Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender

This study addresses the challenge of effectively developing computational thinking (CT) skills and fostering positive attitudes towards programming among secondary students in fully boarding schools in Kedah, Malaysia. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of integrating Unplugged Activit...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Badruliman, Batni
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English
Published:	2024
Subjects:	L Education (General)
Online Access:	http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/46432/3/Thesis%20MSc_Badruliman%20Batni.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-unimas-ir.46432
record_format	uketd_dc
institution	Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
collection	UNIMAS Institutional Repository
language	English
topic	L Education (General) L Education (General)
spellingShingle	L Education (General) L Education (General) Badruliman, Batni Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender
description	This study addresses the challenge of effectively developing computational thinking (CT) skills and fostering positive attitudes towards programming among secondary students in fully boarding schools in Kedah, Malaysia. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of integrating Unplugged Activities (UA) with Block-Based Programming (BBP) (UA+BBP) compared to using BBP alone. The proposed solution combines tactile, hands-on activities with digital programming tools to create a more engaging and comprehensive learning experience. Using a quasi-experimental design with mixed-methods analysis, the study involved two groups: one using only BBP and the other using UA+BBP. Quantitative analysis, including two-way ANCOVA and Welch’s ANOVA, was used to assess the effects of teaching methods and gender on CT skills and programming attitudes. Results showed that while both groups improved in CT skills, there were no statistically significant differences in post-test scores between the two teaching methods. Gender did not significantly impact CT skill development. However, the UA+BBP group exhibited significantly higher attitudes towards programming compared to the BBP-only group (mean difference = 0.65741, p < 0.001). Additionally, the integrated approach balanced gender differences in attitudes, unlike the BBP-only group where males scored significantly higher than females. Qualitative data from student interviews provided deeper insights, revealing that fun and challenging UA+BBP activities enhanced their understanding of CT and made programming more accessible and enjoyable. The findings suggest that integrating unplugged activities with BBP not only enriches students’ learning experiences but also cultivates a more positive and inclusive attitude towards programming. This study underscores the potential of blended teaching strategies in advancing CT education in secondary schools.
format	Thesis
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Badruliman, Batni
author_facet	Badruliman, Batni
author_sort	Badruliman, Batni
title	Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender
title_short	Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender
title_full	Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender
title_fullStr	Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender
title_full_unstemmed	Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender
title_sort	effectiveness of combined unplugged and block-based programming approaches on computational thinking skills and programming attitudes across gender
granting_institution	Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
granting_department	Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology
publishDate	2024
url	http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/46432/3/Thesis%20MSc_Badruliman%20Batni.pdf
_version_	1818611699584860160
spelling	my-unimas-ir.464322024-10-21T07:58:35Z Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender 2024-10-20 Badruliman, Batni L Education (General) LB1603 Secondary Education. High schools This study addresses the challenge of effectively developing computational thinking (CT) skills and fostering positive attitudes towards programming among secondary students in fully boarding schools in Kedah, Malaysia. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of integrating Unplugged Activities (UA) with Block-Based Programming (BBP) (UA+BBP) compared to using BBP alone. The proposed solution combines tactile, hands-on activities with digital programming tools to create a more engaging and comprehensive learning experience. Using a quasi-experimental design with mixed-methods analysis, the study involved two groups: one using only BBP and the other using UA+BBP. Quantitative analysis, including two-way ANCOVA and Welch’s ANOVA, was used to assess the effects of teaching methods and gender on CT skills and programming attitudes. Results showed that while both groups improved in CT skills, there were no statistically significant differences in post-test scores between the two teaching methods. Gender did not significantly impact CT skill development. However, the UA+BBP group exhibited significantly higher attitudes towards programming compared to the BBP-only group (mean difference = 0.65741, p < 0.001). Additionally, the integrated approach balanced gender differences in attitudes, unlike the BBP-only group where males scored significantly higher than females. Qualitative data from student interviews provided deeper insights, revealing that fun and challenging UA+BBP activities enhanced their understanding of CT and made programming more accessible and enjoyable. The findings suggest that integrating unplugged activities with BBP not only enriches students’ learning experiences but also cultivates a more positive and inclusive attitude towards programming. This study underscores the potential of blended teaching strategies in advancing CT education in secondary schools. Unimas Publisher 2024-10 Thesis http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/46432/ http://ir.unimas.my/id/eprint/46432/3/Thesis%20MSc_Badruliman%20Batni.pdf text en validuser masters Universiti Malaysia Sarawak Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology Ahmed, D. T. (2019). Which styles of teaching and learning are effective for students? – students’ perspective. International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), 880–883. Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. Computer Journal, 55(7), 833–835. Aivaloglou, E., & Hermans, F. (2016). How kids code and how we know: An exploratory study on the scratch repository. ICER 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 53–61. Akiba, D. (2022). Computational thinking and coding for young children: a hybrid approach to link unplugged and plugged activities. Education Sciences, 12(11). Alp, G., & Bulunuz, N. (2023). Effect of web-based collaborative learning method with scratch on critical thinking skills of 5th grade students. Participatory Educational Research, 10(2), 82–104. Amnouychokanant, V., Boonlue, S., Chuathong, S., & Thamwipat, K. (2021). A study of first-year students’ attitudes toward programming in the innovation in educational technology course. Education Research International, 2021, 9105342. Andriyani. (2023). Stimulation of cognitive and psychomotor capability by game-based learning with computational thinking core. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 15(5), 76 – 104. Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology \& Society, 19(3), 47–57. Ardito, G., Czerkawski, B., & Scollins, L. (2020). Learning computational thinking together: effects of gender differences in collaborative middle school robotics program. TechTrends, 64(3), 373–387. Armoni, M., Meerbaum-Salant, O., & Ben-Ari, M. (2015). From scratch to “Real” programming. ACM Transactions on Computinig Education, 14(4),1-13. Attia, N. A., Baig, L., Marzouk, Y. I., & Khan, A. (2017). The potential effect of technology and distractions on undergraduate students’ concentration. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 33(4), 860–865. Atun, H., & Usta, E. (2019). The effects of programming education planned with TPACK framework on learning outcomes. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 26–36. Avcı, C., & Deniz, M. N. (2022). Computational thinking: early childhood teachers’ and prospective teachers’ preconceptions and self-efficacy. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11689–11713. Ayuso, A., Merayo, N., Ruiz, I., & Fernández, P. (2022). Challenges of STEM vocations in secondary education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(4), 713–724. Barcelos, T. S., Munoz, R., Villarroel, R., Merino, E., & Silveira, I. F. (2018). Mathematics learning through computational thinking activities: A systematic literature review. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(7), 815–845. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. Bass, L. R. (2014). Boarding schools and capital benefits: implications for urban school reform. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(1), 16–35. Bati, K. (2022). A systematic literature review regarding computational thinking and programming in early childhood education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 2059–2082. Battal, A., Adanır, G. A., & Gülbahar, Y. (2021). Computer science unplugged: a systematic literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 50(1), 24–47. Bau, D., Gray, J., Kelleher, C., Sheldon, J., & Turbak, F. (2017). Learnable programming: blocks and beyond. Commun. ACM, 60(6), 72–80. Bell, J., & Bell, T. (2018). Integrating computational thinking with a music education context. Informatics in Education, 17(2), 151–166. Bell, T., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS unplugged—How is it used, and does it work? In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics): Vol. 11011 LNCS. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4_29 Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., Kazakoff Myers, E., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 65–72. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, 1, 25. Budinski, N., Lavicza, Z., Fenyvesi, K., Novta, M., & Budinski, N. (2019). Mathematical and coding lessons based on creative origami activities. Open Education Studies, 1(1), 220–227. Bui, G., Sibia, N., Zavaleta Bernuy, A., Liut, M., & Petersen, A. (2023). Prior programming experience: a persistent performance gap in CS1 and CS2. Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 889–895. Caeli, E. N., & Yadav, A. (2020). Unplugged Approaches to computational thinking: a historical perspective. TechTrends, 64(1), 29–36. Çakir, R. (2021). Computational thinking skills of turkish and indian teacher candidates: a comparative study. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(1), 24–37. Çakiroğlu, Ü., Çevik, İ. I., Çakıroğlu, Ü., & Çevik, İ. I. (2022). A framework for measuring abstraction as a sub-skill of computational thinking in block-based programming environments. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9455–9484. Calder, N. (2018). Using Scratch to facilitate mathematical thinking. Waikato Journal of Education, 18(2). Çalişkan, E. (2020). The effects of robotics programming on secondary school students’ problem-solving skills. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 12(4), 217–230. Campos, N., Nogal, M., Caliz, C., & Juan, A. A. (2020). Simulation-based education involving online and on-campus models in different European universities. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 8, 1-15. Castle, S. D. (2023). Leveraging computational science students’ coding strengths for mathematics learning. Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1, 263–269. Chan, S.-W., Looi, C.-K., Ho, W. K., & Kim, M. S. (2023). Tools and approaches for integrating computational thinking and mathematics: a scoping review of current empirical studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(8), 2036–2080. Cheng, L., Wang, X., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2023). The effects of computational thinking integration in STEM on students’ learning performance in k-12 education: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(2), 416–443. Cheng, S., Chauhan, B., & Chintala, S. (2019). The rise of programming and the stalled gender revolution. Sociological Science, 6(13), 321–351. Cheng, Y.-P., Lai, C.-F., Chen, Y.-T., Wang, W.-S., Huang, Y.-M., & Wu, T.-T. (2023). Enhancing student’s computational thinking skills with student-generated questions strategy in a game-based learning platform. Computers & Education, 200, 104794. Chookhampaeng, C., Kamha, C., & Chookhampaeng, S. (2023). Problems and needs assessment to learning management of computational thinking of teachers at the lower secondary level. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 12(3), 172–178. Christensen, D., & Lombardi, D. (2020). Understanding biological evolution through computational thinking. Science & Education, 29(4), 1035–1077. Chun, S. J., Jo, Y., & Lee, S. (2021). The effect of programming classes with tangible scratch blocks on the programming interest of 6th grade elementary school students. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11(9), 405–409. Cleveland-Innes, M., & Hawryluk, J. (2022). Designing online learning communities. In Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education (pp. 1–17). Springer Nature Singapore. Coşkunserçe, O. (2023). Comparing the use of block-based and robot programming in introductory programming education: Effects on perceptions of programming self-efficacy. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31(5), 1234–1255. Costa Junior, A. de O., Guedes, E. B., Lima e Silva, J. P. F., & Rivera, J. A. (2024). Developing computational thinking in middle school with an educational robotics resource. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 110(2), 49. Costley, J. (2021). How role-taking in a group-work setting affects the relationship between the amount of collaboration and germane cognitive load. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 18-24. Critten, V., Hagon, H., & Messer, D. (2022). Can Pre-school children learn programming and coding through guided play activities? A case study in computational thinking. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(6), 969–981. Cui, Z., Ng, O., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2023). Integration of computational thinking with mathematical problem-based learning: Insights on affordances for learning. Educational Technology & Society, 26(2), 131-146. Curzon, P. (2013). cs4fn and computational thinking unplugged. Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 47–50. Curzon, P., & McOwan, P. W. (2008). Engaging with computer science through magic shows. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 40(3), 179–183. Da Silva Pereira, E., & Lopes, L. A. (2020). Electronic game creation through scratch software: Creative and collaborative learning fostering STEAM practices. Acta Scientiae, 22(3), 28–46. DeJong, S. (2023). Making the Digital Tangible Through Analog Games: Design Retrospective of Digital Literacy Games. In X. Fang (Ed.), HCI in Games (pp. 66–80). Springer Nature Switzerland. del Olmo-Muñoz, J., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers & Education, 150(February), 103832. del Rey, Y. A., Cawanga Cambinda, I. N., Deco, C., Bender, C., Avello-Martínez, R., & Villalba-Condori, K. O. (2021). Developing computational thinking with a module of solved problems. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(3), 506–516. Delacre, M., Leys, C., Mora, Y. L., & Lakens, D. (2019). Taking parametric assumptions seriously: Arguments for the use of Welch’s F-test instead of the classical F-test in one-way ANOVA. International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1), 13. Denning, P. J., & Tedre, M. (2021). Computational thinking: a disciplinary perspective. Informatics in Education, 20(3), 361–390. Diago, P. D., González-Calero, J. A., & Yáñez, D. F. (2022). Exploring the development of mental rotation and computational skills in elementary students through educational robotics. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 32, 100388. Erümit, A. K. (2020). Effects of different teaching approaches on programming skills. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1013–1037. Estevez, J., Garate, G., & Grana, M. (2019). Gentle introduction to artificial intelligence for high-school students using scratch. IEEE Access, 7, 179027–179036. Ezeamuzie, N. O. (2023). Abstractive-based programming approach to computational thinking: discover, extract, create, and assemble. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(3), 605–638. Ezeamuzie, N. O., Leung, J. S. C., Garcia, R. C. C., & Ting, F. S. T. (2022). Discovering computational thinking in everyday problem solving: A multiple case study of route planning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1779–1796. Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 12–28. Fanchamps, N., van Gool, E., Slangen, L., & Hennissen, P. (2024). The effect on computational thinking and identified learning aspects: Comparing unplugged smartGames with SRA-Programming with tangible or On-screen output. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 2999–3024. Ferguson-Patrick, K., Ruth, R., & Macqueen, S. (2018). Integrating curriculum: a case study of teaching Global Education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 187–201. Fidai, A., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2020). “Scratch”-ing computational thinking with Arduino: A meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100726. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. sage. Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., & Giang, M. T. (2017). Youth computational participation in the wild: understanding experience and equity in participating and programming in the online scratch community. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., 17(3),1-22. Flórez, F. B., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860. Fojcik, M., Fojcik, M. K., Høyland, S.-O., & Hoem, J. Ø. (2022). Challenges in teaching programming. International Conference on Education and New Developments, 160–163. Gale, J., Alemdar, M., Lingle, J., & Newton, S. (2020). Exploring critical components of an integrated STEM curriculum: an application of the innovation implementation framework. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 5,1-17. Gao, H., Hasenbein, L., Bozkir, E., Göllner, R., & Kasneci, E. (2023). Exploring gender differences in computational thinking learning in a VR classroom: Developing machine learning models using Eye-Tracking data and explaining the models. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 33(4), 929–954. Gao, X., & Hew, K. F. (2019). Toward a 5E-Based flipped classroom model for teaching computational thinking in elementary school : Effects on student computational thinking and problem- solving performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(6), 260–272. García-Peñalvo, F. J., Conde, M. Á., Gonçalves, J., & Lima, J. (2020). Advances in Computational thinking and robotics in education. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 10–13. Garneli, V., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). Programming video games and simulations in science education: exploring computational thinking through code analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 386–401. Geng, Z. (2023). Environmental design as a component of block-based programming. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31(2), 408–420. Grace, M., Campagnolo, P. D. B., Alves, I. M. D. R., De Borba, G. S., & Seemiller, C. (2020). What makes learning enjoyable Perspectives of today s college students in the U.S. and Brazil. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(1), 1–17. Gresse von Wangenheim, C., Hauck, J. C. R., Pacheco, F. S., & Bertonceli Bueno, M. F. (2021). Visual tools for teaching machine learning in K-12: A ten-year systematic mapping. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 5733–5778. Grover, S., Basu, S., Bienkowski, M., Eagle, M., Diana, N., & Stamper, J. (2017). A framework for using hypothesis-driven approaches to support data-driven learning analytics in measuring computational thinking in block-based programming environments. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(3), 1–25. Grover, S., Jean, D., Broll, B., Cateté, V., Gransbury, I., Ledeczi, A., & Barnes, T. (2024). Design of tools and learning environments for equitable computer Science+ Data Science Education. In Improving Equity in Data Science (pp. 57–91). Routledge. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. Habib, M. A., Raja-Yusof, R. J., Salim, S. S., Sani, A. A., Sofian, H., & Abu Bakar, A. (2021). Analyzing students’ experience in programming with computational thinking through competitive, physical, and tactile games: The quadrilateral method approach. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, 25(9), 2280–2297. Hashim, N. H. N., & Husnin, H. (2019). Teacher’s perception on computational thinking concept. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(11), 1536–1546. Herrero-Álvarez, R., Miranda, G., León, C., & Segredo, E. (2023). Engaging Primary and Secondary School Students in Computer Science Through Computational Thinking Training. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 11(1), 56–69. Hickmott, D., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., & Holmes, K. (2018). A scoping review of studies on computational thinking in K–12 mathematics classrooms. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 48–69. Hiley, K., Cebolla, H., & Elshehaly, M. (2023). The impact of non-formal computer science outreach on computational thinking in young women. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 2, 642-653. Holmes, S. R., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & David, K. (2022). An examination of teacher engagement in intervention training and sustained intervention implementation. School Mental Health, 14(1), 63–72. Hsiao, H. S., Lin, Y. W., Lin, K. Y., Lin, C. Y., Chen, J. H., & Chen, J. C. (2022). Using robot-based practices to develop an activity that incorporated the 6E model to improve elementary school students’ learning performances. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 85–99. Hsu, T.-C., Abelson, H., Patton, E., Chen, S.-C., & Chang, H.-N. (2021). Self-efficacy and behavior patterns of learners using a real-time collaboration system developed for group programming. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16(4), 559–582. Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers and Education, 126(July), 296–310. Hu, L. (2024). Exploring gender differences in computational thinking among K-12 students: A meta-analysis investigating influential factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 63(4),60-75. Huang, J., & Parker, M. C. (2023). Developing computational thinking collaboratively: the nexus of computational practices within small groups. Computer Science Education, 33(3), 342–374. Huang, W., & Looi, C.-K. (2021). A critical review of literature on “unplugged” pedagogies in K-12 computer science and computational thinking education. Computer Science Education, 31(1), 83–111. Humble, N., & Mozelius, P. (2023). Grades 7–12 teachers’ perception of computational thinking for mathematics and technology. Frontiers in Education, 8(March). Hurt, T., Greenwald, E., Allan, S., Cannady, M. A., Krakowski, A., Brodsky, L., Collins, M. A., Montgomery, R., & Dorph, R. (2023). The computational thinking for science (CT-S) framework: operationalizing CT-S for K–12 science education researchers and educators. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 1-16. Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M., Ledeczi, A., Grover, S., Wolf, R., Blair, K. P., Chin, D., Conlin, L., Basu, S., McElhaney, K., Lédeczi, Á., Grover, S., Wolf, R., Blair, K. P., Chin, D., Conlin, L., Basu, S., & McElhaney, K. (2020). C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 83–100. Hwang, G.-J., & Tu, Y.-F. (2021). Roles and research trends of artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A bibliometric mapping analysis and systematic review. Mathematics, 9(6), 584,1-19. ISTE, Is., & CSTA, C. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Jawawi, D. N. A., Jamal, N. N., Halim, S. A., Sa’adon, N. A., Mamat, R., Isa, M. A., Mohamad, R., & Hamed, H. N. A. (2022). Nurturing secondary school student computational thinking through educational robotics. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 17(03), 117–128. Jiang, B., & Li, Z. (2021). Effect of Scratch on computational thinking skills of Chinese primary school students. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(4), 505–525. Jiang, S., & Wong, G. K. W. (2018). Are children more motivated with plugged or unplugged approach to computational thinking?. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 1094-1099. Jody Clarke-Midura Deborah Silvis, J. F. S. V. R. L., & Kozlowski, J. S. (2021). Developing a kindergarten computational thinking assessment using evidence-centered design: the case of algorithmic thinking. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 117–140. Juškevičienė, A., Stupurienė, G., & Jevsikova, T. (2021). Computational thinking development through physical computing activities in STEAM education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 175–190. Kabak, K., & Korucu, A. T. (2021). The effect of students’ developing their own digital games on their academic achievement and attitudes towards for english lessons. Participatory Educational Research, 8(2), 74–93. Kafai, Y. B., & Proctor, C. (2022). A revaluation of computational thinking in K–12 education: Moving toward computational literacies. Educational Researcher, 51(2), 146–151. Kalelioglu, F., & Sentance, S. (2020). Teaching with physical computing in school: the case of the micro:bit. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2577–2603. Kanika, Chakraverty, S., & Chakraborty, P. (2020). Tools and techniques for teaching computer programming: A review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(2), 170–198. Karaahmetoğlu, K., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2019). The effect of project-based arduino educational robot applications on students’ computational thinking skills and their perception of basic stem skill levels. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 1–14. Kazimoglu, C. (2020). Enhancing confidence in using computational thinking skills via playing a serious game: A case study to increase motivation in learning computer programming. IEEE Access, 8, 221831–221851. Keith, T. Z. (2019). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling. Routledge. Kemp, P. E. J., Wong, B., & Berry, M. G. (2019). Female performance and participation in computer science: A national picture. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., 20(1), 1–28. Kim, H. S. A. N. S., Kim, S., Na, W., & Lee, W. J. E. E. (2021). Extending computational thinking into information and communication technology literacy measurement: gender and grade issues. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., 21(1(5)), 1–25. Kirçali, A. Ç., & Özdener, N. (2022). A comparison of plugged and unplugged tools in teaching algorithms at the K-12 level for computational thinking skills. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28, 1485–1513. Kite, V., & Park, S. (2023). What’s computational thinking?: Secondary science teachers’ conceptualizations of computational thinking (CT) and perceived barriers to ct integration. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(4), 391–414. Kite, V., & Park, S. (2024). Context matters: Secondary science teachers’ integration of process-based, unplugged computational thinking into science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(1), 203–227. Koć-Januchta, M. M., Schönborn, K. J., Roehrig, C., Chaudhri, V. K., Tibell, L. A. E., & Heller, H. C. (2022). “Connecting concepts helps put main ideas together”: cognitive load and usability in learning biology with an AI-enriched textbook. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19(1), 11,1-22. Kong, S.-C., & Wang, Y.-Q. (2019). Assessing perceptions of programming education among P-12 school teachers and principals: A multigroup invariance analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(6), 718–729. Kossen, C., & Ooi, C.-Y. (2021). Trialling micro-learning design to increase engagement in online courses. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 16(3), 299–310. Kuo, W.-C., & Hsu, T.-C. (2020). Learning computational thinking without a computer: how computational participation happens in a computational thinking board game. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 67–83. Kwon, K., & Cheon, J. (2019). Exploring problem decomposition and program development through block-based programs. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(1), 3–16. Lai, X., Ye, J., & Wong, G. K. W. (2023). Effectiveness of collaboration in developing computational thinking skills: A systematic review of social cognitive factors. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(5), 1418–1435. Leavy, A., Dick, L., Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Paparistodemou, E., & Stylianou, E. (2023). The prevalence and use of emerging technologies in STEAM education: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(4), 1061–1082. Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2, 32–37. Li, F., Wang, X., He, X., Cheng, L., & Wang, Y. (2022). The effectiveness of unplugged activities and programming exercises in computational thinking education: A Meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 7993–8013. Li, Q., Jiang, Q., Liang, J.-C., Xiong, W., & Zhao, W. (2024). Engagement predicts computational thinking skills in unplugged activity: Analysis of gender differences. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101537. Li, W., & Yang, W. (2023). Promoting children’s computational thinking: A quasi-experimental study of web-mediated parent education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(5), 1564–1575. Li, X., Xie, K., Vongkulluksn, V., Stein, D., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Developing and testing a design-based learning approach to enhance elementary students’ self-perceived computational thinking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(2), 344 – 368. Lindstrom, D. L., Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., & Thompson, A. D. (2019). Computational thinking in content areas and feminine craft. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(3), 126–127. Liu, J., Li, Q., Sun, X., Zhu, Z., & Xu, Y. (2023). Factors influencing programming self-efficacy: an empirical study in the context of Mainland China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(3), 835–849. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. Madariaga, L., Allendes, C., Nussbaum, M., Barrios, G., & Acevedo, N. (2023). Offline and online user experience of gamified robotics for introducing computational thinking: Comparing engagement, game mechanics and coding motivation. Computers & Education, 193, 104664. Madhu Govind, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2020). Engaging children and parents to code together using the ScratchJr App. Visitor Studies, 23(1), 46–65. Malik, S. I., & Coldwell-Neilson, J. (2018). Gender differences in an introductory programming course: New teaching approach, students’ learning outcomes, and perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2453–2475. Marín-Marín, J.-A., García-Tudela, P. A., & Duo-Terrón, P. (2024). Computational thinking and programming with Arduino in education: A systematic review for secondary education. Heliyon, 10(8), e29177,1-15. Marta Terroba Juan Miguel Ribera, D. L., & Anguera, M. T. (2022). Observational analysis of the development of computational thinking in Early Childhood Education (5 years old) through an intervention proposal with a ground robot of programmed directionality. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30(3), 437–455. Marwan, S., & Price, T. W. (2023). iSnap: Evolution and Evaluation of a Data-Driven Hint System for Block-Based Programming. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 16(3), 399–413. Merayo, N., & Ayuso, A. (2023). Analysis of barriers, supports and gender gap in the choice of STEM studies in secondary education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(4), 1471–1498. Merino-Armero, J. M., González-Calero, J. A., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & del Olmo-Muñoz, J. (2022). Unplugged Activities in Cross-Curricular Teaching: Effect on Sixth Graders’ Computational Thinking and Learning Outcomes. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6(2), 13-24. Metin, S. (2022). Activity-based unplugged coding during the preschool period. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 149–165. Minamide, A., Takemata, K., & Yamada, H. (2020). Development of computational thinking education system for elementary school class. 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 22–23. Moder, K. (2010). Alternatives to F-test in one way ANOVA in case of heterogeneity of variances (a simulation study). Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52(4), 343-354. Moreno-Leon, J., & Robles, G. (2016). Code to learn with Scratch ? 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), April, 150–156. Moreno-LeÓn, J., Robles, G., & RomÁn-GonzÁlez, M. (2020). Towards Data-Driven Learning Paths to Develop Computational Thinking with Scratch. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 8(1), 193–205. Munasinghe, B., Bell, T., & Robins, A. (2023). Unplugged activities as a catalyst when teaching introductory programming. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 7(2), 56–71. National Research Council, Division of Behavioral, Education, B. S., & Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463–484. Ntourou, V., Kalogiannakis, M., & Psycharis, S. (2021). A Study of the impact of Arduino and Visual Programming in self-efficacy, motivation, computational thinking and 5th grade students’ perceptions on electricity. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(5), 1–11. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 Results factsheets Malaysia (Volume I) (Issue 2). https://www.oecd.org/publication/pisa-2022-results/country-notes/malaysia-1dbe2061/%0Ahttps://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/pisa-2022-results-volume-i_53f23881-en OECD, O. (2019). Social Impact Investment 2019 The Impact Imperative for Sustainable Development. OECD. Ogegbo, A. A., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). A systematic review of computational thinking in science classrooms. Studies in Science Education, 58(2), 203–230. Orhan, A., & Çeviker Ay, Ş. (2023). How to teach critical thinking: an experimental study with three different approaches. Learning Environments Research, 26(1), 199–217. Palioura, M., & Dimoulas, C. (2022). Digital storytelling in education: A transmedia integration approach for the non-developers. Education Sciences, 12(8),559-570.. Palts, T., & Pedaste, M. (2020). A model for developing computational thinking skills. Informatics in Education, 19(1), 113–128. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1–11. Parham-Mocello, J., Erwig, M., Niess, M., Weber, J., Smith, M., & Berliner, G. (2023). Putting computing on the table: Using physical games to teach computer science. SIGCSE 2023 - Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 1, 444–450. Park, W., & Kwon, H. (2023). Bringing computational thinking to technology education classrooms: Hacking car activity for middle schools in the republic of korea. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(3), 863–881. Parra, X. C., & García, F. A. J. (2022). Integrated gamification model in a constructivist learning environment for the promotion of creative skills. Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, 9(1), 1–25. Parsazadeh, N., Cheng, P.-Y. Y., Wu, T.-T. T., & Huang, Y.-M. M. (2021). Integrating computational thinking concept into digital storytelling to improve learners’ motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 470–495. Paucar-Curasma, R., Cerna-Ruiz, L. P., Acra-Despradel, C., Villalba-Condori, K. O., Massa-Palacios, L. A., Olivera-Chura, A., & Esteban-Robladillo, I. (2023). Development of Computational Thinking through STEM activities for the promotion of gender equality. Sustainability, 15(16),1-19. Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2022). Algorithmic explanations: an unplugged instructional approach to integrate science and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(4), 428–441. Pelánek, R., & Effenberger, T. (2023). The landscape of computational thinking problems for practice and assessment. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., 23(2),1-29. Pellas, N., Vosinakis, S., & Spyridon, V. (2018). The effect of simulation games on learning computer programming: A comparative study on high school students’ learning performance by assessing computational problem-solving strategies. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2423–2452. Peng, H.-H., Murti, A. T., Silitonga, L. M., & Wu, T.-T. (2023). Effects of the fundamental concepts of computational thinking on students’ anxiety and motivation toward K-12 english writing. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(7),1-19. Pérez-Juárez, M. Á., González-Ortega, D., & Aguiar-Pérez, J. M. (2023). Digital distractions from the point of view of higher education students. Sustainability, 15(7),1-22. Peters-Burton, E., Rich, P. J., Kitsantas, A., Stehle, S. M., & Laclede, L. (2023). High school biology teachers’ integration of computational thinking into data practices to support student investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(6), 1353–1384. Petrie, C. (2022). Interdisciplinary computational thinking with music and programming: a case study on algorithmic music composition with Sonic Pi. Computer Science Education, 32(2), 260–282. Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s Theory. In B. Inhelder, H. H. Chipman, & C. Zwingmann (Eds.), Piaget and His School: A Reader in Developmental Psychology (pp. 11–23). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Polat, E., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2022). Unplugged versus plugged-in: examining basic programming achievement and computational thinking of 6th-grade students. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9145–9179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10992-y Pollak, M., & Ebner, M. (2019). The Missing Link to Computational Thinking. Future Internet, 11(12),1-13. Rastovac, D., Mandic, M., Majski, V., & Cvetkovic, D. (2021). Exploring the Achievement and Motivation of Learning a Text Programming Language among Elementary School Students in the Republic of Serbia. Croatian Journal of Education-Hrvatski Casopis Za Odgoj i Obrazovanje, 23(3), 819–850. Rehmat, A. P., Hoda, E., & Cardella, M. E. (2020). Instructional strategies to promote computational thinking for young learners. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(1), 46–62. Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L., & Bers, M. U. (2020). TechCheck: Development and Validation of an Unplugged Assessment of computational thinking in early childhood education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 482–498. Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Computers & Education, 169, 104222. Reynolds, L. P., Borowicz, P. P., Caton, J. S., Vonnahme, K. A., Luther, J. S., Hammer, C. J., Maddock Carlin, K. R., Grazul-Bilska, A. T., & Redmer, D. A. (2010). Developmental programming: The concept, large animal models, and the key role of uteroplacental vascular development1,2. Journal of Animal Science, 88(suppl_13), E61–E72. Rodríguez-Martínez, J. A., González-Calero, J. A., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using Scratch: an experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316–327. Rodriguez, B., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2016). Using student performance to assess CS Unplugged Activities in a classroom environment. Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 95–100. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. Rottenhofer, M., Kuka, L., Leitner, S., & Sabitzer, B. (2022). Using computational thinking to facilitate language learning: A survey of students’ strategy use in Austrian Secondary Schools. IAFOR Journal of Education, 10(2), 51–70. Rubio, M. A., Romero-Zaliz, R., Mañoso, C., & de Madrid, A. P. (2015). Closing the gender gap in an introductory programming course. Computers & Education, 82, 409–420. Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage Publications. Santo, A. De, Farah, J. C., Martínez, M. L., Moro, A., Bergram, K., Purohit, A. K., Felber, P., Gillet, D., Holzer, A., De Santo, A., Farah, J. C., Martínez, M. L., Moro, A., Bergram, K., Purohit, A. K., Felber, P., Gillet, D., & Holzer, A. (2022). Promoting Computational Thinking Skills in Non-Computer-Science students: Gamifying Computational Notebooks to increase student engagement. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 15(3), 392–405. Saxena, A., Lo, C. K., Hew, K. F., & Wong, G. K. W. (2020). Designing Unplugged and Plugged Activities to cultivate computational thinking: An exploratory study in early childhood education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 55–66. Schut, S., Driessen, E., van Tartwijk, J., van der Vleuten, C., & Heeneman, S. (2018). Stakes in the eye of the beholder: an international study of learners’ perceptions within programmatic assessment. Medical Education, 52(6), 654–663. Schwartz, L., Maquil, V., Johannsen, L., Moll, C., & Hermen, J. (2024). Teaching computational thinking with a tangible development platform: An exploratory field study at school with Kniwwelino. Education and Information Technologies, 29(4), 4935–4967. Seckel, M. J., Salinas, C., Font, V., & Sala-Sebastià, G. (2023). Guidelines to develop computational thinking using the Bee-bot robot from the literature. Education and Information Technologies, 28(12), 16127–16151. Selby, C. (2015). Relationships: computational thinking, pedagogy of programming, and Bloom’s Taxonomy. WiPSCE ’15: Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing, 80–87. Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. Shemshack, A., & Spector, J. M. (2020). A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 33,1-10. Shi, Y. (2020). Who benefits from selective education? Evidence from elite boarding school admissions. Economics of Education Review, 74, 101907. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. Simmonds, J., Diaz, C., & Estay, C. (2023). Introducing computational thinking at vocational high schools. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1, 68–74. Sitthiworachart, J., Joy, M., King, E., Sinclair, J., & Foss, J. (2022). Technology-Supported Active Learning in a Flexible Teaching Space. Education Sciences, 12(9),1-12. Smith, N., & Caldwell, H. (2016). Teaching Computing Unplugged in Primary Schools: exploring primary computing through practical activities away from the computer. In Teaching Computing Unplugged in Primary Schools. Learning Matters. Soleimani, A., Herro, D., & Green, K. E. (2019). CyberPLAYce—A tangible, interactive learning tool fostering children’s computational thinking through storytelling. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 20, 9–23. Souza, I. M. L., Andrade, W. L., Sampaio, L. M. R., & Araujo, A. L. S. O. (2019). A systematic review on the use of LEGO® robotics in education. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, 2018-Octob. Srinivasan, S., & Centea, D. (2019). An Active Learning Strategy for Programming Courses. In M. E. Auer & T. Tsiatsos (Eds.), Mobile Technologies and Applications for the Internet of Things (pp. 327–336). Springer International Publishing. Stupurienė, G., Jevsikova, T., & Juškevičienė, A. (2022). Solving ecological problems through physical computing to ensure gender balance in STEM education. Sustainability, 14(9),1-16. Subramaniam, S., Maat, S. M., & Mahmud, M. S. (2022). Computational thinking in mathematics education : A systematic review. Journal of Educational Sciences, 17(6), 2029–2044. Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021a). Which way of design programming activities is more effective to promote K-12 students’ computational thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1048–1062. Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021b). Improving 7th-graders’ computational thinking skills through unplugged programming activities: A study on the influence of multiple factors. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100926. Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2022). Single or Combined? A study on programming to promote junior high school students’ computational thinking skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 283–321. Sun, L., & Liu, J. (2024). Effects of Gamified Python Programming on primary school students’ computational thinking skills: A differential analysis of gender. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(3), 846–874. Sun, L., Liu, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). Comparative experiment of the effects of unplugged and plugged-in programming on computational thinking in primary school students: A perspective of multiple influential factors. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, 101542. Sun, L., & Zhou, L. (2023). Does text-based programming improve K-12 students’ CT skills? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101340. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 6). pearson Boston, MA. Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148(December 2019), 103798. Tehlan, K., Chakraverty, S., Chakraborty, P., & Khapra, S. (2020). A genetic algorithm-based approach for making pairs and assigning exercises in a programming course. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(6), 1708–1721. Tekdal, M. (2021). Trends and development in research on computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6499–6529. Threekunprapa, A., & Yasri, P. (2020). Unplugged coding using flowblocks for promoting computational thinking and programming among secondary school students. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 207–222. Tichavsky, L. P., Hunt, A. N., Driscoll, A., & Jicha, K. (2015). “It’s just nice having a real teacher”: Student perceptions of online versus face-to-face instruction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 1-8. Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in K-12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature Review. Computers and Education, 162(November 2020), 104083. Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., Weldeslassie, A. G., Elen, J., & Janssen, R. (2017). Measuring Critical Thinking in Physics: Development and Validation of a Critical Thinking Test in electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 663–682. Torres-Torres, Y.-D., Román-González, M., & Pérez-González, J.-C. (2019). Implementation of unplugged teaching activities to foster computational thinking skills in primary school from a gender perspective. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, 209–215. Tran, V. D., Nguyen, T. M. L., De, N. Van, Soryaly, C., & Doan, M. N. (2019). Does cooperative learning may enhance the use of students’ learning strategies? International Journal of Higher Education, 8(4), 79–88. Tripon, C. (2022). Supporting future teachers to promote computational thinking skills in teaching STEM—A case study. Sustainability, 14(19),1-17. Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., & Ninaus, M. (2019). Board games for training computational thinking. Games and Learning Alliance: 7th International Conference, GALA 2018, Palermo, Italy, December 5--7, 2018, Proceedings 7, 90–100. Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., Román-González, M., Golle, J., Leifheit, L., Butz, M. V., & Ninaus, M. (2022). A cognitive definition of computational thinking in primary education. Computers & Education, 179(November 2020), 104425. Turchi, T., Fogli, D., & Malizia, A. (2019). Fostering computational thinking through collaborative game-based learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(10), 13649–13673. Turner, P. E., Johnston, E., Kebritchi, M., Evans, S., & David A, H. (2018). Influence of online computer games on the academic achievement of nontraditional undergraduate students. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1437671. Ung, L. L., Tammie, C. S., Jane, L., & Norazila, A. A. (2018). Preliminary Investigation: Teachers’ Perception on Computational Thinking Concepts. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering, 9(2), 23–29. Valls Pou, A., Canaleta, X., Fonseca, D., Pou, A. V., Canaleta, X., & Fonseca, D. (2022). Computational Thinking and Educational Robotics integrated into Project-Based Learning. Sensors, 22(10),1-21. Vinnervik, P. (2022). Implementing programming in school mathematics and technology: teachers’ intrinsic and extrinsic challenges. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 213–242. Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press. Wang, C., Shen, J., & Chao, J. (2021). Integrating Computational Thinking in STEM education: A literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 1949–1972. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015). To block or not to block, that is the question: Students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. Proceedings of IDC 2015: The 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 199–208. Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Comparing Block-Based and Text-Based Programming in High School Computer Science Classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–25. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The Link Magazine, June 23, 2015. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why Wofford, A. M. (2021). Modeling the pathways to self-confidence for graduate school in computing. Research in Higher Education, 62(3), 359–391. World Economic Forum, V. (2020). The future of jobs report 2020. In Retrieved from Geneva. Xie, Z., Wong, G. K. W., Chiu, D. K. W., & Lei, J. (2023). Bridging K–12 Mathematics and Computational Thinking in the Scratch Community: Implications drawn from a Creative Learning Context. IT Professional, 25(2), 64–70. Xu, E., Wang, W., & Wang, Q. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of programming teaching in promoting K-12 students’ computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 28(6), 6619–6644. Xu, Y., Liu, X., Cao, X., Huang, C., Liu, E., Qian, S., Liu, X., Wu, Y., Dong, F., Qiu, C.-W., Qiu, J., Hua, K., Su, W., Wu, J., Xu, H., Han, Y., Fu, C., Yin, Z., Liu, M., … Zhang, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence: A powerful paradigm for scientific research. The Innovation, 2(4), 100179. Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational Thinking for All: pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century Problem Solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568. Yadav, A., Krist, C., Good, J. C., & Nadire, E. (2018). Computational thinking in elementary classrooms: measuring teacher understanding of computational ideas for teaching science. Computer Science Education, 28(4), 371–400. Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1–16). Yadav, S., & Chakraborty, P. (2023). Introducing schoolchildren to computational thinking using smartphone apps: A way to encourage enrollment in engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31(4), 831–849. Yang, W., Ng, D. T. K., & Gao, H. (2022). Robot programming versus block play in early childhood education: Effects on computational thinking, sequencing ability, and self-regulation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(December 2021), 1817–1841. Yang, Z., & Bers, M. (2023). Examining gender difference in the use of ScratchJr in a programming curriculum for First Graders. Computer Science Education, 1–22. Ye, H., Liang, B., Ng, O.-L., & Chai, C. S. (2023). Integration of computational thinking in K-12 mathematics education: a systematic review on CT-based mathematics instruction and student learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 3. Yeni, S., Grgurina, N., Saeli, M., Hermans, F., Tolboom, J., & Barendsen, E. (2024). Interdisciplinary integration of computational thinking in K-12 education: A systematic review. Informatics in Education, 23(1), 223–278. Yildiz Durak, H. (2020). The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school students on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 179–195. Yildiz Durak, H., Saritepeci, M., & Durak, A. (2023). Modeling of relationship of personal and affective variables with computational thinking and programming. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(1), 165–184. Yilmaz Ince, E., & Koc, M. (2021). The consequences of robotics programming education on computational thinking skills: An intervention of the Young Engineer’s Workshop (YEW). Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 191–208. Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., & Lin, Q. (2020). Improving and assessing computational thinking in Maker Activities: the Integration with Physics and Engineering Learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 189–214. Yıldız, M., & Karal, H. (2021). A Computer Science Unplugged Activity: CityMap. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 5, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v5i2.110 Zapata-Caceres, M., Martin-Barroso, E., Roman-Gonzalez, M., Zapata-Cáceres, M., & Martín-Barroso, Estefanía Román-González, M. (2021). Collaborative Game-Based Environment and assessment tool for Learning Computational Thinking in primary school: A case study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 14(5), 576–589. Zdawczyk, C., & Varma, K. (2023). Engaging girls in computer science: gender differences in attitudes and beliefs about learning scratch and python. Computer Science Education, 33(4), 600–620. Zhang, Y., Luo, R., Zhu, Y., & Yin, Y. (2021). Educational Robots Improve K-12 Students’ Computational Thinking and STEM Attitudes: Systematic Review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1450–1481. Zhou, L. (2023). How to Develop 21st Century Skills in Students: The Role of LEGO Education. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 15(2), 2281–2283. Zhu, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhu, W., & Ma, J. (2023). Computational thinking and academic achievement: The mediator roles of problem-solving ability and learning anxiety. 2023 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), 94–98. Zitouniatis, A., Lazarinis, F., & Kanellopoulos, D. (2023). Teaching computational thinking using scenario-based learning tools. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4017–4040.

Effectiveness of Combined Unplugged and Block-Based Programming Approaches on Computational Thinking Skills and Programming Attitudes Across Gender

Similar Items