A Systematic Review of Computational Thinking in Science Classrooms

Studies in Science Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rsse20
A systematic review of computational thinking in

science classrooms
Ayodele Abosede Ogegbo & Umesh Ramnarain
To cite this article: Ayodele Abosede Ogegbo & Umesh Ramnarain (2022) A systematic review
of computational thinking in science classrooms, Studies in Science Education, 58:2, 203-230,
DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2021.1963580
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1963580
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 02 Aug 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3844
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 25 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsse20
STUDIES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
2022, VOL. 58, NO. 2, 203–230
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1963580
REVIEW ARTICLE
A systematic review of computational thinking in science

classrooms
Ayodele Abosede Ogegbo and Umesh Ramnarain
Department of Science and Technology Education, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Computational thinking (CT) has been described as an essential skill Received 20 August 2020
that should be learned by everyone and can, therefore, be included Accepted 30 July 2021
in their skill set. Computational thinking uses essential principles in KEYWORDS
computer science for solving problems, understanding complex Computational thinking;
systems, and human behaviour. This way of thinking has significant science classrooms; schools;
consequences for teaching and learning science subjects at ele stem education; systematic
mentary and high school levels. In this review, we analyse and literature review
discuss the results from 23 studies and highlight the methodology,
different strategies, and assessment practices used to promote the
integration of computational thinking within science classrooms.
We also give an overview of how computational thinking is being
taught in science classrooms and describe tools available for teach
ing computational thinking in science instruction. Findings showed
the value of using modelling-based pedagogy in incorporating key
computational thinking skills within science instruction and sug
gests that educators should deploy effective technology tools to
enhance the deductive and inductive teaching of science concepts
using computational thinking framework.
Introduction
As technology becomes a core feature of our daily lives and even more pervasive in the
classroom, it is becoming evident that students must be equipped with skills that would
enable them to think critically and proffer solutions to multifaceted problems using emerging
technologies. Yet while schools may subscribe to the importance of teaching students to think
critically and solve problems, there seems to be a lack of agreement on how, when, and what
instructional tools to use in teaching these essential skills. Studies have however indicated that
one approach to teaching these skills is to teach CT (Cansu & Cansu, 2019; Hickmott et al.,
2018) since CT is acclaimed as an approach to teaching the essential 21st-century skill set that
every student requires to thrive in the changing world (Sneider et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2016).
Computational thinking was first described as a generic term referring to a set of
computational ideas that people use to represent their work through the design of
computer hardware systems, software, and computations (Papert, 1980), and later refer
enced as a process of procedural and probabilistic thinking in defining the relationship
CONTACT Ayodele Abosede Ogegbo [email protected]

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
204 A. A. OGEGBO AND U. RAMNARAIN
between a problem, its solution and data structuring (Papert, 1996). However, CT became
widely accepted following Jeannette Wing’s description of CT to include the use of basic
computing principles to solve problems, build structures and understand human beha
viour (Wing, 2006, 2008) and the thought process in formulating problems and represent
ing their solutions in a form that can be effectively carried out by an information
processing agent (Wing, J.M, 2011). Although CT was intended to be a basic skill that
complements reading, writing, and arithmetic for everyone (Wing, 2006), there is no
consensus on a formal definition of CT (Barr & Stephenson, 2011; Cansu & Cansu, 2019;
Voogt et al., 2015). However, due to the prominence being given to CT, there is a growing
global interest in defining and implementing computational thinking in classrooms.
Hence, computational thinking has been characterised in a variety of ways ranging
from a collection of computer science principles and thought processes that help for
mulate problems and their solutions to understand the natural and artificial world around
us (Aho, 2012; Mannila et al., 2014; Royal Society (The), 2012) and its relationship to the
application of the high degree of abstraction and algorithmic approach in solving
problem (García-Peñalvo et al., 2016). Moreover, studies have also suggested that CT
can be described as a problem-solving procedure involving problem design, logical
structure and evaluation of data, representation of data through abstractions, automation
of solutions using a sequence of organised steps through algorithmic reasoning, finding,
evaluating and enacting feasible solutions to create the most effective method, taking
a broad perspective and applying solutions to a wide range of problems (Barr &
Stephenson, 2011; International Society for Technology in Education and Computer
Science Educators Association; ISTE & CSTA, 2011). Later, Brennan and Resnick (2012)
outlined a computational thinking paradigm covering three key dimensions: computa
tional principles (sequences, loops, events, parallelism, conditionalities, operators and
data); computational activities (experimentation and iteration, testing and debugging,
reuse and remixing, abstracting and modularising); and computational perspectives
(expressing, linking and questioning). The United Kingdom’s Computing at School orga
nisation argued that the central and peripheral facets of computational thinking include
six separate concepts: logic, algorithms, decomposition, patterns, abstraction, and eva
luation; and five approaches to classroom work: tinkering, designing, debugging, perse
vering, and collaborating (Barefoot, 2014). Likewise, Sullivan and Heffernan (2016) argued
that computational thinking includes activities that support the practice of effective
computer programming, including problem-solving (e.g., algorithmic development, heur
istic development, organisation, planning, search), abstraction (creating new representa
tion of a problem), and design (creating models and simulations). Yadav et al. (2018)
described CT as the ways of thinking, or mental habits that computer scientists use and
that such mental habits might be useful for science and/or maths inquiry. When reviewing
the definitions in the literature, it can be implied that computational thinking is a viable
problem-solving approach which requires five basic concepts, including:
● Decomposition – This involves breaking down a complex task into smaller, and more
manageable components;
● Recognition of pattern – This involves identifying and defining trends or patterns
within a problem;
STUDIES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION 205
● Abstraction, which involves identification of particular similarities and differences

between comparable problems to work towards a solution;
● Algorithm design, which involves the development of step by step guidelines for
solving a problem and can be used again to answer similar problems; and
● Automation, which involves the use of technological tools to mechanise problem
solutions (ISTE & CSTA, 2011; Kalelioglu et al., 2016; Yadav et al., 2018).
To have a more nuanced understanding of computational thinking as it applies to the

teaching and learning of science, Weintrop et al. (2016) developed a comprehensive and
contextualised definition of CT as a set of highly interrelated and dependent practices
classified into four groups, namely data practices, modelling and simulation practices,
computational problem-solving practices, and systems thinking practices. These groups
are defined as follows:
● Data practices involve the collection, creation, manipulation, analysis, and visualisa
tion of data;
● Modelling and simulation practices include the use of computational models to
understand a concept, use of computational models to find and test solutions,
assessing, designing, and constructing computational models;
● Computational problem-solving practices entail preparing problems for computa
tional solutions, programming, choosing effective computational tools, assessing dif
ferent approaches/solutions to a problem, developing modular computational
solutions, creating computational abstractions, troubleshooting, and debugging; and
● Systems thinking refers to investigating a complex system as a whole, understanding
the relationships within a system, thinking in levels, communicating information
about a system, defining systems, and managing complexity (Weintrop et al., 2016).
While the use of computational methods, hypotheses, knowledge, and algorithms has
been at the forefront of science and engineering since the mid-20th century, the increase
in the importance of computation has revolutionised how research activities are carried
out. Consequently, the science education community has recently turned its attention to
the concept of computation and mathematics as valuable methods for characterising
physical variables and their relations. According to the National Research Council (NRC) of
the United States, computation, and mathematics “are used for a range of tasks such as
constructing simulations; statistically analysing data; and recognising, expressing, and
applying quantitative relationships. Mathematical and computational approaches enable
the prediction of the behaviour of physical systems along with the testing of such
predictions. Further to this, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) emphasise
doing authentic investigations in the classroom through a list of eight essential practices,
one of which includes the use of quality mathematical and computational thinking
practices in teaching and learning of science (Next Generation Science Standard Lead
States. (NGSS), 2013). For instance, the NGSS advocate the use of mathematical and
computational thinking for teaching middle school science to draw on students prior
experiences in K-5, and progress to include the use of digital tools and/or mathematical
representations to analyse large data sets, identify patterns, and create algorithms to
design or solve scientific and engineering problems (Next Generation Science Standard
Lead States. (NGSS), 2013).
It is advanced that many of the empirical and abstract approaches involved in the NGSS
outlined scientific practices such as asking questions, defining problems, creating and using
models (technology), planning and conducting research, gathering data, analysis, and
interpretation of data, making predictions and communicating results, using mathematical
and computational thinking, as well as providing clarifications and answers to questions are
principal features of computational thinking (Basu et al., 2013). In light of this, studies show
that the thoughtful use of computational tools and related set of skills can deepen the
learning of science content from a pedagogical perspective, as science provides a relevant
context and set of questions within which computational thinking can be applied (Wilensky
et al., 2014; Yadav et al., 2018). This suggests that ‘engaging students in scientific investiga
tion requires not only skill but also knowledge unique to each practice’ (Next Generation
Science Standard Lead States. (NGSS), 2013, p. 15). While programming is often used to
teach CT, teaching CT does not require students to automatically learn new codes or create
programs (Lye & Koh, 2014). In light of this, researchers have proposed agent-based
modelling and visual programming language learning environment called CTSiM
(Computational Thinking in Simulation and Modelling) for K-12 science students to enable
them to achieve the synergistic learning of scientific knowledge and CT practices using
learning by modelling approach (Basu et al., 2013)
Theoretical background
Existing reviews on computational thinking
Only a few review studies have been done on the use of CT in teaching and learning science in
K-12 classrooms. However, in recent years, numerous systematic reviews and meta-analysis
have been actively carried out on studies related to the computational thinking curriculum in
K-12 education, without a specific focus on school science. This includes a major analysis by
Lye and Koh (2014). They focused on teaching and learning computational thinking through
programming and found that programming languages, such as Scratch and Logo, were
popularly used as an intervention to promote the development of CT concepts for kinder
garten and middle school students while studying language and mathematics material. The
review also notes that most studies focused on the use of a constructionism-based problem-
solving learning environment with information processing, authentic problems, reflection,
and scaffolding activities as other intervention approaches that could be used to foster the
development of students’ computational thinking skills.
They also report that teaching computational thinking through programming exposes
students to the use of coding exercises and computer science concepts in solving
problems and learning subject content. Also, review studies by Cutumisu et al. (2019)
and Tang et al. (2020) which looked at computational thinking assessment coded sub-sets
of empirical research that examined the methods used to measure the different dimen
sions of computational thinking at all levels of education. Tang et al. (2020) found that
most CT activities were related to programming and/or CS subjects because of the current
reliance on programming concepts as major constructs of CT that require the use of
computers in solving problems. It is used more commonly in elementary and middle
schools than in higher grades, and more in formal educational settings than informal
settings. In another pertinent study, Kalelioglu et al. (2016) provided a framework about
the notion, scope, and elements of CT. Studies were coded according to theoretical
foundations and final analysis showed the use of game-based learning, constructionism,
the National Research Council’s (NRC) framework, Positive Technological Development
(PTD), STEM and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development as theories that could be used
as roadmaps for teaching, studying, and applying CT principles in many disciplines. The
most recent review report on the incorporation of computational thinking into K-12 STEM
education by Lee et al. (2020) offers an overview of the literature on what CT looks like
from the instructional perspective of STEM education, CT incorporation, complexities of
incorporating CT, and new ways of evaluating CT practices to closely connect CT with
science practices. However, none of these reviews provides a detailed analysis of how
computational thinking has been used in the teaching and learning of science, which is
the focus of this study. Therefore, in adopting an exploratory approach, this study reviews
empirical evidence of the use of computational thinking in teaching and learning science
in elementary and secondary education.
Research questions
Despite the educational benefits of embedding computational thinking in the classroom
as a pedagogical strategy, many science educators do not seem to understand how to
adopt CT practices to support students’ sensemaking discussion and active engagement
in scientific practices (Waterman et al., 2020; Wilkerson & Fenwick, 2017). This is evi
denced, for example, by the fact that many science educators still teach science as a body
of content to be learned and engage learning in rote procedures to confirm theory only or
mostly (Y. Li & Schoenfeld, 2019; Wilkerson & Fenwick, 2017). This tends to limit the
conceptual process in which a learner is supposed to actively engage with the use of
mathematical and computational thinking in explaining the natural or designed world,
wonder about it, and then develop, test, and refine ideas (Next Generation Science
Standard Lead States. (NGSS), 2013). With the recent developments in recognising the
importance of CT in science education, there is a renewed interest in how CT can support
conceptual understanding in science instruction and scientific practices. The purpose of
this study is, therefore, to systematically review and synthesise published empirical
studies focusing on the incorporation of CT in science classrooms. It is envisaged that
this review will inform on how educators can use CT to enhance the teaching and learning
of science. To keep this review to a viable scale, we have decided to restrict our study to
papers dealing with CT in science classrooms at the elementary and secondary school
levels. The decision to focus on school science, beginning at the elementary school and
extending to the secondary school, was motivated by the claim that interest in science
education is often assumed to be sparked and sustained at an early age (Sanford & Sokol,
2017). Hence, the following research questions are addressed in this study:
(1) What research methodologies, subject areas, and education level dominate com
putational thinking studies in the science classroom context?
(2) How has computational thinking been incorporated into the teaching and learning
of school science?
(3) What are the pedagogical approaches used in incorporating CT in science

classrooms?
(4) What tools have been used to integrate CT in science classrooms?
(5) How are CT skills assessed in science classrooms?
Methodology
Search strategy
For this systematic review, a search strategy was developed to identify relevant literature
on computational thinking in science education. The search strategy was tailored using
keywords that included ‘computational thinking’, ‘science classrooms’ AND ‘science edu
cation’ in searching the Ebscohost, Eric, and Scopus databases. The initial search without
data parameters resulted in 563 articles. However, a total of 229 documents consisting of
conference papers, conference reviews, dissertations, book chapters, editorials, maga
zines, reports, lecture notes, and errata were excluded from the initial search. Hence, 334
documents containing ‘peer-reviewed’ academic journal articles and review articles
documented in English and published between 2010 to 31 May 2020, emerged from
these criteria.
Selection Criteria
The selection criteria were based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (Moher et al., 2009). The PRISMA statement
consists of 27 items evidence-based checklist and a four-phase flow diagram that can
be used for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. PRISMA is not intended to
be a quality assessment tool, but its purpose is to ensure consistency and accountability
when documenting the systematic analysis of literature. The search mainly focused on
mapping existing literature and empirical studies on computational thinking in the field of
STEM education. The search was then narrowed down to science teaching in K-12 class
rooms. Papers reviewed in this study were selected based on the following inclusion
criteria:
● Studies related to the use of CT in teaching and learning science subjects that
includes physics, chemistry, and life sciences, in K-12 schools
● Studies that describe CT tools used in science education for K-12 context
● Studies describing the evaluation of CT methods and strategies in science classroom
scenarios
● Studies published in referenced or peer-reviewed articles and documented in the
English language only
● Published between January 2010 and May 2020
Exclusion criteria included studies:
● That was in book chapter format, conferences, and grey literature (opinion pieces,
technical reports, blogs, presentations, etc.);
● Not focused on K-12 education and science subjects;

● Not published in reputable (i.e. peer-reviewed) sources
● Not published in English; and
● Studies that mention the term ‘computational thinking’ but are actually about use of
technology in science teaching or other topics (and the term appears only in the
references section).
The selected computational thinking in science classroom articles reviewed in this study
are provided in Table 1.
Quality assessment
To maintain the quality of the review, we iteratively reduced the initial sample of studies
by removing duplicate records found from the three databases. The filtration and removal
of duplicate records yielded a reduced sample of 71 articles from the study. Furthermore,
the titles of articles were then screened, resulting in the immediate rejection of 119 papers
that were out of scope and not relevant to the study. A simultaneous title and abstract
review were later conducted to check deeply for the analysis and purification of articles to
ensure the quality and relevance of academic literature included in the review process.
A careful evaluation of each research paper was carried out at this later stage, after which
121 papers were excluded. After applying these steps for eligibility purposes, the final
systematic review included 23 articles in the data extraction phase, which were explicitly
linked to the learning of computational thinking in science classrooms. The process is
summarised using the PRISMA framework in Figure 1.
Data extraction/analysis
The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre)
in London suggested several guidelines containing detailed sets of questions for coding
at keywording and data-extraction for mapping and synthesis of primary research; as well
as guidelines for the reporting of primary research (which then assists with coding for
systematic reviews). In this review, the selected studies were inserted into an excel
spreadsheet that was constructed based on the parameters defined for inclusion and
exclusion. The required information was later extracted following the research questions
raised, using the Guidelines for the Extraction of Information and Quality Evaluation of
Primary Studies in Educational Research (Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and
Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI Center), 2003). The guideline also includes how the research
method used to connect basic CT elements with relevant evidence provided by each
study is judged. Although the selected papers included some quantitative, mixed-
method, and review research methodology, the majority of the studies examined offered
qualitative explanations for their results.
The different types of research methodology employed in the reviewed papers provide
an opportunity to identify teaching strategies that are peculiar to the implementation of
computational thinking in science classrooms. These strategies assess the efficacy of some
of the approaches used in integrating CT in science classrooms based on quantitative
studies and provide rich explanations of effective approaches that are insightful for both
Table 1. List of the 23 selected articles reviewed in this study.
210
No. Authors and year Title Context Subject learning area

1. Tucker-Raymond “I Broke Your Game!”: Critique among Middle Schoolers Designing Computer Games about Climate Change Middle school Climate science
et al. (2019)-
2. Peel and Algorithms, Abstractions, and Iterations: Teaching Computational Thinking Using Protein Synthesis Translation. High school Biology
Friedrichsen
(2018)
3. Kaya et al. (2019) Animatronic Lions, and Tigers, and Bears, Oh My! How computational thinking and 3D printing can help students Elementary Elementary science
create an animatronic zoo. school
4. Hutchins et al. C2STEM: A System for Synergistic Learning of Physics and Computational Thinking High school Physics
(2020).
5. Aksit and Wiebe Exploring Force and Motion Concepts in Middle Grades Using Computational Modelling: a Classroom Intervention Middle school Physics
(2020) Study
6. Luo et al. (2020). Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science Elementary Life science
school
A. A. OGEGBO AND U. RAMNARAIN
7. Basu et al. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning Middle school Physics and Biology
8. Waterman et al. Integrating Computational Thinking into Elementary Science Curriculum: An Examination of Activities That Support Elementary Biology
(2020) Students’ Computational Thinking in the Service of Disciplinary Learning school
9. Sengupta et al. Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical Middle school Physics and Biology
(2013). framework
10. Irgens et al. (2020). Modelling and Measuring High School Students’ Computational Thinking Practices in Science High school Biology
11. Dickes et al. (2020) Sociomathematical Norms for Integrating Coding and Modelling with Elementary Science: A Dialogical Approach Elementary Elementary science
school (kinematics and
Ecology)
12. Garneli and The effects of video game making within science content on student computational thinking skills and performance Middle school Physics
Chorianopoulos
(2019)
13. Basawapatna (2016) Alexander Meets Michotte: A Simulation Tool Based on Pattern Programming and Phenomenology. Middle school Life science
14. Yin et al. (2020) Improving and Assessing Computational Thinking in Maker Activities: the Integration with Physics and Engineering High school Physics and Engineering
Learning.
15. Lui et al. (2020) Communicating computational concepts and practices within high school students’ portfolios of making electronic High school Life science
textiles.
16. Boulden et al. (2018). Computational Thinking Integration into Middle Grades Science Classrooms: Strategies for Meeting the Challenges. Middle school Life sciences
17. Yadav et al. (2018) Computational Thinking for All: Pedagogical Approaches to Embedding 21st Century Problem Solving in K-12 K- 12 STEAM
Classrooms. classrooms
18. Clark and Sengupta Reconceptualising games for integrating computational thinking and science as practice: collaborative agent-based Middle school STEM disciplines
(2020). disciplinarily integrated games
19. Sullivan and Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines P − 12 Physics and Biology
Heffernan (2016)
(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
No. Authors and year Title Context Subject learning area
20. Lee et al. (2020). Computational Thinking from a Disciplinary Perspective: Integrating Computational Thinking in K-12 Science, K − 12 STEM
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Classroom
21. Weintrop et al. Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms High school Science and Mathematics
(2016)
22. Martin and Jacobsen Coding and Computational Thinking in Maths and Science. Middle and Science and Maths
(2018) High school
23. Lee et al. (2014) Integrating computational thinking across the K-8 curriculum Middle school Life science
STUDIES IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
211
Figure 1. Study selection chart (Adapted from Moher et al.’s (2009) PRISMA Framework.
theory and practice. This form of analysis later formed the basis for drawing conclusions
and recommendations from all the studies described, based on evidence. The texts from
the selected studies were classified and coded according to content review procedures
(Fraenkel et al., 2015). The coding framework was developed based on instruments that
have been used in five separate studies. This method was used in conjunction with the
four research questions to extract detailed information from each selected article system
atically. All the data was collected and analysed with the use of an Excel spreadsheet.
A thorough description of the trends emerging from the reviewed studies to support the
four research questions was given, along with examples for each.
Results
From the systematic analysis of educational research conducted between 2010 and 2020
on the incorporation of computational thinking as explicitly linked to the teaching and
learning of science from elementary to high school in this paper, only 19 empirical studies
and four review papers were found, and these provided the basis for answering the study
questions.
Research Question 1: What methodologies, subject areas, and education level dom
inate computational thinking studies in the science classroom context?
Research methodologies
Based on the research classification by Creswell and Creswell (2017) and Snyder (2019), an
analysis of the type of research method used in the reviewed studies is shown in Figure 2.
The most common research method used was found to be a qualitative research design in
11 studies. This approach emphasised the use of unstructured and non-numerical infor
mation to gather an in-depth understanding of how CT is incorporated in science class
rooms, and this forms 47.8% of the entire reviewed studies. The next most popular
approach was mixed-method research design with six studies, which involves the combi
nation of quantitative and qualitative research within the same project to facilitate a full
understanding of a research problem (Bryman, 2008). This was followed by a systematic
review which involved the use of explicit methods to identify existing studies that
addressed formulated research questions. This approach had a total number of four
studies. Lastly, three studies adopted a quantitative research design which focuses on
explaining and interpreting the CT integration in the science classroom using numerical
data.
Data collection method

The data collection methods included the following:
Figure 2. Article distribution based on the methodology.

(1) Observation, which involved the systematic processing of information through

unobtrusive visual means without questioning or communicating with participants
(Nieuwenhuis, 2014). This included the use of field notes, video, and audio
recordings;
(2) Interviews, which is defined as a two-way conversation between the interviewer
and individual or group of participants in discussing their perceptions of the world
in which they live, and to convey how they perceive a subject of mutual interest
(Cohen et al., 2018; Nieuwenhuis, 2014);
(3) Survey, involving the use of open and/or closed-ended questions to assess infor
mation from respondents (Maree & Pietersen, 2014);
(4) Portfolios, which is a tool used to collect student works like artefacts, drawings,
projects, task representation, assignment, reflection statements, activity sheets,
and other academic work products that provide evidence of student learning or
programme improvement;
(5) Tests, these involve achievement, aptitude, attitude, personality, performance,
intelligence, and social adjustment assessment tools designed to measure spe
cific knowledge, skills, behaviour, or cognitive activity that participants take
away from their training or classroom instruction experience (Cohen et al.,
2018); and
(6) Literature review, involving the systematic collection and synthesis of documents
and texts from previous research findings to demonstrate evidence at a meta-level
and to identify areas where more research is needed. This is a critical component
for the creation of theoretical frameworks and conceptual models (Snyder, 2019).
The results indicated that seven of the reviewed studies used tests as their instrument,
five used information from literature reviews, 11 used interviews, nine employed observa
tion, ten used portfolios while survey was used in three studies. These figures are
illustrated in Table 2.
Subject area
The 23 papers included in our analysis spanned across a range of science subjects with
nine in Biology/Life Sciences, one in Climate Science, four in Elementary Science, seven in
Physics, and four in STEM subjects which generally focused on science without a specific
subject/content area as shown in Figure 3.
Table 2. Distribution of Data Collection Methods.

Method Frequency
Tests 7
Literature review 5
Interviews 11
Observation 9
Student Portfolios 10
Survey 3
Figure 3. Article distribution based on subject areas.
Education level
In terms of school type, four studies took place in elementary school, ten in middle school,
six in high school, and three in what was termed K − 12 classroom spanning from
Kindergarten to Grade 12 as indicated in Figure 4.
Research Question 2: How has computational thinking been incorporated into the teaching
and learning of school science?
The incorporation of CT into science education is most prevalent in recent years due to its
increasing importance as an essential problem-solving approach, and correspondingly
Figure 4. Article distribution based on the school level.

attempts have been made by researchers to elucidate what CT integration in science

classrooms entails (Waterman et al., 2020; Weintrop et al., 2016). One approach that has
been employed to achieve this objective is the proposed use of abstraction and decom
position as important CT concepts required for solving problem, thus stimulating pro
cesses that permeate the pedagogy of science (Lu & Fletcher, 2009; Yadav et al., 2014). In
addressing this research question, the researchers started by exploring the different CT
elements measured in the reviewed studies using identified CT constructs based on
Brennan and Resnick (2012), ISTE & CSTA (2011), Weintrop et al. (2016) and Yadav et al.,
(2014). The common constructs that emerged were further thematically classified accord
ing to Brennan and Resnick (2012) classification of CT structures which tended to con
stitute advanced dimensions of CT as shown in Table 3 and included:
Table 3. Summary of constructs used in incorporating CT

in science teaching.
Computational Thinking Constructs Frequency
Computational Concepts 1
Branching 7
Conditionals 3
Data 3
Events 7
Loop 3
Operators 6
Parallelism 1
Random values 1
Repetition 3
Sequences 5
Variable
Computational Practices 10
Abstractions 7
Algorithm thinking 1
Automation, 2
Computational problem-solving practices 1
Coordination & synchronisation 6
Data practices 8
Debugging 6
Decomposition 1
Defining approximations 1
Experimentation 1
Inventing measures 2
Iteration/iterative design 4
Refinement 1
Revising 1
Logical thinking 1
Modelling and simulation practices 1
Synchronisation 1
Pattern generalization/recognition 5
Place-measure-point command 1
System thinking practices 2
Troubleshooting 1
User interactivity 1
Computational Perspectives 1
Collaborating 1
Connecting 3
Dealing with practical situations 1
Expressing
(1) Computational concepts include fundamental ideas and/or mental representations

that are used to write programs which help us understand the natural world.
(2) Computational practices include the use of various design methods, construction
procedures, and techniques to create interactive content that fosters the teaching
and learning of science.
(3) Computational perspectives include changes in the dispositions and understand
ings of participants about themselves, views on their participation in CT, their
relationships with others, and the technological world around them.
From the analysis of the findings, we found that activities that depict conditionals,
loops, parallelism, and variables were the top four concepts used to implement CT in
science classrooms; while CT practices such as abstraction, algorithm thinking, data
practices, debugging, decomposition, iterative design, and pattern recognition were
commonly used in the reviewed studies. Nonetheless, the findings revealed that the
integration of CT dispositions and perspectives in science classrooms. The study went
further to explain how the various CT constructs were used to enhance the teaching and
learning of science in K-12 classrooms. For example, Aksit and Wiebe (2020) conducted
a study that explored the integration of CT concepts and practices in the context of
a simulation-based model building through a block-based programming environment in
a middle school science classroom. The students engaged in hands-on activities that
encouraged them to construct, modify and experiment with a model of force and motion
by simulating a car’s motion on a frictionless road with a given force and mass of the car.
The students were subsequently provided with the sprite (i.e., the car) and the stage (i.e.,
the road), and they were asked to develop an algorithm and construct the script for the
model. The researchers claimed that students learned about common CT practices such as
abstraction and algorithms as well as fundamental concepts in computer programming
such as variables, conditionals, and loops using the Scratch environment to develop their
practical and conceptual understanding of force and motion.
Sengupta et al. (2013) also describe a study on the integration of CT in K-12 science
education in which they explained how engaging students in the basic practical details of
computational representational practices such as abstractions, generalisation of patterns,
repeated loops, troubleshooting or debugging and iterative refining of models become
central to the development of students CT skills, as well as the way students learn, think
and practice science. Overall, across the reviewed studies, the findings indicate that
central to the development of students CT, students need to be exposed to the ideas of
abstraction, modelling, and automation, while offering more learning outcomes for
specific subject areas.
Research Question 3: What are the pedagogical strategies used in incorporating CT in science
classrooms?
Integrating computational thinking in any discipline requires the use of a wide range of
teaching strategies that can enhance students’ acquisition of critical skills needed for the
21st century. The analysis of reviewed studies reported in this section reveals the use of
strategies such as inquiry-based learning, design-based learning, problem-based learning,
project-based learning, modelling-based learning and game-based learning as pedagogical
Table 4. Categories of strategies used in integrating CT in science classrooms.

Approaches Definition Frequency
Design-based It is a form of inquiry/project learning which involves the integration of design 5
learning thinking/activities, process, and projects/games into the classroom to foster
students’ creativity, problem-solving skills, and engagement in real-world, cross-
curricular tasks (Scheltenaar et al., 2015).
Game-based Game-based learning is defined as the implementation of game elements such as core 4
learning mechanics, challenges, and goals into real-life settings to enhance learning (M.C. Li
& Tsai, 2013).
Inquiry-based Inquiry-based learning is a form of active learning that involves a process of 4
learning investigation, problem formulation and solving, as well as the construction of
knowledge for better understanding (Pedaste et al., 2015).
Modelling based Modelling based learning refers to learning from models, learning with models, and 7
learning learning by modelling (Spector, 2009). It involves the use of instructions to support
the development and evolution of learners’ mental models as representations of
physical phenomena and integrated knowledge that includes components of
a dynamic system and their interactions (Louca & Zacharia, 2012).
Project-based Project-based learning (PBL) is a model that organises learning around the creation of 4
learning presentations, projects and/or products involving complex tasks, based on
challenging questions or problems, that involve students in design, problem-
solving, decision making, or investigative activities. PBL allows students to work
relatively autonomously over extended periods and culminates in realistic products
or presentations (Kokotsaki et al., 2016).
Problem-based Problem-based learning is an approach in which students work in groups to learn 2
learning about a subject, concept, and/or principles using open-ended or complex real-
world problems (McGuinness, 2011).
approaches used in incorporating CT in science classrooms. Table 4 provides a summary of

the pedagogical approaches reported in the examined studies.
The results from the reviewed studies showed that there was reasonable evidence of
student-centred pedagogies used in integrating CT in science classroom contexts. For
example, Boulden et al. (2018) described a research project designed to infuse CT con
cepts and practices directly into middle school science classrooms through a game-based
learning environment. The game required students to immerse themselves in a 3-D world
using a block-based programming language interface where they played the role of
a computer scientist. The computer scientist was charged with applying higher cognitive
processes like abstraction and algorithmic thinking to solve programming challenges that
enabled the protagonist to save an underwater research station that has been taken over
by a nemesis in a life sciences class. Another study conducted by Kaya et al. (2019) used
the 5E instructional model as an inquiry-based learning approach encompassing the
phases of engaging, exploring, explaining, elaborating, and evaluating to teach CT with
robotics to elementary students. The results reveal that the 5E instructional model
encouraged students’ personalised learning as they developed a better understanding
and recognition of the connection between CT concepts, practices, and personal life at
the end of the intervention. A further study used ViMAP (a visual programming language)
as a model-based learning approach to support students’ creation of agent-based models
through scaffolded activities that enhanced their conceptual understanding of motion as
a process of continuous change (Dickes et al., 2020). The findings from the 23 reviewed
studies also suggested that design-based learning, problem-based learning, and project-
based learning were used as a guided inquiry process to incorporate CT in some class
room context (Basawapatna, 2016; Tucker-Raymond et al., 2019).
Moreover, it was found that some of the reviewed studies utilised multiple pedagogical
strategies to maximise the incorporation of CT in their science classroom settings. For
instance, Basu et al. (2017) used a design-based and modelling-based learning approach
to scaffold students’ ability to construct, enact, and envision their computational models
for a given science phenomenon in a CTSim learning environment. The findings sug
gested that the sequencing of activities allowed students to tackle modelling and reason
ing with a single agent in the first lesson and then build more complex computational
models with multiple agents in the second lesson. Furthermore, students’ pre- to post-test
gains were found to be statistically significant due to the combined effect of multiple
pedagogical strategies employed in the learning environment. Similarly, a study con
ducted by Hutchins et al. (2020) utilised a modelling-based and problem-based learning
approach to synergise the learning of high school physics and computational thinking in
a collaborative, computational STEM (C2STEM) learning environment. The authors found
that students who worked in the C2STEM learning environment used a step-by-step
model-building and problem-solving approach to develop a better understanding of
concepts and practices of physics and CT than students who learned through
a traditional curriculum.
Research Question 4: What kind of tools have been used in integrating CT into science
classrooms?
Many tools have been developed and/or used for teaching CT in various classroom
contexts. From the collection of studies examined in this literature, 12 different software
tools were found to be used in the introduction of CT concepts and activities in science
classrooms. These tools are classified according to four generic categories, namely block-
based modelling, agent-based modelling, data processing software, and MakerSpace, as
shown in Table 4.
● Block-based modelling tools are programming tools that use a graphical interface of
interlocking blocks to integrate the learning of CT concepts and coding into subjects.
These include Scratch, Blockly, Snap, etc.
● Agent-based modelling tools are techniques used to invoke actions and interactions
of agents (entity, notion or software abstraction similar to the well-known program
ming specifications such as objects, methods, procedures, and functions) in a shared
environment to determine the design, performance, behaviour, and properties of
a system as a whole. These are used to incorporate CT concepts into subjects and
include CTSim, ViMAP, Netlogo, Star Logo, StarLogo Nova, a simulation creation tool
kit and C2STEM.
● Data processing tools are scientific instruments for gathering, creating, manipulat
ing, arranging, evaluating, displaying, visualising, and interpreting data sets.
Examples found in the reviewed studies include the application of iSENSE and
spreadsheet software.
MakerSpace is a resource developed for informal environments within a school, library, or

separate public/private facility dedicated to designing, studying, exploring, and sharing
projects that do not require high technologies. Examples of MakerSpace projects/
Table 5. Summary of tools used in integrating

CT.
Teaching tools Frequency
Block-based 1
Blockly 6
Scratch 1
Snap
Agent-based 1
C2STEM 2
CTSim 1
Simulation creation tool kit 1
Starlogo 1
ViMAP
Data Processing 1
iSENSE 2
Spreadsheet
Makerspace 2
activities include coding, robotics/robot construction, electronics/Arduino, 3D printing,

e-textiles, sewing, learning circuits and electricity with paper circuits, etc.
Table 5 provides a summary of tools used in integrating CT.
In the review, six studies utilised the Scratch programming framework as a block-based
modelling tool to incorporate CT in science lessons. These include Aksit and Wiebe (2020),
Boulden et al. (2018), Garneli and Chorianopoulos (2019), Martin and Jacobsen (2018),
Peel and Friedrichsen (2018), and Tucker-Raymond et al. (2019). These studies have
primarily centred on using Scratch programming to construct games, create simulation-
based models, and learning experiences that help students understand science concepts
while they interact with other aspects of CT concepts and practices. For example, Tucker-
Raymond et al. (2019) reported a study on integrating computer science in science
classrooms where students used Scratch as a graphical drag and drop programming
language to build games about climate systems and climate change. The findings indicate
that using the Scratch programming environment supports students’ learning of several
dimensions of computational thinking such as modelling, troubleshooting, designing
user interfaces, and offering sophistication in game design communities with solutions.
This is further reinforced by results from another intervention study in a middle school
science classroom, which indicated that involving students in block-based programming
such as Scratch, offered affordances in building models for simulation-based activities and
generative dimensions. This was done to develop basic CT practices such as abstraction
and algorithms, as well as fundamental concepts in computing such as conditionals,
variables, and loops while improving students conceptual understanding on force and
motion (Aksit & Wiebe, 2020).
From the analysis, some studies use more than one type of tool to teach CT concepts.
For instance, Kaya et al. (2019) focused on an eight-week post-school intervention
provided to elementary students in which they were taught CT concepts and activities
such as algorithms, abstraction, pattern recognition, debugging, decomposition and
iterative design. The intervention also included the participation and collaboration of
students in hands-on artistic engineering activities using robotics with SNAP software (a
block-based programming language similar to Scratch) and the development of an
animatronics zoo project with MakerSpace tools. They found that participation in the
project offered opportunities for the students to learn basic CT skills while teaching them
animal habitats and engineering. This also stimulated the creative imagination of students
as they learned about the various animal environments and diets. The use of MakerSpace,
spreadsheets, and agent-based models such as CTSim (computational thought in simula
tion and modelling) were also identified as another category of tools recognised from the
examined studies. Sengupta et al. (2013) discussed a project in which middle school
students were introduced to programming constructs during a science lesson using
computational thinking in simulation and modelling (an agent-based computation
model). They claimed that the CTSim learning environment is an effective tool in the
physics and ecology domain for learning and modelling aggregate level and emerging
phenomena.
Research Question 5: How are CT skills assessed in science classrooms?
Research emphasises the crucial role of assessment in effectively incorporating/intro
ducing CT into K-12 classrooms (Grover & Pea, 2013). Given the importance of CT as
a required competency that supports the effective teaching and learning of 21st century
skills and science education (García-Peñalvo et al., 2016; Wing, 2006; Yin et al., 2020), the
integration of computational thinking in classroom activities, such as assessment, is
believed to provide opportunities for students to grow and learn. In light of this, the
study also sought to understand ways that CT has been assessed in the science classroom.
However, research into the assessment of CT in science classrooms as noted in the
examined studies revealed that there was a partial overlap of assessments used for
teaching and research which leads to the conflation of assessments used for teaching
CT and assessment used for research (data collection purposes). The assessment techni
ques used for teaching CT in the examined studies include:
● Achievement tests designed to determine if students have met specific learning

goals in terms of acquired knowledge and skills. Achievement tests may be taken
before, during, or after a learning experience. This includes the use of diagnostic
assessment, standardised tests, multiple-choice questions, short answer questions,
formative assessment technique like pop quizzes, classroom critiques and anecdotal
notes which are used to guide instructions.
● Surveys/questionnaires
● Interviews which includes group discussion, informal conversations,
● Observation as a formative assessment technique that provides the opportunity to
assess and document evidence of students learning. It provides insights and under
standing of activity or situation being evaluated
● Portfolio assessment as a collection of projects and related tasks used to document
what a student has learned (knowledge and skills). This includes the collection of
drawings, projects, artefacts, reflective statements, written and other related tasks.
These portfolios were mostly used for the summative assessments of students at the
end of the intervention programme. Table 6 sets out the assessment techniques.
The data illustrated in Table 6 show that portfolios (n = 13), interviews (n = 12), and
achievement test (n = 11) are the most commonly used techniques for assessing the
incorporation and development of CT skills in the examined studies (e.g., Basu et al., 2016;
Luo et al., 2020; Tucker-Raymond et al., 2019). For instance, Lui et al. (2020) used portfolios
Table 6. Distribution of assessment techniques.

Assessment Frequency
Achievement test 11
Surveys/questionnaires 4
Interviews 12
Observations 7
Portfolio assessment 13
to assess how high school students communicated their computational thinking experi
ences. They found that the portfolios contained media, videos, texts, and images relating
to students’ reports on computational concepts like events, sequences, loops, condi
tionals, data, operators, polarity, connection types, and current flow. The portfolios also
contained practices such as debugging and troubleshooting, iterating and devising, as
well as testing and revision. Other techniques used for assessing the development of CT
skills as found in the studies include observations (n = 7) and surveys (n = 4. For example,
Peel and Friedrichsen (2018) and Yin et al. (2020) developed a self-report survey to
measure high school students’ CT dispositions and experiences with using CT skills. It
was also noted that some of the studies utilised multiple assessment approaches to
evaluate students’ understanding of computational thinking concepts and practices in
science classrooms. For instance, Aksit and Wiebe (2020) used students’ responses to
reflective statement questions, interviews, and multiple-choice assessments in the form of
pre/post achievement tests to assess the CT skills of learners and conceptual under
standing of force and motion concepts. From the pre/post achievement test, they
found that engaging students in computational modelling intervention substantially
improved their conceptual understanding of force and motion concepts. Although no
substantial learning gains with a major impact on students’ CT abilities were identified in
the study due to participation in the computational modelling intervention, the research
ers argue that students can achieve higher levels of CT ability if computationally rich
activities are specifically incorporated into science instructions. In addition to the pre/
post-test results used in the study, students’ responses to a written reflective statement as
well as their responses to the interview questions on what they learned during the
computational modelling activities, offered useful insight into students’ improved con
ceptual understanding of force and motion concepts. The interview responses also
showed that some students shared the intention to spend more time using the Scratch
programming framework to learn computational concepts.
Discussion
The first objective of this study was to identify the different constructs being used to
integrate computational thinking into science classrooms. The various constructs identi
fied were explored based on existing operational frameworks (Brennan & Resnick, 2012;
ISTE & CSTA, 2011; Weintrop et al., 2016; Yadav et al., 2014) and later collated into three
components: concepts, practices, and perspectives, using Brennan and Resnick (2012)
framework. Concepts such as conditionals, loop, and parallelism, as well as practices such
as abstraction, algorithmic thinking, debugging, data practices, decomposition, and
pattern recognition were commonly identified as major constructs used in incorporating

CT into the teaching and learning of science as identified by research question 1. These
constructs are foundational to the development and application of students’ CT skills in
addressing scientific problems. The large number of studies that utilised abstraction as
a CT component in the reviewed studies show that abstraction is a key practice that is
closely connected to the effective teaching of science for conceptual understanding.
Another main research question that this study answered was to investigate the
various pedagogical approaches that are used to integrate CT into school science.
Emphasis on these teaching techniques was necessary to understand how the learning
of preferred CT concepts and activities in science classrooms was improved by educators.
In this review, modelling-based learning formed a large percentage of the pedagogical
strategies used in the studies (30.4%), followed by design-based learning (21.7%), pro
blem-based learning (8.7%) as well as game-based learning, inquiry-based learning and
project-based learning (17.4%) respectively. The use of modelling-based learning as
a pedagogical strategy is possibly due to its acknowledgement and inclusion in the
United States NGSS as an important practice for enhancing students’ understanding of
scientific processes (Next Generation Science Standard Lead States. (NGSS), 2013).
Nevertheless, these results show how different pedagogical strategies have been used
to incorporate CT into science classrooms, supporting the findings of Hsu et al. (2018) who
identified project-based learning, problem-based learning, game-based learning as the
most widely used teaching methods in their review literature on how to learn and teach
computational thinking. The use of project-based learning in computational thinking is
possibly due to the popularisation of computer technology, which gave schools more
opportunities to design and establish CT courses (Hsu et al., 2018). The researchers claim
that various learning strategies were adopted in CT activities in the period 2014–2017,
indicating that CT ability gained more recognition as educators and researchers set out to
implement various learning strategies to help students enhance their learning output
through CT activities. This is well supported by studies highlighting the cultivation of the
problem-solving capacity of students through problem-based learning (PBL), in which
students practise computational thinking through completing team projects (Liu et al.,
2017). Moreover, the use of model-based learning strategies also emphasises the devel
opment of student problem-solving skills through problem-based and project-based
learning (Liu et al., 2017).
With regards to the types of tools used to teach computational thinking, eight out of
the 23 studies employed block-based programming tools such Scratch, SNAP and Blockly
apps. Seven studies used agent-based modelling tools including Netlogo, ViMAP, CTSim,
C2STEM, simulation creation tool kit, and StarLogo. Two of the studies employed data
processing tools such as spreadsheet and iSENSE; while two other studies used
MakerSpace components like e-textiles, LilYPad, Arduino microcontrollers, LEDs, sensors
and switches for integrating CT in science classrooms. Analysis of the studies reviewed
reveal that the kind of tools accessible for teaching CT offers a foundation on which the
pedagogical strategies for implementing CT can be applied in science classrooms. For
example, Scratch is a programming language (open source software) that enables users to
think creatively, reason actively, and work collaboratively by building their own inter
active stories, games, and animations (Lockwood & Mooney, 2017). This implies that the
use of the Scratch programming environment appears to promote self-paced learning
through students’ engagement in project-based, design-based, modelling-based, and

game-based learning activities.
The strategies and tools used in assessing of computational thinking in this study
shows that 13 of the reviewed studies employed portfolio assessment, 12 used interviews,
11 used achievement tests, seven used observations, and four used surveys/question
naires as assessment instruments for measuring students’ CT skills and progress within the
context of the science classroom. These findings are consistent with Tang et al. (2020),
who in their systematic review of empirical studies on assessing computational thinking
reported portfolio assessment as the most used assessment tool in the reviewed studies.
The need to use portfolio assessment in evaluating CT is emphasised as it captures the
holistic view of students’ understanding of computational concepts, engagement, and
learning with computational practices, as well as computational communication about
their projects (Lui et al., 2019). The use of a portfolio assessment for evaluating CT also
serves as a formative assessment tool that can potentially provide feedback to students
(Tang et al., 2020). However, the limited use of surveys/questionnaires as an assessment
tool in the studies reflects a limitation if this assessment tool is used alone. This is because
the use of surveys/questionnaires alone cannot provide in-depth information and evi
dence of students’ thinking processes on computational thinking (Tang et al., 2020). In
light of this, it was found that some of the studies examined provided evidence of the use
of multiple assessment methods such as portfolios and interviews, surveys and achieve
ment tests, as well as portfolios and achievement tests to examine students’ higher-level
thought processes about how they improve their CT skills during science instruction
(Boulden et al., 2018; Hutchins et al., 2020; Yin et al., 2020).
Implications
Our inclusion criteria listed 23 studies that presented conceptualisations about how CT
was implemented, taught, and assessed in science classrooms, indicating that concerns
about the lack of empirical evidence in this field are recognised. Nonetheless, the findings
of this systematic analysis have many consequences for the teaching and learning of
science. Overall, it was found that different pedagogical approaches and tools were used
for embedding CT constructs such as modelling and problem-solving practices in science
classrooms. Secondly, the results show the importance of modelling-based approaches in
actively engaging students in CT activities that are inquiry-oriented. The current move
towards incorporating CT concepts into science classrooms goes beyond computer
science learning and towards more comprehensive advantages of improving students’
comprehension of scientific practices and procedures, system designs, and human beha
viours (Barr & Stephenson, 2011; Next Generation Science Standard Lead States. (NGSS),
2013; Wing, 2006). Through taking the approach of describing various dimensions of CT,
this systematic analysis has helped to define common features of CT activities that tend to
be more closely linked to increased learning of science among students.
Limitations of the study

One of the drawbacks of this study is that the search was primarily limited to three
educational repositories. The collection of papers included was limited to peer-reviewed
journal articles that focused on teaching CT in science classrooms and were published
between 2010 and May 2020. We recognise that the collection of included articles and
reviews might not include papers of significance published in other types of publications,
such as conference papers, editorials, books, or grey literature. However, most of the
reported studies were performed as brief intervention programs at the classroom level,
focusing on activities, games, and/or a novel approach designed to teach the concept of
CT inside science instruction. Also, papers addressing CT in relation to university educa
tion and professional development for educators were excluded, since we aimed to find
important contributions of CT to the field of science teaching in K-12 classrooms.
Conclusion and recommendations

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyse empirical evidence on the use of
computational thinking in science education. The most commonly measured CT practices
were abstractions, algorithm thinking, and debugging. The findings showed that CT can
be taught using single or multiple learning approaches in science classrooms. The
integration of CT into science classrooms is actively promoted through model-based,
project-based, and inquiry-based initiatives designed to involve students and encourage
learning-on-demand as students take responsibility for their learning. The literature
consistently demonstrates that creative instructional approaches, such as the use of
model-based programs, have advantages in promoting the conceptual understanding
of science content and the development of related CT abilities among students. Block-
based programming applications like Scratch were more frequently used as teaching
tools for integrating CT in science classrooms than agent-based programming tools.
Finally, the majority of the studies employed a portfolio assessment to evaluate CT.
Despite the nuanced and diverse nature of CT as a collection of mental skills used to
solve problems and system design, the findings indicate that a significant effort has been
made to develop a key set of CT practices and principles across science classrooms.
Nevertheless, there is still a need for significant investment in more research on the
creation of instructional resources, assessment constructs, and how to combine learning
strategies that can be used to support the synergistic learning of CT and science instruc
tion as common practices. It is suggested that the successful integration of CT in science
classrooms needs to address three interlocking frameworks for change: the teacher, the
school, and policymakers.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to appreciate Ms Anna M de Wet, language editor, for technical and editorial
preparation of the article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Ayodele Abosede Ogegbo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4680-6689
References
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.
https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074
Aksit, O., & Wiebe, E. N. (2020). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using
computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 29: 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800–z
Barefoot, C. A. S. (2014). Computational thinking. [online]. Available http://barefootcas.org.UK/barefoot-
primary-computing-resources/concepts/computational-thinking/ [Accessed 16 February 2019]
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is Involved and
what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://
doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Basawapatna, A. (2016). Alexander meets Michotte: A simulation tool based on pattern program
ming and phenomenology. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 277–291. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.19.1.277.pdf?casa_token=YfK0ou5rFFUAAAAA:-Vyf8_
b A f k 9 H I S I E E V 8 u 6 M N z S a x C K -
0sAaFw0NnrXbHrQP3Pe28B91OLMxMY4DMJKUZHCXA3WBKRHfcq_
j2ueOtXtr6Q50irBl656yHGr9fh2teBAcSQcg
Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in
a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted
Interaction, 27(1), 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0
Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle
school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and
Practice in Technology-enhanced Learning, 11(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0
Basu, S., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (2013, May). CTSiM: A computational
thinking environment for learning science through simulation and modeling. CSEDU, 369–378.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-016-0036–2
Boulden, D. C., Wiebe, E., Akram, B., Aksit, O., Buffum, P. S., Mott, B., Boyer, K. E., & Lester, J. (2018).
Computational thinking integration into middle grades science classrooms: Strategies for meet
ing the challenges. Middle Grades Review, 4(3), n3. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201235.pdf
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of
computational thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA)
meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Bryman, A. (2008). Why do researchers integrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fuse quantita
tive and qualitative research. In M.M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in Mixed Methods Research, (pp.
87–100). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9780857024329.d9
Cansu, S. K., & Cansu, F. K. (2019). An Overview of Computational Thinking. International Journal of
Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(1), n1. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i1.53
Clark, D. B., & Sengupta, P. (2020). Reconceptualizing games for integrating computational thinking
and science as practice: Collaborative agent-based disciplinarily integrated games. Interactive
Learning Environments, 28(3), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636071
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Cutumisu, M., Adams, C., & Lu, C. (2019). A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Recent
Computational Thinking Assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(6),
651–676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3
Dickes, A. C., Farris, A. V., & Sengupta, P. (2020). Socio-mathematical norms for integrating coding
and modeling with elementary science: A dialogical approach. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 29, 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09795-7
Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI Center). (2003).
Guidelines for the extraction of information and quality assessment of primary studies in educational
research. Available at https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Resources/Tools/tabid/184/Default.
aspx#Guidelines
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2015). How to design and evaluate research in education.
McGraw-Hill Education.
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Reimann, D., Tuul, M., Rees, A., & Jormanainen, I. (2016). An overview of the
most relevant literature on coding and computational thinking with emphasis on the relevant
issues for educators. Belgium: TACCLE3 Consortium. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.165123
Garneli, V., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2019). The effects of video game making within science content on
student computational thinking skills and performance. Interactive Technology and Smart
Education, 16(4), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-11-2018-0097
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
Hickmott, D., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., & Holmes, K. (2018). A scoping review of studies on computational
thinking in K–12 mathematics classrooms. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(1),
48–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0038-8
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
Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M., Lédeczi, Á., Grover, S., Wolf, R., Blair, K. P., Chin, D., Conlin, L.,
Basu, S., & McElhaney, K. (2020). C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and
computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 83–100. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9
Irgens, G. A., Dabholkar, S., Bain, C., Woods, P., Hall, K., Swanson, H., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2020).
Modeling and measuring high school students’ computational thinking practices in science.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-
020-09811-1
ISTE & CSTA. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K–12 Education. http://www.
iste.org/docs/ctdocuments/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf.
Kalelioglu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on
a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-93566-9_2
Kaya, E., Newley, A., Yesilyurt, E., & Deniz, H. (2019). Improving preservice elementary teachers’
engineering teaching efficacy beliefs with 3D design and printing. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 48(5), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst17_047_02_66
Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature.
Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733
Lee, I., Grover, S., Martin, F., Pillai, S., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). computational thinking from
a disciplinary perspective: integrating computational thinking in K-12 science, technology, engi
neering, and mathematics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09803-w
Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K–8 curriculum.
Acm Inroads, 5(4), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/2684721.2684736
Li, M. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Game-based learning in science education. A review of relevant
research. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 877–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10956-013-9436-x
Li, Y., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2019). Problematising teaching and learning mathematics as “given” in
STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(44), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s40594-019-0197-9
Liu, H. P., Perera, S. M., & Klein, J. W. (2017). Using model-based learning to promote computational
thinking education. In P. Rich & C. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on
computational thinking. educational communications and technology: issues and innovations,
(pp. 153–176). Springer.
Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2017). Computational Thinking in Education: Where does it fit?
A systematic literary review. Online Submission, 2(1). Available at https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/
papers/1703/1703.07659.pdf .
Louca, L., . T., & Zacharia, Z., . C. (2012). Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive,
metacognitive, social, material, and epistemological contributions. Educational Review, 64(4),
471–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628748
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009, March). Thinking about computational thinking. In Proceedings of the
40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 260–264). Tennessee, USA:
Association for Computing Machinery.
Lui, D., Fields, D., & Kafai, Y. (2019). Student Maker Portfolios: Promoting Computational
Communication and Reflection in Crafting E-Textiles. In Proceedings of FabLearn 2019 (pp.
10–17). New York, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3311890.3311892
Lui, D., Walker, J., . T., Hanna, S., Kafai, Y., . B., Fields, D., & Jayathirtha, G. (2020). Communicating
computational concepts and practices within high school students’ portfolios of making electro
nic textiles. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.
2019.1612446
Luo, F., Antonenko, P. D., & Davis, E. C. (2020). Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and
practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education, 146, 103759. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103759
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
Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014, June).
Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014
on innovation & technology in computer science education conference (pp. 1–29). Association for
Computing Machinery
Maree, K., & Pietersen, J. (2014). Surveys and the use of questionnaires. In K. Maree (Ed.), First steps in
research (1st ed., pp. 155–169). Van Schaik
Martin, S., & Jacobsen, M. (2018). Coding and computational thinking in math and science. Alberta
Science Education Journal, 45(2), 17-27. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/107763
McGuinness, C. (2011). Becoming confident educators: A guide for academic librarians (pp. 69–120).
Elsevier. Chandos Publishing.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Reprint— Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy, 89(9),
873–880. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
Next Generation Science Standard Lead States. (NGSS). (2013) . Next-generation science standards.
For states, by states. National Academies Press.
Nieuwenhuis, J. (2014). Qualitative research designs and data gathering techniques. In K. Maree
(Ed.), First steps in research (1st ed., pp. 70–92). Van Schaik
Papert, S. (1980). MINDSTORMS, children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of.
Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/down
load?doi=10.1.1.571.4630&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Pedaste, M., Maeots, M., Siiman, L. A., De Jong, T., Van Riesen, S. A., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C.,
Zacharias, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the
inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.
003
Peel, A., & Friedrichsen, P. (2018). Algorithms, abstractions, and iterations: Teaching computational
thinking using protein synthesis translation. The American Biology Teacher, 80(1), 21–28. https://
doi.org/10.1525/abt.2018.80.1.21
Royal Society (The). (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. The
Royal Society. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/education/policy/
computing-in-schools/2012-01-12-Computing-in-Schools.pdf
Sanford, C., & Sokol, V. (2017). Professional Development: Targeted On-the-Job Trainings. In
Preparing Informal Science Educators (pp. 289–310). Columbus, USA: Springer.
Scheltenaar, K. J., van der Poel, J. E. C., & Bekker, M. M. (2015, September). Design-based learning in
classrooms using playful digital toolkits. In International Conference on Entertainment Computing
(pp. 126–139). Springer, Cham.
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational
thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework.
Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-
9240-x
Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Computational thinking in high school
science classrooms. The Science Teacher, 81 (5), 53. cited by 20. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst14_
081_05_53
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal
of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Spector, M. (2009). Foreword, “Model-based approaches to learning: using systems models and
simulations to improve understanding and problem-solving in complex domains„. In P.
Blumschein, W.Hung, D. Jonassen, & J. Strobel (Eds.), Modelling and Simulations for Learning
and Instrucion, 4. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for
learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563
Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic
review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com
pedu.2019.103798
Tucker-Raymond, E., Puttick, G., Cassidy, M., Harteveld, C., & Troiano, G. M. (2019). “I Broke Your
Game!”: Critique among middle schoolers designing computer games about climate change.
International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0194-z
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory
education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies,
20(4), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6
Waterman, K. P., Goldsmith, L., & Pasquale, M. (2020). Integrating computational thinking into
elementary science curriculum: An examination of activities that support students’ computa
tional thinking in the service of disciplinary learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
29(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09801-y
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
Wilensky, U., Brady, C. E., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science
classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 24–218. https://doi.org/10.1145/2633031
Wilkerson, M.H., & Fenwick, M. (2017). Using mathematics and computational thinking. In C. V.
Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping Students Make Sense of the World Using Next
Generation Science and Engineering Practices. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers’
Association Press
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.
org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical:

Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ipdps.2008.4536091
Wing, J.M. (2011), Research Notebook: Computational thinking -what and why? Th Link Magazine,
20–23. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical
approaches to embedding 21st-century problem-solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60 (6),
565–568. cited by 158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
Yadav, A., Krist, C., Good, J., & Caeli, E. N. (2018). Computational thinking in elementary classrooms:
Measuring teacher understanding of computational ideas for teaching science. Computer Science
Education, 28(4), 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1560550
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.
Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., & Lin, Q. (2020). Improving and assessing computational thinking in
maker activities: The integration with physics and engineering learning. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 29(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8

A Systematic Review of Computational Thinking in Science Classrooms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systematic Review of Computational Thinking in Science Classrooms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Systematic Review of Computational Thinking in Science Classrooms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in Science Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rsse20

A systematic review of computational thinking in

Ayodele Abosede Ogegbo & Umesh Ramnarain

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1963580

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 02 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3844

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 25 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

A systematic review of computational thinking in science

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Ayodele Abosede Ogegbo [email protected]

● Abstraction, which involves identification of particular similarities and differences

To have a more nuanced understanding of computational thinking as it applies to the

(3) What are the pedagogical approaches used in incorporating CT in science

Exclusion criteria included studies:

● Not focused on K-12 education and science subjects;

No. Authors and year Title Context Subject learning area

Data collection method

Figure 2. Article distribution based on the methodology.

(1) Observation, which involved the systematic processing of information through

Table 2. Distribution of Data Collection Methods.

Figure 3. Article distribution based on subject areas.

Figure 4. Article distribution based on the school level.

attempts have been made by researchers to elucidate what CT integration in science

Table 3. Summary of constructs used in incorporating CT

(1) Computational concepts include fundamental ideas and/or mental representations

Table 4. Categories of strategies used in integrating CT in science classrooms.

approaches used in incorporating CT in science classrooms. Table 4 provides a summary of

MakerSpace is a resource developed for informal environments within a school, library, or

Table 5. Summary of tools used in integrating

activities include coding, robotics/robot construction, electronics/Arduino, 3D printing,

● Achievement tests designed to determine if students have met specific learning

Table 6. Distribution of assessment techniques.

pattern recognition were commonly identified as major constructs used in incorporating

through students’ engagement in project-based, design-based, modelling-based, and

Limitations of the study

Conclusion and recommendations

Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical:

You might also like