Computational thinking is believed to be beneficial for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) learning as it is closely related to many other skills required by STEM disciplines. There has been an increasing interest in integrating computational thinking into STEM and many studies have been conducted to examine the effects of this intervention. This meta-analysis examined the effects of computational thinking integration in STEM on students’ STEM learning performance in the K-12 education context. Following systematic procedures, we identified 20 publications with 21 studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria from a range of academic databases. We extracted effect sizes on student learning outcomes in one-group pretest-posttest designs. We also examined a range of moderating variables in the models, including student levels, STEM disciplines, intervention durations, alignment with content standards (e.g., CSTA/NGSS), types of intervention (e.g., simulation), and the use of unplugged/plugged activities. Overall, we found a statistically significant large effect size (g = 0. 85 [95% CI of 0.57–1.14]; p < .001), indicating a large overall effect of computational thinking integration on STEM learning outcomes. The effect sizes were significantly moderated by intervention durations. We provide a discussion of the findings and present implications for future research and practice.
*AksitO.WiebeE. N. (2020). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(7), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z
2.
*AslanU.LaGrassaN.HornM.WilenskyU. (2020). Putting the taxonomy into practice: Investigating students’ learning of chemistry with integrated computational thinking activities. In American Education Research Association (AERA) 2020 Annual Meeting, April 19, 2020.
3.
BaiS.HewK. F.HuangB. (2020). Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review, 30, 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100322
4.
BarcelosT. S.MunozR.VillarroelR.MerinoE.SilveiraI. F. (2018). Mathematics learning through computational thinking activities: A systematic literature review. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(7), 815–845. https://doi.org/10.3217/jucs-024-07-0815
5.
BarrV.StephensonC. (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. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
6.
*BasuS.BiswasG.KinnebrewJ. S. (2016). Using multiple representations to simultaneously learn computational thinking and middle school science. In Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Phoenix, AZ, February 12–17, 2016.
7.
*BasuS.BiswasG.KinnebrewJ. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0
8.
*BasuS.BiswasG.SenguptaP.DickesA.KinnebrewJ. S.ClarkD. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0036-2
9.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
10.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ.RothsteinH. R. (2010). A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12
11.
CabreraL. (2019). Teacher preconceptions of computational thinking: A systematic literature review. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(3), 305–333. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/210234/
12.
CaeliE. N.YadavA. (2020). Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: A historical perspective. TechTrends, 64(1), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00410-5
13.
CalderonA. (2018). Susceptibility to learn computational thinking against STEM attitudes and aptitudes. In Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 279–299). Springer.
14.
ChengL.RitzhauptA. D.AntonenkoP. (2019). Effects of the flipped classroom instructional strategy on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 793–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9633-7
15.
ChernikovaO.HeitzmannN.StadlerM.HolzbergerD.SeidelT.FischerF. (2020). Simulation-based learning in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 90(4), 499–541. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320933544
CutumisuM.AdamsC.LuC. (2019). A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(6), 651–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3
18.
CzerkawskiB. C.LymanE. W. (2015). Exploring issues about computational thinking in higher education. TechTrends, 59(2), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0840-3
19.
D’AngeloC. M.RutsteinD.HarrisC. J. (2016). Learning with STEM simulations in the classroom: Findings and trends from a meta-analysis. Educational Technology, 56(3), 58–61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44430495
20.
*DickesA. C.SenguptaP. (2013). Learning natural selection in 4th grade with multi-agent-based computational models. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 921–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9293-2
21.
DuvalS.TweedieR. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
22.
FagerlundJ.HäkkinenP.VesisenahoM.ViiriJ. (2021). Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22255
23.
*FerrarelliP.IocchiL. (2021). Learning Newtonian physics through programming robot experiments. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 26(4), 789–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09508-3
24.
FittonL.McIlraithA. L.WoodC. L. (2018). Shared book reading interventions with English learners: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(5), 712–751. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318790909
25.
*FriendM.MatthewsM.WinterV.LoveB.MoissetD.GoodwinI. (2018). Bricklayer: Elementary students learn math through programming and art. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 628–633), Baltimore, MD, February 21–24, 2018.
26.
*GarneliV.ChorianopoulosK. (2018). Programming video games and simulations in science education: Exploring computational thinking through code analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1337036
27.
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
28.
HendersonP. B.CortinaT. J.WingJ. M. (2007, March). Computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 195–196).
29.
HigginsJ.ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558.https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
30.
HsuT.-C.ChangS.-C.HungY.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
31.
*HutchinsN. M.BiswasG.MarótiM.LédecziÁ.GroverS.WolfR.BlairK. P.ChinD. B.ConlinL. D.BasuS.McElhaneyK. (2020). C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9
32.
IrgensG. A.DabholkarS.BainC.WoodsP.HallK.SwansonH.HornM.WilenskyU. (2020). Modeling and Measuring High School Students’ Computational Thinking Practices in Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09811-1
33.
LeeI.Malyn-SmithJ. (2020). Computational thinking integration patterns along the framework defining computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09802-x
34.
LeeI.MartinF. (2016). Computational thinking. In PepplerK. (Ed.), Encyclopedia for out-of-school learning. Sage.
35.
LindstromD.ThompsonA. D.Schmidt-CrawfordD. A. (2017). The maker movement: Democratizing STEM education and empowering learners to shape their world. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(3), 89–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2017.1316153
36.
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
37.
LyonJ. A.MaganaA. J. (2020). Computational thinking in higher education: A review of the literature. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(5), 1174–1189. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22295
38.
Malyn-SmithJ.LeeI.MartinF. G.GroverS.EvansM. A.PillaiS. (2018). Developing a framework for computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. In KongS. C.AndoneD.BiswasG.CrickT.HoppeH. U.HsuT. C.VahrenholdJ. (Eds.), Conference Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education 2018 (pp. 182–186), Chiang Mai, Thailand, August 22–24, 2018. The Education University of Hong Kong.
39.
*Marcum-DietrichN.BruozasM.StaudtS. (2019). Precipitating change: Integrating meteorology, mathematics, and computational thinking: Research on students’ learning and use of data, modeling, and prediction practices for weather forecasting. In International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Conference, Philadelphia, PA, June 23–26, 2019.
40.
Merino-ArmeroJ. M.González-CaleroJ. A.Cózar-GutiérrezR. (2021). Computational thinking in K-12 education. An insight through meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1870250
41.
National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. National Academies Press.
42.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
43.
PapertS. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00191473
44.
*PeelA.SadlerT. D.FriedrichsenP. (2019). Learning natural selection through computational thinking: Unplugged design of algorithmic explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 983–1007. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i2.2
45.
*PiresF.LimaF. M. M.MeloR.BernardoJ. R. S.de FreitasR. (2019). Gamification and engagement: Development of computational thinking and the implications in mathematical learning. In IEEE 19th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Maceió, Brazil, July 15–18, 2019 (Vol. 2161, pp. 362–366). IEEE.
*Rodríguez-MartínezJ. A.González-CaleroJ. A.Sáez-LópezJ. M. (2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using Scratch: An experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612448
*Sáez-LópezJ. M.Sevillano-GarcíaM. L.Vazquez-CanoE. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: Educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1405–1425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5
50.
SchadM.JonesW. M. (2020). The maker movement and education: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1688739
51.
SenguptaP.KinnebrewJ. S.BasuS.BiswasG.ClarkD. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
SoH.-J.JongM. S.-Y.LiuC.-C. (2020). Computational thinking education in the Asian Pacific region. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00494-w
54.
SterneJ. A.EggerM. (2001). Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 54(10), 1046–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8
55.
TangX.YinY.LinQ.HadadR.ZhaiX. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148(1), 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
56.
TekdalM. (2021). Trends and development in research on computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6499–6529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10617-w
57.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
58.
WatermanK. P.GoldsmithL.PasqualeM. (2020). 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
59.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
60.
WeintropD.BeheshtiE.HornM. S.OrtonK.JonaK.TrouilleL.WilenskyU. (2014). Defining computational thinking for science, technology, engineering, and math. In Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2014), Philadelphia, PA, April 3–7, 2014. https://ccl.northwestern.edu/2014/CT-STEM_AERA_2014.pdf
61.
WeintropD.WilenskyU. (2017). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3089799
WingJ. M.StanzioneD. (2016). Progress in computational thinking, and expanding the HPC community. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 10–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2933410
64.
XuZ.RitzhauptA. D.TianF.UmapathyK. (2019). Block-based versus text-based programming environments on novice student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis study. Computer Science Education, 29(2-3), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1565233
65.
*YinY.HadadR.TangX.LinQ. (2020). Improving and assessing computational thinking in maker activities: The integration with physics and engineering learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(13), 189–214.
66.
*ZhangN. (2020). Supporting the integrated learning of science, engineering, and computational thinking in an open-ended learning environment. [Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University].
67.
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
68.
*ZhangN.BiswasG. (2019). Defining and assessing students’ computational thinking in a learning by modeling environment. In Computational thinking education (pp. 203–221). Springer.
69.
*ZhangN.BiswasG.McElhaneyK. W.BasuS.McBrideE.ChiuJ. L. (2020). Studying the interactions between science, engineering, and computational thinking in a learning-by-modeling environment (pp. 598–609). In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Ifrane, Morocco, July 6–10, 2020. Springer.
70.
*ZhangY.WangJ.BolducF.MurrayW. G. (2019). LP based integration of computing and science education in middle schools. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education (pp. 44–50), Chengdu, China, May 17–19, 2019.
