In this work, we studied the influence of different programming approaches on the development of students’ computational thinking (CT) skills, the programming experience and gender differences in CT development were also discussed. A total of 158 junior high school students and one teacher participated in the study over 5 months. The sample students were divided into four experimental groups in four single or combined programming approaches (i.e., plugged-in, unplugged, unplugged first, and plugged-in first) and one control group without programming. Data sources included the results of four CT tests, as well as interviews with the teacher and surveys with 24 representative participants. The results showed that the four programming approaches can effectively improve students’ CT skills and can be retained after two months. Among them, the form of implementing unplugged activities before plugged-in can most effectively improve CT skills, and can better weaken the impact of previous programming experience. Finally, the qualitative analysis results provided insights into the process of programming and CT education. These findings will provide implications for the introduction of CT in junior high school, and help expand students’ participation in computing.
AngeliC.ValanidesN. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018
2.
ArféB.VardanegaT.RonconiL. (2020). The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition skills. Computers & Education, 148, 103807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103807
BellT.AlexanderJ.FreemanI.GrimleyM. (2009). Computer science unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. The New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 13, 1–9.
5.
BeyerS. (2014). Why are women underrepresented in computer science? Gender differences in stereotypes, self-efficacy, values, and interests and predictors of future CS course-taking and grades. Computer Science Education, 24(2–3), 153–192. http://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2014.963363
6.
BonomoV. (2010). Gender matters in elementary education research-based strategies to meet the distinctive learning needs of boys and girls. Educational Horizons, 88(4), 257–264.
7.
BrackmannC. P.Román-GonzálezM.RoblesG.Moreno-LeónJ.CasaliA.BaroneD. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In The proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education (pp. 65–72), Nijmegen, Netherlands. ACM.
8.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In 2012 Annual meeting of the American educational research association (pp.1–25). AERA.
9.
BybeeR. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Heinemann Publications.
10.
CaeliE. N.YadavA. (2020). Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: A historical perspective. TechTrends, 64(1), 29–36. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00410-5
11.
ChenC.HaduongP.BrennanK.SonnertG.SadlerP. (2019). The effects of first programming language on college students’ computing attitude and achievement: A comparison of graphical and textual languages. Computer Science Education, 29(1), 23–48. http://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1547564
12.
ChouP. (2020). Using ScratchJr to foster young children’s computational thinking competence: A case study in a third-grade computer class. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 570–595. http://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119872908
DagienėV.FutschekG. (2012). Knowledge construction in the Bebras problem solving contest. In Constructionism: Theory, practice and impact (pp. 678–680). The Educational Technology Lab, University of Athens.
15.
Del Olmo-MuñozJ.Cózar-GutiérrezR.González-CaleroJ. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of primary education. Computers & Education, 150, 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103832
16.
DenningP. J.TedreM. (2019). Computational thinking. MIT Press.
17.
GroverS.PeaR. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
18.
GurianM. (2003). What could he be thinking? How a man’s mind really works. Macmillan.
19.
HelmlingerB.SommerM.Feldhammer-KahrM.WoodG.ArendasyM. E.KoberS. E. (2020). Programming experience associated with neural efficiency during figural reasoning. Science Report, 10, 13351. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70360-z
20.
HermansF.AivaloglouE. (2017). To scratch or not to scratch?. A controlled experiment comparing plugged first and unplugged first programming lessons. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 49–56). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137072
21.
HsuT.ChangS.HungY. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
22.
IsraelM.PearsonJ. N.TapiaT.WherfelQ. M.ReeseG. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022
23.
KaleU.YuanJ. (2021). Still a new kid on the block? Computational thinking as problem solving in code.org. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 620–644. http://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120972050
24.
KalelioğluF. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.047
25.
KorkmazÖ.ÇakirR.ÖzdenM. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
26.
KrommerD. (2006). Boys and girls together: A case for creating gender-friendly middle school classrooms. Clearinghouse, 79(6), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.79.6.247-251
27.
LeeI.GroverS.MartinF.PillaiS.Malyn-SmithJ. (2020). Computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective: Integrating computational thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 1–8.
28.
LooiC. K.HowM. L.LongkaiW.SeowP.LiuL. (2018). Analysis of linkages between an unplugged activity and the development of computational thinking. Computer Science Education, 28(3), 255–279.
29.
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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
30.
MasterA.CheryanS.MeltzoffA. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424–437. http://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000061.
31.
MasterA.CheryanA.MoscatelliA.MeltzoffA. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.013
32.
MaukM.WillettR.CoulterN. (2020). The can-do girl goes to coding camp: A discourse analysis of news reports on coding initiatives designed for girls. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(4), 395–408. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1781889
33.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2017). The development of computer education in primary and secondary schools focuses on information technology: Information awareness and computational thinking should be cultivated from an early age. http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A16/s5886/s7822/201801/t20180111_324379.html
34.
MouzaC.PanY.YangH.PollockL. (2020). A multiyear investigation of student computational thinking concepts, practices, and perspectives in an after-school computing program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(5), 1029–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120905605
35.
NohJ.LeeJ. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w
36.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
37.
Pérez-MarínD.Hijón-NeiraR.BaceloA.PizarroC. (2020). Can computational thinking be improved by using a methodology based on metaphors and scratch to teach computer programming to children?Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.027
38.
ResnickM. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. The MIT Press.
39.
Román-GonzálezM.Pérez-GonzálezJ.Jiménez-FernándezC. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
40.
Sáez-LópezJ.Román-GonzálezM.Vázquez-CanoE. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003
41.
SaxenaA.LoC. K.HewK. F.WongG. 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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00478-w
SousaD. A.TomlinsonC. A. (2011). Differentiation and the brain: How neuroscience supports the learner-friendly classroom. Solution Tree Press.
45.
StoegerH.DuanX.SchirnerS.GreindlT.ZieglerA. (2013). The effectiveness of a one-year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education, 69, 408–418. http://doi.org10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032
46.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN.HunsingerM.McManusM. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021385
47.
Sun, L., Hu, L., Yang, W., Zhou, D., & Wang, X. (2021a). STEM learning attitude predicts computational thinking skills among primary school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12493
48.
Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021b). 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12545
49.
TangX.YinY.LinQ.HadadR.ZhaiX. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
50.
TsaravaK.MoellerK.NinausM. (2018). Training computational thinking through board games: The case of crabs. International Journal of Serious Games, 5(2), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v5i2.248
51.
VoskoglouM. G.BuckleyS. (2012). Problem solving and computers in a learning environment. Egyptian Computer Science Journal, 36(4), 28–46.
52.
WeintropD.BeheshtiE.HornM.OrtonK.JonaK.TrouilleL.WilenskyU. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
WingJ. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.01.18
55.
WohlB.PorterB.ClinchS. (2015). Teaching computer science to 5-7-year-olds: An initial study with scratch, cubelets and unplugged computing. In Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education. (pp. 55–60). Association for Computing Machinery, New York.
56.
YadavA.MayfieldC.ZhouN.HambruschS.KorbJ. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872
57.
Yildiz-DurakH. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9391-y
58.
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
59.
ZhongB.WangQ.ChenJ.LiY. (2016). An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4), 562–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115608444
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
