Arduino Programming Education Using Tinkercad: A Mixed-Method Study on Usability and Student Engagement During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid transitions from traditional face-to-face instruction to emergency remote teaching, particularly challenging hands-on technical education. This mixed-methods study evaluates the usability and effectiveness of Tinkercad, a web-based Arduino simulation platform, for programming education during the pandemic. Using a convergent parallel design, the research examined 42 first-year Computer Technology students at a Philippine state university who transitioned from physical laboratory work to online simulation-based learning. Data collection employed the standardized System Usability Scale (SUS) survey, open-ended questions, and academic performance comparisons with pre-pandemic cohorts. Results revealed a below-average overall SUS score of 58, with notable gender differences (female students: 62, male students: 54). Despite suboptimal usability ratings, 74% of students expressed willingness to use Tinkercad frequently, and 67% found it easy to use. However, academic performance declined from pre-pandemic averages (2.4 to 3.3), indicating learning challenges. Key barriers included pandemic-induced mental health impacts, inadequate internet infrastructure in the Philippines, and the inherent limitations of simulation-based learning compared to hands-on experiences. The study demonstrates that while Tinkercad can maintain educational continuity during crisis situations, successful implementation requires addressing infrastructure constraints, providing enhanced technical support, and incorporating mental health considerations. Findings suggest simulation platforms serve as viable emergency alternatives but highlight the continued importance of hands-on experiences in technical education and the need for hybrid learning approaches.
Received Date: April 3, 2025
Revised Date: May 15, 2025
Accepted Date: June 19, 2025
Click to Access and Download the Article:
References
- Abburi, R. (2021). TinkerCad - A web based application for virtual labs to help learners think, create and make. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34, 502–507. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i0/157188
- Acevedo-Borrega, J., Valverde-Berrocoso, J., & Garrido-Arroyo, M. C. (2023). Use of Arduino in primary education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 13(2), Article 134. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020134
- Affairs, A. S. for P. (2013). System usability scale (SUS). Usability.gov. https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/system-usability-scale.html
- Arduino. (2023). What is Arduino? https://docs.arduino.cc/learn/starting-guide/whats-arduino
- Betthäuser, B. A., Bach-Mortensen, A. M., & Engzell, P. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence on learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(3), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01506-4
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
- Brooke, J. (1995). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.
- Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A "quick and dirty" usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.
- Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
- Darkwa, B. F., & Antwi, S. O. (2021). From classroom to online: Comparing the effectiveness and student academic performance of classroom learning and online learning. OALib Journal. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107216
- Dong, Y., Shabrina, P., Marwan, S., & Barnes, T. (2021). You really need help: Exploring expert reasons for intervention during block-based programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER 2021) (pp. 334–346). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3446871.3469749
- Eryilmaz, S., & Deniz, G. (2021). Effect of Tinkercad on students' computational thinking skills and perceptions: A case of Ankara Province. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 25–38.
- Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
- Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating learning into numbers: A generic framework for learning analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 42–57.
- Hassan, N., & Hassan, T. (2016). Female students get more marks as compared to male students: A statistical study. Journal of Business & Financial Affairs, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0234.1000226
- Hassinen, M., & Mäyrä, H. (2006). Learning programming by programming: A case study. In Proceedings of Baltic Sea Conference on Computing Education Research.
- Juanda, E. A., & Khairullah, F. (2021). Tinkercad application software to optimize teaching and learning process in electronics and microprocessors subject. In Proceedings of the 6th UPI International Conference on TVET 2020 (TVET 2020).
- Juanda, E. A., Johar, A., & Kurniawan, T. (2021). Tinkercad application software to optimize teaching and learning process in electronics and microprocessors subject. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1764(1), Article 012119. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1764/1/012119
- Karing, C. (2021). Prevalence and predictors of anxiety, depression, and stress among university students during the period of the first lockdown in Germany. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 5, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadr.2021.100174
- Leoste, J., Heidmets, M., Cotet, G. B., Kapõljärv, K., Hagu, V., Plekhanova, M., & Leoste, R. (2024). Computational thinking and programming with Arduino in education: A systematic review for secondary education. Heliyon, 10(9), Article e30052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30052
- Panadero, E., & Alonso-Tapia, J. (2014). How do students self-regulate? Review of Zimmerman's cyclical model of self-regulated learning. Anales de Psicología, 30(2), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.2.167221
- Rubio, M. A., Romero-Záliz, R., Mañoso, C., & Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82, 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.010
- Salac, R. A., & Kim, Y. S. (2016). A study on the internet connectivity in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Journal of Business Review, 1(1), 67–74.
- Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers' adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
- UNESCO. (2020). Distance learning solutions. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/solutions
- UNESCO. (2021). Education: From disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
- Vlachogianni, P., & Tselios, N. (2022). Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): A systematic review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(3), 392–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1867938
- Vlachogianni, P., & Tselios, N. (2023). Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ): A systematic review. Sustainability, 15(17), Article 12954. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712954
- Wu, D., Wang, Y., & Gao, M. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual laboratory in engineering education: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 19(12), Article e0316269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316269
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50031-7
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
