Abstract
Computational thinking (CT) has become an important skill for the new generation, and CT teaching games have been introduced to lower the barriers that novices face in learning programming. However, despite the prevalence of and demand for these games, little is known about the effectiveness of their design or about the principles that are conducive to learning using these games. In this article, we present a project in which we triangulated design research with controlled experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of a computational puzzle design (CPD) framework in guiding the development of CT teaching games for children. Using CT tests, game logs, and a survey, we evaluated the learning outcomes of and engagement with various versions of the game LittleWorld, designed based on various principles of the CPD framework and implemented in Chinese elementary education (n = 202). The results validate the CPD framework and demonstrate that it is a practical and systematic tool for designing CT teaching games. The findings of this study provide design implications concerning (1) the application of meta-gaming and (2) how serious game design research should be conducted.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
Jiangsu, located on the east coast of China, is among the most economically developed provinces in the country and is an important industrial base. The proportion of the provincial population with a primary level of education or higher is much higher than the national average.
References
American National Standards Institute. (2007). American National Standard – Programming Language FORTRAN. https://www.fortain.com
Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.2307/1423026
Angeli, C., & Giannakos, M. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106185
Bers, M. U. (2018, December 15). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html/
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. 25.
British Council. (2013). The education systems of england & wales, scotland and northern ireland. https://www.britishcouncil.org
Castell, S. D., & Jenson, J. (2003). OP-ED serious play. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 649–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000145552
Charoula, A., Joke, V., Andrew, F., Mary, W., Margaret, C., Joyce, M.-S., & Jason, Z. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: implications for teacher knowledge on JSTOR. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.47?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Chen, P., Kuo, R., Chang, M., & Heh, J. (2010). Designing a trading card game as educational reward system to improve students’ learning outcome—A Christian University.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z
Choi, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, E. (2017). Puzzle based algorithm learning for cultivating computational thinking. Wireless Personal Communications, 93(1), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-016-3679-9
Code.org—Teach computer science. (n.d.). Retrieved December 25, 2018, from https://studio.code.org/courses?view=teacher
Dagienė, V., & Stupurienė, 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. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2016.02
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071001001
Denis Bedardchristelle Lisondaniel Dallenoeel & Boutin. (2010). Predictors of student’s engagement and persistence in an innovative PBL curriculum: Applications for engineering education. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(3), 511–522.
Denner, J., Campe, S., & Werner, L. (2019). Does computer game design and programming benefit children? A meta-synthesis of research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277565
Dixon, B. (2019). Experiments in experience: Towards an alignment of research through design and John Dewey’s pragmatism. Design Issues, 35(2), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00531
Duncan, C., & Bell, T. (2015). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818328
Farrell, D., & Moffat, D. (2014). Applying the self determination theory of motivation in games based learning. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games-Based Learning, 1, 118–127.
Febrian, A., Lawanto, O., Peterson-Rucker, K., Melvin, A., & Guymon, S. E. (2018, June 23). Does everyone use computational thinking? A case study of art and computer science majors. In 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/does-everyone-use-computational-thinking-a-case-study-of-art-and-computer-science-majors
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D. (2013). Incentives in educational games: A multilevel analysis of their impact on elementary students’ engagement and learning. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL, 1, 208–215.
Finkelstein, S. L., Nickel, A., Harrison, L., Suma, E. A., & Barnes, T. (2009). cMotion: A new game design to teach emotion recognition and programming logic to children using virtual humans. IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, 2009, 249–250. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2009.4811039
Galeos, C., Karpouzis, K., & Tsatiris, G. (2020). Developing an educational programming game for children with ADHD. 2020 15th International Workshop on Semantic and Social Media Adaptation and Personalization (SMA). https://doi.org/10.1109/SMAP49528.2020.9248458
Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208538
Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games and good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning and literacy (1st ed.). Peter Lang Inc.
Goh, D.H.-L., Pe-Than, E. P. P., & Lee, C. S. (2017). Perceptions of virtual reward systems in crowdsourcing games. Computers in Human Behavior, 70(C), 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.006
Goudas, M., Biddle, S., & Fox, K. (1994). Achievement goal orientations and intrinsic motivation in physical fitness testing with children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 6(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.6.2.159
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Guzdial, M. (2008). Education paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25–27.
Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Stansfield, M., & Boyle, E. A. (2011). Evaluation of a game to teach requirements collection and analysis in software engineering at tertiary education level. Computers & Education, 56(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.008
Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
Harteveld, C., Smith, G., Carmichael, G., Gee, E., & Stewart-Gardiner, C. (2014). A design-focused analysis of games teaching computer science. Proceedings of Games+ Learning+ Society, 10.
Harteveld, C. (2011). Triadic game design: Balancing reality, meaning and play. Springer Science & Business Media.
Harteveld, C., & Sutherland, S. C. (2015). The goal of scoring: Exploring the role of game performance in educational games. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702606
Henderson, P. B., Cortina, T. J., & Wing, J. M. (2007). Computational thinking. Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education—SIGCSE ’07. https://doi.org/10.1145/1227310.1227378
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
Huang, W.-H., Huang, W., & Tschopp, J. (2010). Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The relationship between motivational processing and outcome processing. Computers & Education, 55, 789–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.011
Huizenga, J., Admiraal, W., Akkerman, S., & ten Dam, G. (2009). Mobile game-based learning in secondary education: Engagement, motivation and learning in a mobile city game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00316.x
Hutchison, L. F. (2012). Addressing the STEM teacher shortage in American schools: Ways to recruit and retain effective STEM teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 34(5–6), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.729483
Iliya, A., Jabbar, A., & Felicia, P. (n.d.). 1 gameplay engagement and learning in game- based learning: A systematic review.
Irwin, V., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Hein, S., Wang, K., Roberts, A., York, C., Barmer, A., Mann, F. B., Dilig, R., Parker, S., Nachazel, T., Barnett, M., & Purcell, S. (n.d.). Report on the condition of education 2021. 43.
Jiang, X., Harteveld, C., Huang, X., & Fung, A. Y. H. (2019). The computational puzzle design framework: A design guide for games teaching computational thinking. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. https://doi.org/10.1145/3337722.3337768
Jiang, X., & Perkins, K. (2013). A conceptual paper on the application of the picture word inductive model using Bruner’s constructivist view of learning and the cognitive load theory., 3(1), 10.
Johansen, S.-G., Årsand, E., & Hartvigsen, G. (2018). Making computer games that can teach children with Type 1 diabetes in rural areas how to manage their condition. Retrieved from https://ep.liu.se/konferensartikel.aspx?series=ecp&issue=151&Article_No=2
Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (n.d.). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). 5.
Jung, H., Kim, H. J., So, S., Kim, J., & Oh, C. (2019). TurtleTalk: An educational programming game for children with voice user interface. Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312773
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412005281767
Kaleli̇Oğlu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. 14.
Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255.
Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & MacKinnon, L. (2011). Understanding computational thinking before programming: developing guidelines for the design of games to learn introductory programming through game-play. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(3), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011070103
Ke, F., Xie, K., & Xie, Y. (2016). Game-based learning engagement: A theory- and data-driven exploration: Game-based learning engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1183–1201. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12314
Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, 37(2), 83–137. https://doi.org/10.1145/1089733.1089734
Kim, Y., Almond, R., & Shute, V. (2016). Applying evidence-centered design for the development of game-based assessments in physics playground. International Journal of Testing, 16, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2015.1108322
Klasen, M., Weber, R., Kircher, T. T. J., Mathiak, K. A., & Mathiak, K. (2012). Neural contributions to flow experience during video game playing. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(4), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsr021
Knochel, A. D., & Patton, R. M. (2015). If art education then critical digital making: Computational thinking and creative code. Studies in Art Education, 57(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2015.11666280
Lavigne, H., Lewis-Presser, A., Cuellar, L., Vidiksis, R., & Ferguson, C. (n.d.). AHA! Island was developed by WGBHs children’s media and education group. 52.
Leake, M., & Lewis, C. M. (2017). Recommendations for designing CS resource sharing sites for all teachers. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017780
Lee, T. Y., Mauriello, M. L., Ingraham, J., Sopan, A., Ahn, J., & Bederson, B. B. (2012). CTArcade: Learning computational thinking while training virtual characters through game play. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts—CHI EA ‘12, 2309. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2223794
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902
LeFevre, J.-A., Smith-Chant, B. L., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S.-L., Sargla, E., Arnup, J. S., Penner-Wilger, M., Bisanz, J., & Kamawar, D. (2006). What counts as knowing? The development of conceptual and procedural knowledge of counting from kindergarten through grade 2. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93(4), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.002
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(6), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2
Lewis, Z. H., Swartz, M., & Lyons, E. (2016). What’s the point? A review of reward systems implemented in gamification interventions. Games for Health Journal. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2015.0078
Lin, S.-Y., Chien, S.-Y., Hsiao, C.-L., Hsia, C.-H., & Chao, K.-M. (2020). Enhancing computational thinking capability of preschool children by game-based smart toys. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 44, 101011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.101011
Lindberg, R. S. N., Laine, T. H., & Haaranen, L. (2019). Gamifying programming education in K-12: A review of programming curricula in seven countries and programming games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1979–1995. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12685
Liu, C.-C., Cheng, Y.-B., & Huang, C.-W. (2011). The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1907–1918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.002
Liu, T.-C., Fan, M.H.-M., & Paas, F. (2014). Effects of digital dictionary format on incidental acquisition of spelling knowledge and cognitive load during second language learning: Click-on vs. key-in dictionaries. Computers & Education, 70, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.08.001
Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2017). Computational thinking in education: Where does it fit? A systematic literary review. [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07659
Lode, H., Franchi, G. E., & Frederiksen, N. G. (2013). Machineers: Playfully introducing programming to children. CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2479483
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
MacLeod, J., Yang, H. H., & Xiang, Z. (2017). Understanding college students’ intrinsic motivation and social interdependence in intercultural computer-supported collaborative learning between USA and China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 26(3), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-017-0341-6
Maharani, S., Kholid, M. N., Pradana, L. N., & Nusantara, T. (2019). Problem solving in the context of computational thinking. Infinity Journal, 8(2), 109. https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v8i2.p109-116
Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with scratch. Proceedings of the SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352260
Marcelino, M. J., Pessoa, T., Vieira, C., Salvador, T., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Learning computational thinking and scratch at distance. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.025
Metcalf, S. J., Reilly, J. M., Jeon, S., Wang, A., Pyers, A., Brennan, K., & Dede, C. (2021). Assessing computational thinking through the lenses of functionality and computational fluency. Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1866932
Miljanovic, M. A., & Bradbury, J. S. (2018). A review of serious games for programming. In S. Göbel, A. Garcia-Agundez, T. Tregel, M. Ma, J. BaalsrudHauge, M. Oliveira, T. Marsh, & P. Caserman (Eds.), Serious games (pp. 204–216). Springer International Publishing.
Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design. ETS Research Report Series, 2003(1), i–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2003.tb01908.x
Moon, J., & Ke, F. (2020). In-game actions to promote game-based math learning engagement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 863–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119878611
Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2015). Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate scratch projects. Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818338
OECD, et al. (2017). Digital Economy Outlook. https://www.oecd.org
Olgun, Sadik. (2017, April 25). Computational thinking conceptions and misconceptions: Progression of preservice teacher thinking during computer science lesson planning | SpringerLink. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_14
Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education: A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3), 187. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2016.077867
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Petri, G., & Gresse von Wangenheim, C. (2017). How games for computing education are evaluated? A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 107, 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.004
Portelance, D. J., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Code and tell: Assessing young children’s learning of computational thinking using peer video interviews with ScratchJr. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children IDC ‘15, 271–274. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771894
Qian, Y., Hambrusch, S., Yadav, A., & Gretter, S. (2018). Who needs what: Recommendations for designing effective online professional development for computer science teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1433565
Reber, A. S. (1996). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. In Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195106589.001.0001/acprof-9780195106589
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
Rhodes, R. E., Kopecky, J., Bos, N., McKneely, J., Gertner, A., Zaromb, F., Perrone, A., & Spitaletta, J. (2017). Teaching decision making with serious games: An independent evaluation. Games and Culture, 12(3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412016686642
Richter, G., Raban, D., & Rafaeli, S. (2015). Studying gamification: The effect of rewards and incentives on motivation (pp. 21–46). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10208-5_2
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2014). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics (R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker, Eds., Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.014
Rodriguez, B., Kennicutt, S., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2017). Assessing computational thinking in CS unplugged activities. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017779
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
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2018). Can computational talent be detected? Predictive validity of the computational thinking test. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.004
Saada-Robert, M. (1999). Effective means for learning to manage cognitive load in second grade school writing: A case study. Learning and Instruction, 9(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00044-9
Sabourin, J. L., & Lester, J. C. (2014). Affect and engagement in game-based learning environments. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1109/T-AFFC.2013.27
Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A qualitative case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v1n2p252
Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2013). Motivation in education: Pearson new international edition course smart eTextbook: Theory, research, and applications, 4/E. Retrieved from http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/educator/product/Motivation-in-Education-Pearson-New-International-Edition-CourseSmart-eTextbook-Theory-Research-and-Applications-4E/9781292049236.page
ScratchJr—Home. (2018, Dec 15). Retrieved from http://www.scratchjr.org/
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition [Monograph]. University of Southampton (E-prints). Retrieved from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Siu, K., & Riedl, M. O. (2016). Reward systems in human computation games. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. https://doi.org/10.1145/2967934.2968083
Spieler, B., Kemény, F., Landerl, K., Binder, B., & Slany, W. (2020). The learning value of game design activities: Association between computational thinking and cognitive skills. Proceedings of the Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3421590.3421607
Sullivan, A., Bers, M., & Pugnali, A. (2017). The impact of user interface on Young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 16(1), 171–193.
Summary Report of the 2012 UIS Innovation Metadata Collection. UIS Information paper. (2013). UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Surif, J., Ibrahim, N. H., & Mokhtar, M. (2012). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in problem solving. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 56, 416–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.671
Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
ten Berge, T, & van Hezewijk, R. (1999). Procedural and declarative knowledge—An evolutionary perspective.
Thies, R., & Vahrenhold, J. (2013). On plugging “unplugged” into CS classes. Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445303
Troiano, G. M., Chen, Q., Alba, Á. V., Robles, G., Smith, G., Cassidy, M., Tucker-Raymond, E., Puttick, G., & Harteveld, C. (2020). Exploring how game genre in student-designed games influences computational thinking development. Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376755
Troiano, G. M., Snodgrass, S., Argımak, E., Robles, G., Smith, G., Cassidy, M., Tucker-Raymond, E., Puttick, G., & Harteveld, C. (2019). Is my game ok Dr. Scratch? Exploring programming and computational thinking development via metrics in student-designed serious games for STEM. Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323152
Voskoglou, M. G., & Buckley, S. (2012). Problem solving and computational thinking in a learning environment. [Cs]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0750
Walsh, M. M., & Anderson, J. R. (2012). Learning from experience: Event-related potential correlates of reward processing, neural adaptation, and behavioral choice. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(8), 1870–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.05.008
Wang, H., & Sun, C.-T. (2012). Game reward systems: Gaming experiences and social meanings.
Wang, X. C., Choi, Y., Benson, K., Eggleston, C., & Weber, D. (2021). Teacher’s role in fostering preschoolers’ computational thinking: An exploratory case study. Early Education and Development, 32, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1759012
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(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Trouille, L., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2014). Interactive assessment tools for computational thinking in high school STEM classrooms. Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08189-2_3
Wing, J. M. (2018, Dec 15). Computational thinking. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274309848_Computational_Thinking
Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Hambrusch, S., & Sands, P. (2016a). Expanding computer science education in schools: Understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education, 26(4), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1257418
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016b). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297
Yallihep, M., Kutlu, B. (2020). Mobile serious games: Effects on students’ understanding of programming concepts and attitudes towards information technology. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1237–1254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10008-2
Yu, M., & He, X. (2011). Design And Development Of Chinese Primary And Secondary New Type School Uniform. Advanced Materials Research, 331, 679–682. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.331.679
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704
Funding
This study is supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Youth Foundation, Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 22YJCZH068, to Xina Jiang, Province-Level Educational Reformation Research, 2021091 and National Natural Science Foundation of China, 62107020, to Yuqin Yang
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors do not have any conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.
Informed consent
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix 1: survey questions used to measure engagement
Appendix 1: survey questions used to measure engagement
-
(a)
I enjoyed doing this activity very much.
-
(b)
This activity was fun to do.
-
(c)
I thought that this was an exciting activity.
-
(d)
This activity held my attention very well.
-
(e)
I would describe this activity as very interesting.
-
(f)
I thought that this activity was quite enjoyable.
-
(g)
While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.
Chinese version:
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, X., Harteveld, C., Yang, Y. et al. “If it’s sunny, don’t take an umbrella”: a systematic evaluation of design principles for CT teaching games. Education Tech Research Dev 71, 1725–1763 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10240-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10240-1