Introducing micro:bit in Swedish primary
schools
An empirical design research on developing teaching material
for training computational thinking in Swedish primary schools

Master’s thesis in Interaction Design

Niklas Carlborg, Marcus Tyrén

Department of Applied IT
CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg, Sweden 2017





Master’s thesis 2016:175

Introducing micro:bit in Swedish primary schools

An empirical design research on developing teaching material for
training computational thinking in Swedish primary schools

NIKLAS CARLBORG, MARCUS TYRÉN

Department of Applied IT
Interaction Design and Technologies

Chalmers University of Technology
Gothenburg, Sweden 2017



Introducing micro:bit in Swedish primary schools
An empirical design research on developing teaching material for training computa-
tional thinking in Swedish primary schools
NIKLAS CARLBORG, MARCUS TYRÉN

© NIKLAS CARLBORG, MARCUS TYRÉN, 2017.

Supervisor: Eva Eriksson, Interaction Design and Technologies
Examiner: Staffan Björk, Interaction Design and Technologies

Master’s Thesis 2016:175
Department of Applied IT
Interaction Design and Technologies
Chalmers University of Technology
SE-412 96 Gothenburg
Telephone +46 31 772 1000

Cover: Backside of BBC micro:bit hardware.

iv



Introducing micro:bit in Swedish primary schools
An empirical design research on developing teaching material for training computa-
tional thinking in Swedish primary schools
NIKLAS CARLBORG, MARCUS TYRÉN
Department of Applied IT
Chalmers University of Technology

Abstract
During the 21st century there has been an increasing interest in the field of com-
putational thinking, a popular way of teaching students about programming. In a
society with an ever faster technical development it becomes more relevant to ed-
ucate future generations about the technology that surrounds us. Many different
platforms can be used for this purpose, e.g Scratch, Raspberry Pi or Arduino. In
the UK the platform micro:bit has been used in schools since 2016. Other coun-
tries are now also incorporating programming in their curriculum, and Sweden is
set to incorporate this by the 1st of July 2018. This thesis examines what may
be important to consider when designing teaching materials with the micro:bit for
training Swedish primary school students’ computational thinking skills. This was
done through an iterative design process, by conducting 21 workshops with the goal
to support Swedish primary school teachers with micro:bit teaching materials. The
result of this thesis consists of 9 individual parts, presented in 4 groups, mapped
along an axis of abstraction. A model was created in an attempt to communicate
observed relationships between students learning potential, their risk of feeling over-
whelmed and the amount of choices they were provided with. A set of guidelines
as well as a teaching approach was provided to give more concrete answers to the
research question. Practical workshop examples were also provided in an attempt
to aid teachers in the transition to the new curriculum.

Keywords: micro:bit, teaching material, programming, primary school, computa-
tional thinking.

v





Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Carl Heath and Peter Ljungstrand at RISE Interactive
for giving us the opportunity for this thesis and also for their help and support
during the work. We would also like to thank our supervisor, Eva Eriksson, for her
guidance and perseverance and also everyone that participated in our workshops,
both students and teachers.

vii





Contents

Glossary xv

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.1.1 Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1.1 Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.1.2 Design Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2.1 Deliverables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1 Students (user) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2 Teachers (user) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.3 RISE Interactive (business client) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.4 Interaction Design Faculty (academic client) . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.5 Thesis Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Background 5
2.1 Changes in Swedish Education Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Programming in UK Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 About Micro:bit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3.1 Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.4.1 Development Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4.1.1 Scratch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1.2 Arduino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1.3 Makey Makey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1.4 Raspberry Pi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1.5 Quirkbot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.4.2 Learning Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.2.1 Hour of Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.2.2 Computing at School (CAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4.3 Maker Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3.1 Fab Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4.3.2 Techshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.3.3 Makerskola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4.3.4 Digitalverkstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

ix



Contents

3 Theory 15
3.1 Teacher’s Role in Digital Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Constructionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Hattie and Donoghue Model of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Self-Determination Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.4.1 SDT in Relation to Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.5 Computational Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.5.1 MIT Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.5.2 Barefoot Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4 Methodology 23
4.1 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.1.1 Qualitative Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1.2 Recruiting Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1.3 Empathy Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.4 Stakeholder Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.1.5 Fly on the Wall Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.6 Semi-Structured Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.7 Exit Tickets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.8 Personas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.1.9 Journey Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1.10 Affinity Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.2 Iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2.1 Brainstorming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.2 Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.3 Integrate Feedback and Iterate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.4 Abstraction Laddering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.5 Rapid Prototyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5 Process 29
5.1 Planning and Pre-study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5.1.1 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.1.2 Literature Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.3 Makerdays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

5.2 First Sessions with Digitalverkstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.2.1 Workshop at Kullavik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2.2 Workshop at Lindholmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.3 Workshops with Student Interns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.4 Workshops in Stockholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.4.1 Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4.2 Breddenskolan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.4.3 Sollentuna Musikklasser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.4.4 Runbackaskolan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.4.5 Grimstaskolan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.5 BETT Show in London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.6 Persona Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.7 Journey Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

x



Contents

5.8 Second Sessions with Digitalverkstan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.8.1 Lindholmen Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.8.2 Interview with Facilitator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.9 Workshops at Västergårdsskolan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.9.1 Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.9.2 First Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.9.3 Second Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.9.4 Third Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.9.5 Fourth Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5.10 Insight analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.10.1 Affinity Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.10.2 Scope of Autonomy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.10.3 Co-Coding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.10.4 Technical Pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.10.4.1 App-Store Passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.10.4.2 Internet Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.10.4.3 Pairing Mode Bugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5.10.5 Basic Toolbox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.10.6 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.10.7 Analog Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.10.8 Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.10.8.1 Tinkering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.10.8.2 Stupid Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.10.8.3 Text Based Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.10.8.4 Editor Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.10.8.5 Self Instructing Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.10.8.6 End on a Positive Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.10.8.7 Video Bubble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.10.8.8 Awareness of Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.11 Reiteration of Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6 Result 67
6.1 Examples of Exercises and Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6.1.1 micro:bit Exercise Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.1.1.1 Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.1.1.2 Name Badge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.1.1.3 Coin Toss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
6.1.1.4 Dice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.1.1.5 Rock Paper Scissor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.1.1.6 Step Counter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1.1.7 Music Player . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1.1.8 Radio Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.1.1.9 Neopixel Animation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.1.1.10 Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6.1.2 Analog Workshop Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.1.2.1 Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

xi



Contents

6.1.2.2 General Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.1.2.3 First Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.1.2.4 Second Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

6.1.3 micro:bit Workshop Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.1.3.1 General Preparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
6.1.3.2 First Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.1.3.3 Second Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

6.2 Co-coding Teaching Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.3 Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

6.3.1 Basic Toolbox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.3.1.1 Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.3.1.2 Loops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.3.1.3 Randomness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.3.1.4 Logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.3.1.5 Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.3.1.6 Debugging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

6.3.2 Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.3.3 Technical Pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

6.3.3.1 App-Store Passwords . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.3.3.2 Internet Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
6.3.3.3 Pairing Mode Bugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

6.3.4 Other Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.3.4.1 Tinkering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.3.4.2 Stupid Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.3.4.3 Text Based Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.3.4.4 Editor Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.3.4.5 Self Instructing Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.3.4.6 End on a Positive Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.3.4.7 Video Bubble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.3.4.8 Awareness of Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

6.4 Scope of Autonomy Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.4.1 Scope of Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.4.2 Micro:bit Levels of Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

6.4.2.1 Customization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.4.2.2 Solution Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.4.2.3 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.4.2.4 Block Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.4.2.5 Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

7 Discussion 101
7.1 Reflection on Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7.2 Reflection on Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.3 Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7.4 Generalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.5 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
7.6 Ethical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

xii



Contents

8 Conclusion 107

Bibliography 109

xiii



Contents

xiv



Glossary

exercise A task designed to enable someone to gain certain knowledge or develop
certain skills. 88

learner Someone acquiring a skill or knowledge. In some theories learners are dif-
ferentiated from students, in this thesis however, students are also considered
to be learners. 20

microcontroller A small computer on a circuit board that can be programmed. 7
motivation Something energizing and directing behaviours and activities. 17

platform An environment in which a piece of software can be executed. v

STEM Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 7, 12
student A person enrolled in a school. 2

teaching material Some content, tool or practice designed for teachers, students
and or self-learners to aid in the acquiring of certain knowledge or skills. v

URL Uniform Resource Locator, also known as a web-address. 9

workshop A set of exercises that follow a predetermined plan for the lesson in
order to reach a set goal. All participants are present on site. 31

xv



Glossary

xvi



1
Introduction

In a society with accelerating technical development, there are obvious difficulties
in designing education that can prepare next generations for an unknown future.
With an ever faster technical development it becomes less relevant to teach specific
skills that might become obsolete in a near future, instead it becomes more impor-
tant to teach skills that enable new generations to swiftly adapt to the changes and
technologies that emerge. The National Research Council address this in their re-
port “Being Fluent with Information Technology” stating that the rapid technology
development calls for a ‘fluency’ approach, rather than the traditional ‘skill-based’
approach (1; 2). There is a central challenge in learning how to work with technology
and design through iterative, reflective and flexible approaches to learning(3).

Sweden is set to introduce programming in schools 1st of july 2018. Principals will
be able to choose when to apply the changes within a one year period, starting
july 1st 2017(4).There has been little research done on how the teacher’s techno-
logical skills and attitudes towards technology will affect such a transition nor on
what school resources will be required. The current research has focused on imped-
iments that arise regarding the shift in mindset that is required from teachers in
a more explorative teaching setting, rather than the more traditional goal oriented
approach(3).

In the UK the transition to including programming in education has already begun.
As part of the Make It Digital initiative in 2015, BBC has together with Microsoft,
Samsung and other partners, developed the micro:bit for use in computer education.
Every year 7 pupil in the UK was given one of these small computers, or microcon-
trollers, that can be programmed and customized. It aims to inspire young people
to get creative in the digital world, developing core skills in STEM subjects and
produce a new generation of inventors and makers.

The Swedish research institute RISE Interactive is also exploring ways to use the
micro:bit as a teaching platform. They are inspired by the UK and want to see
how this platform can be adapted to aid in the Swedish curriculum transition. This
thesis aims to investigate this endeavour in order to support Swedish teachers in the
transition to the new programming curriculum.

1



1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose
This master’s thesis aims to answer an academic research question through the pur-
suit of a design goal. Hence this aspiration has one foot in the academic world and
another foot in the field of applied interaction design. The outcome will therefore
both be an academic contribution as well as a potential product or service deliver-
able.

1.1.1 Research Question
What is important to consider when designing teaching materials with the BBC
micro:bit for training Swedish primary school students computational thinking skills?

1.1.1.1 Contribution

This thesis aims to contribute a set of guidelines to consider when introducing a
new technological platform, such as the BBC micro:bit, for training computational
thinking in Swedish primary schools. These guidelines will be based on non ex-
haustive empirical design research and be limited to the micro:bit platform and the
Swedish school context.

1.1.2 Design Goal
Support Swedish primary school teachers with teaching materials, based on the BBC
micro:bit, that help them meet the programming requirements of the new curriculum
changes.

1.1.2.1 Deliverables

To support Swedish teachers in the transition to a programming curriculum, this
thesis aims to deliver teaching materials that meet the needs of the teachers. Due
to the explorative design approach used in this project, it is hard to define the
outcoming nature of such support at the beginning of the project.

1.2 Stakeholders
Stakeholders are defined as people that either affect or are affected by the system
that is being designed for. The stakeholders that are within the scope of this thesis
are presented below.

1.2.1 Students (user)
The focus of this master’s thesis is on primary school students spanning from 4th to
6th grade in public Swedish schools. As the British micro:bit efforts have been tar-
geted at students of this age, it is assumed that this is an appropriate age. Another

2



1. Introduction

assumption is that these students are sufficiently knowledgeable in the english lan-
guage to be able to work with the micro:bit. They are assumed to be familiar with
consumer technology but unfamiliar with programming tools and digital fabrication.

1.2.2 Teachers (user)
Another focus is the primary school teachers, who teach 4th-6th grades in a variety
of subjects in public Swedish schools. Teachers being on the brink of a big change
in their field of work. They have to acclimatize quickly to meet the new curriculum
changes, support students in their development as new technologies are introduced
while conforming to limited school resources. Teachers may differ significantly in
age and education as well as attitudes towards technology and change.

1.2.3 RISE Interactive (business client)
RISE Interactive (TII) is a Swedish governmentally owned research institute part of
the Swedish ICT and Rise concern, working with industrial research and innovation
globally. Their mission is to courageously do new things in the fields of technol-
ogy, business, and design that allow people to do and think in new ways through
empowering collaborative design. This thesis falls in line with their current project
Makerskola which aims to use technology in creative new ways to contribute to the
development of subject matter specific methodologies. TII provide the research con-
text, the design problem as well as access to a large network of teachers that have
access to an even larger number of students. TII also provide technical, academic
and project related knowledge in weekly supervision sessions.

1.2.4 Interaction Design Faculty (academic client)
The master’s programme of Interaction Design at Chalmers University of technol-
ogy are concerned with teaching the skills of designing the interactions between
people and products with information technology as a central component. More-
over Chalmers purpose is to carry on education and research on an internationally
high level within the fields of engineering, science and mathematics-natural sciences.
Chalmers provide the opportunity for this thesis and provide academic and research
related knowledge in frequent supervision sessions.

1.2.5 Thesis Authors
The thesis work is performed by two students in their last semester of their master’s
study in Interaction Design and Technologies at Chalmers. Their backgrounds are
bachelor’s degrees at Chalmers in Industrial design engineering and Computer Sci-
ences respectively. Their aspirations are to gain insight in the planning, execution
and presentation of a larger scale project where they are allowed to exercises previ-
ously acquired skills as well as gain first hand experience to better prepare them for
a future profession in interaction design.

3



1. Introduction

1.3 Delimitations
Due to the wicked problem nature of the research question and the limited time
frame for the project, a non exhaustive empirical design research approach was
undertaken. The consequential delimitations are presented below to set the scope
for this project.

As there are many factors and stakeholders involved in a nation’s educational system,
this project was only able to regard a limited scope within the frame of a master’s
thesis. The system in which school based teaching and learning exist, involves
many stakeholders that either affect or are are affected by the system. Potential
stakeholders are students, parents, teachers, school managers as well as researchers,
policymakers, companies and other organisations. Due to time constraints the main
focus of this master’s thesis was on the student and teacher stakeholders. The
Swedish government and the National Agency of Education are both major political
stakeholders, in this thesis however, their curriculum changes will be treated as given
limitations for simplification. The governmental curriculum changes affect multiple
school subjects, this thesis will however primarily focus on the programming aspects
relating to mathematical and technical school subjects. The year groups studied in
this project are limited to year 4-6. The societal impact of digitalisation and other
topics relating to humanities and social sciences, are outside of the scope of this
thesis.

Many different technologies and development platforms are available and new ones
are constantly being developed. Choosing what technological platform to invest in
might be a very relevant question to educators, however this is not within the scope
of this thesis. This project will be using the BBC micro:bit, as a given educational
platform as the client stakeholders considered it to be affordable, already well spread
in the UK, and having a lot of potential with its many onboard sensors. Furthermore
there are multiple different editors available for working with the micro:bit. This
thesis chose however to only look at the Microsoft MakeCode micro:bit editor, and
specifically the block editor part of it.

4



2
Background

This chapter presents a more detailed description about the suggested changes in
Swedish schools regarding IT-strategies and programming in the classroom and cur-
riculum. An overview is given to the changes that have been made in the UK as
well as the resources and methods that are used to help teachers in the transition
to a computing curriculum. The selected hardware platform for the project, the mi-
cro:bit, is described with its pro’s and con’s together with related hardware products
that are also suited for classroom use.

2.1 Changes in Swedish Education Strategies
Thursday 9th of March 2017 the Swedish government made changes to the pol-
icy documents that control Swedish primary and secondary school curriculum(4).
The main focus of the changes are to enhance and emphasize the school’s duty in
strengthening the students digital competences. This is planned to be done through-
out the various year groups by different means. Varying from teaching step-wise
instructions in the early year groups to fully encompass programming in later year
groups. These changes are to be adopted by Swedish schools starting July 1st 2017,
and be fully implemented by July 1st 2018. The changes are primarily concerned
with:

Programming

Digital tools Systems thinking Impact

Critical thinking Creativity
Programming will be introduced as a clear 
part in multiple subjects throughout primary 
school, especially in technical and 
mathematical subjects.

That students are strengthened in their critical 
thinking skills.

That students will be able to solve problems 
and realise ideas into action in a creative 
fashion using technology.

That students will work with digital texts, 
media and tools.

That students will be able to use and 
understand digital systems and services.

That students develop an understanding for 
the impact digitalisation has on the individual 
and the society.

Figure 2.1: An English translation of the new curriculum changes

Some of these changes were previously proposed by the Swedish National Agency for
Education. They developed drafts of possible changes to policy documents regard-
ing the mission to propose suggestions to the national it-strategies for the school
system(5). These focused on enhancing and clarifying digital competence in the pol-
icy documents. Their definition of digital competences was based on the descriptions
used by the EU and The Digitalisation Commission.

5



2. Background

2.2 Programming in UK Education

In the UK the transition to more programming in school started off in January
2012 when The Royal Society published a highly-rated article(6) that put computer
science back in the light again with recommendations to reintroduce CS in schools.
Up until then they had been teaching information and communication technology
(ICT) but with an increasingly declining reputation over the last couple of years.
ICT in contrast to CS focused more on the usage and software rather than the
creative and underlying principles of computing. It was not long before the depart-
ment of education declared the ICT curriculum to be rewritten and in its stead
officially reintroduce CS teaching in schools again. With this change several issues
were brought to surface. For instance how will the primary schools handle the fast
pace of these changes, and how will they make sure that there are enough teachers
with the right knowledge?

Primary school teachers are the ones that face the most change as their curriculum is
the first to be remade while secondary teachers have some more time to prepare for
curriculum changes. This is particularly difficult since most primary school teachers
are generalists, they teach a whole class in most subjects having broad knowledge
rather than being specialists within a certain subject. As there is a massive shortage
in teachers with experience and knowledge within the computing area, the delivery
of computing in class is a big challenge and might be hampered severely if teachers
is not educated fast enough(7). As there is no or very limited resources as well as
time being an issue to educate teachers in CS, new methods have to be developed
to help teachers in an efficient manner.

Computing At School (CAS) Network of Computer Science Teaching Excellence
was started in an attempt to address these issues by building a network that aims
to become self-sustained within a three year period. CAS is providing teachers
with a system to share resources and host discussion groups through a website.
Teachers are allowed to both upload their own and give feedback on others ideas
and resources regarding CS in education, this way many teachers feel that they can
make a contribution and help their own peers. Additionally CAS Network maintains
a number of so called Master CS teachers that are used to deliver professional
development to teachers at site. This way a faster paced development of CS skills
among teachers is achieved, by teachers teaching teachers the knowledge expands,
and will eventually reach a sufficient number of CS educated teachers in the UK.

This is an overview of Network of Teaching Excellence in CS and depicts the roles
and areas of involved actors to explain the whole system in addition to the parts
explained in previous paragraph.

6



2. Background

2.3 About Micro:bit

Figure 2.2: The micro:bit hardware held for scale

As a part of BBC’s 2015 Make it Digital Initiative the micro:bit was developed. It
aims to inspire young people to get creative in the digital world, developing core
skills in STEM subjects and produce a new generation of inventors and makers.
The micro:bit is a small computer, or microcontroller, that can be programmed
and customized in order to bring ideas to life(8). Displaying your name, or making
it blink can be coded in seconds even if the user is totally new to programming.
micro:bit can also be connected to other devices or sensors and can complement
other hardware like Arduino and Raspberry Pi, it works as a great springboard to
more complex learning(8). Key features include:

7



2. Background

• 5x5 LED matrix display
• Two programmable buttons
• Accelerometer that can detect movement
• A built-in compass to sense direction
• The ability to sense temperature and light levels.
• Bluetooth Smart Technology to interact with other micro:bits and mobile

devices.
• Five Input and Output (I/O) rings to connect the micro:bit to devices or

sensors using e.g crocodile clips.

For ensuring that the micro:bit becomes successful, it has been mentioned to be
important that all partners involved work closely with both teachers, educators and
schools to provide resources and information supporting the curriculum.

2.3.1 Editor

Figure 2.3: One of the editors in which programs can be created for the micro:bit

There are multiple ways of programming the micro:bit, the scope of this thesis has
however been limited to only focus on the Microsoft MakeCode micro:bit editor.

The Microsoft MakeCode micro:bit editor is a free to use online JavaScript/Blocks
editor for programming the micro:bit. This means that it runs in the web browser
and hence is cross platform compatible, both on different web browsers but also
across different operating systems, such as OSX, Windows, iOS and Android. This
also implies that an internet connection is required for using the editor. Technically

8



2. Background

the Microsoft MakeCode editor for micro:bit can be used offline as the application
gets cached locally but only if an online compilation has been made first. So either
way an internet connection is required at some point.

The term block editor refers to the puzzle like interaction where the user builds
their programs by snapping different function blocks together to create a programs
behaviour.

The editor allows the user to code both with blocks as well as JavaScript code. It
provides the possibility to switch back and forth between these on the fly to translate
from one to the other.

The user interface of the editor as seen from left to right consists of a simulator,
a section of available blocks and an area where the user is to drag blocks and
build their programs. At the top, controls are available for saving and loading
projects, switching back and forth between block or JavaScript mode, and some more
advanced settings. At the bottom the download button is located for downloading
the created program.

For creating a simple program the user begins with finding the desired blocks in the
middle column folders and drags them onto the block building area on the right.
Blocks snapped into the “on start” block will only run once, and blocks snapped
into the “forever” block will repeat indefinitely. The functionality of the program
can then be evaluated with the simulator on the left. To download the program the
user clicks the download button on the bottom left, and transfers the obtained file
to the micro:bit flash drive via a usb cable.

By the time this thesis was written the URL to the editor was:
https://makecode.microbit.org/.

2.4 Related Work
In this chapter three subcategories of related work will be briefly described. De-
velopment platforms entail mostly hardware that are related to the micro:bit and
how they are used in an educational context. Learning platforms is about different
forms of teaching materials on how to learn programming as well as other ways of
educating teachers in CS. Lastly a short introduction to maker movements will be
presented and how its community is growing and providing schools an alternative
way of looking at education with digital materials.

2.4.1 Development Platforms
In this chapter a brief look of existing development platforms, mainly different kinds
of hardware products, will be presented. The perspective is from the point of impact
in an educational sense and the different uses and environments it is applicable in.

9



2. Background

2.4.1.1 Scratch

Scratch is a free programming language that was developed by MIT Media Lab,
and has been around since 2013(Scratch 2). Its main purpose is to be accessible for
students and teachers and be an easy-to-use tool in introducing computer science
through programming, indirectly provide a stepping stone to a world of more ad-
vanced programming. As the creation of programs is relatively easy and skills learnt
can be used later when learning Java or Python, it works great as an introductory
language. Main users are kids around the ages of 9-16 but can be used successfully
in classes of both younger and older students(9).

2.4.1.2 Arduino

Arduino is an easy-to-use electronics platform that is used worldwide by makers,
students, hobbyists and professionals. Arduino provides open-source on both hard-
ware and software, the boards can read inputs as light sensors and turn it into
outputs e.g activating a motor. Arduino was first designed to be an easy tool for
quick prototyping aimed at students with little to no background in either program-
ming or electronics, but as it started to reach a wider community the Arduino board
changed in order to adapt to new needs and challenges(10).

2.4.1.3 Makey Makey

Makey Makey is an electronic invention tool that lets users connect mundane objects
to control computer programs. Makey Makey uses closed loop electrical signals to
detect keyboard strokes or mouse click signals by having alligator clips connect
between objects and the circuit board. This allows the Makey Makey to work with
any computer program or web page, as the inputs are the same(11).

2.4.1.4 Raspberry Pi

The Raspberry Pi is a credit-card sized, single board computer that you can plug
into your TV and keyboard. Developed by the Raspberry Pi Foundation to promote
teaching computer science at a basic level in schools and developing countries. It
is very much like a desktop computer in pocket size and very capable for electron-
ics projects, browsing the web, spreadsheet or playing games and high-definition
video(12). A teacher training course, the Picademy, was also started by the Rasp-
berry Pi Foundation aiming to help teachers prepare for the coming additions of
computing in the curriculum using the Raspberry Pi, in addition a continuation of
the course, professional development, is given free for teachers(13).

2.4.1.5 Quirkbot

Quirkbot is a microcontroller aimed for kids to program and play with. It is a toy
that is compatible with Strawbees, another open construction toy, and readily avail-
able materials like drinking straws, LEDs and servo motors to create a vast variety of
homemade toys. Quirkbot also provides guidance for teachers with their education
guide that is filled with both inspirational projects as well as lesson plans(14).

10



2. Background

2.4.2 Learning Platforms
A brief look into how teacher material and education can be made accessible. Hour
of Code representing the web based program to promote the fun of CS and no
prerequisite knowledge of programming is required. CAS is a project in the UK
whose aim is to provide a highly accessible network for teacher development in the
field of CS, managing master teacher classes, shared online resources and discussion
groups.

2.4.2.1 Hour of Code

Hour of Code started of as an hours introduction to CS, with the purpose to play
down programming and show that anyone is capable of learning the fundamentals
of coding. Today Hour of Code is a worldwide grassroots movement with plenty of
guides and activities for all to take part of. Anyone can arrange an Hour of Code
with the help of a how-to guide in their school, voluntary or at work. No previous
experience is needed as the program has a well defined self-instructed activity for all
ages and levels of experience. Most importantly Hour of Code is about having fun
and being creative with CS, reaching a wide spectrum of participants with all ages
and backgrounds. Teachers also get confidence in successfully teaching a subject
they are not educated in, and often spur on further interest in learning CS more
deeply(15).

2.4.2.2 Computing at School (CAS)

Computing at School (CAS) is a project funded by the Department of Education in
the UK which goal is to help teachers, both primary and secondary, share ideas and
resources as well as learn more about how to practice CS in the classroom. CAS
consist of a community that has its members run regional hubs around the country
where they meet to talk and learn from professionals about teaching CS. The main
goal is to equip all involved in computing education with strategic guidance focusing
on CS and the computing curriculum, setting a high standard for the level of CS
education delivered by those involved(16).

2.4.3 Maker Movements
Maker movement stems from the DIY tradition and foster a learning through-doing
setting that focuses on being explorative and curious with technology, mixing both
physical and software technologies. Makerspaces is where like-minded ‘makers’ come
together in a social environment to have fun and build, as well as share, their projects
with others using technology, science, digital art etc.

2.4.3.1 Fab Lab

From MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms(CBA) comes an educational component,
Fab Lab, that is an extension to its research into digital fabrication and computa-
tion. Fab Lab works as a prototyping platform for both innovation and invention
with digital materials. A local place to come and play, create, learn and invent

11



2. Background

with others in a so called ‘makerspace’(17). All labs share a common set of tools
and processes and form a global network of inventors, spanning over 30 countries
around the world. Fab Labs only uses off-the-shelf tools and open source software
in order to be available for everyone. Across the countries schools have increased
their interest in Fab Labs by using their makerspaces for projects in STEM edu-
cation. The labs give a very authentic context to operate in, allowing students to
design things of pure personal interest and not being tied down by any curriculum.
Students can work freely and make use of a proper explorative design process, imag-
ine; design; prototype; reflect; and iterate as they find solutions to their challenges
and bring ideas to life. Fab Labs being closely aligned with MIT’s CBA, where
research into next generation fabrication tools and software are pushing the digital
and analog boundaries, make the Fab Labs a cutting edge workshop for research
and development.

2.4.3.2 Techshop

TechShop is a community that provides its members access to instruction, profes-
sional equipment and software, and a creative space to work in. It works as a DIY
workshop and fabrication studio, a local space where entrepreneurs, artists, makers
and students learn and work alongside each other. People of all skill levels join in to
build on their own projects. Currently TechShop is only available on nine different
locations in the United States(18).

2.4.3.3 Makerskola

Makerskola, or Makerspace in schools, is a project supported by Sweden’s innovation
agency Vinnova. With creative use of emerging technologies their goal is to make
a contribution in the development of new subject matter specific methodology. By
letting young people explore the boundary between analog and digital resources
providing a test in both theoretical and practical work. Over time the project
has the intention to improve schools’ educational activities in general and provide
input for curriculum development, but also provide opportunities to develop and
spread the best practices in the field of maker culture between teachers, schools
and local education authorities. Many research institutes, businesses and about
30 local education authorities are involved in the project. In order to evaluate
methods, equipment and logistics, several testbeds have been established. This gives
possibilities for teachers, together with students, to explore the idea of makerspaces
in schools; introduction of programming; and creative work with Internet of Things.
Once a year a conference is organised, Maker Days, to inspire and share knowledge to
which stakeholders outside the partnership are welcome to participate. This shows
the projects aim to also be about emphasizing human resource development(19).

2.4.3.4 Digitalverkstan

Digitalverkstan is an investment from Dataföreningen to try and stimulate and de-
velop children’s digital knowledge, both in school and leisure. Dataföreningen is a
non-profit and unreliant association that work toward a positive development of the

12



2. Background

possibilities technology provide in today’s society. Digitalverkstan consists of several
different programs with different activities that creates opportunities for children’s
up to fifteen years old to create digitally and practice programming. They provide
a service to schools to host workshops of different kinds on various locations around
the Gothenburg area. To give them an opportunity to be shown the many possibil-
ities of programming and digital creation based on platforms like Scratch, Arduino,
Makey-makey and micro:bit. To facilitate the workshops they hire students that
seek a developing and inspiring job on the side(20).

13



2. Background

14



3
Theory

In the following section descriptions of theories that are relevant to the project will
be presented. The theories selected were weighed and picked with relevance to the
field and own approach in addition to the limited time for the whole project in mind.

3.1 Teacher’s Role in Digital Fabrication
As digital fabrication technologies makes increasing impact on supporting STEM
subjects in primary and secondary school, the teacher’s role to handle these new
learning processes of both technology and design has been largely overlooked. There
are many challenges that is presented to teachers by introducing digital fabrication
in technology in an educational environment, Smith et al(3) have identified four
impediments that have to be solved in order to create a healthy environment for
teachers and teaching when it comes to integrating technology to support education
with the teacher’s role in focus. To begin with the schools today are more or less
goal-oriented, this is due to classes following a strict curriculum and need to satisfy
certain objectives. In order to introduce digital fabrication technologies to support
education successfully there has to be a change regarding the curriculum that gives
the teacher a different kind of role. Design processes is more of an open ended and
explorative way of learning, the learners should be allowed more freedom during
class and teacher’s role should change towards a facilitator(3). There needs to be a
way for teachers to practice purposeful education and still be able to support the
explorative process that is digital fabrication.

In today’s goal-oriented school environment a lot of the teacher’s focus is on com-
pletion of tasks, the process of getting to a finalization is not as important. When
designing with digital materials a big part of the learning process and understanding
is through sketching a solution, reflecting and iterating to reach a possible solution.
A change in the mindset of looking at design materials and fabrication materials as
reflection tools rather than just outcomes of a design process can be a contributing
factor to be able to integrate digital fabrication in the classroom. Closely tied is
the need for a design language, a common ground of understanding between teach-
ers and students to express ideas and qualities regarding design(3). Teachers must
develop this way of reflective understanding, as it is a fundamental part of digital
fabrication and design. Another thing to bear in mind is that this will probably
rewrite the map of the regular classroom teaching ways. Teachers will not always
be in full control of steering a class with precision each time, but rather has to

15



3. Theory

get accustomed to having less authority and less control due to not mastering all
the techniques that are taught. This is a scary situation for any teacher , as the
current classroom situation differ greatly from the self-motivated environments as
makerspaces are, which need a teacher in a facilitator role(3).

3.2 Constructionism
Seymour Papert(21) built constructionism on the idea of constructivism, that knowl-
edge is a structure built in the mind of the learner rather than something prepack-
aged ready to be absorbed from the teacher. Constructionism however also adds the
notion that the learner constructs this knowledge while consciously creating some
public entity, whether it is a sand castle or a theory of the universe. Papert stresses
the irony in trying to come up with a definition for constructionism, as the whole
idea about it, is that the knowledge about it is created by you as you engage in an
effort to create it.
Papert claims that comparing constructionism to instructionism is trying to compare
something that is different on a much deeper level than merely the way in which
knowledge is acquired, but rather on the level of what the nature of knowledge
really is. Further he illustrates the successful implementation of constructionism in
stories about children who are exposed to an environment in which their desire to
create something beautiful leads them to wanting to learn the math knowledge, for
instance, required to implement these ideas(21).

3.3 Hattie and Donoghue Model of Learning

Hattie and Donoghue propose a model of learning(22) that suggests learning has
three inputs and outputs: skill, will and thrill. It mentions the importance of defining
the success criteria to the learner and that there are three phases of learning: surface,

16



3. Theory

deep and transfer. Surface and deep are also each divided into an acquiring and a
consolidation phase. The model suggests that some learning strategies are more
effective than others but that this is dependent on the learning phase. Further on
it is argued that learning strategies should be embedded into subject content rather
than be taught separately out of context. Transfer is shown to be highly effective
for learning, especially in looking at similarities and differences between different
contexts and situations. It is suggested that transfer requires the previous phases
to be passed in a linear fashion. However, the authors also point out that this is an
assumption and that more research needs to look at how the order of phases impact
learning.

3.4 Self-Determination Theory
Self-Determination Theory is a macro theory of human motivation that first and fore-
most states that motivation has more dimensions than simply the strength amount
of motivation. According to SDT the type or quality of the motivation is even more
important than the strength, for being able to predict psychological effects relating
to well-being, performance and creativity.

In SDT motivation, contrasted to amotivation, is described as energizing and direct-
ing behaviours and activities. These motivations are divided into the two distinct
groups of autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomous motiva-
tion consists both of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivations where people
have identified with the value of a certain activity or even integrated it into their
sense of self. According to Ryan and Deci(23) intrinsic motivation is where one is
moved to act for the inherent satisfaction of doing the activity, not driven by any
outcome separate from the activity itself. Whereas extrinsic motivation is described
as an activity instrumental to reach an outcome separate from the activity at hand.
Controlled motivation on the other hand is described as extrinsic motivation that
either is external motivation regulation or introjected regulation. Here external
regulations are either rewards or punishments whereas introjected regulations are
approval motive, avoidance of shame, contingent self-esteem or ego-involvements.

Central to SDT are the notions from Basic Psychological Needs Theory that psycho-
logical well-being and performance are predictable on three basic needs: autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. To the extent of which these three needs are satis-
fied or thwarted by the context an individual’s differences are changed in two ways,
according to SDT. These two individual differences are: causality orientations and
aspirations. Causality orientations are derived from Causality Orientations The-
ory and relates to three ways of orienting oneself in relation to regulating one’s
behaviours. These orientations are: autonomy, which is acting out of interest; con-
trolled, which is focused on rewards, approval and gains; and impersonal or amoti-
vated, which is an anxious relation to competence. According to SDT all individuals
have degrees of all three orientations. These are suggested to be influenced by an
individual’s surroundings support for the three basic needs (autonomy, competence,
and relatedness) and have been shown to correlate with a person’s psychological

17



3. Theory

and behavioural outcome(24). Aspirations or life goals are, according to SDT, goals
acquired by an individual to compensate for thwarted basic psychological needs
(autonomy, competence, and relatedness) over time. These goals are either intrinsic
aspirations or extrinsic aspirations. Intrinsic aspirations are for instance affiliation,
generativity, and personal development. Extrinsic affiliations include goals such as
fame, wealth and attractiveness. It is suggested that thwarted basic psychological
needs result in the adoption of extrinsic life goals in an effort to try to satisfy these
needs, something that extrinsic goals are unable to satisfy. At the same time the
aspiration for external life goals tend to crowd out basic need satisfaction(24).

Figure 3.1: Figure of self-determination continuum according to Gangé and
Deci(25).

3.4.1 SDT in Relation to Education
It has been shown that there are factors that can catalyze or undermine intrinsic
motivation. Things as tangible rewards, threats, deadlines, directives, competition
pressure and negative performance feedback undermines intrinsic motivation accord-
ing to Cognitive Evaluation Theory. On the other hand choice and opportunities for
self-direction, as well as positive performance feedback has been shown to enhance
intrinsic motivation(23). Behaviours that are not intrinsically interesting to a person
will require extrinsic motivation to be adopted. To make an extrinsic motivation
more self determined is the process of internalization and integration. This is done
when a student truly understands the values of an activity, identifies with it and
incorporates it with their sense of self. This is suggested to be done by foremost
addressing the basic psychological need of relatedness, by having the behaviour val-
ued by significant others to whom they would like to feel connected. Therefore it is
important to provide a safe comforting environment where the students feels that
they can trust the facilitators. To further support internalization and integration
it is argued that the need for competence has to be supported through challenges

18



3. Theory

where the student feel that they have the competence to succeed. To support in-
ternalization and integration to the extent that the regulation becomes autonomous
however, the basic psychological need of autonomy has to be supported by the en-
vironment as well. This is suggested to be supported by the environment in such a
way that makes the student feel free and agentic to explore new ideas and exercise
new skills(23). It is suggested that selecting programmes, the possibility of drop-
ping out of courses, flexible schedules and the possibility to skip classes are a few
ways in which college supports autonomy in ways that high school does not. It is
suggested that this might be the reason to why there are students in college that
match an autonomous motivation profile, whereas high school students all fall into
the category of controlled motivation profiles(26).

3.5 Computational Thinking
During the 21st century there has been an increasing interest in the field of com-
putational thinking (CT). It started with Jeannette Wing’s article in 2006 about
CT and argued for this new competency in schools to enhance children’s analytical
ability in STEM subjects, it was not just for computer scientists anymore. This
caught the attention of the academic community that started to interpret her def-
inition and since then perform their own research on CT. Although the concept of
CT being important in education is not new, as early as the 1960’s there were those
advocating teaching programming to college students. Most notably was Seymour
Papert’s MIT work with the program LOGO in the 80’s, as this was aimed at K-12
education.

There are many different takes on exactly how to define CT, Wing(27) defines it as
“Computational thinking is the thought processes involved in formulating problems
and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that can be effec-
tively carried out by an information-processing agent”. This definition is all about
how to think when posed with a problem, the abstraction and process to arrive at a
solution step by step. Another definition that is more about the importance of being
able to reflect on and see the modern world through the lens of CS is proposed by
the Royal Society(6), “Computational thinking is the process of recognising aspects
of computation in the world that surrounds us, and applying tools and techniques
from Computer Science to understand and reason about both natural and artificial
systems and processes”.

As a result of these different definitions, although highly related to each other, the
following list of elements is widely accepted as containing the basis of CT in curricula
that aim to asses the development and support the learning of it(28):

• Abstractions and pattern generalizations
• Systematic processing of information
• Symbol systems and representations
• Algorithmic notions of flow of control
• Structured problem decomposition

19



3. Theory

• Iterative, recursive and parallel thinking
• Conditional logic
• Efficiency and performance constraints
• Debugging and systematic error detection

It is quite evident that most of the recent work regarding CT has been about devel-
opment tools and definitions, not as much focus have been made on the assessing of
CT and how to do it as large gaps still exist in this part of the field(28).

The key for integrating CT in K-12 is the assessment of it. Without a method for
assessing the learning of CT with students there is little hope of it being incorporated
in the K-12 curriculum(28). Two models on how to do this have been acknowledged,
the MIT model and the Barefoot model, accompanied with their own definition of
CT as well. These models will be portrayed in further detail in coming subchapters.

3.5.1 MIT Model
Recently researchers at MIT have developed a CT framework based upon studies
they made. Also by studying learners using and engaging in programming through
Scratch, a definition of what CT is was split into three categories: computational
concepts; computational practices; and computational perspectives(29). Computa-
tional concepts entails being able to grasp seven specific concepts that are common
in many programming languages(30):

• sequence: identifying a series of steps for a task
• loops: running the same sequence multiple times
• parallelism: making things happen at the same time
• events: one thing causing another thing to happen
• conditionals: making decisions based on conditions
• operators: support for mathematical and logical expressions
• data: storing, retrieving, and updating value

It soon became clear that the concepts as a framework for CT was not enough,
something to support the process of construction was needed. By studying how
the learners adopted different strategies when developing their projects four distinct
practices was identified. Experimenting and iterating being one, test and debug
being another. Making use of existing projects or ideas and build on them was also
practiced frequently and being able to see the connection of the smallest part to the
whole project. The third category, perspectives, is all about the learner reaching a
new level of awareness of the technology that surrounds them. Being able to express
themselves and seeing computation as a medium for creation, by recognizing the
power of creating with and for others and lastly be confident and ask questions
about the world. In order to asses the level of CT development with the learners,
as knowing the definition of a computational concept is not useful if one cannot put
it to use in practice, there is three strategies that can assist(29). Artifact-based

20



3. Theory

interviews let learners engage in conversations about their projects and practices,
using examples to guide the conversation forward. Another way is to provide a set
of design scenarios for the learners that they engage in, giving them four different
angles to relate to, critiquing; extending; debugging; and remixing. Documentation
is about learners developing a sense of reflection on their own creations and ideas.

3.5.2 Barefoot Model
The Barefoot project was established in 2014 and aimed to support primary school
teachers in England to get ready for the addition of CS elements in the new cur-
riculum. Barefoot developed their own set of definitions of CT and how to apply
it in a school environment. According to Barefoot(31) CT is quite simple to ex-
plain, CT is about looking at a problem in a way that lets a computer help solving
it. Divided into two processes and the first being to think about steps needed to
solve a problem, second letting technical skills in programming put the computer to
work in solving the problem that is stated. Their interpretation of CT is composed
of six different concepts, Logic; Algorithms; Decomposition; Patterns; Abstraction;
Evaluation, continuing with five approaches, Tinkering; Creating; Debugging; Per-
severing; Collaborating, and this is similar to other models of how to think about
CT.

21



3. Theory

22



4
Methodology

This chapter briefly describes methods used in the project. They are divided into
the research part and iteration part. Research entails methods such as qualitative
literature review and interviews that lay the groundwork for the project. Addi-
tionally, methods used during the design process are called the iteration methods,
included are methods for ideation, prototyping and evaluation.

4.1 Research

Methods concerned with collecting both qualitative and quantitative data to diverge
the design process and open new doors are here described as research methods.

4.1.1 Qualitative Literature Review

A literature review is a vital part of the research process and needs to be done
carefully. The topic of having an abundance of literature to choose from, decisions
must be made on what approach to use and what to include, as it is nearly impossible
to cover it all. Literature gathered can be represented in any form of the following
sources: research articles, article reviews, books, websites, government documents
and journals.

4.1.2 Recruiting Tools

Recruiting Tools is a method that has the designers reflect upon the way participants
are being recruited to the project. It aims to ensure that a diverse set of participants
are being recruited. The team ought to be aware of covering different ages, genders
but on a more abstract level also differences in motivation, needs and wishes, within
the group of users. Recruiting tools as a method has the designers set up a strategy
for the recruiting process as a deliverable. This ought to cover strategies for reaching
diversity in participants as well as legal strategies for recruiting minors under age
and strategies for managing confidentiality of the participants.

23



4. Methodology

4.1.3 Empathy Map

The method Empathy map is developed by Stanford(32) and aims to help under-
stand users needs and derive insight from them. It is suggested to be performed by
the researcher on a single user or a group of users. It requires about half an hour,
pens and paper. Start by dividing a paper or whiteboard into four equal quadrants
representing what the user: says, does, thinks and feels. The “Say”-quadrant is to
be populated with user quotes and words that appear valuable and suggest deeper
meaning. The “Do”-quadrant is to be populated with user actions and behaviours
that have been observed. The “Think”-quadrant is to be populated with interpreted
user thoughts and beliefs. The “feel”-quadrant” is to be populated with interpreted
user feelings and emotions. As the last two traits are not directly observable it is
suggested to infer them by paying close attention to body language, tone and choice
of words.
The next step is to look at these traits and specifically look for contradicting ones,
to identify human needs. That is, according to this method, physical or emotional
human necessities or desires. Needs are verbs not nouns. Write these needs down
on the side of the empathy map.
Next insights are to be derived. These are, according to the method, remarkable
realization that help the design task at hand. Insights come from looking closely at
two contradicting attributes within a quadrant or cross quadrants. Alternatively by
keep asking “why” when finding strange behaviour(32).

4.1.4 Stakeholder Mapping
Stakeholder mapping is a method concerned with understanding the network of
people affected by or affecting a particular system. Mapping these connections out
aims at gaining a better understanding for the bigger picture of the system and
see previously obscured opportunities. The method requires a diverse team and a

24



4. Methodology

subject area to focus on. The team is then to generate a broad list of stakeholders,
draw each one of them out as a symbol on a map, draw speech bubbles from each
one of them with a short text summarizing their mindset and give them labels or
titles. The next step is to draw connections as arrows between stakeholders and give
these arrows a label describing their relationship. Finally circle related groupings
and label them.

4.1.5 Fly on the Wall Observation
In an attempt to assess to which degree both teachers and students handle new
technology and how fast they are “up and running” with it, a form of Fly-on-the-
wall observation will be used. It is interesting to see how determined they are, in
what form roadblocks pop up for the users and letting them handle it themselves.
By taking the passive role as an observer, and not interfering with any hints, notes
can be taken as to how users begin familiarizing with new technology, how they
go about fetching more knowledge and how they solve problems they step upon.
This can give designers helpful hints as to where the biggest issues lie when getting
accustomed to a new (although similar) technology.

4.1.6 Semi-Structured Interview
Semi-structured interview is a method with perfect balance between open-ended and
highly structured interviews, no set of questions have to be followed up but instead
allows for the interview to diverge(33). This is a very useful format for conducting
qualitative research and works equally good in the early stages of the research phase
as well as the latter phase stages. Some important things to have in mind when
conducting semi-structured interviews is the use of open-ended questions, nothing
that allows for a “yes” or “no” answer. No leading questions and the interviewers
ample use of probes to gather data at a depth are other examples of practicing
semi-structured interviews(33).

4.1.7 Exit Tickets
Exit ticket is a method used to gather feedback on students understanding at the
end of a workshop. At the end of a workshop the teacher prompt the students with
answering a few easy questions regarding key material from the workshop, usually
written down on post-it notes and handed to the teacher. This gives great value of
information for the time invested by the teacher and can also work as a useful basis
to guide upcoming teaching decisions, and also allows students to synthesize and
integrate the information gained for their own benefit(34).

4.1.8 Personas
When it comes to creating a design that must satisfy a diverse audience of users,
Cooper says “The best way to successfully accommodate a variety of users is to
design for specific types of individuals with specific needs”(35). A user persona is
the representation of the needs and behaviour of a set of made up users, often created

25



4. Methodology

from data derived from field studies, interviews or observations. Personas can thus
be powerful when distinguishing users and to highlight their needs and behaviour,
which often interfere with one another, therefore identifying the right individuals
to design for and making sure the most important users needs are met without
compromising the needs of secondary users is crucial for a successful product. This
seems very much applicable in the context of this thesis as there certainly is a
plethora of different needs with the students in classes, and therefore it is vital
to extract the essence of those needs and design for the wide variety focusing on
the important needs. The usage of personas have been greatly increased in the
user experience community, since it can act as a multipurpose design tool and aid
designers in problem solving.

4.1.9 Journey Map

Journey mapping is a tool based on the premises that humans are more able to relate
to narrative rather than pure data. Hence personas are used to describe different
user groups and the journey map acts as a narrative for these personas to travel
through. This can be used to communicate an existing user experience, as well as
describe an envisioned future optimal experience. It can aid in weighing the impact
every elements of an experience, e.g interactions, decisions or emotions. It is also a
good way to display your understanding of different situations(36). Journey maps
are commonly illustrated as different personas trajectories through emotional states
and expectations, as well as their touch points with the organisation. A journey
map spans over a certain time section, it can be the user’s entire experience with an
organisation from first contact to end, or simply a single section in time. A journey
map is used to identify points in time where users interact with the organisation, so
called touch points.

4.1.10 Affinity Clustering

As described by the the LUMA Handbook of Human-Centered Design Methods(36)
affinity clustering is “a graphic technique for sorting items according to similarity”.
Starting out with a set of data the team is supposed to write individual items on
post-it notes. Next the team should read each item out loud and attach it to a wall
or table where it’s relation to other objects can be discussed. Notes argued to be
related are supposed to be grouped with proximity. Finally the groups are to be
labeled according to content, as this allows for new abstracted patterns to naturally
emerge out of the data set. For this method it is also advised to have a diverse team.

4.2 Iteration

Methods for iteration describes methods that are used both to ideate, make proto-
types and evaluate the results.

26



4. Methodology

4.2.1 Brainstorming

After the research phase the design team needs to begin ideating over possible design
solutions. The potentially most used activity is some form of brainstorming, where
the participants get together and spit out ideas in a frequent, no filter and fast
paced way. In order to have a fruitful brainstorming session a certain mindset must
be instilled in the participants, along with some rules to follow. There must be
no boundaries on idea solutions, the mind must be allowed to roam freely. There
should not be any emphasis or thought of seeing the ideas of feasible solutions, that
is not what brainstorming is about. If a brainstorming session is successful the team
should have a lot of ideas to put a spin on afterwards, and with further work have
them contribute to a feasible design solution. Also some preparations regarding
what the team learned from the previous phase, the research phase, is necessary.
This can be done by finding themes in the groundwork that has been done already
through interviews and field studies.

4.2.2 Design Principles

Insights gathered and design themes identified can be put to good use for the re-
mainder of the project, by turning them into design principles. By having design
principles the design team always has something to fall back onto, and can feel con-
fident that as long as the designs produced stay true to the principles, the designs
will be relevant. It is important to try and keep the principles short and memorable,
e.g “Talk like people talk” or “Keep women at the center of business”.

4.2.3 Integrate Feedback and Iterate

What was learned about the users in the observation phase can be further investi-
gated in the iteration phase by showing them the prototype and finding out what
they think. By integrating their feedback into the design work and developing an-
other prototype is a great way of refining the idea into something that is a finished
product. Integrating feedback and iterating is closely tied to rapid prototyping and
it is therefore important to start building on the next prototype as soon as the de-
signer is settled on what should change, drawing from reflections on the feedback
received. It is mainly a method for refining the idea and is bound to be used several
times over as the results will increase the chances of the right solution being close.

4.2.4 Abstraction Laddering

A useful method when trying to identify the levels of abstraction in a problem is
abstraction laddering. This method helps designers concretize how to solve abstract
problems, and turn concrete problems more abstract by asking why and is a great
tool for comparing solutions and evaluate them.

27



4. Methodology

4.2.5 Rapid Prototyping
Rapid prototyping is an excellent tool to quickly learn through making and turning
ideas tangible as you get feedback from targeted users. This method is only meant to
roughly explore an idea, not be perfect, so you do enough work to test the idea and
make room for improvements next iteration after gathering feedback. This method
both builds on previous knowledge gathered in other methods but also allows for
tinkering with lessons learned from recent prototype testing.

28



5

Process

This chapter describes the measures undertaken during the design process, prac-
ticing various methods and continuously reflecting on previous results to feed into
subsequent activities, in an attempt to eventually find an answer to our proposed
research question. In planning we describe how the thesis plan unfolded and the
decisions made for choice of methodological framework and time frame, additionally
our thoughts on the literature and theories we indulged in. All our activities are
documented in detail, the origin of each workshop, purpose, planning,result, data
gathering and possible insights are also presented. For the first half of the thesis we
had a different approach to workshops than later on in the process, due to the need
of data gathering and getting to know the users. We discuss some methods we used
to extract insights from the data gathering and move on to plan a set of workshops
where we followed the same class over a couple of weeks. During the insight analysis
we describe methods used to finally condense all our data into something tangible
and how this was reiterated after getting feedback.

29



5. Process

Digitalverkstan Kullavik 

Got to know the context and
students through a modified 
version of the previous workshop.

Makerdays
First encounter with micro:bit
workshops, for teachers.

Digitalverkstan Lindholmen
More guided presentation
than last time. Tried imitation
exercises.

Students intern workshop
Tried to guide students more
with a co-coding session
at the beginning.

BETT show London
Video based workshop for 100
teachers. Different tracks
available for the more advanced.

Created personas & journeymap
Aggregated data from Sollentuna
workshops to allow personas
to emerge and created a journeymap

Digitalverkstan Lindholmen
Student workshop based on
journeymap and persona
insights.

Breddenskolan
First student workshop
with only iPads. 

Sollentuna musikklasser
Two iPad workshops with
a lot of troubleshooting.
One computer workshop. 

Grimstaskolan
First student workshop
without previous
knowledge in scratch. 

Activities Insights

Interviewed other facilitator
Get a second opinion from
another workshop facilitator
on things to consider.

Can be helpful to start without technology
Maintain a theme with smooth transistions

Attention easily lost with live imitation
Be aware of tricky words
Teach concepts in context
Social aspect can be lost with videos

Positive with freedom to customize 
Hard to find the right blocks
Language can be a barrier, as there were complex words

Explain that computers are stupid
Free exploration fun but gets frustrating
Helpful to see examples

Imitation is easy
Coming up with own ideas is hard 
Hard for teacher to help all individually

Self instructing material useful for big groups
Be prepared for unreliable internet connection. 

Prevent technical problems to avoid frustration
Ending a session with a hard exercise can be demotivating
Big span in student skills

Bluetooth bug resolved through reflashing
Need for adapting exercises to students skill

App-store passwords required
Internet connection frustrating
Pairing mode bug
Text based instructions ineffective

Mismatch in difficulty and knowledge led to frustration

Refined exercises examples
Trends are obsevered in class
Too much freedom lead to frustration
Hard to convey concept of variables

Found useful exercises examples

3x

Runbackaskolan
Shorter student workshops
with computers. 

6x

30



5. Process

First workshop at Västergårdsskolan
Tried analog workshop to introduce 
sequencing and repetition.

Second workshop at Västergårdsskolan
Continued with analog workshop and 
introduced logic and variables.

Third workshop at Västergårdsskolan
Initially tinkered with the editor. Focused 
on learning micro:bit through imitation.

Fourth workshop at Västergårdsskolan
Continued with micro:bit through co-
coding with more focus on individual 
problem solving.

Analysed previous insights
Summarised previous insights with
affinity clustering method and tried to
derive more abstract patterns.

Teacher better execute the code
Students like to present unique solutions

Be aware of dependencies subject to change
Spontaneus play can lead to learning
Tinkering can be useful

Low energy among the students in the end

Co-coding

Scope of Autonomy

Technical Pitfalls

Basic Toolbox

Terminology

Analog Workshop
Example

Exercise Examples micro:bit Workshop 
Example

Figure 5.1: A model showing performed activities and the flow of insights through-
out the project

5.1 Planning and Pre-study
In this section we describe how the planning of the thesis unfolded and how we chose
methodological framework and time frame, furthermore our thoughts on the litera-
ture and theories that we indulged in. Additionally we mention our first workshop,
where we got to know the nature of facilitating a workshop and handle an audience.

5.1.1 Planning
Having determined our first version of the research question we needed to gather
fundamental knowledge, both theoretical and practical, that concern micro:bit and
using technology to aid education. In addition we investigated different options for
a methodological approach as well, previous experience with the human centered
process and the prospect of the thesis being of an iterative nature, HCD felt like
a solid choice. Although small adjustments to fit our idea and plan was made.
We divided the design process into three separate phases, research, iterative and
demonstration.

The research phase was all about acquiring the right information and understanding
of the work that was to be carried out. That entailed reading about earlier work
in the field and learning about theories connected to teaching. Since both teachers
and students were the focus, information gathering about how they perceive the
introduction of programming in school was of high priority. Additionally we also
familiarized us with the platform, micro:bit, during this phase. After the research
was done we continued to our iterative phase which consisted of three sub-phases,

31



5. Process

ideation; intervention; and evaluation. These sub- phases were one prototype cycle,
and the aim was to refine the design every time a full cycle was completed. In the
beginning we aimed for only a couple iterations, but we ended up exceeding that.
We had a good frame for iterating and gathering data so we used it with ease almost
every time we had a workshop planned.

Ideation phase is where previous knowledge came to use when designing for the
objective at hand. During this part we created plans for upcoming workshops and
activities. This was made through a script that we used, consistently together with
all workshops that we did. We also used insights from evaluated data to create new
content. At a later ideation stage we created personas from data gathered and used
them in a journey map in an attempt to extract even more insights. These methods
were not included in the plan from the beginning.

In the intervention phase the implementation of the design work for the current
objectives was carried out. Implementation mainly comprised of field tests, namely
workshops in school environment on several occasions. While field testing the pro-
totype feedback from the testers and the process was collected for later evaluation.
During the workshops most of our data gathering took place, almost exclusively
through exit tickets that were to be evaluated at the next stage. Evaluation was
carried out at the end of each prototyping cycle to assess in what extent the im-
plementation was done as design implied. Also evaluating feedback and other input
from testing the implementation in a live setting, if that was the case. This is also
when we evaluated the data gathered, and tried to extract insights we could use to
prepare for the next cycle.

In our final evaluation phase, when there would not be any more iterations, we began
evaluating all our data with affinity clustering in an attempt to reach a theoretical
result, which was something not included in the plan from the start but emerged as
a necessary method to evaluate the data. This itself was done over a few iterations
and led us in the end to a model of autonomy. We also found insights and valuable
information for teachers that did not fit into the model, and we made them into
a bundle of considerations when working with micro:bit. Last phase of the master
thesis planning was about demonstrating the results. This step highlighted what
important elements to consider when designing digital teaching material regarding
the micro:bit suited for a primary school classroom in Sweden, as an answer to
the research question. The suggestions produced were based on work done in both
research- and the iterative prototype phases. This phase also entailed the finalization
of the project report and presentation.

32



5. Process

Figure 5.2: Planning diagram with weeks and acitvities

5.1.2 Literature Study

There were several aspects of learning and teaching that we needed to gain knowl-
edge in. Since we had no previous knowledge in the underlying theories that regard
teaching and learning we needed to do some groundwork. We began by creating a
research document where we put down topics that could be of interest and theories
connected to them. We asked ourselves if it could benefit us in pursuit of answering
the research question, so we also did some culling of the topic ideas. The topics
we finally came up with were digital literacy, teaching pedagogies, maker culture,
digital fabrication, and micro:bit. Since the thesis is based on the introduction of
digitalization in Swedish primary school education and preparing the younger gen-
erations for the future by making them digitally literate, we felt that digital literacy
(or computational fluency) was of high interest. On top of that we needed to learn
how they already are teaching programming in an effective way to younger stu-
dents, what approach one should have and where to put focus. This led us into the
field of computational thinking and teaching pedagogies. Theories about computa-
tional thinking gave us guidance on how to approach teaching of programming for
beginners and sorting out the different programming concepts. Regarding teach-
ing pedagogies, there is an extensive amount of research in that area. During the
thesis we came across several interesting phenomena during workshops but had to
limit ourselves to the above mentioned theories, since allowing for another school of
thought would have rendered too much extra time investment. We chose to explore
theories on self determination in education and constructionism as they felt closer
to maker culture and digital fabrication, which is something that we associated to
introduction of programming and working with micro:bit. As there is a plethora of
theories touching teaching and learning, we had great use of a meta synthesis of over
400 learning strategies(22). Studies that showed that the classroom was changing
with the digitalization, teachers might have a different role to play and the maker
culture phenomena(3), got our attention as well.

33



5. Process

5.1.3 Makerdays

RISE Interactive, our business client, arranged a conference called Makerdays which
we were encouraged to help out with so we could learn more about facilitating work-
shops and get to know teachers first hand. Makerdays is a meetingplace for teaching
and exploring in the borderlands of making, digitalization and creativity. Makerdays
is aimed at those involved in Swedish schools, science centers and other pedagogical
activities. The event lasted for two days and hosted about 300 teachers in total,
of which a third had chosen to try the micro:bit. This resulted in 5 workshops, of
approximately one hour each. These days were used as an open ended early ex-
ploration phase to learn more about hosting workshops and to better get to know
teachers.

Prior to the conference we had a few days where we tried to come up with interesting
exercises, projects and challenges that could be done with the micro:bit. Even
though we did not know it at the time, these would become the exercises that we
would use later on throughout the project.

During the workshops we assisted our colleague, who was the head facilitator of the
micro:bit workshops. The workshops began with a presentation of the micro:bit and
its features, we also showed a couple of projects that we had prepared to give the
audience ideas of what is possible to do. We ended the presentation by coding a
name badge on the micro:bit, a simple program where the micro:bit scrolls a string
of text on the display, then we let the teachers have the rest of the time testing it
out themselves. A set of challenges were provided to trigger their imagination.

5.2 First Sessions with Digitalverkstan

Through previous collaboration outside of the thesis work we got in contact with
Digitalverkstan, together we were able to arrange two workshops and introduce
micro:bit to primary school students. Both workshops took place during the same
week but at two different locations, Kullavik in Kungsbacka and at Lindholmen. The
plan were to get our first hands-on experience in facilitating a micro:bit workshop
with our users.

34



5. Process

5.2.1 Workshop at Kullavik

Digitalverkstan Kullavik
Description:
Time:
Location:
Participants:
Age:
Aims:

Methods:

Insights:

Explorative workshop with students of Digitalverkstan
25th October 2016, 18:00-20:00
Kullaviks Montessoriskola, Kullavik
Group of around 30 children, 2 facilitators, 1 teacher and a few parents helping out
8-10 years old
- Get hands on experience of the role of the workshop facilitator
- Explore the actual context and meet the real users
- Gain understanding for the current level of computational knowledge of the users
Execute planned workshop with presentation, discuss and note down observations after

Refined exercise examples
Trends are obsevered in class
Too much freedom lead to frustration
Hard to convey concept of variables

Figure 5.3: Script snippet of the workshop

Our first workshop with Digitalverkstan was done in Kullavik just south of Gothen-
burg, with about thirty students between eight and twelve years old. We went there
to get hands-on experience in being a workshop facilitator and explore the actual
context as well as meet the users. We had made a plan which was loosely based on
previous workshops during Makerdays, since we had no previous experience to relate
to we used it as our base. Therefore we began with a lengthy and detailed intro-
duction via a presentation, showing the ins and outs of the micro:bit. We ended the
presentation by showing how to code and upload a simple program, a name badge.
When done micro:bits were handed out and they were given some time to program
their own name badge onto a micro:bit. After a while we also showed the students
how to use inputs on the micro:bit, e.g buttons, and asked them to use that in their
name badge program. From there it was more or less a free exploring workshop,
although we provided a list of programs they could try and complete, and we went
around and provided help for those who had questions or were stuck. Beforehand
we had done research on computational thinking and therefore wanted to gain an
understanding on what level the students were at. We had a plan to use a rubric
to gather that data, but there were simply no time. We had underestimated how
much time helping students would consume, and at one point during the workshop
we decided to prioritize the students and help them learn the micro:bit.

In hindsight we realize we might had progressed too fast, the students were not
ready and got stuck and confused. As a possible result of that we observed when a
pair of students managed to complete a cool game, this time rock-paper-scissor, the
other students looked to them and eagerly wanted to do the same. Soon everyone
were trying to code their own so they could play against each other. This also led
to many students tended to focus on the result rather than the process of learning,
they basically wanted us to make the game for them so they could play with their
friends. This kind of behaviour has both positive and negative impacts, the good
part being that they get motivated and suddenly have a purpose to learn how to
code a micro:bit. On the other hand they often get impatient and try to skip a
few steps in the learning process to reach the end result faster, which is not always
desired from a teacher perspective.

35



5. Process

5.2.2 Workshop at Lindholmen

Digitalverkstan Lindholmen
Description:
Time:
Location:
Participants:
Age:
Aims:

Methods:

Insights:

Explorative workshop with students of Digitalverkstan
27th October 2016, 17:30-19:30
Lindholmen, Gothenburg
Group of around 30 children, 2 facilitators, 1 teacher and a few parents helping out
8-10 years old
- Get hands on experience of the role of the workshop facilitator
- Explore the actual context and meet the real users
- Gain understanding for the current level of computational knowledge of the users
Execute planned workshop with presentation, discuss and note down observations after

Imitation is easy
Coming up with own ideas is hard 
Hard for teacher to help all individually

Figure 5.4: Script snippet of the workshop

Coming into the second workshop we had adjusted the workshop with recent find-
ings in mind. The conditions were similar to the last workshop, with primary school
students around eleven years old and new to micro:bit, only the location was dif-
ferent. This time we wanted to emphasize a few concepts related to programming,
e.g variables, in order to give them more tools when programming by themselves
later. Therefore the introduction part was extended. First we went through by
demonstrating the name badge and explained the blocks used in more detail as well
as how to upload code to the micro:bit. We continued by adding buttons to the
name badge, talking about input blocks and how they can be used. To include ran-
domness and variables in the introduction, example programs of coin flip, counters
and dice were shown and described. Extra care was put into explaining variables,
as the concept is abstract, and we used the common box analogy for that single
purpose. One popular way to think about a variable is to imagine a variable is like
a box that can hold values, with the box label being the name of the variable.

When we were done with the introduction we let them play with their own micro:bit,
although this time they had seen how to modify and manipulate blocks and code.
First they were asked to make their own name badge and add some feature from
the examples give, e.g a button press. All examples that we programmed during
the introduction were also provided as inspiration on a slide, if they were stuck
they could copy the code. On top on readymade examples being shown, a set of
challenges were given as in the last workshop. These had no slides showing the code
but all the blocks and knowledge they needed to solve had been shown in the earlier
examples, they just needed to figure out how to combine them. This method had
us distinguish two kinds of students in our workshops. Some students were able to
follow during the introduction and later complete the exercises, but were bewildered
once they tried to solve one of the challenges. Others had no problem combining
blocks from the different programs to solve a challenge. There was an apparent
risk of students just copying the programs mindlessly without paying attention to
learning, and we addressed this in our evaluation of the workshop. To increase the
amount of students that understand what they are coding we thought of scrambling
the blocks needed, still giving them the right blocks but unassembled.

36



5. Process

5.3 Workshops with Student Interns

Workshops with student interns
Description:
Time:
Location:
Participants:
Age:
Aims:

Methods:

Insights:

Tried workshop ideas on intern students, followed by interviews to look for improvements
17-18th November 2016, 9:00-17:00
RISE Interactive, Lindholmen, Gothenburg
2 students, 2 facilitators
9th graders
- Try out new workshop ideas based on newly read paper by Hattie & Donoghue
- Try to develop new workshop ideas and improvements together with the students
Perform planned workshop, followed by semi structured interviews

Explain that computers are stupid
Free exploration fun but gets frustrating
Helpful to see examples

Figure 5.5: Script snippet of the workshop

An opportunity arose at our client, RISE Interactive, where they were to have two
interns in their office for a week. Although these students were 9th graders and a
bit older than our target group, which is 4-6th graders, we felt that this still was
something that could help our research progress as they had no previous experience
in programming. We used this occasion to test out some ideas we had regarding
our micro:bit workshops in general and application of new theory we had acquired
about learning strategies(22). First an activity plan and a script was created for
the workshop, containing our own goals as well as details on the activities it should
hold. The workshop began with an introduction to micro:bit and us showing how the
editor works, we also presented a success criteria for them to work towards during
these two-day workshops. The success criteria were the following:

• They come up with their own idea for something they want to make
• They pursue the knowledge needed to implement their idea, in a gritty

independent fashion, where they take responsibility for their own learning
• They use the knowledge to create their ideas
• Their creations help them to generate new ideas

Next a co-coding session was planned, where we solved problems and coded together
with the interns to ease them into programming with the micro:bit. We coded
programs that we had used before with beginners, e.g name badge and dice, to
teach the basic logic in programming. Dice is another simple program you can do
with the micro:bit to resemble a six sided dice, it includes using variable, input and
sequence blocks. Co-coding was a positive experience for both parts, the interns
got their questions answered and were able to follow the steps needed to solve the
problem with less pressure on them, and we got to test their skills in a relaxed
fashion. When we had finished the basic knowledge teaching we let them work on
their own, with their own project. They did this for the rest of the day and continued
for a few hours the next day, then we gathered feedback from them through a semi-
structured interview. As a result we realized that we had given them too much
freedom after the introduction and co-coding. They felt they did not have enough

37



5. Process

to come up with an idea on their own, this lead to a suggestion of a middle step
between co-coding and working by themselves. By creating problems with already
set blocks, although scrambled, we might bridge the gap from being comfortably
supervised to having to solve problems all on your own. They also admitted that
it is easy to learn by looking at examples, but the step from imitation to a blank
canvas is too steep and therefore a middle step or a gradually increasing freedom of
work is the key. As they both were new to programming they also felt that anything
that works, no matter how trivial, is a good way to start in order to build confidence
so you may dare to try and fail later on.

5.4 Workshops in Stockholm

For our research we needed to gather relatively large amounts of data on the needs of
students and teachers regarding programming in school, and especially the micro:bit.
We got in contact with a set of four schools in Sollentuna, north of Stockholm, that
were interested in participating in our study that also included teacher workshops.
Teacher workshops had been overlooked since Makerdays and we felt we needed
more data in that area, so these workshops served as a great, and much needed,
opportunity for us. The plan was to visit one school each day from monday until
thursday during one week and host a total of twelve workshops, to twelve different
classes spanning from 4th to 6th graders. Our workshops varied in both length,
content and approach since classes were different ages, some had previous knowledge
in programming and some not, the workshops duration varied from 45 minutes up
to almost two hours. Half of the schools used iPads in their teaching so we had to
adjust our material to that as well. As data gathering methods we used exit tickets
after each workshop with the students and also did a short video reflection with our
own thoughts. With the teachers we used an empathy map to gather their thoughts
and ideas.

5.4.1 Preparation
In order to prepare for the workshops in Stockholm we began constructing a plan for
our visit. We built a timeline where all the classes and workshops were presented so
we easily could get an overview, see figure 5.6. On this timeline we placed different