which we called "theoretical discussion."

I have done this modification on the paper.

3. Several past studies regarding children scratch were not extensively reviewed.

I have expanded the literature search and included new references in this paper.

4. The most weakness of the article is the research design. So far, the data collection process is ambiguous. What were the research instruments? How to obtain and analyze qualitative data? Also, there should be one research design to guide the research process. The article looked like a mixed-method approach.

I appreciate your insightful observation regarding the research design, specifically the data collection process. I acknowledge the need for more clarity in detailing the research methodology, especially concerning the semi-structured interview. In response to your suggestion, I have expanded the relevant section in the paper, specifically under the heading "Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment" in point 6 of the Research Methodology. The new content provides a more comprehensive explanation of how data, particularly from the semi-structured interview, was collected. I have included information on categories, codification, and the overall approach to ensure a clearer understanding of the research design. I trust that these enhancements address your concern, and I am open to any further suggestions or guidance you may have.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort invested in the article, and the subject matter is undeniably interesting, particularly concerning the analysis of home learning activities in the context of the modern digital environment for primary school students. However, I have identified certain areas that require attention to enhance the quality and publishability of the manuscript. My feedback is as follows:

1.     Problem Statement and Motivation: The motivation for the research and its originality need clearer definition during problem setting. It is crucial to elaborate on the relevance of the article as a response to the significant disparities in access to learning programming among various areas, schools, and families. The argument about classroom activities addressing this disparity could be clarified for a more robust problem formulation.

2.     Literature Review: The manuscript lacks an analysis of classic works in the field of teaching computer thinking, particularly overlooking the seminal work of LOGO programming researchers like S. Papert and his associates. Actually, the individual work of a schoolchild in mastering mathematical concepts and designing arcade games was the focus of Papert’s books, such as “Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas.” and others. Children's homework with computers became the focus of attention in those days. There were publications on this topic in the “Logo Exchange” in the 80s - 90s. For example: Boyle, M. (1999). The History of Mr. Papert. Logo Exchange, Journal of the ISTE Special Interest Group for Logo-Using Educators., 17, 8 -14.). Considering the direct connection between Scratch (used in the article) and Logo, referencing and incorporating insights from these earlier works is essential.

3.     Peculiarities of Computer Skills: The observation on the lack of computer skills among schoolchildren despite their proficiency with smartphones and tablets is intriguing. It's imperative to highlight the unique aspects of this problem in comparison to the era when computer skills were initially introduced. Emphasizing the evolving nature of the challenge will add depth to the discussion.

4.     Relevance of Research Questions: The relevance of the research questions needs clarification, especially considering that they appear to echo concerns from four decades ago. It is essential to explain the novelty of these questions in the context of contemporary computational thinking education.

5.     Research Approach: The approach of focusing on the learning activities of a single schoolchild is unconventional in academic publications and requires thorough justification. Addressing the extent to which the findings can be generalized and providing a strong rationale for this approach is necessary.

 

I believe that addressing these comments will significantly enhance the manuscript, making it more compelling and suitable for publication.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough examination and constructive feedback on the manuscript. I express gratitude for recognizing the article's engaging subject matter and appreciate the insightful observations you provided. Presented below are my responses to the points you raised:

1. Problem Statement and Motivation

Your observation regarding the need for a clearer definition and a strategic approach to disparities in programming learning is well-received. I have expanded the introduction to provide a more comprehensive and strategically positioned motivation for the research. The revised introduction now explicitly emphasizes the contemporary need to address disparities in programming education, wherein the unique context of home-based learning can serve as support and help tackle this challenge. I have underscored the persistent challenges in various regions, schools, and family environments, emphasizing the importance of educational approaches beyond traditional classrooms.

2. Literature Review

I have updated the literature review section to analyze more studies conducted on the use of Scratch in educational settings, and I have introduced the context of historical evolution as you recommended, which I found very fitting and interesting.

3. Peculiarities of Computer Skills

I appreciate your thoughtful feedback on the peculiarities of computer skills observed among schoolchildren. I have expanded Section 1.1 (PC Usage) to provide a more in-depth analysis of the unique challenges faced by contemporary students in comparison to the era when computer skills were initially introduced. This expanded analysis highlights the evolving landscape of technological familiarity, emphasizing the shift from desktop PCs to touch-based devices and the resulting challenges in adapting to traditional mouse and keyboard interactions. The nuanced exploration of hurdles related to fine motor skills, familiarization with the broader computer environment, and the dynamic nature of essential skills aims to contribute valuable insights into the contemporary challenges associated with PC usage in programming education. I trust that this expanded analysis addresses your concerns and adds depth to the discussion. I am open to any further suggestions or feedback you may have.

4. Relevance of Research Questions

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the relevance of the research questions. In response to your comments, I have carefully refined the research questions to ensure their alignment with contemporary concerns in computational thinking education. The modified questions now explicitly address the current technological landscape and educational context. I believe these adjustments enhance the overall relevance of the study and appreciate your valuable guidance in this regard. If you have any further suggestions or considerations, I would be more than willing to incorporate them.

5. Research Approach

Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the unconventional approach of focusing on the learning activities of a single schoolchild. I appreciate the opportunity to address this concern and provide a thorough justification for this choice. The rationale for employing a one-case study design has been discussed now in both the "Guide design" and “Participant selection” paragraphs of the "6. Research Methodology" section. This justification is grounded in the existing literature on similar studies, which highlights the value and depth that can be gained from an in-depth exploration of a singular case. By referring to relevant references, the paragraph aims to establish the methodological soundness of this approach and its potential contributions to the field. I trust that this clarification addresses your concern, and I remain open to further discussion or any additional points you may wish to raise.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading the new version, I believe it is OK to publish this paper as a previous experiment of a larger study with more students with different ages and genders.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors had addressed the solutions to the problems identified in the previous review process. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is fine. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to note that the current version of the manuscript has shown considerable improvement compared to its initial submission. The revisions made in response to my comments have been effective and satisfactory. I believe the paper is now ready for publication in its present form.