This research develops accessible maker tools and activities to foster computational thinking (CT) skills in BVI learners, while exploring the experiences of two key groups: (1) BVI learners and (2) librarians and maker professionals who design and deliver accessible computational thinking programs. This paper reports on the pilot phase, where the team delivered an accessible electronics and coding curriculum to three BVI youth in a two-day summer camp. Data was analysed from two debrief focus groups—one with BVI learners and one with maker professionals who served as instructors.

The accessible computational thinking program was co-designed by the research team, which included university researchers (one blind, one sighted) and graduate assistants, as well as three maker professionals (experienced coding instructors but new to teaching BVI learners). We created lesson plans around physical coding and electronics tools like Code Jumper, Snapino, and Snap Circuits, while adapting existing lessons to be more accessible for BVI youth. The activities focused on key concepts like circuits, coding loops, and conditional statements. The lessons emphasized developing skills in tinkering, debugging, and collaboration, with a strong focus on tactile and auditory learning.

In hardware-focused activities, learners assembled circuits—including series and parallel—while exploring concepts like electrical flow, resistance, current, and voltage. Software activities using Code Jumper introduced programming basics by creating physical code sequences, encouraging both individual tinkering and group learning. The integration of hardware and software in tasks like using Arduino with Braille labels and Visual Studio Code allowed learners to apply coding concepts hands-on, using auditory and tactile feedback to enhance understanding, while visual elements were included but not essential.

In August 2023, a two-day summer camp was held at the Chicago Lighthouse, an organization serving individuals who are blind, visually impaired, and disabled. The project team developed an accessible website and promotional materials in both braille and large print, with the Chicago Lighthouse supporting distribution and recruitment through their marketing tools. The University Institutional Review Board approved the project. Three blind or low-vision youth (2 males, 1 female, aged 15-20) participated in the camp, which included lessons on coding with Code Jumper, electronics with Snap Circuits, and hardware-software prototyping with Snapino. Instructors led the lessons, while researchers assisted as needed and conducted field observations.

After the camp, the research team conducted a focus group interview with each participant and instructor group. Each interview lasted approximately an hour and a half. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The researchers conducted grounded theory approach to analyse the interview data.

Tables 1 and 2 below show information about the participating learners and instructors.

Both learners and instructors noted that hands-on tools like Snap Circuit and Code Jumper enhanced learners’ understanding of computational and electronic concepts. Overall, participants reported positive experiences with Snap Circuit and Code Jumper, while encountering challenges with Snapino. Snap Circuit helped make abstract concepts more tangible, and the use of a grid system with coordinate-based instructions further supported spatial understanding. Participants found this system particularly helpful for assembling circuits and understanding their functionality: “The braille and coordinates helped me understand how the fan worked. I’ve heard of using coordinates for chess but never with technology before.”

Code Jumper helped learners grasp coding concepts by enabling them to ‘feel’ how virtual codes are mapped onto physical block-based pods, each representing a specific function. This tactile interaction was useful for understanding the sequence and dependency relationships between different functions. Participants remarked:

each new peg—pause, loop, plus, minus—was interesting. The physical cords helped me understand how everything connected; Having the physical cords and being able to tell how they’re all connected, until there are too many pods to keep track of, really helped me understand. Each time we introduced a new element, like the pause or the loop and the different little pegs you plug in with X or plus/minus, those were really interesting.

On the other hand, both learners and instructors reported challenges with the Snapino lesson taught on the second day, which was intended to build on the more engaging and playful learning experiences from the first day with Snap Circuits and Code Jumper. Snapino, a hardware kit that integrates Snap Circuits with the Arduino platform, allows users to work with both physical electronic components and programmable code (hardware-software integration).

However, teaching the program in the Arduino programming environment—a text-based coding platform—within a short period of time seemed to result in cognitive overload. Troubleshooting and debugging with the keyboard and screen reader were particularly difficult for participants. Debugging requires navigating the complex coding interface and using shortcuts, which were not fully covered in a brief, verbal-only session. While sighted participants can intuitively explore the user interface and interpret error messages visually, this same exploration posed significant challenges for BLV learners.

The self-reported learner focus group data highlight some of the key outcomes: increased confidence, autonomy, and interest. A participant who had previously had a negative experience learning about circuits in a group setting at school mentioned that, with the use of braille and coordinate-based instructions, they were now able to understand how the circuit worked. The learner explained that their previous experience with computational thinking was not positive because their learning independence had been overshadowed by other sighted learners.

Supporting learners’ autonomy by providing tactile materials, hands-on guidance, and ample time for exploration appears to be an effective strategy.

Even though learners found the Snapino lesson quite challenging, a learner reported positive emotions, which fostered an interest in future learning. They expressed increased interest in coding after discovering the potential of using a keyboard and other assistive technologies for programming:

The participating instructors had extensive experience teaching STEM topics in informal learning environments, particularly in makerspaces, but they were new to teaching the BVI population. Prior to the camp, the project team, led by a blind researcher, provided a series of professional development sessions on accessibility. In multiple design sessions, including mock teaching role plays, the instructors wore blindfolds to better understand the challenges that BVI learners might encounter.

One of the major adaptations for instructors when transitioning from teaching sighted learners to BVI learners involved the extensive use of verbal descriptions. Instructors emphasized that verbal descriptions must be detailed, specific, and include tactile sensory information. They also suggested the use of analogies and metaphors to enhance understanding. These descriptions should precisely convey shapes, positions, and functions to assist BVI learners in identifying, navigating, and interacting with objects and their components. During the focus group, instructors noted the complexity and length of explaining Snapino to the BVI teens, which took approximately 10 minutes.

The instructors reported a learning curve in developing the skill to describe concepts and objects clearly and accurately without relying on visual references or awareness. They also noted the high cognitive demand placed on BVI learners, who had to remember complex instructions and spatial information. This required instructors to be especially mindful of their teaching pace and the complexity of their explanations, maintaining a balance between the number of descriptions given and the level of detail provided. Suggestions include using tactile teaching materials, such as tactile references to support self-guided navigation of the user interface and code. Supplementary learning materials could be created with a swell form machine to present the tangible layout of the user interface and code structure. Additionally, 3D shapes and references could be employed to further enhance understanding.

Finally, instructor focus group data emphasized the importance of understanding and accommodating the diverse needs of BVI learners. These learners have varying abilities, and what works for one may not work for another, requiring tailored approaches. Even within the small group of three learners, there were distinct needs. One learner had limited vision, braille literacy, and no additional disabilities. Another was completely blind and faced additional challenges, including mobility issues with assembling small components. The third learner had low vision, could read larger fonts, but had no braille literacy.

The instructors adapted their teaching in real time as challenges arose. For instance, during the Snap Circuit lesson, an instructor noticed that a learner with some vision, but no braille literacy was struggling to keep track of grid locations and made on-the-fly adjustments:

on the second day, I noticed he was struggling because [, without braille literacy,] he had to count and memorize grid locations. I gave him a new board with large letters, and it made a huge difference.

With a one-on-one instructor-learner ratio and real-time adjustments, the team was able to provide personalised assistance during the camp. However, challenges are anticipated in larger learning environments where such individualized support may not be as feasible.