Educational games have been increasingly used to improve students’ computational thinking. However, most existing games have focused on the theoretical knowledge of computational thinking, ignoring the development of computational thinking skills. Moreover, there is a lack of integration of adaptivity into educational computer games for computational thinking, which is crucial to addressing individual needs in developing computational thinking skills. In this study, we present an adaptive educational computer game, called AutoThinking, for developing students’ computational thinking skills in addition to their conceptual knowledge. To evaluate the effects of the game, we conducted an experimental study with 79 elementary school students in Estonia, where the experimental group learned with AutoThinking, while the control group used a traditional technology-enhanced learning approach. Our findings show that learning with the adaptive educational computer game significantly improved students’ computational thinking related to both conceptual knowledge and skills. Moreover, students using the adaptive educational computer game showed a significantly higher level of interest, satisfaction, flow state, and technology acceptance in learning computational thinking. Implications of the findings are also discussed.
AcquahE. O.KatzH. T. (2020).
Digital game-based L2 learning outcomes for primary through high-school students: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education,
143, 103667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103667
2.
Ater-KranovA.BryantR.OrrG.WallaceS.ZhangM. (2010, October). Developing a community definition and teaching modules for computational thinking: Accomplishments and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Information technology education (pp. 143–148). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1867651.1867689
3.
Ayman, R., Sharaf, N., Ahmed, G., & Abdennadher, S. (2018, November). MiniColon; teaching kids computational thinking using an interactive serious game. In Joint International Conference on Serious Games (pp. 79–90). Springer, Cham.
4.
BasawapatnaA. R.KohK. H.RepenningA. (2010, June). Using scalable game design to teach computer science from middle school to graduate school. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 224–228). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822154
5.
BoucinhaR. M.BaroneD. A. C.ReichertJ. T.BrackmannC. P.SchneiderA. M. (2019).
Relationship between the learning of computational thinking and the development of reasoning. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science,
6(6), 623–631. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaers.6.6.71
6.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25).
7.
BrownN. C.SentanceS.CrickT.HumphreysS. (2014).
Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE),
14(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2602484
8.
ChangK.-E.WuL.-J.WengS.-E.SungY.-T. (2012).
Embedding game-based problem-solving phase into problem-posing system for mathematics learning. Computers & Education,
58(2), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.002
9.
ChuH. C.HwangG. J.TsaiC. C.TsengJ. C. (2010a).
A two-tier test approach to developing location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses. Computers & Education,
55(4), 1618–1627.
DenningP. J. (2009).
The profession of IT Beyond computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,
52(6), 28–30.
12.
DesautelD. (2009).
Becoming a thinking thinker: Metacognition, self-reflection, and classroom practice. Teachers College Record,
111(8), 1997–2020.
13.
EagleM.BarnesT. (2009).
Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin,
41(1), 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1508980
14.
EsperS.FosterS. R.GriswoldW. G.HerreraC.SnyderW. (2014). CodeSpells: Bridging educational language features with industry-standard languages. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli calling international conference on computing education research (pp. 05–14). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674684
GiannakoulasA.XinogalosS. (2018).
A pilot study on the effectiveness and acceptance of an educational game for teaching programming concepts to primary school students.Education and Information Technologies,
23(5), 2029–2052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9702-x
17.
GonzálezM. R. (2015).
Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In Proceedings of EDULEARN15 conference (pp. 2436–2444). Barcelona, Spain.
18.
GouwsL. A.BradshawK.WentworthP. (2013, July). Computational thinking in educational activities: An evaluation of the educational game light-bot. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 10–15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2466518
19.
GroverS.PeaR. (2013).
Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher,
42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
HamariJ.ShernoffD. J.RoweE.CollerB.Asbell-ClarkeJ.EdwardsT. (2016).
Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior,
54, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
23.
HarveyB.MönigJ. (2010).
Bringing “no ceiling” to Scratch: Can one language serve kids and computer scientists. Proc. Constructionism, 1–10.
24.
HooshyarD.LimH.PedasteM.YangK.FathiM.YangY. (2019a, December). In Lisbet Rønningsbakk, Ting-Ting Wu, Frode Eika Sandnes,Yueh-Min Huang (Eds.), AutoThinking: An adaptive computational thinking game. In International conference on innovative technologies and learning (pp. 381–391). Springer.
25.
HooshyarD.YousefiM.LimH. (2019b).
A systematic review of data-driven approaches in player modeling of educational games. Artificial Intelligence Review,
52(3), 1997–2017.
26.
HwangG. J.ChangH. F. (2011).
A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education,
56(4), 1023–1031.
27.
HwangG. J.ChiuL. Y.ChenC. H. (2015).
A contextual game-based learning approach to improving students' inquiry-based learning performance in social studies courses. Computers & Education,
81, 13–25.
28.
Hwang, G.-J., Kuo, F.-R., Yin, P.-Y., & Chuang, K.-H. (2010). A heuristic algorithm for planning personalized learning paths for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 404–415.
29.
HwangG. J.YangL. H.WangS. Y. (2013).
A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students' learning performance in natural science courses. Computers & Education,
69, 121–130.
30.
KazimogluC.KiernanM.BaconL.MacKinnonL. (2011).
Understanding computational thinking before programming: Developing guidelines for the design of games to learn introductory programming through game-play. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL),
1(3), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011070103
31.
KazimogluC.KiernanM.BaconL.MackinnonL. (2012).
A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
47, 1991–1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.938
32.
Kickmeier-RustM. D.MattheissE.SteinerC.AlbertD. (2011).
A psycho-pedagogical framework for multi-adaptive educational games. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL),
1(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1864-0
33.
KiiliK.De FreitasS.ArnabS.LainemaT. (2012).
The design principles for flow experience in educational games. Procedia Computer Science,
15, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2012.10.060
LandS. M. (2000).
Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development,
48(3), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02319858
36.
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Erickson, W. A. J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011).
Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads,
2(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902
37.
LiuC. C.ChengY. B.HuangC. W. (2011).
The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education,
57(3), 1907–1918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002
38.
LuoF.AntonenkoP. D.DavisE. C. (2020).
Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education,
146, 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103759
39.
LyeS. Y.KohJ. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
40.
MalvaL.HooshyarD.YangY.PedasteM. (2020, July). Engaging Estonian primary school children in computational thinking through adaptive educational games: A qualitative study. In 2020 IEEE 20th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT) (pp. 188–190). IEEE.
41.
Meerbaum-SalantO.ArmoniM.Ben-AriM. (2011, June).
Habits of programming in scratch. In Proceedings of the 16th annual joint conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 168–172). Darmstadt, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/1999747.1999796
42.
PaltsT.PedasteM. (2020b).
A model for developing computational thinking skills. Informatics in Education,
19(1), 113–128.
43.
PapertS. (1990). Children, computers and powerful ideas. BasicBooks.
44.
PartoviT.RazaviM. R. (2019).
The effect of game-based learning on academic achievement motivation of elementary school students. Learning and Motivation,
68, 101592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2019.101592
PerkovićL.SettleA.HwangS.JonesJ. (2010, June). A framework for computational thinking across the curriculum. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 123–127). ITiCSE ’10: New York. https://doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822126
47.
RepenningA.WebbD. C.KohK. H.NickersonH.MillerS. B.BrandC.HorsesI. H. M.BasawapatnaA.GluckF.GroverR. (2015).
Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE),
15(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700517
48.
ResnickM.MaloneyJ.Monroy-HernándezA.RuskN.EastmondE.BrennanK.MillnerA.RosenbaumE.SilverJ.SilvermanB. (2009).
Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM,
52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
49.
Sampayo-VargasS.CopeC. J.HeZ.ByrneG. J. (2013).
The effectiveness of adaptive difficulty adjustments on students' motivation and learning in an educational computer game. Computers & Education,
69, 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.004
50.
SharmaK.PapavlasopoulouS.GiannakosM. (2019).
Coding games and robots to enhance computational thinking: How collaboration and engagement moderate children’s attitudes?International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction,
21, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.004
TsaravaK.MoellerK.PinkwartN.ButzM.TrautweinU.NinausM. (2017, October). Training computational thinking: Game-based unplugged and plugged-in activities in primary school. In European conference on games based learning (pp. 687–695). Academic Conferences International Limited.
WatermanK. P.GoldsmithL.PasqualeM. (2019).
Integrating computational thinking into elementary science curriculum: An examination of activities that support students’ computational thinking in the service of disciplinary learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09801-y
55.
WeintropD.WilenskyU. (2012, August). RoboBuilder: A program-to-play constructionist video game [Paper presentation]. In Proceedings of the Constructionism 2012 Conference. Athens, Greece.
56.
WilenskyU. (2001, August). Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. In Proceedings of EuroLogo (pp. 1–6). Linz, Austria.
57.
WingJ. M. (2006).
Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,
49(3), 33–35.
58.
WingJ. M. (2008).
Computational thinking and thinking about computing.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
366(1881), 3717–3725.
59.
WingJ. M. (2011).
Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why.The Link Magazine,
6.
60.
YardiS.BruckmanA. (2007, September). What is computing? Bridging the gap between teenagers' perceptions and graduate students' experiences. In Anderson, R., Fincher, S., & Guzdial, M. (Eds.) Proceedings of the third international workshop on computing education research (pp. 39–50). ACM: New York.
61.
ZhangL.NouriJ. (2019).
A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education,
141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
