Informatics in Education, 2023, Vol. 22, No.

4, 589–612 589
© 2023 Vilnius University, ETH Zürich
DOI: 10.15388/infedu.2023.24

Mobile Learning Tools to Support in

Teaching Programming Logic and Design:
A Systematic Literature Review

Regina Célia COELHO, Matheus F. P. MARQUES,

Tiago de OLIVEIRA
Department of Computer Science, Federal University of São Paulo
e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Received: October 2022

Abstract. Learning programming logic remains an obstacle for students from different academic
fields. Considered one of the essential disciplines in the field of Science and Technology, it is
vital to investigate the new tools or techniques used in the teaching and learning of Programming
Language. This work presents a systematic literature review (SLR) on approaches using Mobile
Learning methodology and the process of learning programming in introductory courses, includ-
ing mobile applications and their evaluation and validation. We consulted three digital libraries,
considering articles published from 2011 to 2022 related to Mobile Learning and Programming
Learning. As a result, we found twelve mobile tools for learning or teaching programming logic.
Most are free and used in universities. In addition, these tools positively affect the learning pro-
cess, engagement, motivation, and retention, providing a better understanding, and improving
content transmission.
Keywords: mobile learning, algorithms, programming logic, systematic literature review.

1. Introduction

Programming languages and programming logic disciplines are a great challenge for
teachers and students for several reasons. Beginners are limited to superficial knowl-
edge. They might learn all syntax and semantics of individual commands but cannot
combine them to create a program (Bosse and Gerosa, 2017). Still, students need help
classifying some categories to explain the difficulties in learning programming logic,
such as syntax errors, variables, and programming language.
As Yadin and Aharon (2011) reported, besides beginners’ problems in programming
logic, programming activity or logical textual construction is broader than just the con-
struction of programs. Developing skills for understanding and analyzing problems is
also necessary but needs further exploration.
590 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

As expected, we should pay attention to technical and motivational aspects. When

we talk about programming logic learning disciplines, motivational aspects have a sig-
nificant impact (Shi and White, 2013). To address some problems described previously
and the complexity of teaching-learning processes, new methodologies are applied to
facilitate content teaching and transmission.
Mobile devices, including tablets and smartphones, are the most prevalent digital
technology worldwide. Their increasing daily use among young and adults has become
an attractive and easy-to-access technology for users (Heflin et al., 2017).
Specifically, there is an increase in mobile apps focusing on learning and teaching
programming, considering their teaching opportunities and difficulties. This upsurge is
due to research works and their availability in virtual stores (Google Play, Apple Store,
and others), as shown by (Amro and Romli, 2019). Thus, there is a need to provide
the best learning environments and methodologies for beginners in programming logic.
One of the most recommended educational methods is mobile learning, also called m-
learning (Hwang and Tsai, 2011).
Isidora and colleagues (2015) point out that expected performance or innovative per-
sonal skills significantly influenced students’ behavior while using m-learning, improv-
ing learning productivity and performance, concluding that m-learning is positive.
An example of a positive factor is the acceptance of SMS as an m-learning tool to
distribute the content of distance educational activities. Klein and others (2015) present
an experience in which SMS was used for reminders of work dates or exams, content
review, and highlighting essential story points, tips, and motivational messages. The
results showed increased student engagement and great method acceptance.
As Lindsay (2015) pointed out, diverse pedagogical approaches need to be investi-
gated to understand the difference between teaching with and without mobile learning
technology.
This work aims to evaluate and demonstrate some tools cited in the literature (pub-
lished articles), the impact of m-learning, and the most accepted and used tools.
This systematic review begins with a study of the background, presenting the re-
lated works in Section 2. Section 3 presents the research process, its implementation
in Section 4, and the data process in Section 5. Later, in Section 6, we present some
discussions, followed by the threats to validity in Section 7, and the conclusions and
suggestions in Section 8.

2. Background and Related Work

As Medeiros and others (2016) mention, there are many issues to cover regarding the
problems of learning programming logic in a systematic literature review. They define
problem-solving as one of the skills needed for programming, which can be translated
as understanding the context of a problem, along with specific basic mathematical skills.
Moreover, they stated that many students have difficulties in calculus and need help
understanding some of the basic mathematical concepts expected in higher education.
One main problem is abstract concepts due to the lack of accessible or everyday ex-
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 591

amples. Because of all this, our SLR tries to bring other perspectives about learning or
understanding concepts. Macrides and colleagues (2021) conducted an SLR presenting
the advantages of teaching programming at an early age (3–8 years old), the effects of
educational approaches and tools, and the lack of publications or studies in early child-
hood education. According to them, some tools, such as games, screen-based platforms,
and the web, were better accepted, indicating the possibility of introducing program-
ming early.
When teachers use appropriate technologies or strategies, teaching programming can
promote creativity, communication, collaboration, and content creation.
Criollo and partners focus on the teacher’s role in m-learning use. They cite that
most innovation initiatives, including the design and conception of mobile applications,
ignore the teacher’s perspective, i. e., whether he/she is trained to use mobile devices
in the classroom (Criollo et al., 2021). Still, they show that it is essential to incorporate
mobile technology at the beginning of the learning curriculum.
Evrim (2014) presents a study on the tutor’s perspective, including studies focused
on students’ mobile learning and whether there was an increased trend in integrating mo-
bile learning and contexts in teacher education. She shows that if educators understand
the potential of mobile learning in education, their role in integrating mobile devices
becomes essential to assist students’ learning needs across several disciplines. In her
research in virtual libraries, several articles on mobile learning in various topics (e.g.,
physics, mathematics, robotics) showed the growth of tool usage.
Borges and others (2018) reveal an increasing interest in programming teaching proj-
ects, using gamification and tools (such as Scratch) to address new methodologies to
improve motivation and results. They evidenced that some tools are not used in the insti-
tutions where they were created, even if the teachers of the other institutions recognize
their benefits.
New tools have been proposed, developed, and used in different contexts. Although
higher education is still the focus of many approaches, the interest in presenting pro-
gramming to children and teenagers has grown, stimulating new methodologies that can
also be applied to young people and adults with the appropriate adjustments.
In a systematic review, Perera and colleagues (2021) were concerned about which
programming language is best suited for novice learners. They used the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) to validate the findings. The model applied included two
variables: ‘Perceived Ease of Use’ (PEOU) and ‘Perceived Usefulness’ (PU). These
variables evaluate the execution, visibility, liveness, grammar, interfaces, and resource
availability. The study discovered that a) visual-based tools are more suitable for learn-
ing, b) a simplified syntax is better for understanding, and c) a beginner-friendly user
guide is vital for effective learning.
Several strategies are related to teaching how to program (Sobral, 2021). We can sort
the strategies into the following categories: flipped classroom – students get contact with
new subjects before the class; pair programming – two students work together on a code
or problem; active learning – the instructor coaches the student who is in the center of
the learning process, showing that the subjects are essential to students’ success, con-
tinuation, or dropout in undergraduate courses.
592 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

Furthermore, Correa and others (2021) overview the context-aware analysis of m-

learning and u-learning processes, a broader definition of learning anywhere and anytime,
accessing content via any mobile device. With the continuous progression of technolo-
gies for mobile devices, more innovative computational techniques, and deep learning
in virtual learning environments, the new generation of systems can adapt content and
didactic approaches based on students’ characteristics and learning styles.
Salleh and others (2013) map these programming teaching tools and their issues.
The results point out that students favored visualization programming tools and that
game tools were the most interesting to teach. The main concern was identifying and
rectifying errors, which frustrated and discouraged students. She also cites the impor-
tance of clear and precise instruction for students’ understanding. However, the studies
presented pointed out that technology use does not replace knowledge and practice
in mathematical logic and logical reasoning. Thus, the work presented here aims to
complement or bring new perspectives on the teaching-learning processes, how mobile
learning tools are accepted, and whether they can help to understand and logically con-
struct codes and design.

3. Systematic Review Planning

This SLR aims to verify which mobile learning tools are used to teach Programming
Logic, their learning process, and their difficulties to understand the efficiency of those
tools and Mobile Learning acceptance.
Therefore, we used as review protocol the PICOC (Population, Intervention, Com-
parison, Outcome, Context) criteria, as suggested by Wohlin and partners (2007):
●● Population: Articles concerning mobile learning in teaching programming logic,
m-learning process, and learning programming process on introductory courses.
●● Intervention: Collect evidence of the mobile teaching tools, methods, and meth-
odologies of teaching programming logic.
●● Comparison: Collect information on mobile learning tools, methods, and evi-
dence.
●● Outcomes: Collect pertinent information from the tools, evaluations, results, ad-
vantages, and disadvantages to reach a scenario of possible acceptance, together
with the different methodologies used. Evidence that the tools help to learn pro-
gramming logic.
●● Context: Usage in universities and educational institutions.

3.1. Research Questions

This literature review aims to answer the following research questions:

●● RSQ01: What are the mobile tools for teaching Programming Logic?
●● RSQ01.01: What are the technologies of these tools?
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 593

●● RSQ01.02: What is the teaching degree (grade/year), and is it still available on-
line?
●● RSQ01.03: Is the tool paid, free, or partially free?
●● RSQ02: Which methodologies are used by these tools to support programming
logic learning?
●● RSQ02.01: What is the feedback type on these tools?
●● RSQ03: How do these tools validate the learning process, and what are the tech-
niques to evaluate the learning effect?
●● RSQ03.01: What are the number of participants and the duration of each valida-
tion process?
●● RSQ04: What are the listed advantages and disadvantages of these tools?
●● RSQ04.01: What is the result or learning outcome?
From these questions, we conducted a study to define the terms used and the strategy
to find the papers in the databases.

3.2. Identification of Studies

This research was restricted to electronic databases. We used Scopus1, IEEE2, and Sci-
ence Direct3 because they offered relevant publications about the subject and allowed us
to easily retrieve the full text of the papers. The research considered the period between
2011 and 2022 and only papers in English.
The terms used in the research refer to learning or teaching programming, logic con-
tent on basic or introductory courses, mobile tools, or mobile learning tools in various
knowledge areas.
We used the search string in three combinations to fit the best research objective for
any data source selected. After tests, we used different string combinations, according
to a previous analysis of papers and the quantities arising from the searches, to optimize
the search in the journals and obtain more consistent results.
The search strings used were: (1) Scopus (“algorithms and data structures tools” OR
“algorithms teaching tools” OR “programming logic teaching tools” OR “programming
teaching tools” OR “algorithms and data structures teaching tools” OR “mobile tools”
OR “mobile teaching tools”) AND (“introductory programming courses” OR “intro-
ductory courses” OR “Novice” OR “m-learn” OR “mobile learning”)”; (2) IEEE “(((al-
gorithms OR teaching) OR (mobile tools OR programming logic) OR (computational
logic OR applications)) AND ((m-learning OR m-learn) OR (programming courses OR
Introductory courses) OR (novice OR introductory)))”; and (3) Science Direct “((m-
learning OR m-learn OR mobile) AND (Introductory courses OR novice) AND (logic
or algorithm))”.

1
http://scopus.com
2
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org
3
http://sciencedirect.com
594 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

3.3. Studies Selection and Evaluation

Based on the titles and abstracts, together with the strings used on the digital sources (ac-
cording to the year interval used), we analyzed all papers using the following inclusion
and exclusion criteria:
Inclusion criteria:
●● IC01: The study describes mobile learning tools for programming logic or content.
●● IC02: The study discusses approaches to mobile learning for teaching.
●● IC03: The study discusses the usage of mobile learning advantages or disadvan-
tages for teaching.
●● IC04: Papers published from 2011 until 2022.
Exclusion criteria:
●● EC01: The study is not related to a mobile learning tool for learning or teaching.
●● EC02: The study does not bring an approach to mobile learning.
●● EC03: The study does not discuss the usage and results.
At this stage, we also used some quality assessment questions:
●● EQ01: Do the studies show or cite mobile learning tools?
●● EQ02: Does the article cover mobile application software for teaching?
●● EQ03: Does the article present the methodology used?
●● EQ04: Do the studies present how the tool is validated?
●● EQ05: Does the article show or cite problems in using these tools?
We used the Parsifal tool as a model and to monitor the entire SLR protocol. We
used Excel to create metrics and calculations for the entire planning and data collection
phase.
After these steps:
1. The researcher searched the selected data sources, applying the string according
to the search engine.
2. We selected papers according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. This verification
was done by reading the works’ titles, abstracts, and introductions.
3. We added the papers to an Excel worksheet for a second analysis and data extrac-
tion.

3.4. Data Extraction Strategy

After selecting papers, according to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, basic infor-
mation was collected for references, such as the paper title, author’s name, keywords,
and year of publication. Furthermore, to answer the RSQ01, RSQ01.01, and RSQ01.02,
which characterize mobile tools for learning context on programming logic, the follow-
ing features were extracted:
●● Tools Used (Tool Name): The tool used to teach programming logic content or
programming basics.
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 595

●● Application Type (Native/Hybrid/Web): indicates the tool’s application and use

platform.
●● Still Online: indicates if the tool is still working and available.
●● Teaching Degree (Grade): indicates which grade the tools are used or applied.
●● Type of Use: indicates if the tool is free (F), paid (P), or partially free (PF) – free
content with exclusive paid features.
In order to answer RSQ02 and RSQ02.01, which determine the methodologies these
tools use in teaching programming logic, we extracted the following information:
●● Methodology Type (self-regulated learning/assist learning): indicates the
methodology to monitor and use the tools.
●● Feedback Type (automatic/assisted): points out the type of feedback used by
the tools.
To answer RSQ03 and RSQ03.01, which determine how these tools validated learn-
ing, we extracted the following information:
●● Instructional Techniques (investigation/observation/game): points out the
techniques used and determines how activities are performed to achieve the ob-
jectives.
●● Explored content (type of content addressed): indicates what contents were
explored and used.
●● Activity Duration (time or period): the average work application time or pe-
riod.
●● Evaluation Method (qualitative/quantitative/experimental/mixed): to identify
the statistical methods used to evaluate the results.
●● Number of People (number of students/teachers): indicate the number of indi-
viduals participating, including students only, tutors, educators, and others.
Finally, to answer RSQ04 and RSQ04.01, which intended to cite advantages or dis-
advantages and outcomes, we analyzed the following information:
●● Research Focus: the aim of the paper, the target, or the proposal to be observed
or validated.
●● Positive Outcomes (advantages): identifies the positive outcomes observed or
reported by students through surveys.
●● Problematic Outcomes (disadvantages): identifies the problematic effects ob-
served or reported by students; for instance, slow applications, few examples, or
crash issues.
●● Learning Outcomes (effects): indicates or identifies learning effects observed or
reported by students; for example, satisfaction or increased motivation.

4. Systematic Review Implementation

The research strings in the digital databases sources occurred in May 2022, including
papers published between 2011–2022.
596 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

Fig. 1. Article selection process.

The databases indicated 1803 articles, 382 from Scopus, 616 from IEEE, and 805
from Science Direct. After analyzing the title, abstract, and inclusion and exclusion cri-
teria, we excluded 1740 articles and analyzed 63. Fig. 1 summarizes the selection pro-
cess and the number of articles included and excluded by the criteria.

4.1. Results Obtained from Review Implementation

As shown in Fig. 1, 63 articles remained for a second analysis. We also applied the in-
clusion and exclusion criteria and thoroughly read these works. Table 1 shows the sum-
marized result of the process, with the number of excluded articles by exclusion criteria.
We considered articles that only partially met the three inclusion criteria.

Table 1
A second analysis of 63 papers

Exclusion Criteria Quantity

EC-01 The study is not related to a mobile learning tool for learning or teaching 21
EC-02 The study does not bring an approach to mobile learning 5
EC-03 The study does not discuss the usage and results 0
Total 26
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 597

Table 2 shows the remaining 27 articles, their identification, references, data source,
and a brief description.

Table 2
Selected papers

ID Reference Source Abstract

SP01 (Klein et al., 2015) IEEE This article presents the results of an experience using SMS (Short
Explore Message Service) to support teaching and learning in undergraduate
courses.
SP02 (Alepis and Scopus M-learning Programming Platform: Evaluation on Elementary
Troussas, 2017) Schools.
SP03 (Amro and Romli, IEEE This study investigates the extent of the available m-learning applica-
2019) Explore tions via Google Play and Apple Stores using various programming
techniques.
SP04 (Burke, 2021) Scopus The research aims to describe the m-learning experiences of high-
school students in mathematics and sciences and to determine if dis-
tinctive pedagogical dimensions impact students’ perceived learning.
SP05 (Charles et al., IEEE This paper addresses the under-researched connection between mobi-
2019) Explore le learning technologies incorporated in an Introduction to Computer
Engineering course and student retention.
SP06 (Condé et al., 2013) Scopus This paper describes a service-based approach to implementing a
mobile Personal Learning Environment.
SP07 (Elfeky and Scopus The study aimed to examine the effect of Mobile Learning, a kind of
Masadeh, 2016) E-learning that uses mobile devices, on the development of academic
achievement.
SP08 (Fagan, 2019) Scopus This study aimed to explore students’ acceptance of mobile learning
in a higher education setting.
SP09 (Forkides, 2018) Scopus The study presented the results of a project that used tablets and a
ready-made application for teaching introductory programming con-
cepts to young primary school students.
SP10 (Gezgin, 2019) Scopus This article investigates the effect of mobile learning support on stu-
dents’ academic success in a database management system (DBMS).
SP11 (Gikas, 2013) Scopus This paper presents findings on students’ perceptions of learning with
mobile computing devices and the roles of social media.
SP12 (Martínez et al., IEEE This paper presents the structure and experience of PLSOOP (Platform
2018) Explore for Learning Support and Object-Oriented Programming).
SP13 (Lindsay, 2015) IEEE This study finds that the primary use of mobile technology is
Explore to enhance learning with task activities and information access.
However, a typical use is also innovative content production.
SP14 (Isidora et al., IEEE This paper presents research results from applying new technologies
2015) Explore in higher education, particularly emphasizing M-learning as a modern
innovative approach.
SP15 (Sergio and IEEE This paper presents a workshop on mobile application programming
German, 2020) Explore using MIT App Inventor with first-year students to address the lack
of basic programming skills.
SP16 (Omar, 2021) Scopus The current study aimed to know the factors that affect university
college students’ acceptance and use of Mobile learning (ML).
SP17 (Martin et al., Scopus This paper documents the outcomes of a study that focused on iden-
2013) tifying what motivates students to use mobile devices for learning.
Continued on next page
598 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

Table 2 – continued from previous page

ID Reference Source Abstract
SP18 (Matthew et al., Scopus This paper focuses on learning and teaching psychological theories
2020) and emerging mobile learning theories.
SP19 (Cavus, 2020) IEEE The study’s primary purpose was to identify whether the developed
Explore m-learning system is acceptable as a mobile learning environment.
SP20 (Ng and Wong, Scopus This study aims to explore the practices of university students in
2020) China regarding mobile learning using a questionnaire.
SP21 (Ortiz et al., 2015) IEEE This paper presents an experience based on m-learning in higher
Explore education.
SP22 (García and Rosa, Scopus This paper presents the results of an experimental approach that
2016) evaluated the interaction of a group of Colombian students with a Web
solution within the context of Mobile Robotics to learn programming
and algorithmics.
SP23 (Rodriguez et al., Science This paper presents a Context-Aware Mobile Learning System
2020) Direct (CAMLS) usability assessment.
SP24 (Malik, 2020) IEEE This study developed and introduced a ‘PROBSOL’ application in
Explore three different learning systems (E-learning, M-learning, and Game-
based learning).
SP25 (Sakibayev et al., Scopus This paper aims to test the hypothesis that introducing mobile tech-
2019) nology to college-level database courses for future IT specialists has
a positive academic impact on students.
SP26 (Burke et al., 2022) Scopus This paper investigates m-learning experiences and determines which
dimensions impact the students’ learning.
SP27 (Kao and Ruan, Science This study uses a programming learning system based on Augmented
2022) Direct Reality to help students improve their programming concepts.

Table 3 lists nine papers in the literature related to the mobile learning tool or mobile
software in teaching programming logic, followed by their identification, references,
data source, and a brief description.

Table 3
Selected papers with Mobile Learning Tool

ID Reference Source Abstract

S01 (Ortiz et al., 2015) IEEE This paper presents an experience based on m-learning in higher
Explore education.
S02 (Martínez et al., IEEE This paper presents the structure and experience of using PAEPOO –
2018) Explore PLSOOP (Platform for Learning Support and Object-Oriented
Programming).
S03 (Amro And Romli, IEEE This study investigates the availability of m-learning applications
2019) Explore via Google Play and Apple Stores, which use various techniques to
support effective programming learning.
S04 (Malik, 2020) IEEE This paper presents a ‘PROBSOL’ application in three learning systems
Explore (E-learning, M-learning, and Game-based learning) to enhance
problem-solving skills.
S05 (Cavus, 2020) IEEE The study’s primary purpose was to identify whether the developed
Explore m-learning system is acceptable.
Continued on next page
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 599

Table 3 – continued from previous page

ID Reference Source Abstract

S06 (Sergio and IEEE This paper presents a workshop on mobile application programming
German, 2020) Explore using MIT App Inventor offered to first-year students to address the
lack of basic programming skills.
S07 (Alepis et al., Scopus The work presents m-AFOL, a mobile learning platform for elementary
2017) school students to teach basic programming principles.
S08 (Feijóo and Rosa, Scopus This paper presents the results of an experimental approach that eva-
2016) luated the interaction of a group of Colombian students with a Web
solution within the context of Mobile Robotics to learn programming
and algorithmics.
S09 (Kao and Ruan, Science This study uses a programming learning system based on Augmented
2022) Direct Reality to help students improve their programming concepts.

5. Arrangement Process

After finding the results of the systematic review, we classified the data to analyze and
help to answer the research questions.
Table 4 followed the criteria to answer the predefined research questions, RSQ01,
RSQ01.01, RSQ01.02, RSQ02, and RSQ02.01, which intended to characterize the mo-
bile tools for learning context on Programming Logic and their methodologies. The
twelve mobile learning tools found are in this table.
Butler and Morgan (2007) show two principal types of feedback: automatic and as-
sisted. The first is auto-generated feedback, and the second is teachers’ feedback, which

Table 4
Data collected to answer RSQ01 and RSQ02 and their secondary questions

ID Tool Name Application Type Still Grade Type of Methodologies

Online? Use
S01 Eduoct Web Application N University F Assist-Learning
S02 PLSOOP Web Application N University F Self-Regulated
*S03.01 Sololearn Multi-platform Y University PF Self-Regulated
*S03.02 Programming Hub Multi-platform Y University PF Self-Regulated
*S03.03 Mimo Multi-platform Y University PF Self-Regulated
S04 PROBSOL Multi-platform Y University F Self-Regulated
**S05 MoblrN Multi-platform Y University F Self-Regulated
S06 App Inventor Multi-platform Y University F Assist-Learning
S07 m-AFOL Android OS. N Elementary F Self-Regulated
*S08.01 RoBlock Multi-platform N High School F Self-Regulated
*S08.02 Scratch Multi-platform Y High School F Self-Regulated
S09 AR-based learning Multi-platform - Elementary - Assist-Learning
*The rows for S03 and S08 articles refer to papers that cited more than one mobile learning tool.
**The S05 article cites MoblrN, which has a similar tool to the new m-learning digital
environment for teaching and learning. This tool can have computational-related content
populated previously by any professor or tutor, so we included this tool here.
600 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

can help students get unstuck and correct their errors. However, automatic feedback
about usage, exercise errors, and results can also be beneficial, reducing teacher effort.
Every tool listed in this work use automatic feedback.
The defined criteria to answer the validation types and duration of each process for
the tools found (as questioned in RSQ03 and RSQ03.01) are in Table 5.
Finally, Table 6 shows the defined criteria to understand the tools’ advantages, disad-
vantages, and final effects (used to answer the questions of RSQ04 and RSQ04.01).

Table 5
Criteria to answer the RSQ03 and its secondary questions

ID Instructional Covered Content Evaluation Activity Number of

Techniques Method duration people

S01 Investigation Programming Logic Mixed 4 Months 163

S02 Investigation Oriented Object Quantitative 6 Months 174
Algorithms Basic
S03.01 Investigation Programming Logic Mixed Undefined Undefined
S03.02 Investigation Programming Logic Mixed Undefined Undefined
S03.03 Investigation Programming Logic Mixed Undefined Undefined
S04 Observation Programming Logic Quantitative Undefined Undefined
Game
S05 Observation Any Content Qualitative Undefined 74
S06 Observation Programming Logic Experimental 10 Hours 164
S07 Investigation Programming Logic Qualitative Undefined 40
S08.01 Investigation Programming Logic Mixed Undefined 46
S08.02 Investigation Programming Logic Mixed Undefined 46
S09 Observation Programming Logic Mixed 4 Weeks 50

Table 6
Criteria used to answer the RSQ04 and secondary questions.

ID Research Focus Advantages Disadvantages Result

Outcome
S01 Evaluate acceptance of the m-learning tool Useful tool Technical Problems Engagement
Help to learn
S02 Evaluate acceptance of the m-learn tool Easy to use Undefined Productivity
Interactivity
S03.01 Investigate acceptance of three tools from Useful tool Undefined Productivity
online stores Interactivity
S03.02 Investigate acceptance of three tools from Useful tool Inefficient Productivity
online stores Interactivity
S03.03 Investigate acceptance of three tools from Useful tool Undefined Engagement
online stores Creativity
S04 Enhance problem-solving skills through Easy to use Few examples Engagement
m-learn User friendly
S05 Evaluate new m-learning system Useful tool Undefined Motivation
acceptance and usability User friendly Interactivity
Continued on next page
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 601

Table 6 – continued from previous page

ID Research Focus Advantages Disadvantages Result
Outcome
S06 Workshop to tackle the lack of basic Useful tool Undefined Motivation
programming skills Help to learn Creativity
S07 Enhance basic programming principles via User Friendly Interface Issues Engagement
m-learn Useful tool
S08.01 Evaluate tool acceptance User Friendly Undefined Engagement
S08.02 Evaluate tool acceptance User Friendly Undefined Engagement
S09 Evaluate new m-learning system Useful tool Undefined Motivation
acceptance and usability Easy to use Interactivity

6. Discussion

RQ01 – What are the mobile tools for teaching Programming Logic?
We identified 8 of 12 papers from the systematic review results that use mobile learning
apps to teach computational content, such as programming basics or algorithms. One
article of these eight uses a brand-new mobile learning environment that allows the in-
clusion of computational content.
The tools found in this research, followed by the selected paper with mobile learning
tools:
●● (S01) Eduoct.
●● (S02) PLSOOP.
●● (S03.01) Sololearn.
●● (S03.02) Programming Hub.
●● (S03.03) Mimo.
●● (S04) PROBSOL.
●● (S05) MoblrN.
●● (S06) App Inventor.
●● (S07) m-AFOL.
●● (S08.01) RoBlock.
●● (S08.02) Scratch.
●● (S09) AR-based programming learning system.
Next, we briefly present these tools, showing their technologies and functionalities.
(S01) Eduoct: mobile learning tool created by an educational experience in Spain, us-
ing the C language to implement algorithms. It was created as a Web Application for
most mobile devices. The exercises were organized with increasing difficulty, showing
an arrangement of disorganized blocks to be ordered. It presents a simple interface and
controls within a small local database to record the exercises and users’ results (Ortiz
et al.,2015).
(S02) PLSOOP: object-oriented programming platform for learning support used in
academic fields. A web application with an android app version has three layers: De-
602 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

finer, CodeFactory, and ErrorFinder. The first layer is a guide to declaring terms in the
java languages, such as variables, classes, and objects. The second layer is a java code
generator in which, based on the question, the code is created piece by piece. Finally,
the last layer has code examples with errors for the student to find and solve (Martínez
et al.,2018).
(S03.01, S03.02 and S03.03) Sololearn, Programming Hub, and Mimo: these three
tools are present on the same paper. SoloLearn is a programming app that uses several
free code learning contents, such as Python, Java, Kotlin, C++, C, C#, and PHP. It has
free courses, a Web Application, and a Mobile application.
Programming Hub and Mimo offer similar programming language contents, such as
Java, HTML, and Python. However, Programming Hub has more programming topics
for learning coding concepts than Mimo. Both apps allow users to write and run actual
code. All these apps have a clean layout with drag-and-drop, fill the text, and use code
blocks (Amro and Romli, 2019).
(S04) PROBSOL: an introductory programming course that is a multi-based applica-
tion used to enhance problem-solving. With a downloadable Android version, the app
is based on pseudocode and covers most of the initial topics on programming. The web
layout was developed with ASP.net, and the use is based on clicks and ordering rows
of code. However, it also has an area to write the code and a button to run the test. It is
based on different questions ranked by difficulty (Malik, 2020).
(S05) MoblrN: a mobile learning system that offers an m-learning environment with
access control, user profile, learning materials, assignments, self-test, announcements,
performance, and report generation. The application was built using PHP, Java, and
MySQL (Cavus, 2020).
(S06) App Inventor: a multi-platform visual programming environment with blocks-
based coding programs driven by examples and mini-courses. It introduced basic pro-
gramming concepts as a self-regulated tool or assisted learning (Sergio and German,
2020).
(S07) m-AFOL: a mobile learning platform named “Mobile-Affective Object-Oriented
Logo Language,” an evolution of past “Logo” programming language. It is only avail-
able for Android, requiring an Internet connection. It uses a user-friendly interface de-
signed to create effective interaction among children. It also has illustrated tutorials
and exercises. The app prompts the students to write simple commands using lines and
basic shapes (Alepis and Troussas, 2017).
(S08.01 and S08.02) Roblock & Scratch: both tools are on the same paper. Roblock
is a Web Application solution designed for teaching programming and algorithms.
It uses the concept of teaching through programming a virtual robot with multiple-
choice problems, stipulated time to answer, and usage of code blocks with tutorials
and videos. Scratch is an MIT Web Application used to learn algorithms within an
event-oriented paradigm, learn to program by game design on a blank canvas, and
syntax-free Visual Blocks Programming. There is a Scratch Jr version for Android
(Garcia and Rosa, 2016).
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 603

(S09) AR-based programming learning system: an augmented reality system for pro-
gramming learning that uses Unity 3D game platform, Maya 3D and Vuforia AR devel-
oper portal. It covers memory-oriented programming concepts, such as functions and
algorithms, sequences, selections, repetition structures, and logic-oriented content. The
student uses an iPad to interact with the system (Kao and Ruan, 2022).
The results after data collection and analysis demonstrate that the twelve mobile
tools are distributed as follows: 2 are web applications (S01 and S02); 9 are multi-
platform such as web applications, mobile or desktop (S03.01, S03.02, S03.03, S04,
S05, S06, S08.01, S08.02, and S09); and one of these tools is designed only for Android
operating system (S07). Here we see that the vast majority aim to reach as many devices
as possible, to attract and maintain the public.
We also point out that more than half of mobile tools are on university usage: 8 in
total, 2 in high school, and 2 in elementary school, showing the lack of applications
or studies in other educational levels, together with the lack of portability to other
languages.
Eight of these mobile apps are free to use (S01, S02, S03, S04, S05, S06, and S07),
3 of them are partially free (S03.01, S03.02, and S03.03), and there is no information
for one of them (S09). Demonstrating the experimental academic development and us-
age, the majority (7 tools) are still online (S03.01, S03.02, S03.03, S04, S05, S06, and
S08.02), four tools are no longer online (S01, S02, S07, and S08.01), and we have no
information about one (S09).
All twelve mobile tools (S01, S02, S03.01, S03.02, S03.03, S04, S05, S06, S07,
S08.01, S08.02, and S09) focus on algorithm learning, some using the language C and
others java algorithms.
Finally, the main characteristic observed in all these mobile tools is that they have
a visual type of content, such as blocks to organize or write together with a compiler
that reads the user input and sends the result immediately. The negative aspects are the
lack of tools to use offline mode. Furthermore, not all have a pseudocode programming
language to start learning to program. Some use a market/production programming lan-
guage at the beginning of programming concepts, hindering learning by forcing the use
of more complex syntax.

RQ02 – Which methodologies are used by these tools to support learning

programming logic?

Zimmerman (2008, p.167) refers to self-regulated learning (SRL) as “the self-directive

processes and self-beliefs that enable learners to transform their mental abilities, such as
verbal aptitude, into an academic performance skill derived from the learner’s advanta-
geous motivational feelings and beliefs as well as metacognitive strategies”.
Sha and colleagues (2012) believe that mobile learning effectiveness depends on
students’ ability to correctly determine what, when, where, and how to learn, their mood
and motivation.
●● The self-regulated learning methodology: human behavior results from inner
orientation linked to emotions and behavior. The student mediates engagement
and learning, which also depends on external stimuli. Motivation and lack of inter-
604 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

est are the most common problems. The technological resource can foster the de-
sire and need for its use. However, it will be left aside without stimulus after users
lose interest or fulfil an obligation, as pointed out by Sha and colleagues (2012).
●● The assist-learning methodology: an individual learning process with support
materials and guidance from a tutor or teacher. In this case, it is common to have
events and/or new activities, applications, and programs updated to new question-
naires and assessments. (Emran et al., 2021).
We noticed that nine tools use the self-regulated methodology (S02, S03.01, S03.02,
S03.03, S04, S05, S07, S08.01, and S08.02). This methodology is common in m-learn-
ing tools because, after its completion, the contents of visual, audio and video stimuli
keep the user connected and interested, as reminded by Emran and colleagues (2021).
There are only three tools with the Assist-Learning methodology (S01, S06, and
S09). The S06 tool is also used as an SRL methodology. The paper S06 presented an ex-
periment (workshop) with assisted learning, in which the tools are environments to post
content. They also allow communication and data updates (Ortiz et al., 2015).
Noticing that all twelve tools have automatic feedback, Pinheiro and colleagues
(2021) emphasize that feedback is essential in teaching-learning, helping to identify
gaps and substantial learning progress (Butler and Winne, 1995).
As expected, the tools bring agility and assertiveness, facilitating the tutor’s work
with automatic corrections and notification of submissions and grades. It is important to
remember the quality of the feedback and how users receive it. Feedback plays a crucial
role, as participants have no face-to-face interaction (Ypsilandis, 2002).
All twelve tools have some visual or textual feedback, from users’ hits and misses,
questionnaires, and general use. Some offer resolution tips and the chance for new at-
tempts. The feedback has a “programmed content” with no recommendation or assis-
tance in the execution, thus only checking the success and error of the activities. Not all
have a tutorial or extra content to help users understand them.

RQ03 – How do these tools validate the learning process?

Fig. 2 presents the evaluation methods of the tools listed on this SLR.
We first need to conceptualize three methods to understand the answers better: quali-
tative, quantitative, and experimental.
Qualitative: is not concerned with numerical representatively but a deeper understand-
ing of a given problem. The objective is to represent or reproduce the information to
understand the various dimensions of the analyzed problem (Flanagan, 2013).
Quantitative: generally has as many data samples as possible to represent the popula-
tion. The results constitute the general view of the entire population (Martin and Bridg-
mon, 2012).
Fig. 2 represents the research method used to evaluate the results. We can see that
the qualitative method was used on two articles (S05 and S07) and the quantitative one
on two others (S02 and S04), followed by mixed evaluation methods. Papers with more
than one research method (S01, S03.01, S03.02, S03.03, S06, S08.01, S08.02, and S09)
were the most common (8 papers).
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 605

Fig. 2. Learning effects distribution.

As we can see, mixed evaluation methods are preferred in the papers, merging the
data collected from these tools with personal feelings and understanding when facing
programming learning and practice.
Accepting these tools increases engagement and motivation, which correlate to a
dropout decrease.
Methods that contain good practices are defined as those with applied instructional
techniques using strategies that enable the student to acquire knowledge effectively
(Benjamin et al., 2014). We categorized the instructional techniques found as observa-
tion or investigation.
Nine resulting papers proposed that students seek content to acquire knowledge
(investigation instructional technique) (S01, S02, S03.01, S03.02, S03.03, S04, S07,
S08.01, and S08.02). Three papers followed an observation technique in which students
had to observe content to learn (S05, S06, and S09).

RQ04 – What are the listed advantages and disadvantages of these tools?

To evaluate the environments of the mobile tools, we observed that the mobile learning
applications have multiple positive effects, observed by teachers or students in differ-
ent cases or scenarios. Fig. 3 represents the words and expressions used in the papers to
indicate advantages (each paper could have more than one selected word).
The words used were: 1) useful tool, considered helpful for learning, applying, and
assimilating content, with eight papers (S01, S03.01, S03.02, S03.03, S05, S06, S07,
and S09); 2) helping to learn/ help in learning (S01 and S06) as cited by users (2 ar-
ticles); 3) easy to use (S02, S04, and S09) with tree articles and it applies to the tool
itself; 4) user-friendly, clean interface and enjoyable to use (S04, S05, S07, S08.01,
and S08.02) appeared on five papers. These advantages were raised in 18 papers, as
seen in Fig. 3.
606 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

Fig. 3. List of Advantages by papers.

We could also see that mobile learning applications have multiple adverse effects,
such as disadvantages and other problems observed by teachers or students in different
cases or scenarios.
Fig. 4 represents the words and expressions collected for disadvantages or problems
(one paper can have more than one selected word). The words used are: 1) technical
problems, which corresponds to mobile tool technical failure or problem with one paper
(S01); 2) undefined (S02, S03.01, S03.02, S03.03, S05, S06, S08.01, S08.02, and S09)
when the paper does not explicitly cite the problem or disadvantage (nine papers); 3) few

Fig. 4. List of Disadvantages by papers.

 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 607

Fig. 5. Real outcomes representativeness.

examples (S04) when the application does not have a significant number of statements
or activities (one paper); and, finally, 4) interface issues (S07), when the application can
crash, close or does not show well all objects on screen (one paper). We can observe a
lack of negative feedback or documentation of possible problems, as most articles in this
review have a positive bias.
We also collected the possible actual outcomes of each proposed mobile learning
tool, separated into five keywords.
Fig. 5 represents the words collected for outcomes based on analysis and the re-
searcher’s understanding of every conclusion and final result. One paper can receive
more than one word. The selected words were: 1) motivation (S05, S06, and S09), based
on the feedback after usage of each tool or environment (three papers); 2) creativity
(S03.03 and S06), the possible perception of increased user’s creativity during or after
using the tool (two papers); 3) productivity (S03.01, S03.02, and S03.03), perception
of more significant productivity increase (three papers); 4) interactivity (S02, S03.01,
S03.02, S05, and S09), student- tool and student-teacher integrations (five papers); and,
finally, 5) engagement (S01, S03.03, S04, S07, S08.01, and S08.02), possible increase
in satisfaction, more significant effort in using the tool, either for learning or by their
own free will, that is, more participative people, with six papers. Carlson and others
(2019) cite that mobile learning can increase motivation and positively affect student
confidence.
This study has nineteen occurrences based on the analysis and results demonstrated
in the selected papers.
608 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

7. Threats to Validity

In order to carry out the Systematic Literature Review, we analyzed all data and fol-
lowed the previously established protocol. Thus, the bias in results is reduced compared
to traditional review methods.
However, though we followed all the guidelines, some threats can affect the re-
search results. So, we chose high-quality digital libraries for this work: Science Direct,
Scopus, and IEEE. However, other relevant articles might have been published in other
sources. On the other hand, including more libraries would significantly increase the
number of articles, affecting the quality and assertiveness of the analysis. One possibil-
ity would be to continue this review by adding new libraries, following the protocol in
this research.
Even though we conducted several tests with the search strings for each digital li-
brary, it is challenging to measure its best performance until reaching the final string.
Therefore, the search string used must be chosen very carefully. Several discarded
papers did not address relevant content to our research objective, though some present-
ed words in the string. At the same time, relevant articles may have only some words in
the string, so they were not considered.
However, generating new strings to capture more relevant articles to the topic can
also increase the number of irrelevant articles.
Another critical issue is the trend of publishing positive research results rather than
negative ones, even when they can help identify or demonstrate problems with the cur-
rent methods. The inclusion and selection criteria and the quality assessment can also
pose a significant threat due to subjective decisions of classification and choice.
The validity of an SLR depends on the quality and clearness of the information
presented in the articles. Therefore, the researcher’s experience is essential to solve any
possible doubts.
Finally, the data extraction phase requires the researcher to understand various in-
formation about the different methodologies applied in the articles and to standardize
the collected information.

8. Conclusion and Suggestions

Strictly following a protocol, this systematic literature review compiles articles that
improve our understanding of mobile learning tools for programming logic.
After analyzing all the information from the articles, we could see the increase in
the emergence of mobile teaching tools in the areas of computer science, mainly in
the academic environment, to promote teaching and research, and the considerable
effort to increase engagement, motivation, and improvement in student learning and
retention.
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 609

Another critical point is the need for studies with opposing positions, citing prob-
lems, suggestions for improvement, or usage bugs. In addition, the need for multi-
language applications (portability) is evident.
Additionally, we perceived a lack of papers on programming for early ages, demon-
strating that the tools only appear or are being created by university teachers to teach
computational programming content, such as programming languages or algorithms.
Even though using these tools from an early age may be essential for children’s forma-
tion and understanding of logic.
We also noticed that only one work dealt with the pseudo-language format, even
though pseudocode is more comfortable and easier for users because it resembles the
spoken language. However, many tools and subjects focus on teaching computational
logic or algorithms through market languages, hindering learning due to the nuances
of learning specific syntaxes for each action. Thus, there is a concern about training
students capable of market programming, but this needs to start with more simplistic
approaches, techniques, and skills.
We can see that the user interfaces (UI) used by the students, authors, and creators
were the visual block programming style, maybe because it is easy to accept and use,
and the correlation of visual style with the capability to learn or use the tool. Thus,
showing that applications that use visual blocks have greater acceptance.
A technical aspect is that all tools need the Internet to run, with no offline operation
or mode, thus limiting their usage and experience. All the papers found in this research
were based on problem analysis or problem-solving regarding programming logic. This
result may indicate that the definition of programming logic is perceived as problem
analysis or problem-solving, and the studies approached their research questions with
this definition in mind. Indeed, there are several attempts to create new tools, to under-
stand and explain learning difficulties in the academic field.
We can see that different tools and ways of teaching are evolving. However, we
need to pay attention to the form of analysis, application, and acceptability of these
tools. Even with more experimental cases open to more users, we know that mobile
tools in the classroom may contain some didactic and/or application bias.
We noticed that several tools were created to solve specific problems, learning was
not standardized, and there was no standard application. Finally, only seven tools are
still online within the ten years searched by this SLR (2011–2022), showing the need
for new tools and methodologies for teaching and learning.
We suggest for future studies:
●● To develop reliable tools to measure the levels of programming logic learning,
besides the technical skills of those tools.
●● To correlate the lack of programming language studies with current problems
faced by high school and university students.
●● To analyze the relationship between computational thinking and programming
logic learning with mobile tools.
610 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

References

Alepis, E., Troussas, C. (2017). M-learning programming platform: Evaluation in elementary schools. Infor-
matica (Slovenia). 41(4), 471–478.
https://www.informatica.si/index.php/informatica/article/view/1496/1085
Amro, J.S., Romli, R. (2019). Investigation on the Learning Programming Techniques via Mobile Learning
Application. In: 4th International Conference and Workshops on Recent Advances and Innovations in En-
gineering (ICRAIE). 2019, pp. 1–7. DOI: 10.1109/ICRAIE47735.2019.9037764.
Benjamin, N., Sottilare, R., Ragusa, C., Hoffman, M. (2014). Defining Instructional Challenges, Strategies,
and Tactics for Adaptive Intelligent Tutoring Systems.
Borges, R.P., Oliveira, P.R.F., Lima, R.G. da L., Lima, R.W. (2018). A systematic review of literature on
methodologies, practices, and tools for programming teaching. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 16(5),
1468–1475. DOI: 10.1109/TLA.2018.8408443.
Bosse, Y., Gerosa, M.A. (2017). Why �������������������������������������������
is programming so difficult to learn?: Patterns
����������������������������
of Difficulties Re-
lated to Programming Learning Mid-Stage. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. 41, 1–6.
DOI: 10.1145/3011286.3011301.
Burke, P.F., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P. (2021). Improving mobile learning in secondary mathemat-
ics and science: Listening to students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12596.
Butler, D.L., Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of
Educational Research, 65, 245–281. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543065003245
Butler, M., Morgan, M. (2007). Learning challenges faced by novice programming students studying high
level and low feedback concepts. In: Proceedings of ASCILITE – Australian Society for Computers in
Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference, 2007.
Carlson, C., Peterson, G., Day, D. (2019). Utilizing portable learning technologies to improve student engage-
ment and retention. IEEE Transactions on Education, 1–7. DOI: 10.1109/te.2019.2941700.
Cavus, N. (2020). Evaluation of MoblrN M-learning system: Participants’ attitudes and opinions. World Jour-
nal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 12, 150–164. DOI: 10.18844/wjet.v12i3.4978.
Condé, M.Á., Peñalvo, F.G., Alier, M., Casany, M.J., Piguillem, J. (2013). Mobile devices applied to Computer
Science subjects to consume institutional functionalities through a personal learning environment. Interna-
tional Journal of Engineering Education, 29(3), 610–619.
Correa, P.V., Pulido, J.M., Betancur, M.T. (2021). A systematic mapping review of context-aware analysis and
its approach to mobile learning and ubiquitous learning processes. Computer Science Review, 39, 100335,
ISSN 1574-0137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2020.100335
Criollo, S.C., Moscoso-Zea, O., Guerrero-Arias, A., Jaramillo-Alcazar, Á., Luján-Mora, S. (2021). Mobile
learning as the key to higher education innovation: A systematic mapping. IEEE Access, 9, 66462–66476.
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076148.
Elfeky, A. Masadeh, T. (2016). The effect of mobile learning on students’ achievement and conversational
skills. International Journal of Higher Education, 5, 20–31. DOI: 10.5430/ijhe.v5n3p20.
Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., Kamaludin, A. (2020). Towards a conceptual model for examining the impact
of knowledge management factors on mobile learning acceptance. Technology in Society, 61, 101247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101247
Evrim, B. (2014). A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology &
Society, 17, 17–32.
Fagan, M. (2019). Factors influencing student acceptance of mobile learning in higher education. Computers
in the Schools, 36, 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2019.1603051.
Flanagan, T. (2013). The scientific method and why it matters. C2C Journal, 7(1), 4–6.
Fokides, E. (2018). Teaching basic programming concepts to young primary school students using tablets: Re-
sults of a Pilot Project. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 10, 34–47. DOI: 10.4018/
IJMBL.2018010103. From hypothesis to results. New Jersey, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Gezgin, D. (2019). The effect of mobile learning approach on University students’ academic success for
database management systems course. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies.
DOI: 10.4018/IJDET.2019010102.
Gikas, J., Grant, M.M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learn-
ing with cellphones, smartphones & social media. Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.
Hwang, G., Tsai, C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publications
in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, E65–E70.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x.
 Mobile Learning Tools to Support in Teaching Programming Logic and Design: ... 611

Isidora, M., Dragana, Ž., Dragan, M., Danijel, N. (2015). The effects of the intended behavior of students in
the use of M-learning. Comput. Hum. Behav, 51(PA), 207–215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.041
Kao, G.Y., Ruan, C. (2022). Designing and evaluating a high interactive augmented reality system for pro-
gramming learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 132,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107245
Klein, A.Z., Junior, C.S.F.J., Barbosa, J.L.V. (2015). M-Learning in practice: Using SMS for teach-
ing and learning in undergraduate courses. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 13(1), 321–329.
DOI: 10.1109/TLA.2015.7040665.
Lindsay, L. (2015). Transformation of teacher practice using mobile technology with one-to-one classes:
M-learning pedagogical approaches. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47. DOI: 10.1111/
bjet.12265.
Macrides, E., Miliou, O., Angeli, C. (2021). Programming in early childhood education: A systematic review.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 32, 100396. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100396.
Mahasneh, O. (2021). Factors that affect University College Students’ acceptance and use of Mobile Learning
(ML). International Journal of Instruction, 14, 861–872. DOI: 10.29333/iji.2021.14350a.
Malik, S.I. (2020). Paper Comparison of E-Learning, M-Learning and Game-based Learning in Programming
Education... Comparison of E-Learning, M-Learning and Game-based Learning in Programming Education.
Martin, R., McGill, T., Sudweeks, F. (2013). Learning anywhere, anytime: Student motivators for m-learning.
Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 12(1), 51–67.
Martin, W.E., Bridgmon, K.D. (2012) Quantitative and Statistical Research Methods: From Hypothesis to
Results (Vol. 42). John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Martínez, L.G., Marrufo, S., Licea, Reyes-Juárez, G., Aguilar, L. (2018). Using a Mobile Platform for Teach-
ing and Learning Object Oriented Programming. IEEE Latin America Transactions, 16(6), 1825–1830.
DOI: 10.1109/TLA.2018.8444405.
Matthew, L., Bernacki, J., Greene, A., Crompton, H. (2020). Mobile technology, learning, and achievement:
Advances in understanding and measuring the role of mobile technology in education. Contemporary Edu-
cational Psychology, 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101827
Medeiros, R.P., Ramalho, G.L., Falcão, T.P. (2016). A systematic literature review on RoBlock – Web app
for programming learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(12), 45–53.
DOI: 10.3991/ijet.v11i12.6004.
Ng, E.M.W., Wong, H.C.H. (2020). Comparing university students’ mobile learning practices in China. In-
ternational Journal on E-Learning: Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 19(2),
181–203.
Ortiz, O., Alcover, P.M., Sánchez, F., Pastor, J.A., Herrero, R. (2015). M-Learning tools: The development of
programming skills in engineering degrees. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje,
10(3), 86–91. DOI: 10.1109/RITA.2015.2452531.
Perera, P., Tennakoon, G., Ahangama, S., Panditharathna, R., Chathuranga, B. (2021). A systematic map-
ping of introductory programming languages for novice learners. IEEE Access, 9, 88121–88136.
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3089560.
Pinheiro, A., Barbosa, A., Carvalho, R., Freitas, F., Tsai, Y., Gasevic, D., Ferreira, R. (2021). ���������������
Automatic feed-
back in online learning environments: A systematic literature review. Computers and Education: Artificial
Intelligence, 2, 100027. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100027.
Sakibayev, S., Sakibayev, R. and Sakibayeva, B. (2019), The educational impact of using mobile technology in
a database course in college. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(4), 363–380.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2018-0103
Salleh, S.M., Shukur, Z., Judi, H.M. (2013). Analysis of research in programming teaching tools: An initial
review. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 127–135.
Sergio, M., German, L. (2020). Introduction to Programming Using Mobile Phones and MIT App Inventor. IEEE
Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje. PP. 1–1. DOI: 10.1109/RITA.2020.3008110.
Sobral, S. (2021). Strategies on Teaching Introducing to Programming in Higher Education.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-72660-7_14.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B. (2012). Experimentation in Software Engineer-
ing. Springer.
Ypsilandis, G. (2002). Feedback in distance education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15, 167–181.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological
developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312073129
612 R.C. Coelho, M.F.P. Marques, T. Oliveira

R.C. Coelho is a professor at the Department of Science and Technology, Federal Uni-
versity of São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. She received a B.Sc. degree in Computer Sci-
ence from State University Julio de Mesquita Filho – UNESP in 1989, an M.Sc. degree
in Computer Science from Federal University at São Carlos in 1993, and a Ph.D. degree
in Computational Physics from the Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo, in 1998.
She is one of the founders of the Biomedical Computing Laboratory in operation since
2012 at UNIFESP. Her current research interests include biomedical signal and image
processing, computer graphics, simulation, and computer vision.
M.F.P. Marques is a master’s student in Technological Innovation at the Federal Uni-
versity of São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. He received a B.Sc. degree in Information
Technology with Emphasis on Database from Faculty of Technology of the State of São
Paulo – FATEC in 2009. He was an adjunct professor at the Faculty of Human Sciences
of Cruzeiro, Brazil, acting in the areas of administration, accounting, and production
engineering. He is currently a professor at the Technical School of São Paulo (ETEC),
Brazil, teaching programming logic, computer maintenance, networks, and databases.
He is also IT Technologist with an Emphasis on Databases and Education. His current
research interests include programming languages and mobile tools in education.
T. Oliveira received the B.Sc. degree in Computer Science and the Ph. D. degree in
Electrical Engineering both from State University Julio de Mesquita Filho – UNESP in
2002 and 2008, respectively. His research interests cover curriculum design, develop-
ment of educational technologies, and proposal of educational approaches. Since 2017
he has been dedicated efforts to design, elaborate and implement new ideas and student
academic trajectories aimed to modernize the Computer Engineering curriculum. Be-
sides that, he has been working with undergraduate and graduate students to analyze the
state-of-the-art and propose a variety of software and system designs to come up with
technological products that are suitable to address some educational needs and require-
ments. Some examples are: (1) the implementation of an artificial neural network to
investigate the possibility of personalizing and at the same time automating the process
of assigning scores to technical reports; (2) the project of an interactive web software
aimed to teach and evaluate students about concepts of academic plagiarism, guiding
the students to what they should do to avoid it; (3) the implementation of FPGA remote
laboratories for teaching and learning of Digital Systems; (4) the design of an educa-
tional software to identify student’s multiple intelligences and learning styles, contribut-
ing to their cognitive self-knowledge and providing specialized information for teachers
about their students classes. Furthermore, he has been proposing and applying active
methodologies structured in a combination of online peer assessment and scoring rubric
techniques in some computer undergraduate and graduate courses that are bringing a
more favorable educational environment for project designs, stimulating creativity and
student motivation, influencing students to produce better technical reports – develop-
ing written communication skills – and a deeper theoretical and practical knowledge
retention. Since 2009 he is currently an associate professor at Institute of Science and
Technology / Federal University of São Paulo.