CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Teaching and Learning ProgrammingGender and Technology in EducationBiomedical and Engineering Education

An IoT and Wearable Technology Hackathon for Promoting Careers in Computer Science

Open access
Byrne, Jake Rowan, O'Sullivan, Katriona, Sullivan, Kevin·2017·IEEE Transactions on Education
DOI 10.1109/te.2016.2626252
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper explores the use of a constructivist 21st-century learning model to implement a week-long workshop, delivered as a “hackathon,” to encourage preuniversity teenagers to pursue careers in STEM, with a particular emphasis on computer science. For Irish preuniversity students, their experience of computing can vary from word processing to foundational programming, and while many schools are looking to introduce more ICT into the classroom, many students are left with a narrow view of what computer science is all about. Twenty-one students participated in the workshop and completed pre- and post-surveys, and a free word association exercise in the areas of computing and careers in computing. Analysis revealed that students’ motivation to learn about the design process, programming, inputs and outputs, and wearable technology (wearables)/Internet of Things (IoT) increased following participation. There were also increases in confidence in inputs and outputs and wearables/IoT following participation, as well as changes in the computing word associations, with students associating computing more with computer programming terms rather than general terms such as the Internet. The findings suggest that the combination of a hackathon event and a model for 21st century learning can be effective in motivating and increasing the self-efficacy of preuniversity teenagers in a number of emerging technological contexts such as IoT and wearables.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/te.2016.2626252

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Course duration plays a vital role in informal DT models, influencing students' learning outcomes.

    “Course duration also plays a vital role in informal DT models, influencing the learning outcomes of the students.”

    From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Byrne et al., 2017

    The Bridge21 Pedagogy and Model section says activities can be compressed or expanded, and the Limitations section discusses spreading activities across several weeks while maintaining momentum. Neither passage says that course duration plays a vital role in students’ learning outcomes; the paper’s reported outcomes are not linked to a comparison of durations. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Educational levels were identified as an important moderator variable influencing the effectiveness of informal DT-STEM programs.

    “In addition, educational levels were identified as an important moderator variable that influences the effectiveness of informal DT-STEM programs.”

    From A meta-analysis to explore the role of design thinking in enhancing creativity as learning outcomes in STEM education (2026) · cites this paper as Byrne et al., 2017

    The Methodology describes a workshop for students with a mean age of 16, and the Pre and Post Questionnaire Comparison reports changes after participation. Neither section identifies educational level as a moderator of effectiveness. Searches for educational level, grade level, and moderating effects found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. J. Duhring, "PROJECT-BASED LEARNING KICKSTART TIPS: Hackathon Pedagogies as Educational Technology," in National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance. Proceedings of the... Annual Conference, 2014, p. 1.
  2. J. Mtsweni and H. Abdullah, "Stimulating and maintaining students' interest in Computer Science using the hackathon model," The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, vol. 10, pp. 85-97, 2015.
  3. B. Barker, J. Melander, N. Grandgenett, and G. Nugent, "Utilizing Wearable Technologies as a Pathway to STEM," in Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2015, pp. 1782-1788.
  4. G. T. Richard and Y. B. Kafai, "Making physical and digital games with e-textiles: a workshop for youth making responsive wearable games and controllers," in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 2015, pp. 399-402.
  5. L. Buechley, M. Eisenberg, J. Catchen, and A. Crockett, "The LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education," in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 2008, pp. 423-432.
  6. D. Bandyopadhyay and J. Sen, "Internet of things: Applications and challenges in technology and standardization," Wireless Personal Communications, vol. 58, pp. 49-69, 2011.
  7. J. Lawlor, C. Conneely, and B. Tangney, "Towards a pragmatic model for group-based, technology-mediated, project-oriented learning-an overview of the B2C model," in Technology Enhanced Learning. Quality of Teaching and Educational Reform, ed: Springer, 2010, pp. 602-609.
  8. B. Tangney, E. Oldham, C. Conneely, S. Barrett, and J. Lawlor, "Pedagogy and processes for a computer programming outreach workshop-The bridge to college model," Education, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 53, pp. 53-60, 2010.
  9. J. J. Kuenzi, "Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action," ed: Congressional Research Service, 2008, pp. 1-31.
  10. G. Nugent, B. Barker, N. Grandgenett, and V. I. Adamchuk, "Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes," Journal of Research on Technology in Education, vol. 42, pp. 391-408, 2010.
  11. M. Sanders, "STEM, STEM Education, STEMmania," Technology Teacher, vol. 68, pp. 20-26, 2009.
  12. J. Williams, "STEM education: Proceed with caution," Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, vol. 16, 2011.
  13. S. B. Fee and A. M. Holland-Minkley, "Teaching Computer Science Through Problems, Not Solutions," Computer Science Education, vol. 20, pp. 129-144, 2010.
  14. G. Nugent, B. Barker, N. Grandgenett, and G. Welch, "Robotics camps, clubs, and competitions: Results from a US robotics project," in Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics &5th International Conference Robotics in Education Padova (Italy) July, 2014, pp. 11-18.
  15. G. Nugent, B. Barker, M. Toland, N. Grandgenett, A. Hampton, and V. Adamchuk, "Measuring the Impact of Robotics and Geospatial Technologies on Youth Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Attitudes," in World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, 2009, pp. 3331-3340.
  16. M. Skirpan and T. Yeh, "Beyond the Flipped Classroom: Learning by Doing Through Challenges and Hack-a-thons," in Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2015, pp. 212-217.
  17. A. Nandi and M. Mandernach, "Hackathons as an Informal Learning Platform," in Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, 2016, pp. 346-351.
  18. R. Cooper and C. Heaverlo, "Problem Solving And Creativity And Design: What Influence Do They Have On Girls' Interest In STEM Subject Areas?," American Journal of Engineering Education (AJEE), vol. 4, pp. 27-38, 2013.
  19. Y. Kafai, N. Rusk, Q. Burke, C. Mote, K. Peppler, D. Fields, et al., "Motivating and Broadening Participation: Competitions, Contests, Challenges, and Circles for Supporting STEM Learning," in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Learning and Becoming in Practice, 2014, pp. 1219-1227.
  20. G. T. Richard, Y. B. Kafai, B. Adleberg, and O. Telhan, "StitchFest: Diversifying a College Hackathon to Broaden Participation and Perceptions in Computing," in Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2015, pp. 114-119.
  21. Y. B. Kafai, E. Lee, K. Searle, D. Fields, E. Kaplan, and D. Lui, "A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles," ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), vol. 14, p. 1, 2014.
  22. C. Dede, "Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills," 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn, vol. 20, pp. 51-76, 2010.
  23. C. Conneely, D. Murchan, B. Tangney, and K. Johnston, "21 Century Learning-Teachers' and Students' Experiences and Views of the Bridge21 Approach within Mainstream Education," in Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2013, pp. 5125-5132.
  24. B. Tangney and A. Bray, "Mobile Technology, Maths Education & 21C Learning," presented at the QScience Proceedings, 2013.
  25. J. Lawlor, K. Marshall, and B. Tangney, "Bridge21-exploring the potential to foster intrinsic student motivation through a team-based, technology-mediated learning model," Technology, Pedagogy and Education, pp. 1-20, 2015.
  26. L. S. Vygotsky, "Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.)," ed: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
  27. Y. B. Kafai and M. Resnick, Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world: Routledge, 1996.
  28. T. Brown and J. Wyatt, "Design thinking for social innovation," Development Outreach, vol. 12, pp. 29-43, 2010.
  29. H. Plattner, C. Meinel, and L. Leifer, Design Thinking: Understand- Improve-Apply: Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
  30. C. Meinel and L. Leifer, "Design thinking research," Design thinking: understand-improve-apply. Springer, Heidelberg, 2010.
  31. W. P. Dickson and M. A. Vereen, "Two students at one microcomputer," Theory into practice, vol. 22, pp. 296-300, 1983.
  32. C. McDowell, L. Werner, H. E. Bullock, and J. Fernald, "Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality," Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, pp. 90-95, 2006.
  33. G. N. Vavoula, M. Sharples, and P. D. Rudman, "Developing the'Future technology workshop'method," in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Interaction Design and Children, Aug, 2002, pp. 28-29.
  34. E. L. Deci, R. Koestner, and R. M. Ryan, "Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again," Review of educational research, vol. 71, pp. 1-27, 2001.
  35. B. Pelleg, M. Figueroa, M. VanKouwenberg, A. Fontecchio, and E. Fromm, "Implementing nanotechnology education in the high school classroom," in Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2011, pp. F4D-1-F4D-6.
  36. K. W. Hirsh and J. J. Tree, "Word association norms for two cohorts of British adults," Journal of neurolinguistics, vol. 14, pp. 1-44, 2001.
  37. O. Ben-Zvi-Assaraf and N. Ayal, "Harnessing the Environmental Professional Expertise of Engineering Students-The Course:"Environmental Management Systems in the Industry"," Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 19, pp. 532-545, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Byrne, J. R., O'Sullivan, K., & Sullivan, K.
Affiliations
Trinity College Dublin (IE)
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Education
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2017-02
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
50-58
ISSN
  • 0018-9359 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9638
DOI
10.1109/te.2016.2626252
OpenAlex
W2549510721
Cited by
76
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Education (publishedVersion)
  • Maynooth University ePrints and eTheses Archive (Maynooth University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biomedical and Engineering Education
Keywords
hackathons, wearable devices, Internet of Things, computer science careers, STEM career awareness, pre-university students, constructivist learning, 21st century learning, student motivation, self-efficacy, word association, programming education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review