Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computational thinking for the digital age: a systematic review of tools, pedagogical strategies, and assessment practices

  • Featured Paper
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) has received growing interest as a research subject in the last decade, with research contributions attempting to capitalize on the benefits that CT may provide. This study included a systematic analysis aimed at revealing current trends in the CT subject, identifying educational interventions, and emerging assessment instruments. It also gave an overview of how teachers learned CT skills and how they integrated the CT curriculum into classroom practices. We searched the data in the Web of Science database and identified 360 articles. Most importantly, it emphasized the following points: (a) the most popular subject areas in CT literature; (b) CT intervention tools; (c) CT assessment practices used so far within educational courses; and (d) effective CT approaches to influence pre-service teachers. Results from this review revealed that CT’s promotion in education had achieved significant progress in recent years. Along with the growth in the number of CT studies, the number of subjects, research questions, and teaching approaches also increased in recent years. It was also found that CT was mostly used in science, mathematics, programming, and computer science tasks, with little work in artificial intelligence (AI) and non-STEM areas. The essence of this paper implicated the researchers in designing the curriculum based on different subject domains. Furthermore, we recommended integrating augmented reality-based games using CT methodologies into the curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the analysis

  • *Abdul Hanid, M. F., Mohamad Said, M. N. H., Yahaya, N., & Abdullah, Z. (2022). Effects of augmented reality application integration with computational thinking in geometry topics. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9485–9521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Adler, R. F., & Kim, H. (2018). Enhancing future K-8 teachers’ computational thinking skills through modelling and simulations. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1501–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Agbo, F. J., Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., & Tukiainen, M. (2023). Design, development, and evaluation of a virtual reality game-based application to support computational thinking. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(2), 505–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Aleyaasin, M. (2022). An elementary finite element exercise to stimulate computational thinking in engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(1), 31–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Arık, M., & Topçu, M. S. (2022). Computational thinking integration into science classrooms: Example of digestive system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(1), 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Basnet, R. B., Doleck, T., Lemay, D. J., & Bazelais, P. (2018). Exploring computer science students’ continuance intentions to use Kattis. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1145–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bean, N., Weese, J., Feldhausen, R., & Bell, R. S. (2015). Starting from scratch: Developing a pre-service teacher training program in computational thinking. In: 2015 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.

  • Bebras (n.d). Task Examples. Bebras international challenge on informatics and computational thinking. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https://www.bebras.org/examples.htm

  • *Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bonner, S., Chen, P., Jones, K., & Milonovich, B. (2021). Formative assessment of computational thinking: Cognitive and metacognitive processes. Applied Measurement in Education, 34(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouck, E. C., Sands, P., Long, H., & Yadav, A. (2021). Preparing special education preservice teachers to teach computational thinking and computer science in mathematics. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(3), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Bråting, K., & Kilhamn, C. (2021). Exploring the intersection of algebraic and computational thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 23(2), 170–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Burleson, W. S., Harlow, D. B., Nilsen, K. J., Perlin, K., Freed, N., Jensen, C. N., & Muldner, K. (2017). Active learning environments with robotic tangibles: Children’s physical and virtual spatial programming experiences. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(1), 96–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Butler, D., & Leahy, M. (2021). Developing preservice teachers’ understanding of computational thinking: A constructionist approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1060–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Çakıroğlu, Ü., & Kiliç, S. (2023). Assessing teachers’ PCK to teach computational thinking via robotic programming. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 818–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cetin, I. (2016). Preservice teachers’ introduction to computing: Exploring utilization of scratch. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 997–1021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, H. E., Sun, D., Hsu, T. C., Yang, Y., & Sun, J. (2023). Visualising trends in computational thinking research from 2012 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, Article 101224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, K. Z., & Chi, H. H. (2022). Novice young board-game players’ experience about computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(8), 1375–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chiu, M. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tu, Y. F. (2022). Roles, applications, and research designs of robots in science education: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of journal publications from 1996 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2129392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Chou, P. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Christensen, D. (2023). Computational thinking to learn environmental sustainability: A learning progression. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(1), 26–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Christensen, D., & Lombardi, D. (2020). Understanding biological evolution through computational thinking: A K-12 learning progression. Science & Education, 29, 1035–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Çiftçi, A., & Topçu, M. S. (2022). Improving early childhood pre-service teachers’ computational thinking teaching self-efficacy beliefs in a STEM course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Città, G., Gentile, M., Allegra, M., Arrigo, M., Conti, D., Ottaviano, S., & Sciortino, M. (2019). The effects of mental rotation on computational thinking. Computers & Education, 141, Article 103613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Critten, V., Hagon, H., & Messer, D. (2022). Can pre-school children learn programming and coding through guided play activities? A case study in computational thinking. Early Childhood Education Journal, 50(6), 969–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cui, Z., & Ng, O. L. (2021). The interplay between mathematical and computational thinking in primary school students’ mathematical problem-solving within a programming environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 988–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cutumisu, M., Adams, C., & Lu, C. (2019). A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(6), 651–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cutumisu, M., & Guo, Q. (2019). Using topic modelling to extract pre-service teachers’ understandings of computational thinking from their coding reflections. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(4), 325–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dagiene, V., & Stupuriene, G. (2016). Bebras—A sustainable community building model for the concept based learning of informatics and computational thinking. Informatics in Education, 15(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dagli, Z., & Sancar Tokmak, H. (2022). Exploring high school computer science course teachers’ instructional design processes for improving students’ “computational thinking” skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(4), 511–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *De Santo, A., Farah, J. C., Martínez, M. L., Moro, A., Bergram, K., Purohit, A. K., & Holzer, A. (2022). Promoting computational thinking skills in non-computer-science students: Gamifying computational notebooks to increase student engagement. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 15(3), 392–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *del Olmo-Muñoz, J., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of primary education. Computers & Education, 150, Article 103832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Demirkiran, M. C., & Tansu Hocanin, F. (2021). An investigation on primary school students’ dispositions towards programming with game-based learning. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 3871–3892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Duncan, C., & Bell, T. (2015). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. In Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 39–48).

  • *Ezeamuzie, N. O., & Leung, J. S. (2022). Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 481–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 12–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gadanidis, G., Clements, E., & Yiu, C. (2018). Group theory, computational thinking, and young mathematicians. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Garneli, V., Giannakos, M., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2017). Serious games as a malleable learning medium: The effects of narrative, gameplay, and making on students’ performance and attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 842–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gong, D., Yang, H. H., & Cai, J. (2020). Exploring the key influencing factors on college students’ computational thinking skills through flipped-classroom instruction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *González, M. R. (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In: EDULEARN15 proceedings (pp. 2436–2444). IATED.

  • *Grizioti, M., & Kynigos, C. (2021). Code the mime: A 3D programmable charades game for computational thinking in MaLT2. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1004–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Günbatar, M. S. (2019). Computational thinking within the context of professional life: Change in CT skill from the viewpoint of teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 24(5), 2629–2652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hadad, R., Thomas, K., Kachovska, M., & Yin, Y. (2020). Practicing formative assessment for computational thinking in making environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 162–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hadad, S., Shamir-Inbal, T., Blau, I., & Leykin, E. (2021). Professional development of code and robotics teachers through small private online course (SPOC): Teacher centrality and pedagogical strategies for developing computational thinking of students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 763–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hava, K., & Koyunlu Ünlü, Z. (2021). Investigation of the relationship between middle school students’ computational thinking skills and their STEM career interest and attitudes toward inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(4), 484–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Herro, D., Quigley, C., Plank, H., & Abimbade, O. (2021). Understanding students’ social interactions during making activities designed to promote computational thinking. The Journal of Educational Research, 114(2), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hooshyar, D., Pedaste, M., Yang, Y., Malva, L., Hwang, G. J., Wang, M., & Delev, D. (2021). From gaming to computational thinking: An adaptive educational computer game-based learning approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 383–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hsiao, H. S., Lin, Y. W., Lin, K. Y., Lin, C. Y., Chen, J. H., & Chen, J. C. (2022). Using robot-based practices to develop an activity that incorporated the 6E model to improve elementary school students’ learning performances. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hsu, T. C., Chang, C., & Lin, Y. W. (2023). Effects of voice assistant creation using different learning approaches on performance of computational thinking. Computers & Education, 192, Article 104657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hsu, T. C., & Liang, Y. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Huang, X., & Qiao, C. (2022). Enhancing computational thinking skills through artificial intelligence education at a STEAM high school. Science & Education, 33, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M., Lédeczi, Á., Grover, S., Wolf, R., & McElhaney, K. (2020). C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Israel-Fishelson, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2021). Micro-persistence and difficulty in a game-based learning environment for computational thinking acquisition. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 839–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Israel-Fishelson, R., Hershkovitz, A., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2021a). A log-based analysis of the associations between creativity and computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 926–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Israel-Fishelson, R., Hershkovitz, A., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2021b). The associations between computational thinking and creativity: The role of personal characteristics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1415–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 175–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jiang, B., Zhao, W., Gu, X., & Yin, C. (2021). Understanding the relationship between computational thinking and computational participation: A case study from Scratch online community. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2399–2421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jiang, S., Qian, Y., Tang, H., Yalcinkaya, R., Rosé, C. P., Chao, J., & Finzer, W. (2023). Examining computational thinking processes in modelling unstructured data. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4309–4333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jiang, S., & Wong, G. K. (2022). Exploring age and gender differences of computational thinkers in primary school: A developmental perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jin, H. Y., & Cutumisu, M. (2023). Predicting pre-service teachers’ computational thinking skills using machine learning classifiers. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Juškevičienė, A., Stupurienė, G., & Jevsikova, T. (2021). Computational thinking development through physical computing activities in STEAM education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kang, Y., & Lee, K. (2020). Designing technology entrepreneurship education using computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5357–5377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Karadağ, D., & Tuker, C. (2020). A proposal for a computational design and ecology based approach to architectural design studio. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Katai, Z. (2020). Promoting computational thinking of both sciences-and humanities-oriented students: An instructional and motivational design perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 2239–2261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kelter, J., Peel, A., Bain, C., Anton, G., Dabholkar, S., Horn, M. S., & Wilensky, U. (2021). Constructionist co-design: A dual approach to curriculum and professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1043–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kert, S. B., Yeni, S., & Fatih Erkoç, M. (2022). Enhancing computational thinking skills of students with disabilities. Instructional Science, 50(4), 625–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ketelhut, D. J., Mills, K., Hestness, E., Cabrera, L., Plane, J., & McGinnis, J. R. (2020). Teacher change following a professional development experience in integrating computational thinking into elementary science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 174–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kim, H. S., Kim, S., Na, W., & Lee, W. J. (2021). Extending computational thinking into information and communication technology literacy measurement: Gender and grade issues. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 21(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kite, V., & Park, S. (2022). Preparing in-service science teachers to bring unplugged computational thinking to their students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 120, Article 103904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kong, S. C., & Lai, M. (2023). Effects of a teacher development program on teachers’ knowledge and collaborative engagement, and students’ achievement in computational thinking concepts. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(2), 489–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kong, S. C., Lai, M., & Sun, D. (2020). Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 151, Article 103872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Konijn, E. A., & Hoorn, J. F. (2020). Robot tutor and pupils’ educational ability: Teaching the times tables. Computers & Education, 157, Article 103970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kuo, W. C., & Hsu, T. C. (2020). Learning computational thinking without a computer: How computational participation happens in a computational thinking board game. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29, 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kutay, E., & Oner, D. (2022). Coding with Minecraft: The development of middle school students’ computational thinking. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 22(2), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, K., Jeon, M., Zhou, C., Kim, K., & Brush, T. A. (2022). Embodied learning for computational thinking in early primary education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2158146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kynigos, C., & Grizioti, M. (2020). Modifying games with ChoiCo: Integrated affordances and engineered bugs for computational thinking. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2252–2267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kyza, E. A., Georgiou, Y., Agesilaou, A., & Souropetsis, M. (2022). A cross-sectional study investigating primary school children’s coding practices and computational thinking using ScratchJr. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(1), 220–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lai, Y. H., Chen, S. Y., Lai, C. F., Chang, Y. C., & Su, Y. S. (2021). Study on enhancing AIoT computational thinking skills by plot image-based VR. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(3), 482–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). Computational thinking integration patterns along the framework defining computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lee, J., Joswick, C., & Pole, K. (2023). Classroom play and activities to support computational thinking development in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 51(3), 457–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. J., Francom, G. M., & Nuatomue, J. (2022). Computer science education and K-12 students’ computational thinking: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 114, Article 102008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., & Almughyirah, S. (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, 860–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Li, X., Xie, K., Vongkulluksn, V., Stein, D., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Developing and testing a design-based learning approach to enhance elementary students’ self-perceived computational thinking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(2), 344–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Li, Y., Xu, S., & Liu, J. (2021). Development and validation of computational thinking assessment of Chinese elementary school students. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909211010240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Litts, B. K., Lewis, W. E., & Mortensen, C. K. (2020). Engaging youth in computational thinking practices through designing place-based mobile games about local issues. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 302–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Liu, Z., & Xia, J. (2021). Enhancing computational thinking in undergraduate engineering courses using model-eliciting activities. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 102–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2021). Computational thinking, between papert and wing. Science & Education, 30, 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lui, D., Walker, J. T., Hanna, S., Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D., & Jayathirtha, G. (2020). Communicating computational concepts and practices within high school students’ portfolios of making electronic textiles. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 284–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Luo, F., Antonenko, P. D., & Davis, E. C. (2020). Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education, 146, Article 103759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lv, L., Zhong, B., & Liu, X. (2022). A literature review on the empirical studies of the integration of mathematics and computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lyon, J. A., & Magana, J. A. (2020). Computational thinking in higher education: A review of the literature. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(5), 1174–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Magana, A. J., & Silva Coutinho, G. (2017). Modeling and simulation practices for a computational thinking-enabled engineering workforce. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(1), 62–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mason, S. L., & Rich, P. J. (2020). Development and analysis of the elementary student coding attitudes survey. Computers & Education, 153, Article 103898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Matere, I. M., Weng, C., Astatke, M., Hsia, C. H., & Fan, C. G. (2021). Effect of design based learning on elementary students computational thinking skills in visual programming maker course. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Menolli, A., & Neto, J. C. (2022). Computational thinking in computer science teacher training courses in Brazil: A survey and a research roadmap. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 2099–2135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Merino-Armero, J. M., González-Calero, J. A., & Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. (2021). The effect of after-school extracurricular robotic classes on elementary students’ computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Merkouris, A., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2019). Programming embodied interactions with a remotely controlled educational robot. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(4), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Min, W., Frankosky, M. H., Mott, B. W., Rowe, J. P., Smith, A., Wiebe, E., & Lester, J. C. (2019). DeepStealth: Game-based learning stealth assessment with deep neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(2), 312–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Monjelat, N., & Lantz-Andersson, A. (2020). Teachers’ narrative of learning to program in a professional development effort and the relation to the rhetoric of computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 2175–2200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Román-González, M. (2015). Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 46, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Mouza, C., Pan, Y. C., Yang, H., & Pollock, L. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Muliyati, D., Sumardani, D., Siswoyo, S., Bakri, F., Permana, H., Handoko, E., & Sari, N. L. K. (2022). Development and evaluation of granular simulation for integrating computational thinking into computational physics courses. Education and Information Technologies, 27(2), 2585–2612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Nam, K. W., Kim, H. J., & Lee, S. (2019). Connecting plans to action: The effects of a card-coded robotics curriculum and activities on Korean kindergartners. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28, 387–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Committee for the workshops on computational thinking: Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ng, O. L., Liu, M., & Cui, Z. (2023). Students’ in-moment challenges and developing maker perspectives during problem-based digital making. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(3), 411–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 463–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ogegbo, A. A., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). A systematic review of computational thinking in science classrooms. Studies in Science Education, 58(2), 203–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Orban, C. M., & Teeling-Smith, R. M. (2020). Computational thinking in introductory physics. The Physics Teacher, 58(4), 247–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ou Yang, F. C., Lai, H. M., & Wang, Y. W. (2023). Effect of augmented reality-based virtual educational robotics on programming students’ enjoyment of learning, computational thinking skills, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 195, 104721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Özmutlu, M., Atay, D., & Erdoğan, B. (2021). Collaboration and engagement based coding training to enhance children’s computational thinking self-efficacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, Article 100833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pala, F. K., & Mıhçı Türker, P. (2021). The effects of different programming trainings on the computational thinking skills. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(7), 1090–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pando Cerra, P., Fernández Álvarez, H., Busto Parra, B., & Iglesias Cordera, P. (2022). Effects of using game-based learning to improve the academic performance and motivation in engineering studies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(7), 1663–1687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Panskyi, T., Rowinska, Z., & Biedron, S. (2019). Out-of-school assistance in the teaching of visual creative programming in the game-based environment–case study: Poland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34, Article 100593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Peel, A., & Friedrichsen, P. (2018). Algorithms, abstractions, and iterations: Teaching computational thinking using protein synthesis translation. The American Biology Teacher, 80(1), 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2022). Algorithmic explanations: An unplugged instructional approach to integrate science and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(4), 428–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pellas, N., & Peroutseas, E. (2016). Gaming in Second Life via Scratch4SL: Engaging high school students in programming courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(1), 108–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Peters-Burton, E., Rich, P. J., Kitsantas, A., Stehle, S. M., & Laclede, L. (2022). High school biology teachers’ integration of computational thinking into data practices to support student investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60, 1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pierson, A. E., Brady, C. E., & Clark, D. B. (2020). Balancing the environment: Computational models as interactive participants in a STEM classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Pila, S., Aladé, F., Sheehan, K. J., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. A. (2019). Learning to code via tablet applications: An evaluation of daisy the dinosaur and kodable as learning tools for young children. Computers & Education, 128, 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Radloff, J., & Hall, J. A. (2022). Development and testing of the draw-a-programmer test (DAPT) to explore elementary preservice teachers’ conceptions of computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L., & Bers, M. U. (2020). TechCheck: Development and validation of an unplugged assessment of computational thinking in early childhood education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 482–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Computers & Education, 169, 104222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., Koh, K. H., Nickerson, H., Miller, S. B., Brand, C., & Repenning, N. (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), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rich, K. M., Yadav, A., & Larimore, R. A. (2020). Teacher implementation profiles for integrating computational thinking into elementary mathematics and science instruction. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 3161–3188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rich, P. J., Larsen, R. A., & Mason, S. L. (2021). Measuring teacher beliefs about coding and computational thinking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Richard, G. T., & Giri, S. (2019). Digital and physical fabrication as multimodal learning: Understanding youth computational thinking when making integrated systems through bidirectionally responsive design. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(3), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rodríguez-Martínez, J. A., González-Calero, J. A., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using Scratch: An experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Rose, P. S., Habgood, M. J., & Jay, T. (2020). Designing a programming game to improve children’s procedural abstraction skills in scratch. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(7), 1372–1411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sapounidis, T., Stamovlasis, D., & Demetriadis, S. (2018). Latent class modelling of children’s preference profiles on tangible and graphical robot programming. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(2), 127–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Schina, D., Valls-Bautista, C., Borrull-Riera, A., Usart, M., & Esteve-González, V. (2021). An associational study: Preschool teachers’ acceptance and self-efficacy towards educational robotics in a pre-service teacher training program. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, V., Bhagat, K. K., Huang, H. H., & Chen, N. S. (2022). The design and evaluation of an AR-based serious game to teach programming. Computers & Graphics, 103, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shih, W. C. (2019). Integrating computational thinking into the process of learning artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on education and multimedia technology (pp. 364–368).

  • *Stewart, W. H., Baek, Y., Kwid, G., & Taylor, K. (2021). Exploring factors that influence computational thinking skills in elementary students’ collaborative robotics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1208–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Štuikys, V., Burbaitė, R., Bespalova, K., & Ziberkas, G. (2016). Model-driven processes and tools to design robot-based generative learning objects for computer science education. Science of Computer Programming, 129, 48–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tekdal, M. (2021). Trends and development in research on computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 26(5), 6499–6529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tsai, M. J., Liang, J. C., & Hsu, C. Y. (2021). The computational thinking scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(4), 579–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tsai, M. J., Liang, J. C., Lee, S. W. Y., & Hsu, C. Y. (2022). Structural validation for the developmental model of computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(1), 56–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tsai, M. J., Wang, C. Y., & Hsu, P. F. (2019). Developing the computer programming self-efficacy scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(8), 1345–1360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Umutlu, D. (2022). An exploratory study of pre-service teachers’ computational thinking and programming skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(5), 754–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ung, L. L., Labadin, J., & Mohamad, F. S. (2022). Computational thinking for teachers: Development of a localised E-learning system. Computers & Education, 177, Article 104379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Uzumcu, O., & Bay, E. (2021). The effect of computational thinking skill program design developed according to interest driven creator theory on prospective teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 565–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Vieira, C., Magana, A. J., Roy, A., & Falk, M. L. (2019). Student explanations in the context of computational science and engineering education. Cognition and Instruction, 37(2), 201–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., & Kong, S. C. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & education, 160, Article 104023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Werner, L., Denner, J., & Campe, S. (2014). Children programming games: A strategy for measuring computational learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Torres, D. M. (2020). Computational sophistication of games programmed by children: A model for its measurement. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 20(2), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—what and why. The link magazine.

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London - A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pulimood, S.M., & Pearson, K. (2010). Computational thinking via interactive journalism in middle school. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education (p. 239–243)

  • *Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wu, T. T., & Chen, J. M. (2022). Combining Webduino programming with situated learning to promote computational thinking, motivation, and satisfaction among high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(3), 631–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yadav, S., & Chakraborty, P. (2023). Introducing schoolchildren to computational thinking using smartphone apps: A way to encourage enrolment in engineering education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31, 831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yağcı, M. (2019). A valid and reliable tool for examining computational thinking skills. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 929–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yang, W., Ng, D. T. K., & Su, J. (2023). The impact of story-inspired programming on preschool children’s computational thinking: A multi-group experiment. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 47, Article 101218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yilmaz Ince, E., & Koc, M. (2021). The consequences of robotics programming education on computational thinking skills: An intervention of the young engineer’s workshop (YEW). Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., & Lin, Q. (2020). Improving and assessing computational thinking in maker activities: The integration with physics and engineering learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 189–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yin, Y., Khaleghi, S., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2022). Developing effective and accessible activities to improve and assess computational thinking and engineering learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(3), 951–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yuen, K. K., Liu, D. Y., & Leong, H. V. (2023). Competitive programming in computational thinking and problem-solving education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 31, 850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Yuen, T. T., & Robbins, K. A. (2014). A qualitative study of students’ computational thinking skills in a data-driven computing class. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Zha, S., Morrow, D. A., Curtis, J., & Mitchell, S. (2021). Learning culture and computational thinking in a Spanish course: A development model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 844–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zhan, Z., He, W., Yi, X., & Ma, S. (2022). Effect of unplugged programming teaching aids on children’s computational thinking and classroom interaction: With respect to Piaget’s four stages theory. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(5), 1277–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, Article 103607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zhang, S., Wong, G. K., & Chan, P. C. (2023a). Playing coding games to learn computational thinking: What motivates students to use this tool at home? Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zhang, X., Tlili, A., Guo, J., Griffiths, D., Huang, R., Looi, C. K., & Burgos, D. (2023). Developing rural Chinese children’s computational thinking through game-based learning and parental involvement. The Journal of Educational Research, 116, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, L., Liu, X., Wang, C., & Su, Y. S. (2022). Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers & Education, 181, Article 104445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zhao, W., & Shute, V. J. (2019). Can playing a video game foster computational thinking skills? Computers & Education, 141, Article 103633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., & Li, Y. (2016). An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4), 562–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Zumbach, J., von Kotzebue, L., & Pirklbauer, C. (2022). Does augmented reality also augment knowledge acquisition? Augmented reality compared to reading in learning about the human digestive system? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(5), 1325–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Advanced Technology and Development Centre, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, 721302, India

    Toluchuri Shalini Shanker Rao & Kaushal Kumar Bhagat

Authors
  1. Toluchuri Shalini Shanker Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaushal Kumar Bhagat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaushal Kumar Bhagat.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rao, T.S.S., Bhagat, K.K. Computational thinking for the digital age: a systematic review of tools, pedagogical strategies, and assessment practices. Education Tech Research Dev (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10364-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10364-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation