A Systematic Mapping of Games for Teaching Programming

• Sávio L. Vieira UFLA
• Rafael C. Fonseca UFLA
• Maurício R. A. Souza UFLA

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/wei.2024.2930

Resumo

The use of games as a teaching tool is not new. In 2022, it became compulsory to teach computer science in elementary and high schools in Brazil. Serious games or educational games are a great approach to diversify teaching. The use of games is proving to be a viable methodology to complement teaching strategies. This systematic mapping aims to identify, analyze, and synthesize existing games for teaching programming. We identified 94 primary studies from 2016 to 2023. They were then classified by type of game and the learning domain and learning objective were mapped, related to categories within the programming discipline.

Referências

Arimoto, M. and Oliveira, W. (2019). Dificuldades no processo de aprendizagem de programaçao de computadores: um survey com estudantes de cursos da área de computaçao. In Anais do XXVII Workshop sobre Educação em Computação, pages 244–254. SBC.

Barros, M. G. F. B., Miranda, J. C., Costa, R. C., et al. (2019). Uso de jogos didáticos no processo ensino-aprendizagem.

Battistella, P. and Wangenhein, C. G. V. (2016). Games for teaching computing in higher education–a systematic review. IEEE Technology and Engineering Education.

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals; Handbook. Cognitive Domain. McKay.

BRASIL (2022). Computação: complemento à bncc.

Garner, P., Hopewell, S., Chandler, J., MacLehose, H., Akl, E. A., Beyene, J., Chang, S., Churchill, R., Dearness, K., Guyatt, G., et al. (2016). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. bmj, 354.

HOSSEINI, H., HARTT, M., and MOSTAFAPOUR, M. (2009). Learning is child’s play: Game-based learning in computer science education.

Krathwohl, D. R. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Affective domain.

Mazuim, C. H. R. and Gomes, M. S. S. (2019). Teorias e vivências de metodologias ativas. Perse, 1ª edition.

Mendes, E., Wohlin, C., Felizardo, K., and Kalinowski, M. (2020). When to update systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Journal of Systems and Software, 167:110607.

Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., and Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1):210.

PERINE, C. M. and ROWSELL, J. (2019). Making it work in the global south: Stories of digital divides in a brazilian context. Stories from inequity to justice in literacy education, pages 185–202.

Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., and Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE’08, page 68–77, Swindon, GBR. BCS Learning & Development Ltd.

Rapkiewicz, C. E., Falkembach, G. A. M., Seixas, L. M. J. d., Santos, N. d. S. R. S. d., Cunha, V. V. d., and Klemann, M. (2007). Estratégias pedagógicas no ensino de algoritmos e programação associadas ao uso de jogos educacionais. RENOTE: revista novas tecnologias na educacao [recurso eletrônico]. Porto Alegre, RS.

Stevanim, L. F. (2020). Exclusão nada remota: desigualdades sociais e digitais dificultam a garantia do direito à educação na pandemia. ENSP - Artigos de Periódicos, 2210.

Tobias, S., Fletcher, J. D., and Wind, A. P. (2014). Game-Based Learning, pages 485–503. Springer New York.

Werbach, K., Hunter, D., and Dixon, W. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business, volume 1. Wharton digital press Philadelphia.