Use of Technological Resources for the Development of Computational Thinking Following the Steps of Solving Problems in Engineering Students Recently Entering College

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is of interest in this field. There are some aspects that need to be improved.

The authors provide details about the research participants, a total of 37 students, but do not clarify how they were selected or why.

The research conducted by the authors appears to be without limitations. Authors should state the limitations of their research. If there are no limitations, the authors must explain why they are not.

Bibliographic references 1, 19 and 55 cannot be accessed at the suggested hyperlink.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1.

1.

I added Materials and Methods

The students' sampling was intentional, not probabilistic, according to the authors' criteria; for example, the similarity of careers, students of the teacher (author) in the semester, etc. Therefore, under these conditions, the investigation could be carried out efficiently.

2.

I added conclusions

The limitations of the research: the observation and evaluation of the students were online for covid 19; also, only 89 students participated; the sampling of students was intentional because the teacher hasn´t taught or accessed other students in the scenario of a pandemic.

3.

I updated the references

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors propose the use of technological resources to develop computational thinking following the steps or phases of problem-solving first-year students at a public university located in the Andes of Peru.

This a very nice and easy-to-read paper on a topic very suitable for this journal. My main concerts are listed below:

 

1- Will be possible to provide a comparison between similar works using other STEM solutions? Or a least provide a background with related works. 

2. A better description of the set of students used for the experiment is needed.

3. A better description of the resources used to create each technological project can be useful. 

4- More technical papers about IoT using the same protocols:

[1]  Sucre4Stem: Internet of things in classrooms. In 2022 Congreso de Tecnología, Aprendizaje y Enseñanza de la Electrónica (XV Technologies Applied to Electronics Teaching Conference) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

[2] Sucre4Stem: Collaborative Projects Based on IoT Devices for Students in Secondary and Pre-University Education. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 17(2), 150-159.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2.

1.

I added in the introduction:

Concerning the use of technological resources for solutions STEM, Sobreira [4] presents the Snap4 Arduino visual programming platforms to be used by students starting their engineering careers, adding the AppInventor tool and IoT devices for activities related to their geographical area. Diaz [62] promotes the Codeblocks tool integrated with Tinkercad, which it generates motivation in students, the key factors being: diversity in the composition of the student group, availability of 3D printers to materialize designs, and a test environment. Gao [63] explores AppInventor for integration into undergraduate computer science and engineering courses, thereby introducing computational thinking in the context of creating mobile apps; recommended for beginning students to help reduce barriers to programming; It also states that block programming-based application development reduces syntax errors and encapsulates mobile device functions in high-level abstractions that are easy to incorporate into applications.

2.  

I added Materials and Methods

The students' sampling was intentional, not probabilistic, according to the authors' criteria; for example, the similarity of careers, students of the teacher (author) in the semester, etc. Therefore, under these conditions, the investigation could be carried out efficiently.

3 

I added Materials and Methods

For the development de technological projects, students used technological resources consisting of hardware and software. Hardware, are Arduino, environment temperature sensor, distance sensor, obstacle detection sensor, LEDs, display, etc. About software, the mBlock was used, which is a programming interface based on blocks, which allows interaction with the sensors through Arduino. The use of a block-based programming interface allowed students to focus on computational concepts rather than the syntax of programming languages; while, the presence of electronic sensors and output devices allowed students to enthusiastically view the actual movement/consequence of the program occurring in the physical world, generating immediate visual feedback from the programming motivating beginning students to more easily test their hypothesize and refine your ideas.

4.

in 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper solves  the use of technological resources to develop computational thinking following the steps or phases of problem-solving first-year students.

excellent - explanation : Table 1-2.

structure of the present paper

conclusion: very good  ...  325-356 

authors are skilled in the presented topic

I recommend to publish this paper in the present version.

problem:  (please think about it) 

confusing references 

[14]; it has been observed that students represented the problems of 299 the project in mind maps, characterizing their representation in something simple the 300 complex problem; therefore, abstraction is thinking about mapping a basic representation 301 to a new but simpler representation [61]. The problem-solving plan elaboration phase is 302 not correlated with decomposition and generalization skills in the 2021-II semester; while 303 it is true that there is no correlation, but the students in this phase of developing the plan, 304 planned the solution of the problem by dividing into several manageable subproblems, 305 where they planned the acquisition of electronic devices, the design of the hardware, the 306 implementation of the hardware, the elaboration of programs, etc., which closely reflects 307 the characteristics of the decomposition ability [15, 49]decomposition skill; also the plan 308 development phase would contribute to the development of generalization skills, this 309 was corroborated by the activities carried out by the students, such as the identification 310 of similar activities (pattern recognition) in other projects, from which they extracted 311 part of the solution to apply them to their projects [48] The ability of algorithmic design is 312 correlated with the execution phase of the plan; this phase would contribute positively to 313 the development of algorithmic design skill; where the students executed the activities in 314 an orderly and step-by-step manner; implemented the Arduino board with sensors, de-315 veloped algorithms, debugged programs, etc.; this way of working in an orderly and 316 step-by-step manner are characteristics of algorithmic design [42]

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3

I updated the discussions

According to the statistical results of the Pearson correlation, the ability of abstraction, decomposition, generalization, algorithmic design, and evaluation are related to the phases of problem understanding, plan development, plan execution, and solution review, respectively. In the phase of comprehension of the problem, it has been observed in the students, the ability to abstract in mental maps the problematic situation of the technological project, highlighting the main problem, causes, and effects [61]; these activities have strengthened abstraction skills in students [14]. In the phase of elaboration of the plan, the students proposed various solutions, breaking them down into a set of manageable activities; for example, they proposed the activity of acquisition of electronic devices, hardware design, hardware implementation, program development, etc.; these activities strengthened the decomposition ability in the students [15], [49]; also in the plan development phase, the students searched for background or solutions in other projects, identifying activities to be applied in their projects, in this way the students strengthened their generalization skills [48]. In the execution phase of the plan, the students executed or developed the activities established in the previous phase, these activities were carried out in an orderly manner and step by step; for example, first, they implemented the Arduino board with sensors, second, they developed algorithms, third, they debugged programs, etc.; this way of working in an orderly manner and step by step strengthened the ability of algorithmic design in students [42]. In the solution review phase, it has been observed that the students evaluated the operation of the components of their projects; for example, the circuitry and programming interface based on mBlock; also, they evaluated the final product or prototype integrated into a model; these activities strengthened the evaluation ability of the students [14], [51].

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for your responses. The paper has been improved with this previous round. Reference works for the field have not been added. Please, include the research work suggested in point 4.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2

I added in the introduction

Recently, Trilles [64, 65] through the Sucre4Stem project, promoted computational thinking at pre-university students, using block programming, assembly of sensors and actuators in microcontrollers, network connectivity, and remote data sharing. Through the components of Sucre4Stem, students designed, created, and programmed collaborative sensorization projects that recreate real situations of the IoT.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf