Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ingenuity of scratch programming on reflective thinking towards problem solving and computational thinking

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

Abstract

Individuals learn to develop problem solving strategies and make connections between their mathematical ideas while programming, so they have the opportunity to improve their thinking skills. Scratch provides an environment to experience problem scenarios and encourages them to act out imagination while having fun. The purpose of the study is to investigate the development of reflective thinking skills towards problem solving and computational thinking of elementary school students based on their Scratch instruction. The study used a sequential exploratory design as a mixed method approach with 524 students and 8 mathematics teachers. The results of the study revealed that Scratch significantly strengthened students’ reflective thinking skills for problem solving and computational thinking. Based on the results, the reflective thinking towards problem solving and computational thinking did not vary by gender. In addition, Scratch instruction led to positive reflections in the mathematical learning environment.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AbdulSamad, U., & Romli, R. (2022). A Comparison of Block-Based Programming Platforms for Learning Programming and Creating Simple Application. In International Conference of Reliable Information and Communication Technology (pp. 630–640). Springer, Cham

  • Aksakal, M., Karataş, A., & Şimşek, C. L. (2015). The effect of a laboratory environment enriched with models on academic success within the scope of teaching the subject of meiosis. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 37, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.9779/puje621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akşit, O. (2018). Enhancing science learning through computational thinking and modeling in middle school classrooms: A mixed methods study. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

  • Alakoç, Z. (2003). Technological modern teaching approaches in mathematics teaching. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 43–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Allsop, Y. (2015). ICT’den kodlamaya: İngiltere’de teknoloji eğitimi. Eğitim Teknolojileri Zirvesi, (s. 303–308). Ankara

  • Altinok, N., Angrist, N., & Patrinos, H. A. (2018). Global data set on education quality (1965–2015). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8314)

  • Alvarado, C., Lee, C. B., & Gillespie, G. (2014, March). New CS1 pedagogies and curriculum, the same success factors? In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 379–384) New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538897

  • 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. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonio, R. P. (2020). Developing Students’ Reflective Thinking Skills in a Metacognitive and Argument-Driven Learning Environment. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(3), 467–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aras, I., Pratiwi, E., Nanna, A. W. I., & Barumbun, M. (2022). Role of scaffolding for reflective thinking on the mathematical problem solving. Aksioma: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika, 11(1), 718–726

    Google Scholar 

  • Arfé, B., Vardanega, T., & Ronconi, L. (2020). The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition skills. Computers & Education, 148, 103807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 6(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bråting, K., & Kilhamn, C. (2021). Exploring the intersection of algebraic and computational thinking. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 23(2), 170–185 https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.1779012

  • Brewer, J. A. (2007). Introduction to early childhood education: Preschool through primary grades (6th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J., & Jenkins, T. (1999, June). Gender and programming: What’s going on?. In Proceedings of the 4th annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 1–4)

  • Celen, Y. (2020). Student Opinions on the Use of Geogebra Software in Mathematics Teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 19(4), 84–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Cengiz, C. (2014). The effect of reflective journals kept by pre-service science teachers on reflective thinking and achievement in general chemistry laboratory. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon

  • Chevallard, Y., & Bosch, M. (2020). Didactic transposition in mathematics education.Encyclopedia of mathematics education,214–218

  • Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1051

  • Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among secondary school students: what has changed? Educational Research, 45(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188032000103235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coravu, L., Marian, M., & Ganea, E. (2015, September). Scratch and recreational coding for kids. In 2015 14th RoEduNet International Conference-Networking in Education and Research (RoEduNet NER) (pp. 85–89). IEEE

  • https://doi.org/10.1109/RoEduNet.2015.7311973

  • Corbalan, G., Paas, F., & Cuypers, H. (2010). Computer-based feedback in linear algebra: Effects on transfer performance and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Karma Yöntem Araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve Yürütülmesi (Çev. Ed. Y. Dede ve S. B. Demir). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık

    Google Scholar 

  • Curzon, P. (2015). Computational thinking: Searching to speak. Available at: http://teachinglondoncomputing.org/free-workshops/computational-thinkingsearching-to-speak/

  • Çatlak, Ş., Tekdal, M., & Baz, F. (2015). The status of teaching programming with Scratch: a document review work. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 4(3), 13–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Çiftci, S., & Bildiren, A. (2020). The effect of coding courses on the cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills of preschool children. Computer science education, 30(1), 3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dasso, A., Funes, A., Riesco, D., Montejano, G., Peralta, M., & Salgado, C. (2005). Teaching programming. Proceedings of JEITICS, Educación en Informáticay TICs en Argentina, 183–186

  • Davadas, S. D., & Lay, Y. F. (2020). Contributing factors of secondary students’ attitude towards mathematics. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.2.489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirel, M., & Yağcı, E. (2012). Perceptions of primary school teacher candidates about lifelong learning. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 1, 100–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D. C. Heath

    Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63, 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du, J., Wimmer, H., & Rada, R. (2016). “Hour of Code”: Can it change students’ attitudes toward programming? Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 53–73. https://doi.org/10.28945/3421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durak, H. Y., & Guyer, T. (2019). Programming with Scratch in primary school, indicators related to effectiveness of education process and analysis of these indicators in terms of various variables. Gifted Education International, 35(3), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429419854223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elia, I., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Kolovou, A. (2009). Exploring strategy use and strategy flexibility in non-routine problem solving by primary school high achievers in mathematics. Zdm Mathematics Education, 41(5), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0184-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erol, O., & Çırak, N. S. (2022). The effect of a programming tool scratch on the problem-solving skills of middle school students. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 4065–4086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ersoy, Y. (2003). Teknoloji destekli matematik eğitimi 1: Gelişmeler, politikalar ve stratejiler. İlköğretim-Online, 2(1), 18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with “Scratch” on future teachers’ opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 258–262. https://doi.org/10.1145/1595496.1562957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferracane, M. F. (2020). Redesigning traditional education. Redesigning Organizations (pp. 329–343). Cham: Springer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fichtner, B. (2005). Reflective learning-Problems and Questions Concerning a Current Contextualization of the Vygotskian Approach. In (Eds.) Hoffmann, M. H.G., Lenhard, J. and Seeger, F. Activity and Sign Grounding Mathematics Education (179–190). US: Springer

  • Flanagan, S. (2015). Introduce programming in a fun, creative way. Tech Directions, 74(6), 18

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study international report (p. 308). Springer Nature

  • Furber, S. (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. London: The Royal Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, S. (2003). Learning resources and tools to aid novices learn programming. In Informing science & information technology education joint conference (INSITE) (pp. 213–222)

  • Gelibolu, M. F. (2009). Evaluation of application of computer assisted logic instruction materials developped in realistic mathematics approach in 9th grade mathematics lessons. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Ege University, Izmir

  • Genç Çelik, N., & Şengül, S. (2005). The effect of mastery learning method on the achievement and retention level of 6th grade primary school students in the mathematics class. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 18(1), 107–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, C. (Ed.). (2012). Student Usability in Educational Software and Games: Improving Experiences: Improving Experiences. IGI Global

  • Göksün, D. O., & Kurt, A. A. (2017). The relationship between pre-service teachers’ use of 21st century learner skills and 21st century teacher skills. Education and Science, 42(190), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2017.7089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havenga, M., Breed, B., Mentz, E., Govender, D., Govender, I., Dignum, F., & Dignum, V. (2013). Metacognitive and problem-solving skills to promote self-directed learning in computer programming: Teachers’ experiences. SA-eDUC Journal, 10(2), 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. (2015). Programming environments for children: Creating a language that grows with you. Unpublished PhD Thesis, UC Santa Barbara

  • Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical Methods for Psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, H. M. J. (2014, February). Gender differences in Scratch Game design. In 2014 International Conference on Information, Business and Education Technology (ICIBET 2014) (pp. 100–103). Atlantis Press

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson

  • Hwa, S. P. (2018). Pedagogical change in mathematics learning: Harnessing the power of digital game-based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 259–276

    Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2007). ISTE Standards for Students 2007. Retrieved on December 04, 2020, from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students

  • International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved on December 25, 2020 from https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf

  • International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2015). Computational thinking for all. Retrieved on December 14, 2020 from

  • https://www.iste.org/explore/Solutions/Computational-thinking-for-all

  • International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2016). ISTE Standards for Students 2016. Retrieved on December 05, 2020 from https://www.iste.org/standards/downloads

  • Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014a). The effect of instructional techniques on critical thinking and critical thinking dispositions in online discussion. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1), 248–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014b). 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 

  • Kalogiannakis, M., Ampartzaki, M., Papadakis, S., & Skaraki, E. (2018). Teaching natural science concepts to young children with mobile devices and hands-on activities. A case study. International Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 9(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtcs.2018.090965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra. In T. Romberg, & E. Fennema (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenedi, A. K., Helsa, Y., Ariani, Y., Zainil, M., & Hendri, S. (2019). Mathematical Connection of Elementary School Students to Solve Mathematical Problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(1), 69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kızılkaya, G., & Aşkar, P. (2009). The development of a reflective thinking skill scale towards problem solving. Education and Science, 34(154), 82–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 390–419). New York: Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., Choe, I., & Kaufman, J. C. (2019). The development and evaluation of the effect of creative problem-solving program on young children’s creativity and character. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 33, 100590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobsiripat, W. (2015). Effects of the media to promote the scratch programming capabilities creativity of elementary school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2015). Computational thinking levels scale (CTLS) adaptation for secondary school level. Gazi Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 143–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukul, V. (2013). Eğitsel Dijital Oyunlar. Pegem A Akademi Yayıncılık, 320 s, Ankara

  • Kuo, M., Barnes, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00305

  • Kutluca, T., & Bırgın, O. (2007). Evaluation of prospective mathematics teachers’ views about computer assisted teaching material developed in the linear equation topic. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 2, 81–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. M. (2010, March). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo vs. Scratch. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 346–350)

  • Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking: Theory into practice.Teaching for Higher Order Thinking,131–137

  • Lind, K. K. (1998). Science in early childhood developing and acquiring fundamental concepts and skills (pp. 3–18). Washington DC: National Science Foundation

    Google Scholar 

  • Linn, M. C. (1985). Fostering equitable consequences from computer learning environments. Sex Roles, 13(3–4), 229–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y. C., Huang, T. H., & Sung, C. L. (2021). The determinants of impact of personal traits on computational thinking with programming instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1983610

  • Lockheed, M. E. (1985). Women, girls, and computers: A first look at the evidence. Sex Roles, 13(3–4), 115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008, June). Media designs with Scratch: What urban youth can learn about programming in a computer clubhouse. In Proceedings of the 8th International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 3 (pp. 81–82)

  • Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangaroska, K., Sharma, K., Gašević, D., & Giannakos, M. (2022). Exploring students’ cognitive and affective states during problem solving through multimodal data: Lessons learned from a programming activity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 40–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., & Goode, J. (2016). Ten lessons for computer science for all. ACM Inroads, 7(4), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/2988236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer-Smith, J., Pedretti, E., & Woodrow, J. (2000). Closing of the gender gap in technology enriched science education: a case study. Computers & Education, 35(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(00)00018-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage

  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018a). Information Technologies and Software National Curriculum (for grades 5 and 6). Ankara: Board of Education

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018b). Mathematics National Curriculum (for grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Ankara: Board of Education

    Google Scholar 

  • Olkun, S., & Toluk Uçar, Z. (2006). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimine çağdaş yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Ekinoks Yayınları

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2011). Better Policies to Support Eco-innovation, OECD Studies on Environmental Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264096684-en

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Inc., Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. NY: Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.).). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Quaiser-Pohl, C., Geiser, C., & Lehmann, W. (2006). The relationship between computer-game preference, gender, and mental-rotation ability. Personality and Individual differences, 40(3), 609–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (2013). Learn to code, code to learn: How programming prepares kids for more than math. EdSurge (May 8, 2013)

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005, June). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 117–122)

  • 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 

  • Rowe, A. J. (2007). Yaratıcı Zekâ. Prestij Yayınları, 220 s., Istanbul

  • Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M. G., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 73–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scratch About (2021). Retrieved on August 25, 2021 from http://scratch.mit.edu/about/

  • Scratch Stats (2021). Retrieved on August 25, 2021 from https://scratch.mit.edu/statistics/

  • ScratchEd Team. (2011). Creative computing: A design-based introduction to computational thinking. MIT Media Lab

  • Settle, A., & Perkovic, L. (2010). Computational thinking across the curriculum: A conceptual framework. Technical Report, DePaul University College of Computing and Digital Media. Retrieved on January 11, 2021, from https://via.library.depaul.edu/tr/13

  • Shashaani, L., & Khalili, A. (2001). Gender and computers: Similarities and differences in Iranian college students’ attitudes toward computers. Computers & Education, 37(3–4), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00059-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanta, S., & Wells, J. G. (2020). T/E design based learning: assessing student critical thinking and problem solving abilities.International Journal of Technology and Design Education,1–19

  • Shermis, S. S. (1992). Critical Thinking: Helping Students Learn Reflectively. Bloomington: EDINFO Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sholihah, T. M., & Lastariwati, B. (2020). Problem Based Learning to Increase Competence of Critical Thinking and Problem Solving. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 14(1), 148–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivilotti, P. A., & Laugel, S. A. (2008). Scratching the surface of advanced topics in software engineering: a workshop module for middle school students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352322.1352235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021). Improving 7th-graders’ computational thinking skills through unplugged programming activities: A study on the influence of multiple factors. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Syamsuddin, A. (2020). Describing taxonomy of reflective thinking for field dependent-prospective mathematics teacher in solving mathematics problem. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9(3), 4418–4421

    Google Scholar 

  • Taşlıbeyaz, E. (2010). A case study research intended for mathematics perception at computer aided mathematics teaching for secondary students: Application of high school 3rd year. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Atatürk University, Erzurum

  • Tatar, E., Zengin, Y., & Kağızmanlı, T. B. (2013). The use of dynamic mathematics software and interactive white board technology in mathematics teaching. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 4(2), 104–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M., Harlow, A., & Forret, M. (2010). Using a computer programming environment and an interactive whiteboard to investigate some mathematical thinking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tutak, T. (2008). The effects of using concrete materials and dynamic geometry software on students’ cognitive learning, attitudes, and understanding levels of Van Hiele geometry. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon

  • Ünver, G. (2011). Eğitimde yeni yönelimler (5. Baskı). Ö. Demirel (Ed.), Yansıtıcı düşünme (137–148). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınlar&#305

  • Üstünoğlu, E. (2006). Üst düzey düşünme becerilerini geliştirmede bilişsel soruların rolü. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 331, 17–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, S., Depaepe, F., & Torbeyns, J. (2021). Effectiveness of educational technology in early mathematics education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 27, 100220

    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, 104023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinfurt, K. P. (2000). Repeated measures analysis: ANOVA, MANOVA, and HLM. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding MORE multivariate statistics (pp. 317–361). American Psychological Association. Grimm

  • Wells, P., De Lange, P., & Fieger, P. (2008). Integrating a virtual learning environment into a second-year accounting course: determinants of overall student perception. Accounting & Finance, 48(3), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00249.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weng, X., Ng, O. L., Cui, Z., & Leung, S. (2022). Creativity Development with Problem-Based Digital Making and Block-Based Programming for Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics Learning in Middle School Contexts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221115661

  • 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 A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in Computing, 2014, 26

  • Witrock, M. C. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction. Education Psychologist, 13, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527809529192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yıldırım, I. (2011). In the framework of technologically supported math education, to explore the usage of alternative measurement materials. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep

  • Yıldız, A., Baltacı, S., & Aktümen, M. (2012). Elementary mathematics teacher candidates’ processes of problem solving about three-dimensional objects through dynamic mathematics software. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 20(2), 592–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Zengin, Y. (2019). Development of mathematical connection skills in a dynamic learning environment. Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2175–2194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, O., Blau, I., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2009). Children’s participation patterns in online communities. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 263–274

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Niğde, Turkey

    Semirhan Gökçe & Arzu Aydoğan Yenmez

Authors
  1. Semirhan Gökçe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arzu Aydoğan Yenmez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Semirhan Gökçe.

Ethics declarations

Conflict interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this manuscript. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

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 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

Gökçe, S., Yenmez, A.A. Ingenuity of scratch programming on reflective thinking towards problem solving and computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol 28, 5493–5517 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11385-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11385-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation