Technology has become an integral part of teaching and learning, but there is still limited understanding of how it is utilized to support computing education in early childhood. To address this knowledge gap, this review investigated the current implementation of computing technologies in early childhood settings, the implementation of computing activities, the learning outcomes achieved by students, and the utilization of assessment strategies to evaluate student learning. Through a systematic review and synthesis of 31 empirical studies published between 2014 and 2020, this review identified: (1) Twenty-two computing technologies that feature three types of computing environments; (2) Eight types of learning activities to engage children in computing; (3) A variety of learning outcomes accomplished in cognitive and non-cognitive dimensions; (4) A wide range of assessment strategies to evaluate students’ outcomes in different dimensions. This review strengthened the evidence base for the benefits of teaching computing with technology to children, informed the design of age-appropriate computing technology and learning activities, and identified research gaps to inform future research. Implications were provided to inform the future design and delivery of computing instruction to early childhood learners.
AldhafeeriF.PalaiologouI.FolorunshoA. (2016). Integration of digital technologies into play-based pedagogy in Kuwaiti early childhood education: Teachers’ views, attitudes and aptitudes. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3), 342–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1172477
4.
AlmjallyA.HowlandK.GoodJ. (2020). Comparing TUIs and GUIs for primary school programming. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 521–527. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366851
5.
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), 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018
6.
AtmatzidouS.DemetriadisS. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
7.
BarrowsH. S.TamblynR. M. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. Springer publishing company.
8.
BatiK. (2021). A systematic literature review regarding computational thinking and programming in early childhood education. Education and Information Technologies, 1–24.
9.
BersM.Doyle-LynchA.ChauC. (2012). Positive technological development: The multifaceted nature of youth technology use towards improving self and society. Constructing the Self in a Digital World, 110–136. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/CBO9781139027656.007
10.
BersM. U.FlanneryL.KazakoffE. R.SullivanA. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
11.
BersM. U.González-GonzálezC.Armas–TorresM. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers and Education, 138, 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013
12.
BurlesonW. S.HarlowD. B.NilsenK. J.PerlinK.FreedN.JensenC. N.LaheyB.LuP.MuldnerK (2018). Active learning environments with robotic tangibles: Children’s physical and virtual spatial programming experiences. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2724031
ChanK. K. (2020). Using tangible objects in early childhood classrooms: A study of Macau pre-service teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-01011-w
16.
ChenL.BaeS. R.BattistaC.QinS.ChenT.EvansT. M.MenonV (2018). Positive attitude toward math supports early academic success: Behavioral evidence and neurocognitive mechanisms. Psychological Science, 29(3), 390–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617735528
17.
ClementsD. H. (1994). The uniqueness of the computer as a learning tool: Insights from research and practice. In Young Children: Active Learners in a Technological Age, 31–50.
18.
ClementsD. H.NastasiB. K. (1999). Metacognition, learning, and educational computer environments. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1999(1), 3–36.
19.
ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (2002). Teaching with computers in early childhood education: Strategies and professional development. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 23(3), 215–226. http://doi.org/10.1080/1090102020230305
20.
ClementsD. H.SaramaJ. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology—a response to “Fool’s Gold”. AACE Review (Formerly AACE Journal), 11(1), 1065–6901.
CoppleC.BredekampS. (eds) (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age. Washington, DC: National Association for Education of Young Children. ISBN-978-1-9288-9664-7.
23.
Council on Communications and Media (2009). From the American Academy of Pediatrics: policy statement-media violence. Pediatrics, 124(5), 1495–1503. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2146
del Olmo-MuñozJ.Cózar-GutiérrezR.González-CaleroJ. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers and Education, 150(103832), 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103832
DillenbourgP. (1999). Collaborative learning: cognitive and computational approaches. In Advances in learning and instruction series. New York, NY: Elsevier Science, Inc.
28.
ElkinM.SullivanA.BersM. U. (2016). Programming with the KIBO robotics kit in preschool classrooms. Computers in the Schools, 33(3), 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2016.1216251
29.
ElkinM.SullivanA.Umashi BersM. (2014). Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13(01), 153, 169, https://doi.org/10.28945/2094
30.
ElliottC.SmithP. (2011). British ability scales III. London, 978.
31.
FerdinandsE.BaroutsisA.GoldsmithW.WhiteS. L.LambertE. (2019). Computational thinking as a foundation for coding: Developing student engagement and learning. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 24(2), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.224259
32.
FlanneryL. P.SilvermanB.KazakoffE. R.BersM. U.BontáP.ResnickM. (2013). Designing ScratchJr: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 1–10).
33.
Fletcher-FlinnC. M.GravattB. (1995). The efficacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI): A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12(3), 219–241. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2190/51D4-F6L3-JQHU-9M31
34.
FraenkelJ. R.WallenN. E.HyunH. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Education.
35.
García-Valcárcel-Muñoz-RepisoA.Caballero-GonzálezY.-A. (2019). Robotics to develop computational thinking in early Childhood Education. Comunicar, 27(59), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.3916/C59-2019-06
36.
GarneliV.GiannakosM. N.ChorianopoulosK. (2015). Computing education in K-12 schools: A review of the literature. In 2015 IEEE Global engineering education conference (EDUCON) (pp. 543–551). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2015.7096023
37.
GlezouK. V. (2022). Fostering computational thinking and creativity in early childhood education: Play-Learn-Construct-Program-Collaborate. In Research Anthology on computational thinking, programming, and robotics in the classroom (pp. 21–45). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-2411-7.ch002
38.
GonzalezY. A. C.Munoz-RepisoA. G.-V. (2017). Educational robotics for the formation of programming skills and computational thinking in childish. In 2017 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE.2017.8259652
39.
GroverS.PeaR. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field.
40.
HammondJ.GibbonsP. (2005). What is scaffolding. Teachers’ Voices, 8, 8–16.
HornM. S.SoloveyE. T.CrouserR. J.JacobR. J. (2009). Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 975–984). https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518851
43.
HosseiniZ. (2015). Development of technological pedagogical content knowledge through constructionist activities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 182, 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.743
44.
IoannouA.MakridouE. (2018). Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2531–2544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9729-z
45.
IsbellR. (2002). Telling and retelling stories – learning language and literacy. Young Children, 57(2), 26–30.
46.
IvesJ.Castillo-MontoyaM. (2020). First-generation college students as academic learners: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 139–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319899707
47.
JantE. A.HadenC. A.UttalD. H.BabcockE. (2014). Conversation and object manipulation influence children's learning in a museum. Child Development, 85(5), 2029–2045. https://doi/10.1111/cdev.12252
48.
JonesB. F.RasmussenC. M.MoffittM. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/10266-000
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
51.
KalogiannakisM.PapadakisS.DoroukaP. (2020). Tablets and apps for promoting robotics, mathematics, STEM education and literacy in early childhood education. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(2), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijmlo.2020.10026334
52.
KawadaK.OkamotoK.TamaiT.OhnishiY. (2019). A study on developmentally appropriate programming education LearningMaterials for Lower-elementary school students. Journal of Robotics and Mechatronics, 31(3), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2019.p0441
53.
KazakoffE. R.BersM. U. (2014). Put your robot in, put your robot out: Sequencing through programming robots in early childhood. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 50(4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.50.4.f
54.
KimS.ChangM. (2010). Does computer use promote the mathematical proficiency of ELL students?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.42.3.c
55.
KitchenhamB. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews (33, pp. 1353–7776). Keele, UK: Keele University.
56.
KosmasP.IoannouA.ZaphirisP. (2019). Implementing embodied learning in the classroom: Effects on children’s memory and language skills. Educational Media International, 56(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2018.1547948
57.
LeeI. J. (2020). Applying the Game mode and teaching strategies of computational thinking to the improvement of social skills training for children with autism spectrum disorders. International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 38–47). Cham: Springer.
58.
LeeK. T.SullivanA.BersM. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social interaction in kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.805676
59.
LiY.SchoenfeldA.H.diSessaA.A.GraesserA. C.BensonL. C.EnglishL. D.DuschlR. A. (2020). Computational thinking is more about thinking than computing. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00030-2
60.
LiaoY. K. C.BrightG. W. (1991). Effects of computer programming on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.2190/e53g-hh8k-ajrr-k69m
61.
LinQ.YinY.TangX.HadadR.ZhaiX. (2020). Assessing learning in technology-rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research. Computers and Education, 157, 103944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103944
62.
LindbergR. S.LaineT. H.HaaranenL. (2019). Gamifying programming education in K-12: A review of programming curricula in seven countries and programming games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1979–1995. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12685
63.
LishinskiA.GoodJ.SandsP.YadavA. (2016). Methodological rigor and theoretical foundations of CS education research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on international computing education research (pp. 161–169). https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960328
64.
LiuY.RojasJ. (2019). Evaluation of the ROOT robot system and curriculum to improve computational thinking in Chinese children. In 2019 IEEE R10 humanitarian technology conference (R10-HTC)(47129), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/R10-HTC47129.2019.9042435
65.
LoorbachN.PetersO.KarremanJ.SteehouderM. (2015). Validation of the Instructional Materials Motivation Survey (IMMS) in a self-directed instructional setting aimed at working with technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 204–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12138
66.
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/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
67.
MaherC. A.SigleyR. (2014). Task-based interviews in mathematics education. In LermanS. (Ed), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_147
68.
ManchesA.PlowmanL. (2017). Computing education in children's early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12355
69.
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. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000061
70.
McMillanJ. H. (2014). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective standards-based instruction (pp. 978). Pearson.
71.
MesserD.ThomasL.HollimanA.KucirkovaN. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of an educational programming intervention on children’s mathematics skills, spatial awareness and working memory. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2879–2888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9747-x
72.
MetzS. S. (2007). Attracting the engineering of 2020 today. In BurkeR.MattisM. (Eds), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 184–209). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
73.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G.GrP. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
74.
MooreT. J.BrophyS. P.TankK. M.LopezR. D.JohnstonA. C.HynesM. M.GajdzikE (2020). Multiple representations in computational thinking tasks: A clinical study of second-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09812-0
75.
NelsonG. L.KoA. J. (2018). On use of theory in computing education research. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM conference on international computing education research (pp. 31–39). https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230992
76.
PapadakisS.KalogiannakisM.ZaranisN. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3), 187. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2016.077867
77.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms. In Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
78.
PedersenB. K. M. K.AndersenK. E.JorgensenA.KoslichS.SherzaiF.NielsenJ. (2018). Towards playful learning and computational thinking — developing the educational robot BRICKO. In 2018 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISECon.2018.8340502
79.
PiagetJ. (1994). Cognitive Development in Children: Piaget Development and Learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1964(2), 176–186.
80.
PiagetJ.I. (1964). Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 176–186. DOI:10.1002/TEA.3660020306
81.
PilaS.AladéF.SheehanK. J.LauricellaA. R.WartellaE. A. (2019). Learning to code via tablet applications: An evaluation of Daisy the Dinosaur and Kodable as learning tools for young children. Computers and Education, 128(2019), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.006
PortelanceD. J.StrawhackerA. L.BersM. U. (2016). Constructing the ScratchJr programming language in the early childhood classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(4), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9325-0
84.
PugnaliA.SullivanA.Umashi BersM. (2017). The impact of user interface on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of information technology education:. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.28945/3768
85.
ResnickM.MaloneyJ.Monroy-HernándezA.RuskN.EastmondE.BrennanK.MillnerA.RosenbaumE.SilverJ.SilvermanB.KafaiY. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
86.
ResnickM.RobinsonK. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. MIT press.
87.
ResnickM.SiegelD. (2015). A different approach to coding: How kids are making and remaking themselves from Scratch. International open Magazine.
88.
RichK. M.FranklinD.StricklandC.IsaacsA.EatingerD. (2020). A learning trajectory for variables based in computational thinking literature: Using levels of thinking to develop instruction. Computer Science Education, 32(2), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1866938
89.
RichK. M.StricklandC.BinkowskiT. A.FranklinD. (2019). A k-8 debugging learning trajectory derived from research literature. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 745–751).
90.
RoschelleJ.TeasleyS. D. (1995). Computer supported collaborative learning. In The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving (pp. 69–97). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5
91.
RoseS.HabgoodM. P. J.JayT. (2017). An exploration of the role of visual programming tools in the development of young children’s computational thinking. Electronic journal of e-learning. 15(4), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.15.4.2368
92.
SaritepeciM. (2021). Modelling the effect of TPACK and computational thinking on classroom Management in technology enriched courses. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10758-021-09529-y
93.
SaxL. J.LehmanK. J.JacobsJ. A.KannyM. A.LimG.Monje-PaulsonL.ZimmermanH. B (2017). Anatomy of an enduring gender gap: The evolution of women’s participation in computer science. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(2), 258–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1257306
94.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00478-w
Simões GomesT. C.Pontual FalcãoT.Cabral de Azevedo Restelli TedescoP.Cabral de Azevedo Restelli TedescoP. (2018). Exploring an approach based on digital games for teaching programming concepts to young children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.12.005
97.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. The American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.52.6.613
98.
StrawhackerA.BersM. U. (2019). What they learn when they learn coding: Investigating cognitive domains and computer programming knowledge in young children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 541–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9622-x
99.
StrawhackerA.LeeM.BersM. U. (2018). Teaching tools, teachers’ rules: Exploring the impact of teaching styles on young children’s programming knowledge in ScratchJr. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9400-9
100.
StrawhackerA.SullivanA.BersM. U. (2013). TUI, GUI, HUI: Is a bimodal interface truly worth the sum of its parts? In Proceedings from IDC ‘13: The 12th international conference on interaction design and children. New York, NY: ACM.
101.
StrawhackerA.BersM. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing Kindergartner’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25, 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9287-7
102.
SullivanA.BersM. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9304-5
103.
SullivanA.BersM. U. (2018). Dancing robots: Integrating art, music, and robotics in Singapore’s early childhood centers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9397-0
104.
SullivanA.BersM. U. (2019). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y
105.
SullivanA.Umashi BersM. (2016). Girls, boys, and bots: Gender differences in young children’s performance on robotics and programming tasks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 145–165. https://doi.org/10.28945/3547
106.
SungW.AhnJ.BlackJ. B. (2017). Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9328-x
107.
SzaboC.FalknerN.PetersenA.BortH.CunninghamK.DonaldsonP.SheardJ. (2019). Review and use of learning theories within computer science education research: Primer for researchers and practitioners. In Proceedings of the working group reports on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 89–109).
108.
TangX.YinY.LinQ.HadadR.ZhaiX. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education, 148(2020), 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
TikvaC.TambourisE. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in K-12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Computers and Education, 162, 104083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104083
111.
TuckerA. (2003). A model curriculum for k–12 computer science: Final report of the acm k–12 task force curriculum committee. ACM.
112.
VaalaS. E. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground.
113.
VoogtJ.FisserP.GoodJ.MishraP.YadavA. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6
114.
WangD.WangT.LiuZ. (2014). A tangible programming tool for children to cultivate computational thinking. TheScientificWorldJournal, 2014, 428080–428110. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/428080
115.
WarschauerM. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
116.
WarschauerM. (2000). Technology and school reform: A view from both sides of the track. Education policy analysis Archives, 8(4). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n4.html
WingJ. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical transactions of the Royal society A: Mathematical. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
119.
WoodD. F. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Problem based learning. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 326(7384), 328–330. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328
120.
XiaoY.WatsonM. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x17723971
121.
YangD.BaekY.ChingY. H.SwansonS.ChittooriB.WangS. (2021). Infusing computational thinking in an integrated STEM curriculum: User Reactions and lessons learned. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 04. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/9560
122.
YesharimM. F.Ben-AriM. (2018). Teaching computer science concepts through robotics to elementary school children. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v2i3.30
