Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effectiveness of unplugged activities and programming exercises in computational thinking education: A Meta-analysis

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study adopted a meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness of unplugged activities (UA) and programming exercises (PE) teaching approaches on computational thinking (CT) education. Through a two-stage literature collection and selection process, 29 articles were included in the meta-analysis, 31 independent effect sizes (16 of UA and 15 of PE) from these articles were used, and a total of 2,764 participants were involved in these studies. CMA software version 3.3 was used to analyze the collected data. The result of the meta-analysis showed that both the UA and PE teaching approaches are useful in cultivating students’ CT. Besides, the effect of the PE teaching approach is better than the UA teaching approach in CT education. Moreover, we analyzed the effect of moderator variables (grade level, interdisciplinary course, and experiments duration) on the relationship between UA or PE and CT education. The results showed that the effects of UA teaching approach in CT education was stronger (a) for primary school students than for secondary school students, (b) in interdisciplinary courses than in computer science courses, (c) with long duration teaching experiments than with medium and short duration teaching experiments. However, these effects are not significant. The effects of the PE teaching approach in CT education were stronger (a) for secondary school students than for primary school students, (b) in interdisciplinary courses than in computer science courses, (c) with short duration teaching experiments than with long and medium duration teaching experiments. These effects are not significant either. Therefore, we suggest that (1) the UA teaching approach should be used more for primary school students, while the PE teaching approach should be used more for secondary students; (2) CT education should be integrated into other subjects through UA and PE teaching approaches, and (3) the UA teaching approach requires more teaching time than the PE teaching approach does in CT education.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aslan, U., LaGrassa, N., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2020). Putting the Taxonomy into Practice: Investigating Students’ Learning of Chemistry with Integrated Computational Thinking Activities. In American Education Research Association (AERA) 2020 Annual Meeting

  • Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2014, July). How to support students’ computational thinking skills in educational robotics activities. In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 43–50)

  • Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: a digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23

    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 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 11(1), 1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Rosamond, F., & Casey, N. (2012). Computer Science Unplugged and Related Projects in Math and Computer Science Popularization. In H. L. Bodlaender, R. Downey, F. V. Fomin, & D. Marx (Eds.), The Multivariate Algorithmic Revolution and Beyond (7370 vol.). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciencehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30891-8_18

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Witten, I. H., & Fellows, M. (1998). Computer science unplugged: off-line activities and games for all ages. Great Ideas in Computer Science, 43(1 Supplement), S21–S22

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS Unplugged—How Is It Used, and Does It Work?. In H. J. Böckenhauer, D. Komm, & W. Unger (Eds.), Adventures Between Lower Bounds and Higher Altitudes (11011 vol.). Cham: Springer. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciencehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 24(5), 628–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, J., Brodie, J., Curzon, P., Myketiak, C., McOwan, P. W., & Meagher, L. R. (2013, July). Making computing interesting to school students: teachers’ perspectives. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE ‘13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2466519

  • Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., Engelhardt, K., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. European Commission, JRC Science for Policy Report, 68.https://doi.org/10.2791/792158

  • Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017, November). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education (WiPSCE ‘17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25)

  • Caeli, E. N., & Yadav, A. (2020). Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: A historical perspective. TechTrends, 64(1), 29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CAS (2015). Computational thinking:A guide for teachers [EB/OL].[2021-10-1]. https://communityComputingatschool.org.uk/resources/2324/single

  • Choi, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, E. (2017). Puzzle based algorithm learning for cultivating computational thinking. Wireless Personal Communications, 93(1), 131–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current directions in psychological science, 1(3), 98–101

  • Conde, M., Fernández-Llamas, C., Rodríguez-Sedano, F. J., Guerrero-Higueras, Á. M., Matellán-Olivera, V., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017, October). Promoting Computational Thinking in K-12 students by applying unplugged methods and robotics. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM 2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3144826.3145355

  • Conde, M., Fernández, C., Alves, J., Ramos, M. J., Celis-Tena, S., Gonçalves, J. … Peñalvo, F. J. G. (2019, October). RoboSTEAM-A Challenge Based Learning Approach for integrating STEAM and develop Computational Thinking. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362893

  • Crombie, I. K., & Davies, H. T. (2009). What is meta-analysis. What is,1–8

  • CSTA,&ISTE (2009). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education[EB/OL]. [2021-10-1]. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CompThinking.html

  • Curzon, P., McOwan, P. W., Plant, N., & Meagher, L. R. (2014, November). Introducing teachers to computational thinking using unplugged storytelling. In Proceedings of the 9th workshop in primary and secondary computing education (WiPSCE ‘14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 89–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670767

  • Delal, H., & Oner, D. (2020). Developing middle school students’ computational thinking skills using unplugged computing activities. Informatics in Education, 19(1), 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faber, H., Wierdsma, M., Doornbos, R. P., van der Ven, J. S., & de Vette, K. (2017). Teaching computational thinking to primary school students via unplugged programming lessons. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network, 12, 13–24. https://etenjournal.com/2020/02/07/teaching-computational-thinking-to-primary-school-students-via-unplugged-programming-lessons/

    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 

  • Falkner, K., Vivian, R., & Falkner, N. (2014, January). The Australian digital technologies curriculum: challenge and opportunity. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Australasian Computing Education Conference-Volume 148 (pp. 3–12)

  • Fidai, A., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2020). “Scratch”-ing computational thinking with Arduino: A meta-analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GOV.UK. (2014). National curriculum in England: framework for key stages 1 to 4 in England [EB/OL]. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4

  • Gretter, S., & Yadav, A. (2016). Computational thinking and media & information literacy: an integrated approach to teaching twenty-first century skills. TechTrends, 60(5), 510–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12 A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school, 19

  • Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hague, C., & Payton, S. (2011). Digital literacy across the curriculum.Curriculum Leadership, 9(10)

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). S–or meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:Academic Press.p123

  • Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooshyar, D., Malva, L., Yang, Y., Pedaste, M., Wang, M., & Lim, H. (2021a). An adaptive educational computer game: Effects on students’ knowledge and learning attitude in computational thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooshyar, D., Pedaste, M., Yang, Y., Malva, L., Hwang, G. J., Wang, M. … Delev, D. (2021b). 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 

  • 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 

  • Huang, W., & Looi, C. K. (2021). A critical review of literature on “unplugged” pedagogies in K-12 computer science and computational thinking education. Computer Science Education, 31(1), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1789411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index? Psychological methods, 11(2), 193

    Article  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(1), 83–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ince, E. Y., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students [EB/OL]. http://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students. (Accessed 1 September 2021)

  • Jun, S., Han, S., & Kim, S. (2017). Effect of design-based learning on improving computational thinking. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1188415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, K., Sendova, E., Sacristán, A., & Noss, R. (2011). Young Students Exploring Cardinality by Constructing Infinite Processes. Technology Knowledge & Learning, 16(1), 3–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalelioglu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The Effects of Teaching Programming via Scratch on Problem Solving Skills: A Discussion from Learners’ Perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2014.03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalelioglu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A Framework for Computational Thinking Based on a Systematic Research Review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596. https://www.bjmc.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/lu_portal/projekti/bjmc/Contents/4_3_15_Kalelioglu.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Kim, T., & Kim, J. (2013). Paper-and-pencil programming strategy toward computational thinking for non-majors: Design your solution. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(4), 437–459

    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(1), 67–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, D. Y., Yoon, I. K., & Lee, W. G. (2011). Design of programming learning process using hybrid programming environment for computing education. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 5(10), 1799–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, A. E., Daily, S. B., Jrg, S., & Babu, S. V. (2020). Coding moves: Design and research of teaching computational thinking through dance choreography and virtual interactions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (2), 1–19

  • Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). Computational Thinking Is More about Thinking than Computing. Journal for STEM Education Research, 1–18

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE publications, Inc

  • Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41(dec.), 51–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manabe, H., Kanemune, S., Namiki, M., & Nakano, Y. (2011). CS Unplugged Assisted by Digital Materials for Handicapped People at Schools. In I. Kalaš, R. T. Mittermeir (Eds.), Informatics in Schools. Contributing to 21st Century Education. ISSEP 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7013. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24722-4_8

  • Miguel, Z. R. (2019). Pensamiento computacional desenchufado. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS)(20), 18. http://hdl.handle.net/10366/143339

  • Miller, L. D., Soh, L. K., Chiriacescu, V., Ingraham, E., Shell, D. F., Ramsay, S., & Hazley, M. P. (2013, October). Improving learning of computational thinking using creative thinking exercises in CS-1 computer science courses. In 2013 ieee frontiers in education conference (fie) (pp. 1426–1432). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6685067

  • Moreno-León, J., Román-González, M., Harteveld, C., & Robles, G. (2017, May). On the automatic assessment of computational thinking skills: A comparison with human experts. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2788–2795). https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053216

  • Nardelli, E. (2019). Do we really need computational thinking? Communications of the ACM, 62(2), 32–35

    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(1), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8. https://link.springer.com/article/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nouri, J., Zhang, L., Mannila, L., & Norén, E. (2020). Development of computational thinking, digital competence and 21st century skills when learning programming in K-9. Education Inquiry, 11(1), 1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olmo-Muoz, J. D., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers & Education, 150, 103832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2017). The Impact of User Interface on Young Children’s Computational Thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16, 171–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Qualls, J. A., & Sherrell, L. B. (2010). Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), 66–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010, March). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 265–269). https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734357

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, J., & Révész, A. (2020). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs. The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 133–143). Routledge

  • Rose, S. P., Habgood, M., & Jay, T. (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. http://www.ejel.org/volume15/issue4/p297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological bulletin, 86(3), 638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 1–7). John Wiley & Sons

  • Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2015). Teachers’ perspectives on successful strategies for teaching Computing in school. In IFIP TC3 Working Conference 2015: A New Culture of Learning: Computing and Next Generations. http://www.ifip2015.mii.vu.lt/proceedings#.WFpvmlzgmqQ

  • Shell, D. F., Hazley, M. P., Soh, L. K., Miller, L. D., Chiriacescu, V., & Ingraham, E. (2014, October). Improving learning of computational thinking using computational creativity exercises in a college CSI computer science course for engineers. In 2014 ieee frontiers in education conference (fie) proceedings, pp. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044489

  • Sung, W., Ahn, J., & Black, J. B. (2017). Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 443–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaid, S. I. (2015). Bringing computational thinking to STEM education. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3657–3662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taub, R., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2012). CS unplugged and middle-school students’ views, attitudes, and intentions regarding CS. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(2), 1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002, August). How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology. Retrieved September 29, 2020 from http://work-learning.com/effect_sizes.htm

  • Threekunprapa, A., & Yasri, P. (2020). Unplugged Coding Using Flowblocks for Promoting Computational Thinking and Programming among Secondary School Students. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 207–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonbuloglu, B., & Tonbuloglu, I. (2019). The effect of unplugged coding activities on computational thinking skills of middle school students. Informatics in Education, 18(2), 403–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., & Ninaus, M. (2018). Training computational thinking through board games: The case of Crabs & Turtles. International Journal of Serious Games, 5(2), 25–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unnikrishnan, R., Amrita, N., Muir, A., & Rao, B. (2016, June). Of elephants and nested loops: How to introduce computing to youth in rural india. In Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 137–146)

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witherspoon, E. B., Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., Baehr, E. C., & Shoop, R. (2017). Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205–220). Cham: Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the Acm, 60(4), 55–62

    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(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zha, S., Morrow, D. A. L., 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120978530

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation for Education of China (BCA210081).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education Information Technology, Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

    Feng Li, Xi Wang, Liang Cheng & Yiyu Wang

  2. Department of Research and Development, Education Training Center, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Xiaona He

Authors
  1. Feng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaona He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liang Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yiyu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Feng Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Competing Interest

All authors have no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, F., Wang, X., He, X. et al. The effectiveness of unplugged activities and programming exercises in computational thinking education: A Meta-analysis. Educ Inf Technol 27, 7993–8013 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10915-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10915-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation