TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

Effect of Tinkercad on Students' Computational Thinking Skills and Perceptions: A

Case of Ankara Province
Selami ERYILMAZ
Department of Computer and Teaching Technology Education, Gazi Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
[email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6507-740X

Gülhanım DENİZ
Department of Computer and Teaching Technology Education, Gazi Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
[email protected]
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0932-6133

ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the effect of Tinkercad use in computer programming education on
students ' computational thinking skills and perceptions. In this context, 583 secondary school students studying
in Ankara province of Turkey at the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grade level in the 2019-2020 academic year
constitute the sample of the research. The research was carried out using an enriched pattern, one of the mixed
research methods in which quantitative and qualitative research designs were used together. Research data were
collected using Personal Information Form, Student Perception Questionnaire about Tinkercad Software and
Information Processing Thinking Scale (For Secondary School Level). The data obtained were analyzed using
the SPSS 25 program. Using the results of normality analysis, Mann Whitney U test and Kruskal Wallis H test
were used among non-parametric tests. In addition, Tamhane's T2 and LSD tests from Post Hoc analyzes and
Spearman correlation test from correlation tests were used. When looking at students' perceptions of Tinkercad,
it was determined that they were highly motivated for interest and appreciation and found Tinkercad to be
generally useful and easy to use according to research findings. It was determined that the students ' perception
of computational thinking was moderate. It was found that there was a positive low-level relationship between
the frequency of Tinkercad use of students and their perception of Tinkercad, while there was a positive
moderate-level relationship between their perception of Tinkercad and their computational thinking skills. In
addition, it has been determined that the frequency of students ' use of Tinkercad is affected by internal and
external reasons, so recommendations for parents and programmers are included.
Keywords: 3D Design, Computational Thinking, Programming, Tinkercad

INTRODUCTION
The perspective of technology has changed with the expansion of the opportunities offered to us by
technological developments. Steps are being taken towards the transformation of the new generation from being
individuals who only use technology, to becoming individuals who produce with technology. This process has
accelerated with the introduction of 3-D printing technologies into our lives. Instead of being a user of many
objects that we use in everyday life, research is being conducted on the way to becoming the manufacturer of
these objects.

Designing new objects emerges as a new necessity, considering the ever-changing human needs. The fact that
individuals cannot find the products that are suitable for the features they enliven in their imaginations in
industrial products made in uniform form and the high costs of specially made or built objects show us the need
for 3D Design and Printing technologies. But the fact that some 3D design and printing devices are quite
expensive prevents them from being bought or used by all segments of society. In this case, online tools are
applied using the facilities provided by technology. Programs such as Tinkercad, 3Dtin, ShapeSmith, Cubify,
and Autodesk 123D design are examples of the online tools used (Canessa, Fonda & Zennaro, 2013).

Tinkercad allows students to gain 3D design skills through ready-made projects or through students ' own
designs. The fact that the program is a web-based program, meaning that it does not require installation, is seen
as a great way to teach 3D design to students (Avila & Bailey, 2016). Instead of purchasing the objects they need
in daily life problems, the students can design and produce them in 3D using Tinkercad.

Computers, which affect us in all aspects of our lives in the 21st Century, present the concept of “computational
thinking” as an important skill in searching for solutions to problems. According to Wing (2006), computational
thinking is a skill that everyone should learn and this skill is defined and explained by many researchers (Aho,

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

25
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

2012; Barr & Stephenson, 2011; Bundy, 2007; Csizmadia et al., 2015; Czerkawski, 2013; Dede, Mishra &
Voogt, 2013; Denning, 2009, 2017; Hemmendinger, 2010; Hu, 2011; Kafai, 2016; Lee et al., 2011; Leon,
Gonzalez, Harteveld & Robles, 2017; Lu & Fletcher, 2009; Selby & Woollard, 2014; Wing, 2014; Yadav et al.,
2014; Tedre & Denning, 2016).

Computational thinking skill being a skill associated with other thinking skills such as mathematics, engineering,
design, system, criticism, algorithm, creativity, spatial reasoning and mental rotation has been effective in
making studies to integrate it into the educational environment in a wide curriculum from pre-school to graduate
school (Citta et al., 2019; Giannakopoulos, 2012; Hershkovitz et al., 2019; Selby & Woollard, 2014; Shute et al.,
2017; Shute, Masduki & Donmez, 2010; Sneider et al., 2014; Razzouk & Shute, 2012; Voskoglou & Buckley,
2012) . For this reason, researchers have chosen to use various media and tools to improve students'
computational thinking skills (Basawapatna et al., 2011; Bers et al., 2014; Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Chen et al.,
2017; Howland & Good , 2015; Isnaini & Budiyanto, 2018; Israel et al., 2015; Kazimoglu et al., 2012; Morelli et
al., 2011; Repenning, Webb & Ioannidou, 2010; Repenning, Basawapatna & Escherle, 2016; Roscoe & Fearn,
2014; Shute et al., 2017).

While Tinkercad allows students to make three-dimensional designs with its 3D Design menu, it also enables
designs to be created with codes with the Circuit and Code Blocks menus. This leads to the idea that Tinkercad is
a good tool that can affect all the sub-dimensions of computational thinking (creativity, algorithmic thinking,
collaboration, critical thinking and problem solving). For example, it is thought that students' individual making
3D designs has an effect on the development of their creativity skills. It is thought that students' designing by
forming groups has an effect on their development of collaboration and critical thinking skills, and that students'
doing this process using code has an effect on their development of algorithmic thinking and problem solving
skills. Lim and Kim (2019) determined that Tinkercad has a positive effect on the development of students'
computational thinking ability.

It is known that programming is frequently used in teaching computational thinking (Shute et al., 2017).
Repenning, Basawapatna, and Escherle (2016) stated that any programming tool can be used in the development
of computational thinking. Various visual programming tools (Scratch, Alice, Code.org et al.) are used to
facilitate the teaching of this skill (Bennett, Koh & Repenning, 2011; Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Israel et al.,
2019).

In this context, the effective and efficient use of Tinkercad, which is used in design education in order to ensure
that students in our country are with individuals who produce with technology, will be through determining
students' perceptions of Tinkercad. In addition, determining the impact of Tinkercad on the development of
students ' computational thinking skills is important for whether the program is used for educational purposes.

The Purpose of Research

This research was conducted to determine the students ' perception of computational thinking skills and
Tinkercad design training using Tinkercad. In this context, answers to the research questions mentioned below
were sought:

1. What are the technological competence levels of the students?

2. What are the students' past experiences of online and web-based learning environments?
3. Research questions on students' perceptions of using Tinkercad software:
3.1. What are the perceptions of students regarding the use of Tinkercad?
3.2. Is there a significant difference in the use of Tinkercad in terms of motivation, usefulness and ease of
use perceptions of students according to their gender?
3.3. Is there a significant difference in the use of Tinkercad in terms of motivation, usefulness and ease of
use perceptions of students according to their grade levels?
3.4. What are the students' usage frequency of Tinkercad? What is the relationship between students'
frequency of Tinkercad use and their perception of Tinkercad?
4. Research questions on computational thinking skills:
4.1. What is the computational thinking skill of the students?
4.2. Is there a significant difference between the computational thinking skills of the students according to
their gender?
4.3. Is there a significant difference between computational thinking skills of students according to their
grade levels?
4.4. Is there a significant relationship between students' Tinkercad usage perceptions and computational
thinking skills?

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

26
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

METHOD
This research was carried out using a pattern enriched from mixed research designs, in which quantitative and
qualitative data collection methods were used together in terms of the process followed and its subject. In the
quantitative dimension of the research pattern, descriptive scanning method was used from non-experimental
research methods. In this way, students ' perceptions and computational thinking skills related to Tinkercad
software were tried to be determined. In the qualitative dimension of the research, the case study method was
used.

The Target Population and the Sample

The target population of this research is composed of secondary education institutions and private course centers
affiliated to the Ministry of National Education in Keçiören, Yenimahalle, Mamak and Altındağ districts of
Ankara province, which provide Tinkercad training to 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades in the 2019-2020 academic
year. The sample of the research was carried out using purposeful sampling, which is a non-random sampling
method. Purposeful sampling allows for in-depth research by selecting information rich cases depending on the
purpose of the studies (Büyüköztürk et al., 2017, p.92). In this context, the sample group of the study was
determined with the typical case sampling method, one of the purposeful sampling methods. The typical case
sampling method requires determining a situation typical of many situations in the target population regarding
the research problem and collecting information on this sample (Büyüköztürk et al., 2017, p.94). In determining
the research sample, the private course Center, private school and public schools that provide Tinkercad training
in their institutions were taken into account. Among these institutions, the private course Center and the private
school provide Tinkercad training to their students in accordance with their own facilities. Public schools, on the
other hand, provide Tinkercad training to their students within the framework of the facilities provided to their
schools within the scope of the "IT production" project. For this reason, the sample of the study consists of 583
students studying in 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades in secondary school in the 2019-2020 academic year; 13
students in a private course center in Ankara's Keçiören district, 172 students studying at a public school in the
same district, 74 students studying at a private school in Yenimahalle district, 55 students studying in a state
school in Mamak district and 269 students studying in a public school in Altındağ district. The characteristics of
these students are given in Table 1.

Table 1: Students’ Characteristics

Gender
Total
Grade Male Female
N % N % N %
5. 9 1.5 8 1.3 17 1.9
6. 135 23.1 137 23.4 272 46.6
7. 149 25.5 137 23.4 286 49.0
8. 5 0.8 3 0.5 8 1.3
Total 298 51.1 285 48.8 583 100

Of the total 583 students in Table 1, 298 students (51.1%) were male and 285 students (48.8%) were female. The
reason for the small number of fifth and eighth grade students participating in the study is as follows: Eighth-
grade students are not taught Tinkercad in public schools affiliated with the Ministry of education, these students
received three weeks of training in a special course Center. Fifth grade students received 1 hour of training per
week during a four-week special course by a private school affiliated to the Ministry of Education. Sixth and
seventh grade students are given Tinkercad education within the scope of the “Production with Informatics”
Project in public schools affiliated to the Ministry of Education. This training was carried out within the scope of
Information Technology and Software course.

Data Collection Tool

In this study, quantitative and qualitative methods were used to collect relevant data. It was decided to use three
data collection tools within the scope of the study by examining the literature. These data collection tools are
Personal Information Form, Computational Thinking Scale (for Secondary School Level), and Student
Perception Questionnaire on "Tinkercad" Software.

The Personal Information Form consists of two option questions prepared to learn the gender and level of
education of students. This form has been prepared for pre-determined research purposes.

The computational thinking scale (for secondary school level) is a scale used to measure students ' computational
thinking skills and the scale developed by Korkmaz et al. (2015) was used. The scale is a five-point Likert type

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

27
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

scale and consists of 22 items that can be grouped under five factors. The item discrimination powers of the scale
were found to be between 3,818 and 23,287. Accordingly, it can be said that each item and each factor contained
in the scale serve at a meaningful level the purpose of measuring the property that needs to be measured in
general, and each item is distinctive at the desired level . Furthermore, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient
of the scale was determined to be 0.809.

The Student Perception Questionnaire about "Tinkercad" Software was used to measure students' perception of
programming with Tinkercad. This scale was adapted by Akçay (2009) from the scale developed by Turşak
(2007) for the Small Basic programming tool, and its reliability coefficient was determined as 0.946. In addition,
the scale was developed by referring to seven expert opinions for language and field assessment. The scale was
adapted for Tinkercad within the scope of the research, and it was made appropriate by taking the expert opinion
of an academic member. The scale includes quantitative and qualitative research questions and consists of a total
of 40 items under 5 factors. The scale has 9 items aimed at measuring students ' technological competence and 4
items aimed at learning about their past experience in online and web-based learning environments. There are 27
items about Tinkercad software aimed at students ' perception of motivation, usefulness and ease of use.

Data Collection
While collecting the research data, the students in Keçiören Private Youth Center were firstly applied the Pre-
determined “Tinkercad” Software Student Perception Questionnaire and then Computational Thinking Scale (for
Secondary School Level). These questionnaires were applied to students in a private school in Yenimahalle
district of Ankara, a public school in Keçiören district, an imam hatip secondary school in Mamak district and a
public school in Altındağ district, respectively.

Data Analysis
The data obtained at the end of the study were analyzed using the SPSS 25 program in line with the
predetermined study objectives. As part of the sub-objectives of the research, descriptive analysis was carried out
primarily for quantitative data. Later, a normality analysis was performed to determine whether the tests were
parametric. The results were analyzed by considering the kurtosis-skewness and variance coefficient, histogram
graph, Detrended normality graph and Kolmogorov-Smirnov test from normality tests. In this context, non-
parametric tests Mann Whitney U test and Kruskal Wallis H test were used. By checking the homogeneous
distributions of groups, Tamhane's T2 test and LSD test were applied from post Hoc analysis methods to
determine which group differed in favor. Spearman correlation test was used in correlation scales since the tests
did not comply with the normal distribution. The qualitative data collected by using the Student Perception
Questionnaire on the "Tinkercad" Software was analyzed using the content analysis method, one of the
qualitative data analysis methods.

FINDINGS
This section includes findings on students' technology usage competencies, past experiences in online and web-
based learning environments, motivation for using Tinkercad, perceived usefulness, ease of use, and
computational thinking skills.

Findings on Students ' Level of Technology Competence

According to the descriptive analysis results of students 'technology use competencies (web browsers, search
engines, e-mail, online forums & blogs, online messaging applications, Microsoft Office applications,
programming language), it has been determined that students' technology use competencies are at the beginning
level (X̄ = 2.62 ).
When the findings of the students' past experiences about online and web-based learning environments were
examined, it was determined that 70.8% of the students did not take any web-supported courses until today, and
79.6% did not take a web-supported programming language course. In addition, it was found that 96.7% of the
students used the internet in their studies and 68.4% used a programming language.

Research Findings on Students ' Perceptions of Tinkercad Software Usage

In determining students ' perceptions of Tinkercad usage, descriptive analysis was performed about the
“Tinkercad” software by taking into account the motivation, usefulness and ease of use sub-dimensions of the
student Perception Survey. Accordingly, the distribution of categories according to the motivational theme of the
Tinkercad perception scale of students is shown in Table 2, the distribution of categories according to the
usefulness theme is shown in Table 3, and the distribution of categories according to the ease of Use theme is
shown in Table 4.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

28
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

Table 2: Students ' Perceptions of Motivation for Using Tinkercad

Neither agree
nor diasgree
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree

Agree
Motivation

agree
% % % % % X̄ S
Interest /
4.3 13.7 27.3 35.5 19.2 3.82 1.00
Enjoyment
Perceived
7.7 9.4 22.5 35.0 24.9 3.60 1.18
Competence
Willingness 3.1 17.3 33.5 34.3 11.8 3.65 0.92
Participation 6.7 14.7 33.3 33.1 12.2 3.49 1.02
Average 5.45 13.7 29.1 34.4 17.0 3.68 0.83

When Table 2 is examined, it is seen that the items of interest and enjoyment in the motivation theme in the
questionnaire have the highest average (X̄ = 3.82). This can be interpreted as a sub-theme in which Tinkercad
has the most influence. Participation-oriented substances were identified as substances that affect motivation at
the lowest rate (X=3.49). This can be interpreted as a sub-theme in which Tinkercad has the most influence.
Participation-oriented items were identified as items that affect motivation at the lowest rate (X=3.49).

Table 3: Usefulness Perceptions of Students Regarding the Use of Tinkercad

Neither agree
nor diasgree
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree

Usefulness
Agree

% % % % agree
% X̄ S
Working More Effectively and
1.4 9.4 31.6 39.9 17.7 3.82 0.87
Quickly
Job Performance 2.2 10.0 32.1 37.8 17.5 3.79 0.91
Increasing Productivity 7.5 9.8 25.9 32.4 24.0 3.55 1.17
Effectiveness 6.7 8.9 21.3 36.0 25.7 3.66 1.15
Makes Job Easier 6.0 10.3 19.7 32.2 31.4 3.72 1.18
Useful 6.9 13.2 29.9 34.9 15.1 3.56 1.05
Average 5.1 10.2 26.7 35.5 21.9 3.69 0.78

When Table 3 is examined, it is seen that the average score of the items related to the students' perception of
usefulness of Tinkercad is X̄ = 3.69. Students 'perceptions of” working more effectively and quickly“,” job
performance “and” makes job easier" seem to be above average. "Effectiveness", "Useful" and "Increasing
Productivity" perceptions, on the other hand, show that although they are below the average, they are highly
positive (X̄ = 3.66, X̄ = 3.56 and X̄ = 3.55). In this case, it was determined that students generally found
Tinkercad useful.

Table 4: Ease of Use Perceptions of Students on Using Tinkercad

Neither agree
nor diasgree
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
disagree

Ease of Use
Agree

agree

% % % % % X̄ S
Easy to Learn 4.1 12.9 28.6 34.2 20.2 3.71 1.01
Easy to Use 7.7 10.8 14.1 34.6 32.8 3.73 1.23
Easy to Become Skillful 5.8 15.1 29.2 28.8 20.9 3.43 1.14
Clear and Understandable 3.4 22.0 42.0 18.5 4.1 3.34 0.76
Average 5.2 15.2 28.4 29.0 19.5 3.44 0.70

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

29
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

When Table 4 is examined, it is seen that the average of students' perception of the ease of use of Tinkercad is X̄
= 3.44. It is seen that students' perception of "Easy to Learn" (X̄ = 3.71) and "Easy to Use" (X̄ = 3.73) towards
Tinkercad software is above the average of ease of use (X̄ = 3.44). However, students' perception of "Easy to
Become Skillful" (X̄ = 3.43) and "Clear and Understandable" (X̄ = 3.34) were found to be positive, although
they are below the general ease of use perception. In this case, Tinkercad software is easy to learn and use.

Findings Regarding Students' Perceptions of Motivation, Usefulness and Ease of Use According to Their
Gender
The Mann Whitney U Test, one of the non-parametric tests, was used to determine whether there is a significant
difference according to gender for the subthemes of motivation, usefulness, and ease of use of the Student
Perception Questionnaire about Tinkercad Software.

Table 5: Comparison of Tinkercad Usage Perceptions by Gender

Average Sum of
Gender N U z P
Rank Rank

Motivation Male 298 285,57 85099,50

40548,50 -,943 ,345
Female 285 298,72 85136,50
Tinkercad
Usefulness Male 298 283,53 84492,50 -
Usage 39941,50 ,214
Female 285 300,85 85743,50 1,243
Perception
Ease of Use Male 298 298,59 88980,50
40500,50 -,968 ,333
Female 285 285,11 81255,50
* p<.05

When looking at Table 5, there were no significant differences in students ' perceptions of motivation, usefulness
and ease of use for Tinkercad use according to the gender (boys and girls) group (p>.05).
Findings Regarding Students' Perceptions of Motivation, Usefulness and Ease of Use by Class Levels
Kruskal Wallis H test was applied to determine whether the students' perceptions of Tinkercad motivation,
usefulness and ease of use differ significantly according to their grade levels.

Table 6: Comparison of Tinkercad Perceptions According to Class Levels

Grade N Average Kruskal Wallis-H P
Rank
Motivation 5 17 416,35 14,901 ,002
6 272 301,07
7 286 273,92
8 8 365,69
Usefulness 5 17 409,88 14,635 ,002
Tinkercad
6 272 300,03
Usage
7 286 274,66
Perception
8 8 388,56
Ease of Use 5 17 293,53 4,404 ,221
6 272 301,29
7 286 280,58
8 8 381,25

As seen in Table 6 (p <0.05), there is a significant difference between students' motivation and usefulness
perceptions according to their grade levels. Tamhane's T2 analysis from Post Hoc analysis methods was used to
determine which group this difference was in. In addition, when looking at Table 6, it was found that the ease of
use of Tinkercad did not differ significantly according to the students ' class level (p>0.05).

Table 7: Perception of Motivation by Grade Level

Average Standard
(I) Grade (J) Grade difference (I-J) Error P
5 6 ,53257* ,15229 ,014
7 ,66290* ,15265 ,002

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

30
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

8 ,21471 ,19461 ,864

6 5 -,53257* ,15229 ,014
7 ,13032 ,07094 ,339
8 -,31787 ,14001 ,260
7 5 -,66290* ,15265 ,002
6 -,13032 ,07094 ,339
8 -,44819 ,14041 ,062
8 5 -,21471 ,19461 ,864
6 ,31787 ,14001 ,260
7 ,44819 ,14041 ,062

When Table 7 is examined, it has been determined that the 5th grade level significantly differs according to the
motivation perceptions of the 6th and 7th grades (p <0.05). Accordingly, Tinkercad software significantly affects
5th grade students' motivations.

Table 8: Usefulness Perception by Grade Levels

Average Standard
(I) grade (J) grade difference (I-J) Error P
5 6 ,46717 ,16103 ,054
7 ,57888* ,16169 ,012
8 ,09150 ,19808 ,998
6 5 -,46717 ,16103 ,054
7 ,11171 ,06680 ,451
8 -,37566 ,13250 ,111
7 5 -,57888* ,16169 ,012
6 -,11171 ,06680 ,451
8 -,48737* ,13330 ,030
8 5 -,09150 ,19808 ,998
6 ,37566 ,13250 ,111
7 ,48737* ,13330 ,030

When Table 8 is examined, it is determined that Tinkercad usefulness perceptions differ significantly in the fifth
grade level according to the sixth grade and the seventh grade and that they differ significantly in the 7th grade
level according to the 8th grade (p<0,05).

Research Findings on Tinkercad Usage Frequency of Students

Descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the approximate frequency of Tinkercad usage of students in
computer lessons or during course training and outside of computer
lesson or course training.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

31
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

Figure 9.Students' Tinkercad Usage Frequency

When Figure 9 is examined, it was determined that 66% of the students used the Tinkercad "1-3 times a week"
during the computer lesson or during the course training, and 41% of the students used the Tinkercad "1-3 times
a week" outside the computer lesson or course training. About 40% (N=257) of the students who participated in
the study responded to the cause of Tinkercad use frequency. When the answers given are examined, during
training:
 Students who never used Tinkercad stated that they did not prefer to use Tinkercad in the education
process because it was "unremarkable, uninterested, boring, incomprehensible, very difficult to learn,
he/she was dealing with other lessons, he/she was listening only to the lecturer and preferring to learn
from the book".
 Students who used Tinkercad 1-3 times a week stated that they prefer to “design and circuit, which they
are interested in.”
 It has been stated that students who used Tinkercad 3-5 times a week were interested in the program and
that they used Tinkercad because it is fun, as well as effective in their homework or tasks given to the
student.
 Students who use Tinkercad every day stated that they are interested in the program, the program is fun,
they are curious about the program, and the program improves their imagination. One student stated
that he used Tinkercad for 3D printing.
 Two of the students who used Tinkercad more than once a day stated that they used it to be more
successful, as well as for the reasons mentioned above.

When the answers given beyond the training process are examined:
 Students who have never used Tinkercad have stated that their reasons were “due to the fact that they do
not have a computer and do not find Tinkercad fun.” Instead of dealing with Tinkercad, other students
chose to play “games” on the computer, deal with “other lessons” and do their “homework”, use “other
applications” or not use them because they “don't need them”. Four of the students stated that they did
not use Tinkercad because it was “difficult” to learn.
 Students who used Tinkercad 1-3 times a week stated that they preferred Tinkercad because they “liked it
very much”, “wondered about it”, “found it fun”, and “liked it”. Some students use Tinkercad to
“improve themselves”, "repeat what they do in class” and “do their homework”. Some noted that they
only use it for reasons that “they don't have a computer,” “they can't log in from the phone,” “a parental
ban,” and “they don't need it.”
 Students who used Tinkercad 3-5 times a week stated that they used the program because they “liked it
very much” and because it was “fun.” Again, some of them stated that they used Tinkercad to do their
homework.
 The students who use Tinkercad "Everyday" and "More than once a day" beyond their education period
stated that they used Tinkercad as "very entertaining", "enjoyable", "nice program" and "easy".

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

32
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

Findings Regarding the Relationship Between Students' Tinkercad Usage Frequency and Tinkercad
Perceptions
In this context, Spearman test was used to determine the relationship between Tinkercad usage frequency and
Tinkercad perception of students.

Table 9: Findings Regarding the Relationship Between Tinkercad Usage Frequency and Tinkercad Perceptions
(TYHÖA-A)
Correlations
TYHÖA-A
Average Usage Frequency Avg.
Spearman's rho TYHÖA-A Correlation Coefficient 1,000 ,241**
Average Sig. (2-tailed) . ,000
N 583 583
Usage Frequency Correlation Coefficient ,241** 1,000
Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 .
N 583 583
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Accordingly, when Table 9 is examined, it is seen that there is a relationship (r=, 241) between the frequency of
Tinkercad use of students and their perception of Tinkercad software. This relationship is positive. However ,it
is stated that if this value is greater than 0.70, it shows a high level of relationship and if it is less than 30, it
shows a low level of relationship. Therefore, it was determined that there was a positive low correlation between
the frequency of Tinkercad use of students and their perception of Tinkercad.

Findings On Students ' Computational Thinking Skills

The reflection level of each factor in the Information Processing Thinking Scale (for Secondary School Level),
which is used to determine the computational thinking skills of students, was scored from the most positive (5) to
the most negative (1). Items scored "4" and "5" in the scale reflect positive / high skill characteristics, items "1"
and "2" reflect negative / low skill characteristics. (Güler, 2019).

Table 10: Students' Computational Thinking Skill Levels

Levels
Variable N X̄ S Low Intermediate High
F % F % F %
Creativity 3.82 0.98 90 15.4 159 27,3 334 57.3
Algorithmic 3.44 0.98 148 25.4 224 38.4 211 36.2
Thinking
Collaboration 3.74 1.08 114 19.6 155 26.5 314 53.9
Critical 583 3.51 0.98 147 25.2 206 35.3 230 39.5
Thinking
Problem 3.37 1.05 166 28.5 221 37.9 196 33.6
Solving
Total 3.56 0.66 107 18.4 315 54 161 27.6

When Table 10 is examined, the students' computational thinking skill average is X̄ = 3.56. It was determined
that the students have intermediate level computational thinking skills. When the averages of the other themes of
the scale are examined, it is seen that the highest average score is related to "creativity (X̄ = 3.82)" and
"collaboration (X̄ = 3.74)" skills. At the lowest skill level, there are "problem solving (X̄ = 3.37)" and
"algorithmic thinking (X̄ = 3.44)" skills.

Findings for Comparing Computational Thinking Skills of Students According to Their Gender
Mann Whitney U test was applied to determine whether there is a significant difference between the
computational thinking perceptions of the students according to their gender.

Table 11: Comparison of Students' Computational Thinking Skills by Gender

Average
Gender N Total Rank U Z P
Rank
Male 298 281,17 83790,00
39239,00 -1,587 ,112
Female 285 303,32 86446,00

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

33
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

* p<.05
When Table 11 is examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference (p> 0.05) between the computational
thinking skills of the students participating in the study.

Findings for Comparing Computational Thinking Skills of Students According to their Grade Levels
Kruskal Wallis H test was conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the
computational thinking skills of the students according to their grade levels.

Table 12: Computational Thinking Kruskal Wallis Test Results by Grade Levels
Grade N Average Kruskal Wallis-H P
Rank
5 17 367,76 8,050 ,045
6 272 296,72
7 286 280,14
8 8 394,69

When Table 12 is examined, it is found that there is a significant difference (p <0.05) in computational thinking
skills according to the grade levels of the students. LSD analysis from Post Hoc analysis was conducted to
determine which group favored this difference.

Table 13: Comparison of Computational Thinking Skill According to Grade Level

Average
(I) Grade (J) Grade Difference (I-J) Std. Error P
5 6 ,27266 ,16495 ,099
7 ,34033* ,16472 ,039
8 -,08316 ,28289 ,769
6 5 -,27266 ,16495 ,099
7 ,06766 ,05588 ,226
8 -,35582 ,23668 ,133
7 5 -,34033* ,16472 ,039
6 -,06766 ,05588 ,226
8 -,42349 ,23652 ,074
8 5 ,08316 ,28289 ,769
6 ,35582 ,23668 ,133
7 ,42349 ,23652 ,074

In Table 13, it was determined that the computational thinking skills of fifth grades differ significantly compared
to seventh grades.

Findings On The Relationship Between Students ' Perceptions Of Tinkercad Use And Their
Computational Thinking Skills
Spearman correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between Tinkercad usage perceptions of
students and their computational thinking skills.

Table 14: Findings Regarding the Relationship Between TYHÖA-A and Computational Thinking Skills
Correlations
TYHÖA-A Average Frequency
Average of Use
Spearman's rho TYHÖA-A Correlation Coefficient 1,000 ,405**
Average Sig. (2-tailed) . ,000
N 583 583
Computational Correlation Coefficient ,405** 1,000
Thinking TestSig. (2-tailed) ,000 .
Average N 583 583
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

When Table 14 is examined, it is seen that there is a relationship (r =, 405) between students' general perception

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

34
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

of Tinkercad software and their perceptions of computational thinking skills. Therefore, it can be said that there
is a medium-level positive relationship between students' perceptions of Tinkercad software and their
computational thinking skills.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

According to the results obtained for the students 'perception of motivation, usefulness and ease of use of
Tinkercad, it was determined that the students' perception of motivation when using Tinkercad was generally
positive. In addition, it is seen that the items for interest and appreciation in the motivational theme have the
highest average (X̄ = 3.82). This situation also affects the frequency of students' use of Tinkercad during and
beyond the computer lesson or course training (r=,241). That is to say, students who are more interested in
Tinkercad spend more time on the program than others during or outside of education. In addition, it affects the
frequency of Tinkercad usage in the homework given to the student. However, it is observed that external
reasons such as lack of computer or internet in students' homes, parental restriction, and internal reasons such as
lack of interest in Tinkercad negatively affect the frequency of Tinkercad use outside of computer or course
education. In addition, it was determined that students perceive Tinkercad as a useful and easy-to-use software in
general.

It seems that there is a moderate positive directional relationship (r=,405) between students ' perceptions of
Tinkercad software and their computational thinking skills. It was determined that students have intermediate
level (X̄ = 3.56) computational thinking skills. Looking at the averages of the other themes of the scale, it is seen
that the highest average score is related to "creativity (X̄ = 3.82)" and "collaboration (X̄ = 3.74)" skills. "Problem
solving (X̄ = 3.37)" and "algorithmic thinking (X̄ = 3.44)" skills constitute the lowest skill level.

Creativity is closely related to computer science and plays a central role in developing motivation and interest in
this field (Hershkovitz et al., 2019). Teachers' freeing students while designing can be interpreted as influencing
the development of creativity skills of students who are interested in 3D design. Miller et al. (2013) found that
adding creative thinking activities to a computer science course increased the learning of computer-related
knowledge and skills. Moreover, it is thought that the activities carried out by forming groups within the scope
of the project studies are also effective in the development of the collaboration skills of the students. However,
the reason for the low problem solving and algorithmic thinking skills of the students can be given as an example
of the students not doing enough design work with codes by using the circuit and code blocks menus. According
to Selby and Woollard (2014), the concept of algorithms is key to computational thinking. Erdem (2018) and
Sırakaya (2019) determined that programming education is effective in the development of students' problem
solving and algorithmic thinking skills. The fact that students did not do design work using Tinkercad's menus of
circuits and code blocks can be interpreted as causing students to have low skills in the lower dimensions of
computational thinking and algorithmic thinking.

Taşçı, Avcı, Yücel and Yalçınalp (2015) concluded that Tinkercad may be preferred due to its features such as
ease of use, easy accessibility and free of charge in order to facilitate students ' learning in courses with abstract
concepts such as mathematics, physics. In addition, it contributes to the development of students ' ability to
create a whole relationship with parts and design (Çetin, Berikan and Yüksel (2019). It has been determined that
this program affects spatial visualization and mental rotation skills, where students can see the shape in detail by
looking at a shape from different angles, think in 3 dimensions, and translate the new shape in the mind, which
will be formed by combining multiple shapes (Dere, 2017). However, a study emphasized that students use
Tinkercad for communication and entertainment purposes and do not realize its production potential, so activities
that allow students to produce should be prepared (Özdemir, Çetin, Çelik, Berikan and Yüksel, 2017).

When the international literature is examined, it is seen that Tinkercad has different uses in different areas.
Cherry (2016) taught students how to design three-dimensional characters through Tinkercad to be used in short
film animation. Kuo, Laiy, and Kao (2018), on the other hand, enabled students to create their own desserts by
printing out the dessert designs they designed in Tinkercad using 3D Food printers. Madar, Goldberg and Lam
(2018) aimed to combine the connection between computer science, Virtual Reality (VR) and 3D printing with
C3d.io, a special tool they developed. This tool enables students to see the designs they make in Tinkercad (such
as home design) as a prototype by transferring them to the virtual reality environment, and allows them to share
the latest developed version with their peers via the web environment. Ng (2017) used the effect of 3D CAD and
3D printing to make it easier for students to learn solid volume in mathematics class. Díaz, Hernández, Ortiz,
and Lugo (2019) introduced Tinkercad's Codebloks to students studying in different undergraduate programs in a
summer course. In the study, they stated that the students who previously thought that the codeblocks were
difficult liked the tool very much after using the tool. However, the fact that the tool is new and has a limited
scope of application (3D modeling only) causes insufficient information on its use. In their study, M. Vera, Vera,

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

35
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

Vásquez, and Panez (2018) used TinkerCad to simulate the connection of a bell, proximity or other components
such as bluetooth, led and other Arduino board and resistor to introduce how to manipulate and program
electronic components. The results obtained in the study conducted by Silva, Malebran and Pereira (2019) using
Scratch and Tinkercad to improve the programming and Arduino-based computational-electronics competencies
of a group of primary school children in Valparaiso-Chile showed that these tools can effectively improve
children's programming and computational-electronic theoretical and practical skills.

As a result, it has been found that using Tinkercad in 3D design education increases students ' motivation for the
lesson, and Tinkercad is perceived as an easy and convenient program to use. In addition, Tinkercad has a
significant impact on the development of students ' computational thinking skills.

RECOMMENDATIONS
In this study, recommendations for parents and programmers were included. Recommendations for parents stated
that some of the students were unable to use Tinkercad at home (outside of school or course) due to parents '
restrictions on internet or computer use.

For this reason, parents should do so in a way that does not interfere with their education and development while
restricting their children's use of the internet or computers. They should support their education by taking the
necessary measures to ensure that their children use the internet safely.

Suggestions for software developers: The fact that the program is not used offline makes it necessary for students
who do not have a computer or have internet problems to study only within the scope of Information
Technologies and Software course. Considering the duration of the Information Technologies and Software
course and the problems of the classroom environment, this situation prevents students from receiving an
efficient education. Therefore, the program needs to be developed so that it can work offline or on other
platforms (smartphones).

REFERENCES
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835.
Akçay, T. (2009). Perceptions of students and teachers about the use of a kid’s programming language in
computer courses. Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey.
Avila, L. & Bailey, M. (2016). A computer graphics back-to-school special. IEEE Computer Graphics and
Applications, 36(5), 95-96.
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, 48-54.
Basawapatna, A., Kyu, H., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Marshall, K. (2011, March). Recognizing
computational thinking patterns. Paper presented at the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education (SIGCSE'11), Dallas, TX, USA
Bennett, V., Koh, K., & Repenning, A. (2011, September). Computing learning acquisition? Paper presented at
the 2011 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC),
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Bers, M.U., Flannery, L., R. Kazakoff, E. & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering:
Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.
Bundy, A. (2007). Computatıonal thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical Computing, 1(2), 67-
69.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö. & Köklü, N. (2017). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of
computational thinking. Paper presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational
research association, Vancouver, Canada.
Canessa, E., Fonda, C. & Zennaro, M. (2013). Low-cost 3D printing for science, education & sustainable
development. ICTP-The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics.
Chen, G., Shen, J., B.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. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001.
Cherry, M. (2016).Design…Print…Animate. Indiana Libraries, 35(1), 13-17.
Città, G., Gentile, M., Allegra, M., Arrigo, M., Conti, D., Ottaviano, S., Reale, F., & Sciortino, M. (2019). The
effects of mental rotation on computational thinking. Computers & Education, 141, 103613.
10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103613.
Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational
thinking - a guide for teachers. Computing at School, 1-18.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

36
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

Czerkawski, B. (2013). Instructional design for computational thinking. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.),
Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference
2013 (ss. 10-17). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Çetin, E., Berikan, B. & Yüksel, A.O. (2019).3B tasarım öğrenme deneyiminin süreç değerlendirmesi ve eğitsel
çıktılarının keşfedilmesi. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 98(1), 21-49.
Dede, C., Mishra, P., & Voogt, J. (2013). Working Group 6: Advancing computational thinking in 21st century
learning. Paper presented at EDUsummIT 2013, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social
Sciences Educational Science.
Denning, P. J. (2009). The profession of IT: Beyond computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,
52(6), 28-30.
Denning, P.J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communication ACM, 60(6), 33-39.
Dere, H. E. (2017). Web tabanlı 3B tasarım uygulamalarının ortaokul öğrencilerinin uzamsal görselleştirme ve
zihinsel döndürme becerilerine etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Başkent Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri
Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Díaz, L. M., Hernández, C. M., Ortiz, A. V. & G. Lugo, L. S. (2019). Tinkercad and Codeblocks in a Summer
Course: an Attempt to Explain Observed Engagement and Enthusiasm. Paper presented at the 2019
IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B), Memphis, TN, USA. doi:
10.1109/BB48857.2019.8941211
Erdem, E. (2018). Blok Tabanlı Ortamlarda Programlama Öğretimi Sürecinde Farklı Öğretim Stratejilerinin
Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Başkent Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri
Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Giannakopoulos, A. (2012). Problem solving in academic performance: A study into critical thinking and
mathematics content as contributors to successful application of knowledge and subsequent academic
performance. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Johannesburg, South Africa.
Hemmendinger, D. (2010). A Plea for Modesty. ACM Inroads, 1(2), 4-7.
Hershkovitz, A., Sitman, R., I. Fishelson, R., P. Garaizar, A.E., & Guenaga, M. (2019) Creativity in the
acquisition of computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(5-6), 628-644, DOI:
10.1080/10494820.2019.1610451
Howland, K. & Good, J. (2015). Learning to communicate computationally with Flip: A bi-modal programming
language for game creation. Computers & Education, 80, 224-240. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.014.
Hu, C. (2011, June). Computational thinking - What it might mean and what we might do about it. Paper
presented at the 16th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science(ITiCSE
2011), Darmstadt, Germany.
Israel, M., Wherfel, Q.M., Pearson, J., Shehab, S., & Tapia, T. (2015). Empowering K–12 students with
disabilities to learn computational thinking and computer programming. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 48(1), 45–53. DOI: 10.1177/0040059915594790
Isnaini, R. & Budiyanto, C. (2018). The ınfluence of educational robotics to computational thinking skill in early
childhood education. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Computer Science and
Engineering Technology, Kudus, Indonesia.
Kafai, Y. (2016). From Computational Thinking to Computational Participation in K–12 Education.
Communications of The ACM, 59(8), 26-27. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2975594.2955114
Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). Learning Programming at the Computational
Thinking Level via Digital Game-Play. Procedia Computer Science, 9, 522–531.
10.1016/j.procs.2012.04.056.
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R.. & Özden, M. Y. (2015). Bilgisayarca düşünme beceri düzeyleri ölçeğinin (BDBD)
ortaokul düzeyine uyarlanması. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2).
Kuo, R., Laiy, W. & Kao, Y. (2018). Application of digital modeling in the elementary school digital dessert
workshop. Paper presented at the 2018 1st IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Innovation
and Invention (ICKII),
doi: 10.1109/ICKII.2018.8569201.
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., M. Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011).
Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2, 32-37. 10.1145/1929887.1929902.
Lim, D. & Kim, T. (2019). The effect of the ıntegrative education using a 3d printer on the computational
thinking ability of elementary school students . Journal of The Korean Assocaition of Information
Ecucation, 23(5), 469-480.
Lu, J., & Fletcher, G. (2009). Thinking about Computational Thinking. ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 41(1). 260-264.
10.1145/1539024.1508959.
León, J., R. González, M., Harteveld, C., & Robles, G. (2017). On the automatic assessment of computational
thinking skills: A comparison with human experts. Paper presented at the 2017 CHI Conference
Extended Abstracts, Denver, CO, USA.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

37
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – January 2021, volume 20 Issue 1

Madar, J., Goldberg, A. & Lam, K. (2018). "Hour of code" with Virtual Reality. Paper presented at the 23rd
Western Canadian Conference, New York, USA.
Miller, L.D., Soh, L. K., Chiriacescu, V., Ingraham, E., Shell, D., Ramsay, S., & Hazley, M. (2013, October).
Improving learning of computational thinking using creative thinking exercises in CS-1 computer
science courses. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference. Oklahoma, ABD.
Morelli, R., de Lanerolle, T., Lake, P., Limardo, N., Tamotsu, E., & Uche, C. (2011, March). Can
Android app inventor bring computational thinking to K-12? Paper presented at the 42nd ACM
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’11), Dallas, Texas, USA.
Ng, O. L. (2017). Exploring the use of 3D Computer-Aided Design and 3D Printing for STEAM Learning in
Mathematics. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3, 257-263. 10.1007/s40751-017-0036-x.
Özdemir, S., Çetin, E., Çelik, A., Berikan, B. & Yüksel, O. A. (2017). Furnushing new generations with
productive ıct skills to make them the maker of their own future. Journal of Education and Future, 11,
137-157.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational
Research, 82, 330-348.
Repenning, A., Basawapatna A., & Escherle, N. (2016).Computational thinking tools. Paper presented at the
2016 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), Cambridge,
UK.
Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010, March). Scalable game design and the development of a
checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. Paper presented at the 41st ACM
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE'10), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
Roscoe, J. F. & Fearn, S. (2014). Teaching computational thinking by playing games and building robots. Paper
presented at the 2014 International Conference on Interactive Technologies and Games (iTAG 2014),
Nottingham, UK.
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2014) .Refining an understanding of computational thinking. Retreived from
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/372410.
Shute, V. J., Masduki, I., & Donmez, O. (2010). Conceptual framework for modeling, assessing, and supporting
competencies within game environments.Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 8, 137-161.
Shute, V., Sun, C. & A. Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review,
22, 142-158.
Sırakaya, D. (2019). Programlama öğretiminin bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisine etkisi. Türkiye Sosyal
Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(2), 575-590.
Silva, C., S. Malebran J. & Pereira, F. (2019). Scratch and Arduino for effectively developing programming and
computing-electronic competences in primary school children. Paper presented at the 38th International
Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC), Concepcion, Chile, doi:
10.1109/SCCC49216.2019.8966401.
Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Computational thinking in high school science
classrooms. The Science Teacher, 81(5), 53-59.
Taştı, M. B., Avcı Yücel, Ü., & Yalçınalp, S. (2015). Matematik öğretmen adaylarının üç boyutlu modelleme
programı ile öğrenme nesneleri geliştirme süreçlerinin incelenmesi. International Journal of Social
Sciences and Education Research, 1(2), 411-423.
Tedre, M., & Denning, P.J. (2016, November). The long quest for computational thinking. Paper presented at the
16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, Koli, Finland.
Vera, F.M., Vera, L.L., Vásquez, J.G., & V. Panez, M. (2018). A Comparison of the Adaptive Behavior from
Kids to Adults to Learn Block Programming. Paper presented at the 13th European Conference On
Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2018), Leeds, UK.
Voskoglou, M., & Buckley, S. (2012). Problem Solving and Computational Thinking in a Learning
Environment. Egyptian Computer Science Journal, 36(4), 28-46.
Wing, J.M.(2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in Computing.
Retreived from http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2576872

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

38