Computational thinking (CT) education has drawn increasing attention from educators and researchers. This study conducted a meta-analysis of 27 empirical studies to examine the effectiveness of game-based learning (GBL) for fostering students’ CT. The effects of various factors on the learning process for acquiring CT were also examined. The results showed that (a) conducting GBL can foster students’ CT, and the overall effect was at the upper-middle level (Hedges’ g = .600, 95% CI [.465, .735], p < .001). (b) Furthermore, conducting GBL can improve students’ CT concepts (Hedges’ g = .916, 95% CI [.410, 1.423], p < .001), CT skills (Hedges’ g = .494, 95% CI [.389, .600], p < .001), and CT perspectives (Hedges’ g = .927, 95% CI [.039, 1.816], p < .05). (c) Additionally, game mode, teaching context, and participant characteristics have positive effects on CT. Based on the findings, it is suggested that using more unplugged games and video games, designing collaborative game activities, and tailoring approaches according to gender difference and programming experience can effectively promote CT. The results have significance for fostering students’ CT in GBL; it is further suggested that instruction processes be rationally designed.
Amir-BehghadamiM.JanatiA. (2020). Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emergency Medicine Journal: EMJ, 37(6), 387–387. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-209567
2.
AndersonN. D. (2016). A call for computational thinking in undergraduate psychology. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659252
3.
AngeliC.GiannakosM. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106185
4.
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(2), 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018
5.
Asbell-ClarkeJ.RoweE.AlmedaV.EdwardsT.BardarE.GascaS.BakerR. S.ScruggsR. (2021). The development of students’ computational thinking practices in elementary- and middle-school classes using the learning game, Zoombinis. Computers in Human Behavior, 115(25), 106587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106587
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(Part B), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
7.
AymanR.SharafN.AhmedG.AbdennadherS.GöbelS.Garcia-AgundezA.TregelT.MaM.Baalsrud HaugeJ.OliveiraM.MarshT.CasermanP. (2018). MiniColon; teaching kids computational thinking using an interactive serious game Serious games, (pp. 79–90). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02762-9_9
8.
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
9.
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
10.
BeggC. B.MazumdarM. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
11.
BergS. (1988). Snowball sampling. In KotzS.JohnsonN. L. (Eds), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (8, pp. 528–532). Wiley.
12.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P. T.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
13.
BrackmannC. P.Román-GonzálezM.RoblesG.Moreno-LeónJ.CasaliA.BaroneD. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. Proceedings of 12th workshop in primary and secondary computing education, WiPSCE ’17, November 8–10, 2017. (pp. 65–72). Association for Computing Machinery.
14.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association. (pp. 1–25). Vancouver, Canada.
15.
BuffumP. S.FrankoskyM.BoyerK. E.WiebeE. N.MottB. W.LesterJ. C. (2016). Collaboration and gender equity in game-based learning for middle school computer science. Computing in Science & Engineering, 18(2), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2016.37
16.
ByunJ.JungI. H. (2018). Digital game-based learning for K-12 mathematics education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 443(3–4), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.01.028
17.
CakirN. A.CakirM. P.LeeF. J. (2021). We game on skyscrapers: The effects of an equity-informed game design workshop on students’ computational thinking skills and perceptions of computer science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(5), 2683–2703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10031-6
18.
CarsonK. P.SchriesheimC. A.KinickiA. J. (1990). The usefulness of the “fail-safe” statistic in meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50(2), 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164490502001
19.
CarterE. C.SchonbrodtF. D.GervaisW. M.HilgardJ. (2019). Correcting for bias in psychology: A comparison of meta-analytic methods. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847196
20.
ChenJ.WangM.KirschnerP. A.TsaiC.-C. (2018). The role of collaboration, computer use, learning environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88(6), 799–843. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318791584
21.
ChouP.-N. (2018). Little engineers: Young children’s learning patterns in an educational robotics project (2018). In 2018 World engineering education forum global engineering deans council, WEEF-GEDC, (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1109/WEEF-GEDC.2018.8629609
22.
ChouP.-N. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119872908
23.
CittaG.GentileM.AllegraM.ArrigoM.ContiD.OttavianoS.RealeF.SciortinoM. (2019). The effects of mental rotation on computational thinking. Computers & Education, 141, 103613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103613
24.
ClarkD. B.SenguptaP. (2020). Reconceptualizing games for integrating computational thinking and science as practice: Collaborative agent-based disciplinarily-integrated games. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636071
ConnollyT. M.BoyleE. A.MacArthurE.HaineyT.BoyleJ. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
del Olmo-MuñozJ.Cózar-Guti errezR.Gonz alez-CaleroJ. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of primary education. Computers & Education, 150(1), 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103832
29.
DengW.PiZ.LeiW.ZhouQ.ZhangW. (2020). Pencil Code improves learners’ computational thinking and computer learning attitude. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22177
30.
DietzG.LeJ. K.TamerN.HanJ.GweonH.MurnaneE. L.LandayJ. A. (2021). StoryCoder: Teaching Computational Thinking Concepts Through Storytelling in a Voice-Guided App for Children. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-15). ACM. Yokohama, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445039
31.
DurakH. Y.SaritepeciM. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.004
32.
DurakH. Y. (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
33.
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/10.1145/1539024.1508980
34.
EggerM.Davey SmithG.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
35.
EsperS.FosterS. R.GriswoldW. G.HerreraC.SnyderW. (2014). CodeSpells: Bridging educational language features with industry-standard languages. Proceedings of the 14th Koli calling international conference on computing education research (pp. 5–14). ACM: Koli, Finland. https://doi.org/10.1145/2674683.2674684
36.
FalloonG. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using scratch Jnr. On the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(6), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12155
37.
FieldsD. A.GiangM.KafaiY. (2014). Programming in the wild: Trends in youth computational participation in the online scratch community. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 14, 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670768
GarneliV.ChorianopoulosK. (2019). The effects of video game making within science content on student computational thinking skills and performance. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-11-2018-0097
40.
GledecG.JaguštT.SovicA.GrgicM. (2018). Exploring different unplugged game-like activities for teaching computational thinking. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8659077
41.
GouwsL. A.BradshawK.WentworthP. (2013). Computational thinking in educational activities: An evaluation of the educational game light-bot. Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 10–15). ACM: Canterbury, England. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2466518
42.
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
43.
GuenagaM.EguíluzA.GaraizarP.GibajaJ. (2021). How do students develop computational thinking? Assessing early programmers in a maze-based online game. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 259–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1903248
44.
GuggemosJ.SeufertS.Román-GonzálezM. (2022). Computational thinking assessment – towards more vivid interpretations. Technology, Knowledge and learning. 28(2), 539–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09587-2
HalmeP.ToivanenT.HonkanenM.KotiahoJ. S.MonkkonenM.TimonenJ. (2010). Flawed meta-analysis of biodiversity effects of forest management. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 24(4), 1154–1156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01542.x
47.
HamiltonM.Clarke-MiduraJ.ShumwayJ. F.LeeV. R. (2020). An emerging technology report on computational toys in early childhood. Technology Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09423-8
48.
HigginsJ.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons.
49.
HooshyarD. (2021). Effects of technology-enhanced learning approaches on learners with different prior learning attitudes and knowledge in computational thinking. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(1), 1–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22442
50.
HooshyarD.LimH.PedasteM.YangK.FathiM.YangY.RønningsbakkL.WuT.-T.SandnesF. E.HuangY.-M. (2019). AutoThinking: An adaptive computational thinking game. Innovative Technologies and learning, (pp. 381–391). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35343-8_41
51.
HooshyarD.MalvaL.YangY.PedasteM.WangM.LimH. (2021a). An adaptive educational computer game: Effects on students’ knowledge and learning attitude in computational thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 114(6), 106575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106575
52.
HooshyarD.PedasteM.YangY.MalvaL.HwangG.-J.WangM.LimH.DelevD. (2021b). From gaming to computational thinking: An adaptive educational computer game-based learning approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 383–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120965919
53.
HowlandK.GoodJ. (2015). Learning to communicate computationally with flip: A bi-modal programming language for game creation. Computers & Education, 80, 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.014
54.
HsuT.-C.LiangY.-S. (2021). Simultaneously improving computational thinking and foreign language learning: Interdisciplinary media with plugged and unplugged approaches. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1184–1207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121992480
55.
HsuY.-C.HungJ.-L.ChingY.-H. (2013). Trends of educational technology research: More than a decade of international research in six SSCI-indexed refereed journals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9290-9
56.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.09.006
57.
JääskäE.LehtinenJ.KujalaJ.KauppilaO. (2022). Game-based learning and students’ motivation in project management education. Project Leadership and Society, 3, 100055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plas.2022.100055
58.
JunS.HanS.KimS. (2016). Effect of design-based learning on improving computational thinking. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1188415
59.
KatchapakirinK.AnutariyaC.SupnithiT. (2022). ScratchThAI: A conversation-based learning support framework for computational thinking development. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8533–8560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10870-z
60.
KazimogluC. (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. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3043278
61.
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
62.
KertS. B.ErkocM. F.YeniS. (2020). The effect of robotics on six graders ’ academic achievement, computational thinking skills and conceptual knowledge levels. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38(1), 100714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100714
63.
King-SearsM. E.StefanidisA.BerkeleyS.StrogilosV. (2021). Does co-teaching improve academic achievement for students with disabilities? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 34(1), 100405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100405
64.
KorkmazO.CakirR.OzdenM. 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
65.
KorpershoekH.HarmsT.de BoerH.van KuijkM.DoolaardS. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 643–680. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799
66.
KuoW.-C.HsuT.-C. (2019). 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00479-9
67.
KutayE.OnerD. (2022). Coding with minecraft: The development of middle school students’ computational thinking. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3471573
68.
LeeL. K.CheungT. K.HoL. T.YiuW. H.WuN. I. (2019,July). Learning computational thinking through gamification and collaborative learning. In 12th International Conference on Blended Learning (pp. 339 -349). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21562-0_28
69.
LeonardJ.BussA.GamboaR.MitchellM.FasholaO. S.HubertT.AlmughyirahS. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2
70.
LiebenbergJ.MentzE.BreedB. (2012). Pair programming and secondary school girls’ enjoyment of programming and the subject information technology (IT). Computer Science Education, 22(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.713180
71.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications, Inc.
72.
LuZ.ChiuM. M.CuiY.MaoW.LeiH. (2022). Effects of game-based learning on students’ computational thinking: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(1), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221100740
73.
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
74.
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(4), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
75.
Mohd RamliI. S.MaatS. M.KhalidF. (2022). The design of game-based learning and learning analytics. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 17(5), 1742–1759. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i5.7326
76.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G.PRISMA Group. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
77.
Moreno-LeónJ.RoblesG. (2015). Dr. Scratch: A Web Tool to Automatically Evaluate Scratch Projects. Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 132 -133). ACM. London, United Kingdom. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818338
78.
PaltsT.PedasteM. (2020). A model for developing computational thinking skills. Informatics in Education, 19(1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.06
79.
PanL.TliliA.LiJ.JiangF.ShiG.YuH.YangJ. (2021). How to implement game-based learning in a smart classroom? A model based on a systematic literature review and delphi method. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 749837. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749837
80.
PanY.KeF.DaiC.-P. (2022a). Patterns of using multimodal external representations in digital game-based learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(8), 1918–1941. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221087771
81.
PanY.KeF.XuX. (2022b). A systematic review of the role of learning games in fostering mathematics education in K-12 settings. Educational Research Review, 36(36), 100448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100448
82.
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
83.
PellasN.VosinakisS. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9724-4
84.
PetriG.Gresse von WangenheimC. (2017). How games for computing education are evaluated? A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 107(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.004
85.
PinkardN.EreteS.MartinC. K.McKinney de RoystonM. (2017). Digital youth divas: Exploring narrative-driven curriculum to spark middle school girls’ interest in computational activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(3), 477–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1307199
86.
PiresF.Maquine LimaF. M.MeloR.Serique BernardoJ. R.de FreitasR. (2019). Gamification and engagement: Development of computational thinking and the implications in mathematical learning. 2019 IEEE 19th international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT), (pp. 362–366). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2019.00112.
87.
PsycharisS.KalliaM. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students’ reasoning skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science, 45(5), 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9421-5
88.
PsycharisS.KotzampasakiE. (2019). The impact of a STEM inquiry game learning scenario on computational thinking and computer self-confidence. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(4), em1689. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103071
89.
QuintanaD. S. (2015). From pre-registration to publication: A non-technical primer for conducting a meta-analysis to synthesize correlational data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1549. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01549
90.
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
91.
Ríos FélixJ. M.Zatarain CabadaR.Barrón EstradaM. L. (2020). Teaching computational thinking in Mexico: A case study in a public elementary school. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5087–5101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10213-4
92.
Román-CaballeroR.VadilloM. A.TrainorL. J.LupiáñezJ. (2022). Please don’t stop the music: A meta-analysis of the cognitive and academic benefits of instrumental musical training in childhood and adolescence. Educational Research Review, 35, 100436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100436
93.
RosenthalR.DiMatteoM. (2001). Meta-Analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59
94.
RosenthalR.KleidJ. J.CohenM. V. (1979). Abnormal mitral valve motion associated with ventricular septal defect following acute myocardial infarction. American Heart Journal, 98(5), 638–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-8703(79)90291-6
SlavinR.SmithD. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes in systematic reviews in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 500–506. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709352369
101.
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
102.
SunL.GuoZ.HuL. (2021). Educational games promote the development of students’ computational thinking: A meta-analytic review. Interactive learning environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1931891
103.
ThreekunprapaA.YasriP. (2020). Unplugged coding using flowblocks for promoting computational thinking and programming among secondary school students. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13314a
104.
TissenbaumM.SheldonJ.AbelsonH. (2019). From computational thinking to computational action. Communications of the ACM, 62(3), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265747
105.
TsaravaK.MoellerK.NinausM. (2019). Board games for training computational thinking. In. GentileM.AllegraM.SöbkeH. (eds) Games and Learning Alliance. GALA 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (90–100). Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11548-7_9
106.
TurchiT.FogliD.MaliziaA. (2019). Fostering computational thinking through collaborative game-based learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(10), 13649–13673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7229-9
107.
VahldickA.FarahP. R.MarcelinoM. J.MendesA. J. (2020). A blocks-based serious game to support introductory computer programming in undergraduate education. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 2, 100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100037
108.
WangL.GengF.HaoX.ShiD.WangT.LiY. (2021). Measuring coding ability in young children: Relations to computational thinking, creative thinking, and working memory. Current Psychology, 42(10), 8039–8050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02085-9
109.
WangM.WangY. (2016). A study on computer teaching based on computational thinking. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 11(12), 72–74. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v11i12.6069
110.
WeintropD.WilenskyU. (2012, August). RoboBuilder: A program-to-play constructionist video game [paper presentation]. Proceedings of the constructionism 2012 conference. Athens, Greece.
111.
WilcoxC.LionelleA. (2018). Quantifying the Benefits of Prior Programming Experience in an Introductory Computer Science Course. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 80 -85). ACM. Baltimore Maryland, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159480
WingJ. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
114.
YadavA. K.OyelereS. S. (2021). Contextualized mobile game-based learning application for computing education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2539–2562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10373-3
115.
YeJ.LaiX.WongG. K.-W. (2022). The transfer effects of computational thinking: A systematic review with meta-analysis and qualitative synthesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1620–1638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12723
116.
YettB.HutchinsN.SteinG.ZareH.SnyderC.BiswasG.MetelkoM.LédecziÁ. (2020). A Hands-On Cybersecurity Curriculum Using a Robotics Platform. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp.1040 -1046). ACM. Portland OR, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366878
117.
YunusE.ZaibonS. B. (2021). Connecting computational thinking (CT) concept with the game-based learning (GBL) elements. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 15(20), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i20.23739
118.
Zabala-VargasS. A.García-MoraL.Arciniegas-HernándezE.Reina-MedranoJ.de Benito-CrosettiB.Darder-MésquidaA. (2022). Didactic strategy mediated by games in the teaching of mathematics in first-year engineering students. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(2). em2082, https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11707, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1335678
119.
Zapata-CaceresM.Martin-BarrosoE.Roman-GonzalezM. (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. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2021.3111108
120.
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
121.
ZhangX. J.YueY. L.LiangY. F. (2021). An empirical study on the cultivation of computational thinking in high school students in digital game teaching in Python curriculum. Electrochemical Education Research, 42(7), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2021.07.013
