Ingenuity of Scratch Programming On Reflective Thi

Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:5493–5517
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11385-x
Ingenuity of scratch programming on reflective thinking

towards problem solving and computational thinking
Semirhan Gökçe1 · Arzu Aydoğan Yenmez1
Received: 28 May 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published online: 4 November 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2022
Abstract
Individuals learn to develop problem solving strategies and make connections be-
tween their mathematical ideas while programming, so they have the opportunity to
improve their thinking skills. Scratch provides an environment to experience prob-
lem scenarios and encourages them to act out imagination while having fun. The
purpose of the study is to investigate the development of reflective thinking skills
towards problem solving and computational thinking of elementary school students
based on their Scratch instruction. The study used a sequential exploratory design
as a mixed method approach with 524 students and 8 mathematics teachers. The
results of the study revealed that Scratch significantly strengthened students’ reflec-
tive thinking skills for problem solving and computational thinking. Based on the
results, the reflective thinking towards problem solving and computational thinking
did not vary by gender. In addition, Scratch instruction led to positive reflections in
the mathematical learning environment.
Keywords Computational thinking · Problem solving · Reflective thinking ·

Scratch · Thinking skills
1 Introduction
Industry 4.0, brought about by the rapid technological change of recent years, shows
that innovations such as mobile devices and Internet technologies have begun to
profoundly affect our daily lives. The educational system of industrial society has
evolved over the past two centuries, and attempts to develop an educational system
Semirhan Gökçe
[email protected]
1
Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University,
Niğde, Turkey
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
5494 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:5493–5517
with 21st-century skills have intensified. Science, technology, engineering and math-
ematics (STEM) involves interdisciplinary, concrete, application-oriented practices
aimed at solving problems arising from the events of everyday life (coding in various
dimensions in different disciplines, robotics and design activities for smart devices).
The changes brought about by Industry 4.0 often lead to debates the skills people
can have in the 21st century. At this time, more studies have been done on 21st cen-
tury skills as people develop a better understanding of the rapidly changing world.
Computational thinking and coding were among these skills that individuals should
have, according to studies published by International Education Technology Society
(ISTE) in 2007 and 2016.
The individuals learn to make connections between ideas and design learning strat-
egies and projects related to problem solving while coding, which will enhance their
mathematical and analytical thinking skills (such as variable and conditional expres-
sions). Along with computational thinking, communication, relationship skills, and
collaboration are all skills that can be taught. Coding can embody abstract concepts,
combined with skills such as creativity, teamwork and problem solving. These can
also make coding an effective tool for gaining computational thinking skills. These
skills are not only needed by computer programmers, but also by people from all
fields, professions, and occupations (Resnick, 2013; Wei et al., 2021; Wing, 2006).
Mathematics education has undergone significant changes so that the teaching
styles have been reorganized in accordance with learning objectives (Chevallard &
Bosch, 2020; Olkun & Toluk-Uçar, 2006). It is not enough for a student to have
knowledge; it is also important for them to be able to develop cause-and-effect rela-
tionships (Brewer, 2007; Kuo, Barnes & Jordan, 2019; Lind 1998), as well as be
creative and adaptable to new ideas (Rowe, 2007). Instead of teaching mathematical
knowledge, the aim is to educate individuals who can apply what they have learned
(Demirel & Yağcı, 2012; Witrock, 1978), who can solve problems (Clements &
Gullo, 1984; Kenedi et al., 2019; Korkmaz et al., 2015), who can communicate well,
and who have a positive attitude towards mathematics (Davadas & Lay, 2020; Tutak,
2008). At this point, mathematics teaching can be supported with technological mate-
rials that have an active role in concretizing the abstract concepts (Celen, 2020; Geli-
bolu, 2009; Kaput, 1999; Kieran, 1992; Taşlıbeyaz, 2010). Mathematical software
enables modeling (Aksakal et al., 2015) and understanding of the problem solving
process (Clements & Gullo, 1984; Korkmaz et al., 2015), through the concretization
of numerical, algebraic and graphical representations (Azuma, 1997; Zengin, 2019).
Programming instruction can help students acquire basic skills, such as problem
solving, by developing their metacognitive skills (Mangaroska et al., 2022; Zucker-
man et al., 2009). Students who experience mathematics with coding develop prob-
lem solving skills, visual perspectives and algorithmic thinking skills (Sun et al.,
2021; Taylor et al., 2010; Wing, 2006; Domínguez et al., 2013) describe algorithm
as a plan that specifies what the computer should do at each step to get to the desired
result. Algorithms are used in programming design and consist of many steps. There-
fore, the first thing before creating a program is to work on its algorithm. Studies
show that students who receive programming instruction have higher thinking, cre-
ativity and problem solving skills compared to students who do not receive instruc-
tion (Clements & Gullo, 1984; Liu et al., 2021). For example, students who learn
13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:5493–5517 5495
Fig. 1 A screenshot of Scratch interface
mathematics with software can look at problems from different perspectives, which
leads to more innovative learning (Korkmaz et al., 2015). As a result, coding is con-
sidered important not only for programmers, but for all students. In the process of
teaching mathematics with coding, the problem is first analyzed, then algorithms are
developed, next the algorithm is evaluated, and if it works correctly, the algorithm is
coded (Fesakis & Serafeim, 2009). These steps help students learn more efficiently
in a collaborative environment through the use of visual applications (Garner, 2003;
Hsu et al., 2018).
Some initiatives are emerging in society to enable new generations to write or
design, create and invent on a larger scale. For example, visual block-based pro-
gramming platforms such as Alice, Kodu Game Lab, Code.org and Scratch provide
environments where children can develop their own programs, games and anima-
tions without having to learn the complex code structures of traditional programming
languages (Resnick et al., 2009; Weng et al., 2022). Scratch is one such coding envi-
ronment that could be used in the mathematics classroom to help students visualize
their ideas while having fun (Gonzalez, 2012; Rodríguez-Martínez et al., 2020). A
screenshot of Scratch can be seen in Fig. 1.
Scratch is also mentioned as an environment for an “educational game” in the
classroom (Alakoç, 2003). Games are the primary activities that engage children and
teach while entertaining them (Kalogiannakis et al., 2018; Wells et al., 2008). An
educational game helps children solve problems in daily life so that new tasks are
introduced and as children continue to solve these problems, they become problem
solvers. Therefore, a game is an effective learning process for children and a motivat-
ing factor for teaching. Using games to present the topic arouses their interest in the
lesson and makes it easier for them to understand it. We can gain target behaviors by
converting educational games into computer-based lessons (Kukul, 2013).
13
Fig. 2 Sections of theoretical framework
As the types of games for boys and girls differ, the considerations of games on
the education/teaching process attract attention. Researchers have also addressed the
issue of gender parity in computer use since the dawn of the personal computer. It
is stated that if males and females participate differently in computer learning set-
tings, this could lead to inequalities in cognitive skills and access to the labor market
(Ferracane, 2020; Linn,1985). In Linn’s study, it was found that once girls and boys
participate in the class, they achieve equivalent levels of proficiency in programming,
but that girls are less likely to enroll. According to some other studies, the female
students are significantly less confident in their programming abilities than male stu-
dents (Alvarado, Lee & Gillespie, 2014; Carter & Jenkins, 1999).
Based on these findings, the purpose of the study is to investigate the development
of reflective thinking skills towards problem solving and computational thinking of
elementary school students based on Scratch instruction. The main motivation of this
study is to contribute to the literature in this context by conducting a study that deals
with the above-mentioned variables together. The research problems of the study are
as follows:
RQ1: Does Scratch instruction provide a significant difference on reflective think-
ing towards problem solving and computational thinking scores?
RQ2: Is there a gender difference on reflective thinking skills towards problem
solving and computational thinking skills of elementary school students?
RQ3: What are the opinions of the students taking Scratch instruction about the
mathematical learning process?
RQ4: What are the opinions of mathematics teachers about the changes in the
mathematical learning process of students who take Scratch instruction?
1.1 Theoretical Framework
This section provides information regarding the key concepts and the relations among
them. Since the purpose of the study is to investigate the development of reflective
thinking skills towards problem solving and computational thinking of elementary
school students based on Scratch instruction, the order of the concepts from general
to specific is given in the Fig. 2below.
1.1.1 Teaching programing to children
Programming makes our lives easier, so it is no surprise that teaching programming

is one of the trend topics in schools. Basic versions of college-level programming
13
courses are also offered in elementary schools and even kindergartens. The prediction
that programming education will be one of the skills of the 21st century, along with
the introduction of visual programming languages, has sparked a worldwide inter-
est and trend in programming education. Computer Science For All (CSForALL)
is a movement in the United States that aims to increase computer science skills for
all students, from kindergarten to high school (Margolis & Goode, 2016). Primary
school students benefit from programming exposure in terms of cognitive develop-
ment (Atmatzidou & Demetriadis, 2016; Lewis, 2010) and their perceptions toward
programming (Kalelioğlu & Gülbahar, 2014a; Lewis, 2010). Studies conducted in
recent years have shown that children who learn programming improve their ability
to produce solutions to the problems they encounter. It is claimed that children, who
can find their mistakes more easily thanks to their coding skills, have increased their
ability to evaluate results (Arfé et al., 2020; Coravu, Marian, & Ganea, 2015; Çiftci
& Bildiren 2020; Erol & Çırak, 2022; Resnick & Silverman, 2005).
1.1.2 Gender differences in programming
Human lives are intertwined with computer science (CS) and information technology
(IT). The technological revolution has benefited both men and women. However,
females have a smaller percentage of education and limited options in career choice
in several parts of the world (Mayer-Smith et al., 2000). Cultural perceptions, sociali-
sation of gender roles, lack of female participation in computer science, and the way
computers are taught and practised in schools are all factors that contribute to gender
inequality (Shashaani & Khalili, 2001). Females have a lower interest in computer
science and technical disciplines. There are studies that show that changing the envi-
ronment can help females perform better (Shashaani & Khalili, 2001). On the other
hand, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (2011)
found that female students outperformed male students in their studies measuring
digital literacy among 15-year-old students in 19 countries. Similarly, female stu-
dents had significantly higher scores than male students in programming and digital
literacy evaluation studies conducted by National Assessment of Educational Prog-
ress (NAEP) at the 8th grade level in the United States (Altinok et al., 2018).
The problem solving and programming unit consists of coding and programming
titles as content, and male students are more enthusiastic and interested in computing
and programming (Du et al., 2016; Lockheed, 1985). However, some studies show
that female students have become more interested in programming and coding (Col-
ley & Comber, 2003; Fraillon et al., 2014). According to Hsu (2014), students’ level
of understanding of programming frameworks did not differ by gender in Scratch
programming at the primary school level but female students learned algorithmic
concepts better. Durak & Guyer (2019) used Scratch to evaluate the effectiveness of
programming education in special education at the primary school level, and discov-
ered a substantial difference in Scratch skills in favor of female students at the end of
15 weeks of programming instruction. In the observations, female students in both
experimental and control groups were found to be more active and eager participants
in the lessons. Male students, on the other hand, were observed to spend their time
on extracurricular topics and constantly playing computer games with each other
13
(Quaiser-Pohl et al., 2006) rather than on their assigned tasks. This also supports the
quantitative data, as female students asked their teachers more questions about their
daily routines as well as the projects they worked on during recess and extracurricular
activities. In addition, it was observed that female students in all groups had more
positive attitudes towards programming than male students. In a study conducted by
Akşit (2018) with middle school science students, it was found that Scratch and activ-
ities aimed at improving computational thinking skills ended up with a significant
difference in students’ attitudes toward programming in favor of female students.
1.1.3 Scratch programming
Scratch is a free programming language developed by Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (MIT) Media Lab in 2007 to create interactive stories, games, and ani-
mations. Since then, Scratch has been translated into more than 50 languages and
used in more than 150 countries. Thanks to this feature, projects can be created and
shared by users in this environment (Scratch About, 2021). Scratch was defined as a
visual, block-based programming language that facilitates media editing for novice
programmers (Maloney et al., 2008). It has an interface that allows users to write
programs by placing code blocks using the drag-and-drop system without having to
write the codes themselves (AbdulSamad & Romli, 2022; Sivilotti & Laugel, 2008).
Many users learn Scratch by dragging and dropping blocks of code, by trial and error,
or by discovering and investigating coding in existing projects. Scratch’s program-
ming environment provides with ease of access, vitality and discoverability with a
single-window user interface, ease of control through visual output of code, cod-
ing without error messages, concreteness of data, and minimization of code blocks
(Maloney et al., 2010). Scratch provides a more memorable, meaningful and social
environment than other programming environments.
Users from all age groups have practiced Scratch, but those aged 8 to 16 are the
most involved group (Scratch Stats, 2021) that corresponds from primary school to
high school. Scratch can be used in the projects of different disciplines such as math-
ematics, science and foreign language education (Scratch About, 2021). Students can
learn more easily by using the app to visualize problems in their minds. Instructors
concluded that Scratch makes programming classes more enjoyable and inspiring,
easier to understand, allows for creativity, and facilitate interdisciplinary learning
after Scratch training was offered as part of the computer literacy course (Flana-
gan, 2015). In addition, according to a study conducted on primary school students
by Kobsiripat (2015), Scratch has a positive impact on creative thinking skills. In
the study, which examined 32 articles about Scratch, the prominent topics related
to Scratch were creative thinking, logical thinking, problem solving, algorithm and
programming instruction, simulation development, game programming, comparison
with other languages, use in other courses, students’ opinions about programming
and introduction of Scratch (Çatlak et al., 2015). Moreover, this study found that
Scratch provides an efficient environment for teaching programming, it makes pro-
gramming exciting and fun, and that starting with Scratch increases interest and moti-
vation in the classroom.
13
1.1.4 Reflective and computational thinking skills
The two types of thinking skills are basic and higher-order thinking skills. Lewis &
Smith (1993) characterized higher-order thinking skills as a way of thinking in which
a person expands knowledge by retrieving and storing information in memory to
achieve a goal, and reorganizing it as needed. The researchers emphasized that higher
order thinking involves creative thinking, problem solving, critical thinking, and
decision making. In this context, the concept of reflective thinking, which includes
critical thinking and creative thinking and problem solving skills, appeared two cen-
turies ago. Wilhelm von Humboldt was the first to use the term “reflective learning,”
and emphasized the importance of not only what to learn but also how to learn (Fich-
tner, 2005). John Dewey’s approach of learning by doing in turn laid the foundation
for reflection. Dewey (1933) argued that the most important need of society was to
teach students how to represent what they had learned in school and described reflec-
tive thinking as an active and deliberate process involving the stringing together of
coherent ideas through reasoning and including knowledge and values.
Reflective thinking, according to Üstünoğlu (2006), is defined as being open to
one’s own and others’ ideas, reflecting one’s thoughts easily, behaving honestly,
and anticipating the future. Cengiz (2014), on the other hand, understands reflective
thinking as interacting with peers and teachers to create new perspectives and make
self-evaluation in order to achieve learning goals, maintain motivation, provide deep
understanding, use appropriate learning strategies, and improve the learning process
and performance. “Reflective thinking is crucial because it guides the student toward
learning goals, makes him think about the technique he uses, helps him build the
ability to take responsibility and solve difficulties, and also guides him to gain self-
evaluation skills,” (p.13) according to Ünver (2011). In mathematics class, it is cru-
cial to use problem solving skills, drawing diagrams, and understanding the problem.
In addition, students who have cognitive skills such as reflective thinking are usually
one step ahead of the class and actively participate in class.
Individuals should think differently, look at problems from different angles, and
adjust their problem-solving strategies as the new world order changes what is
expected of them. For this reason, all members of society should develop problem-
solving and reflective thinking strategies in all extraordinary situations they encoun-
ter in their daily lives (Antonio, 2020; Göksün & Kurt, 2017). In this regard, one of
the most important skills that individuals should have, especially in recent years, is
critical thinking for problem solving (Shanta & Wells, 2020; Sholihah & Lastariwati,
2020). This condition can be attributed to the advantages of reflective thinking in
the problem solving process. Since reflective thinking arises with the perception of
a problem (Shermis, 1992), it can be said that reflection can be best observed in the
problem solving process. Moreover, according to Kızılkaya & Aşkar (2009), reflec-
tive thinking can be best found in the problem solving process and consists predomi-
nantly of reflective habits such as questioning (looking for answers to problems),
reasoning (looking for cause-and-effect relationships), and evaluating (taking a step
back and thinking about how problems are actually solved).
Programming is similar to the problem solving process, in that it often uses similar
steps. Programming can also improve the efficiency of solving problem and the abil-
13
ity to analyze, because it is necessary to divide the problem into subsets and to create
a basic solution that can be generalized (Saeli et al., 2011). Consequently, developing
problem-solving skills in a variety of domains through programming is also a prior-
ity, and the evidence for the role of programming in developing problem-solving
skills is encouraging (Dasso et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2019; Papert, 1993). Through
programming, the concepts of certain disciplines can be more easily interpreted and
put into practice. For example, in mathematics, concepts such as variables and func-
tions can be better understood through programming. Therefore, this ongoing process
leads students to manage their programming processes, question their decisions and
actions and explore alternative solutions to develop the quality of their programs
(Havenga et al., 2013).
According to ISTE (2015), computational thinking is a problem solving approach
that enhances the combination of technology and thinking. According to Wing
(2008), computational thinking is a form of analytical thinking. Many people associ-
ate computational thinking with problem solving, but the term has been broadened to
include basic computer science concepts such as abstraction, separation (analysis),
pattern generation, visualization, problem solving, and algorithmic thinking (Curzon,
2015; Furber, 2012) defines computational thinking as the process of recognizing
various aspects of information processing in the world around us, the use of computer
science tools and techniques to understand and reason about natural and artificial
systems and processes. Bråting and Kilhamn (2021) focused on how the implementa-
tion of Lightbot and Scratch programming in school mathematics interacts with alge-
braic and computational thinking. They focused on three examples of programming
activities for school mathematics and compared semiotic representations of program-
ming languages with algebraic notation. According to Wing (2006), computational
thinking is an area of thinking skills that includes problem solving, system design
and understanding human behavior based on computer science concepts. Wing also
asserts that this is a skill that everyone should have, not just those who work in the
field of computer science. According to ISTE (2016), computational thinking is a key
concept that people will need today and tomorrow, and it is described as a problem
solving approach that empowers technology and thinking based on it. Wing (2014)
considers computational thinking as a basic skill like mathematics, reading and writ-
ing skills, and states that individuals should have and develop their computational
thinking skills.
Computational thinking plays an active role not only in computer engineers but
also in improving the ability of all individuals to solve the problems they encounter in
their daily lives. The traces of computational thinking, which is counted to be among
the 21st century skills and should be among the future skills of the workforce, date
back to the study of Seymour Papert. According to Papert (1980), the individuals
first have to find a solution to the given problem in programming. Then, they have
to find a way to communicate with the computer about that solution. According to
Wing (2006), computational thinking should be one of the basic skills that should be
acquired in curricula. Wing’s study led to a renewed interest in increasing computa-
tional thinking at the K-12 level. Computational thinking is defined as the process
of thinking to formulate and solve problems using computers. It is fair to say that,
computational thinking has moved up the agenda since that date. For example, in the
13
Fig. 3 Procedure of the study
Standards for Students report although the sub-headings of computational thinking,

such as critical thinking, problem solving, decision making, creativity and innova-
tion, are listed separately, computational thinking is not included as a concept (ISTE,
2007). However, in 2011, the ISTE produced the report “Operational Definition of
Computational Thinking” (ISTE, 2011). In order to define the link between program-
ming education and computational thinking, the idea that programming education is
not synonymous has been emphasized by many researchers and scholars working in
this field, and that programming education contributes to individuals’ computational
thinking skills (Allsop, 2015; Angeli et al., 2016; Kalelioğlu & Gülbahar, 2014b;
ScratchEd Team, 2011; Settle & Perkovic, 2010; Wing, 2006).
2 Method
The sequential exploratory design as a mixed method approach is used in this study
and this pattern is realized in two stages. The procedure of this study is indicated in
Fig. 3.
Based on the research questions, the collection and analysis of quantitative data
came first, followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data. The importance
of qualitative results in explaining quantitative results was emphasized, and quantita-
tive results are predominant in this design (Creswell & Clark, 2018).
2.1 Participants
The participants in this study were 524 elementary school students from grades 5
and 6 (245 girls and 279 boys) and 8 mathematics teachers who supervised their
mathematics instruction. The age of the students ranged from 10 to 12 years old.
The school, which was randomly selected from a list of schools, has been located in
the center of a city in Central Anatolian Region of Turkey. The students had no prior
knowledge or experience with programming and only learned about Scratch during
this study.
2.2 Scratch instruction
Scratch instruction were offered as part of the “Information Technologies and Soft-
ware” course given in the elementary school program in grades 5 and 6. The content of
the second semester of this course covers algorithms and block-based programming
(i.e. Scratch). The grade 5 and 6 curricula both include similar learning outcomes for
programming. For each grade level, the same information and communication tech-
13
Fig. 4 The cyclical structure of

programming
nologies (ICT) teacher taught the course content and the math teachers observed the
lessons so that they could focus on the students’ work during class. Before Scratch
instruction, the math teachers were informed about the content so that the they could
understand the process and analyze its impact on their math instruction. This teacher
training was conducted by an expert programmer before the students started their
Scratch instruction. This 8-week training explained that Scratch is a graphical pro-
gramming language that can be used to create animations, design computer games,
or tell interactive stories by using code block structures and combining various media
tools such as images, sound, and music, and explained the basic functions of the pro-
gram. During this time, the teachers made preliminary studies for the activities that
the students would aim for in the course.
The students’ Scratch lessons continued for one semester, i.e., a total of 1360 min,
including two lessons per week (40 min per lesson) for 17 weeks. In order to deter-
mine what kind of cyclical process should be engaged in Scratch instruction, we
examined the related theoretical and empirical literature, elementary mathematics
curriculum and information technologies and software curriculum as well. The cycli-
cal structure of programming formed in this context is shown in Fig. 4.
Given the functionality of this cyclical structure, the content covered in Scratch
instruction is listed as follows: determining the steps of the problem-solving process,
proposing different solutions to a problem, listing the necessary variables, constants,
and operations to solve the problem, developing an algorithm to solve the problem,
creating a flowchart of the algorithm, testing the solution and debugging an algo-
rithm, recognizing the interface and functions of the block-based programming tool,
creating the appropriate algorithm to achieve the goals presented in the block-based
programming environment, developing an algorithm using a linear logic structure,
and creating decision structures and loops (MoNE, 2018a).
The content of this course contains many similarities with the Turkish national
mathematics curriculum (MoNE, 2018b). It corresponds to (1) mathematical literacy
and basic competencies in science/technology and (2) digital literacy, which are con-
sidered within the basic competencies of mathematics curriculum. It also includes
routine and non-routine problem-solving processes.
Scratch software features were introduced through activities that captured students’
interest. Accordingly, games such as moving the snake, crossing the river, reaching
the goal without being caught by moving obstacles, collecting milk boxes, creating a
competition and hunting meteors, etc., were used to increase students’ motivation to
learn while developing thinking skills by creating a challenging problem situation. In
13
Fig. 5 An example code block used in Scratch instruction: Snake game
Fig. 6 An example code block used in Scratch instruction: Crossing the river
designing the games, the basic features such as variables, mathematical operations,
conditional expressions and loops, were used along with the functions such as loca-
tion, image and sound properties, sensor usage and messaging. Figure 5 shows the
code blocks of the snake game.
The goal of the snake game is to control the snake using the arrow keys on the
keyboard to reach all the targets. However, when the snake reaches the goals in this
game, its movement speed increases and this situation makes it difficult to control
the snake. With this activity, students could practice of using code structures such as
variables, conditional expressions, loops, sensors, cloning, and message broadcast-
ing. Another activity is related to crossing the river and Fig. 6 shows a screenshot.
13
Fig. 7 An example code block used in Scratch instruction: Catching milk boxes
In the game “River Crossing”, the goal is for a character designed as a function of
the keyboard keys to cross the river over the objects moving horizontally and verti-
cally to reach the apple on the opposite shore. In creating the code structure of the
game, it is necessary to display the message on the screen, start the game according
to the given answer, change the position with the keyboard, check if the character
touches the apple and log the time during this process. Students used coding features
such as variable operations, conditional expressions, loops, and sensors to accom-
plish this goal.
In another activity that students used in the course, the cat character was made to
catch milk boxes moving in the air parallel to the ground in a given time, which is
shown in Fig. 7.
The character must do this without touching the clouds from different heights. In
designing this game, students used basic programming operations such as defining
variables, assigning values to variables, control structures, loops and sending mes-
sages, hiding and displaying objects depending on certain conditions.
The activities at the beginning of the instruction are more demonstration-oriented
and involve a step-by-step approach (see the snake game in Fig. 5), while the other
activities create learning environments in which students can express themselves in
different perspectives (see the river crossing game and milk box game in Figs. 6
and 7, respectively). Each process is similar to mathematical problem solving. Rou-
tine problem solving involves the use of known or prescribed procedures to solve
problems (Polya, 1973), such as step-by-step procedures, while non-routine problem
solving encourages the use of different strategies and the exploration of relationships
between variables (Elia et al., 2009), such as supporting different perspectives.
Students were asked to design a game in which a sprite is to achieve a goal, taking
into account the code structures learned in the course. As an example, the develop-
ment of catching the milk boxes game (see Fig. 7) is explained in Fig. 8 according to
the cyclical structure of its’ development.
13
Fig. 8 The cyclical structure of the development of an example game
This game was created primarily based on a real event. Accordingly, students
designed a scenario by relating the cat sprite in Scratch to the milk boxes. They used
cloud imagery as obstacles and time as a constraint. Students also checked the com-
patibility of the designed game with real life.
In the mathematical world, students determined the necessary mathematical struc-
tures. Accordingly, they used translation in moving the sprites in the game, simple
algebraic expressions in setting the time constraint, and random function in irregular
formation of the obstacles. Students also verified that the mathematical structures in
the game outputs were correct for each condition.
In the programming world, students first created a flowchart that considered all
phases of the game, and they decided which code blocks to use. Students reviewed
the outputs of the codes and made the necessary changes if they did not match the
desired structure.
2.3 Data collection tools
The “Reflective Thinking Scale towards Problem Solving” and the “Computational
Thinking Levels Scale” were applied to the students participating in the study. In
addition, the written opinion forms were used to clarify the quantitative results of
the scales.
2.3.1 Reflective thinking scale towards problem solving
The “reflective thinking scale towards problem solving” developed by Kızılkaya &
Aşkar (2009) has 14 items in the form of 5-Likert type items. This scale was used as
a pre-test and a post-test to measure the change in students’ reflective thinking skills
toward problem solving. Two sample items are given as follows: (1) I ask questions
to myself in order to understand why I could not solve a problem and (2) I wonder if I
could find a better solution after solving the problem. If the mean of the scale is closer
to 5, it means that the participant’s reflective thinking to solve the problem is high.
13
Table 1 Statistics for normality Scale Type Skewness Kurtosis

assumption
Reflective thinking Pre- 0.280 − 0.354
Post- 0.446 − 0.733
Computational thinking Pre- − 0.279 − 0.359
Post- − 0.401 − 0.303
Otherwise, if the mean of the scale is closer to 1, it means that the participant’s reflec-
tive thinking for problem solving is low. As a result of the analysis, the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.919.
2.3.2 Computational thinking levels scale
In this study, the 22-item “computational thinking levels scale” developed by Kork-
maz et al., (2015) was used to describe the students’ ability level in computational
thinking as a pretest and posttest. Two sample items are given as follows: (1) I make
use of a systematic method while comparing the options at my hand and while reach-
ing a decision and (2) I think that I learn better the instructions made with the help
of mathematical symbols and concepts. The scale is of the 5-Likert type. When the
mean of the scale approaches to 5, it is interpreted that the participant has high com-
putational thinking ability and when the mean approaches to 1, it is interpreted that
the participant has low computational thinking ability. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
of this scale was found to be 0.855.
2.3.3 Written opinion forms
Students were given a written opinion form to complete in order to assess the impact
of Scratch instruction on their mathematical learning. The forms had items that asked
to what extent Scratch affected their concentration, participation, enjoyment, learn-
ing, and motivation in mathematics class. In these items, the options are: too much,
much, enough, less and too less. There were also open-ended items in the forms to
assess the different ways of thinking that are influenced by Scratch lessons. Similar
questions were asked of teachers about how students evaluate their learning. For
example, teachers were asked to what extent Scratch affects their students’ concentra-
tion in mathematics class.
2.4 Data analysis
Repeated measures ANOVA is used to compare the means of reflective and compu-
tational thinking scales based on repeated observations for quantitative data analysis.
One of the underlying assumptions of repeated measures ANOVA is normality, which
stands for that each level of the independent variable needs to be approximately nor-
mally distributed. The skewness and kurtosis values are shown in Table 1.
Since skewness and kurtosis values up to the absolute value of 1 are considered
as indicators of normality (Huck, 2012), the distribution of values is approximately
normal. Another assumption is sphericity, which stands for equality of homogeneity
13
Table 2 Descriptive statistics of Scale Type Gender Mean SD

reflective thinking scale scores
Reflective thinking Pre-test Female 2.179 0.628
Male 2.293 0.665
Total 2.240 0.650
Post-test Female 2.676 0.756
Male 2.738 0.732
Total 2.709 0.743
Computational thinking Pre-test Female 3.829 0.694
Male 3.733 0.685
Total 3.778 0.691
Post-test Female 4.117 0.600
Male 4.028 0.581
Total 4.070 0.591
of variances (Howell, 2002). The Levene’s test showed that the variances of the vari-
ables were not significantly different with measurement repetition.
Content research was used to examine the opinions of teachers and students. The
stages of developing a structure for content analysis, processing the data according to
the thematic framework, identifying and interpreting the results were all considered
when evaluating the content in the study. The code and the list of themes emerged
after the data were coded separately by two researchers. The data were analyzed in
accordance with the code and theme list after the final form of the code and theme list
was collected. Students’ opinions were collected under different codes, and the forms
that emerged from the integration of these codes were determined as themes by the
researchers. The consistency of the codes used independently by the researchers was
determined by marking “agree” or “disagree”. The cases in which the researchers
used the same code for the students’ statements were marked as an agreement, and
the cases where they used different codes were marked as a disagreement. The inter-
rater reliability was calculated using the formula [Agreement / (Agreement + Dis-
agreement) x 100] (Miles & Huberman, 1994) as 89%.
3 Results
The findings obtained for the research problems addressed in the study are presented
under two headings as quantitative and qualitative results.
3.1 Quantitative results
The descriptive statistics of reflective thinking and computational thinking scores in

relation to gender are given in Table 2.
Without considering gender interaction, the change in reflective thinking and com-
putational thinking abilities was examined. The results showed that there was a sig-
nificant difference in reflective thinking scores for the pre-test (M = 2.240, SD = 0.650)
and post-test (M = 2.709, SD = 0.743); t(523) = 32.163, p = .000. For the level of com-
putational thinking, there was a significant difference between the pre-test (M = 3.788,
SD = 0.691) and post-test (M = 4.070, SD = 0.591) scores; t(523) = 44.081, p = .000.
13
Fig. 9 The gender difference in reflective and computational thinking scores
The repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of Scratch
programming instruction on female and male students’ reflective and computational
thinking. Box’s M test was used for the assumption of equality variance-covariance
matrices (Weinfurt, 2000). For the reflective thinking data, the Box’s M value of
5.332 was interpreted as non-significant (p < .05) in conjunction with a p-value of
0.150. Similarly, a non-significant result was obtained for computational thinking
scores, so the Box’s M value of 1.713 was found in conjunction with a p value of
0.636. The gender difference in reflective and computational thinking scores is inter-
preted in Fig. 9.
The results showed that there was no significant effect of Scratch programming
instruction on the reflective thinking skills of the female and male students, Wilks’
Lambda = 0.994, F(1, 522) = 3.156, p = .076. This result indicates that the reflective
thinking scale scores of the female and male students were not significantly differ
depending on Scratch programming instruction.
Similar results were obtained for the computational thinking scale scores of the
female and male students. It was found that there was no significant effect of Scratch
programming instruction on computational thinking levels of female and male stu-
dents, Wilks’ Lambda = 0.999, F(1, 522) = 0.266, p = .607. These results state that the
computational thinking scale scores of female and male students do not significantly
differ depending on Scratch programming instruction.
3.2 Qualitative results
In this study, the effects of Scratch instruction on mathematical learning were

reported through the written opinion forms presented to the students. Students were
asked to what extent Scratch affected their concentration, participation, enjoyment
and motivation in mathematics class. 87% of students reported that Scratch increased
their concentration. The same opinion was supported by the opinions of 6 teachers
among 8 teachers. About 74% of students stated that it increased their prompting to
participate in class, 69% of them increased their enjoyment in class and 89% of them
increased their motivation to attend class. At the same time, 4% of the students have
a negative opinion about Scratch instruction. It was found that the majority of these
13
opinions included negative thoughts about technology usage. When examining the
question of how you think Scratch affects your different ways of thinking, the codes
that exceed 50% in student opinions are as follows: “improves my problem solving”
(68%), “improves my analytical thinking” (62%) and “improves my critical think-
ing” (57%). The teachers’ opinions paralleled those of the students. The themes that
emerged from the teachers’ opinions were critical thinking, holistic thinking, analyti-
cal thinking, problem solving, and computational thinking. The student codes had
an initial “S” followed by their classroom and an ID number. For example, S5A14
identified the 14th student in classroom 5 A. Teacher codes began with an initial “T”
followed by an ID number from 1 to 8 (e.g., T4). The examples of student and teacher
opinions are listed below.
“Since I learned how to code, I realize that I can think differently. I can look at
problems from a different perspective.” S6B17.
“I liked coding. It is exciting. I think I can bring different criticisms to situations
by then.” S5F12.
“I think that different thinking styles of the students developed in this process.
They have learned to look at problems in more detail, and their analytical thinking
has also improved.” T4.
In general, the opinions of both teachers and students represented that Scratch
instruction positively impacted the mathematical learning.
4 Discussion
Programming education has become increasingly important in today’s world, as the

value of programming has increased. Programming classes that were once taught
only in colleges and high schools are now taught in primary and elementary schools,
and even preschoolers are being taught. In the teaching process, it is not enough for
the student to have knowledge but individuals who can establish cause-effect rela-
tionships (Lind, 1998; Brewer, 2007), who are creative, and who can easily adapt to
innovations (Rowe, 2007) are targeted. Similarly, in mathematics education, it is not
enough to have mathematics knowledge only; it is aimed at educating individuals
who can apply the knowledge they have learned (Demirel & Yağcı, 2012; Witrock,
1978), have problem solving skills (Clements & Gullo, 1984; Korkmaz et al., 2015),
who are successful in communication and have positive attitudes toward mathemat-
ics (Hwa, 2018; Tutak, 2008). Technological materials have an active role in concret-
izing the abstract concepts of mathematics (Gelibolu, 2009; Kaput, 1999; Kieran,
1992; Taşlıbeyaz, 2010; Verbruggen et al., 2021). Mathematical softwares enable
modeling (Aksakal et al., 2015) and understanding the problem solving process (Cle-
ments & Gullo, 1984; Korkmaz et al., 2015), by concretizing multiple representa-
tions such as numerical, algebraic, graphical (Azuma, 1997). It helps and supports
the ways for thinking in different solutions. It is depicted that students who receive
programming instruction effectively acquire higher order thinking skills such as
mathematical thinking, systematic thinking and creative thinking beyond coopera-
tive learning in the classroom.
13
With the change of what is expected of individuals in the new world, the produc-
tion and transformation of knowledge is taking place faster and this situation makes
it necessary for individuals to think differently, look at problems from different per-
spectives and change their problem solving strategies. For this reason, students and
all members of society should develop problem solving and reflective thinking strate-
gies in all extraordinary situations they encounter in their daily lives (Antonio, 2020;
Göksün & Kurt, 2017).
In this sense, one of the most important skills a person should have, especially in
recent years, is the ability to use reflective thinking to solve problems (Aras et al.,
2022; Syamsuddin, 2020). Computational thinking, on the other hand, according to
ISTE (2015), is a problem-solving strategy that strengthens the integration of tech-
nology and thinking. According to Wing (2008), computational thinking is a type
of analytical thinking. Computational thinking according to Curzon (2015) is the
process of individuals solving problems. Problem solving, reflective thinking, and
computational thinking skills are examples of talents that can be fostered through the
coding process. While coding improves an individual’s mathematical skills, the indi-
vidual also learns to design learning strategies and projects related to problem solv-
ing and to make connections between mathematical ideas during the coding process.
This, in turn, can enable the development of skills deemed important for individual
development in mathematics education. Based on the findings in the literature, the
development of reflective thinking for problem solving and computational thinking
skills of elementary students who received Scratch instruction, as well as changes
in the mathematics learning environment, were examined with student and teacher
opinions.
For problem solving, there was a significant difference between students’ pretest
and posttest reflective thinking scores. This finding can be interpreted to mean that
Scratch instruction is effective in increasing students’ reflective thinking skills in
relation to problem solving. There are similar findings in the problem solving litera-
ture (Dasso et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2019; Papert, 1993). This result is also consistent
with the nature of programming. Programming can also improve the ability to find a
solution to a problem and the ability to analyze, as it is necessary to break the prob-
lem down into sub-sets and create a generalisable basic solution (Saeli et al., 2011).
Writing program code is similar to the general problem solving process in that it often
uses similar steps.
When the computational thinking results were analyzed, it was found that stu-
dents’ pre-test and post-test scores differed significantly, suggesting that Scratch
instruction is effective in improving students’ computational thinking skills. This is
also consistent with the findings of many researchers that programming instruction
improves computational thinking skill (Allsop, 2015; Angeli et al., 2016; Kalelioğlu
& Gülbahar, 2014b; ScratchEd Team, 2011; Settle & Perkovic, 2010; Wing, 2006).
The results showed that scores for reflective thinking towards problem solving and
computational thinking did not vary by gender. Some studies of gender in the litera-
ture show that female students have begun to engage more actively in programming
and coding (Colley & Comber, 2003; Fraillon et al., 2014), and it is noted that there
is a significant difference in favor of female students, especially in application scores
(Durak & Guyer, 2019), with female students learning algorithmic concepts better
13
(Hsu, 2014). In our study, there was no gender difference in scores for reflective
thinking for problem solving and computational thinking. Both genders are enthusi-
astic about Scratch practices, and successful implementation may serve as a predictor
of this outcome.
When opinions were evaluated in general, it was found that teachers and students
believed that Scratch instruction positively influenced mathematics learning. Similar
results have been obtained in some studies on technology and computer use in math-
ematics education (Corbalan et al., 2010; Kutluca & Bırgın, 2007; Yıldırım, 2011). In
the study of Yıldız et al., (2012), it was found that technology-based problem solving
increases interest and makes students feel active, with similar results. Scratch enables
making mathematics concrete instead of abstract (Ersoy, 2003), adding visuality to
the lesson (Genç-Çelik & Şengül, 2005), and creating an educational work environ-
ment that students enjoy (Hill, 2015) and creating a sense of purpose for the subject
(Tatar et al., 2013) are expressed in both students’ opinions and related literature.
Students took a more active role in the activities and used Scratch in a more meaning-
ful way as a result of this process, as they generated the codes themselves and set up
the required algorithms.
5 Conclusion
In short, Scratch developed reflective thinking skills for problem solving and com-
putational thinking skills of elementary school students. In addition, Scratch created
positive reflections in the mathematics learning environment. Based on this study,
the effects of teaching can be investigated by designing applications for teaching
mathematics with Scratch. In-service training could be conducted for mathematics
teachers and they could be asked to develop instructional activities using Scratch
during these trainings. Scratch use has been found to have a positive effect, but it
is not known how long these effects of Scratch last in the long run. Therefore, the
durability of the effect on these thinking skills can be investigated in future studies.
Scratch applications can be offered as an elective in the curriculum to enable pro-
spective mathematics teachers studying in faculties of education to use this software
more accurately and effectively. The close connection between the content of Scratch
instruction and the problem-solving process in the mathematics classroom in this
study can be considered in the context of the mathematics standards (e.g., Common
Core State Standards for Mathematics) during their revision processes.
6 Limitation
Limitations of the study include the lack of a control/comparison group and mea-
surement of ability level. There was also no direct measurement of mathematics or
programming skills. Considering the limitations of this study, a more comprehensive
study may be conducted in future studies.
13
Declarations
Conflict interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this manuscript. All data generated or analyzed during this study are
included in this published article.
References
AbdulSamad, U., & Romli, R. (2022). A Comparison of Block-Based Programming Platforms for Learn-
ing Programming and Creating Simple Application. In International Conference of Reliable Informa-
tion and Communication Technology (pp. 630–640). Springer, Cham
Aksakal, M., Karataş, A., & Şimşek, C. L. (2015). The effect of a laboratory environment enriched with
models on academic success within the scope of teaching the subject of meiosis. Pamukkale Univer-
sity Journal of Education, 37, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.9779/puje621
Akşit, O. (2018). Enhancing science learning through computational thinking and modeling in middle
school classrooms: A mixed methods study. Dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
NC
Alakoç, Z. (2003). Technological modern teaching approaches in mathematics teaching. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 43–49
Allsop, Y. (2015). ICT’den kodlamaya: İngiltere’de teknoloji eğitimi. Eğitim Teknolojileri Zirvesi, (s.
303–308). Ankara
Altinok, N., Angrist, N., & Patrinos, H. A. (2018). Global data set on education quality (1965–2015).
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8314)
Alvarado, C., Lee, C. B., & Gillespie, G. (2014, March). New CS1 pedagogies and curriculum, the same
success factors? In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on computer science educa-
tion (pp. 379–384) New York, NY, USA: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538897
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 compu-
tational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Educational Technol-
ogy & Society, 19(3), 47–57
Antonio, R. P. (2020). Developing Students’ Reflective Thinking Skills in a Metacognitive and Argument-
Driven Learning Environment. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(3),
467–483
Aras, I., Pratiwi, E., Nanna, A. W. I., & Barumbun, M. (2022). Role of scaffolding for reflective think-
ing on the mathematical problem solving. Aksioma: Jurnal Program Studi Pendidikan Matematika,
11(1), 718–726
Arfé, B., Vardanega, T., & Ronconi, L. (2020). The effects of coding on children’s planning and inhibition
skills. Computers & Education, 148, 103807
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through edu-
cational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,
75, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
Azuma, R. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,
6(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355
Bråting, K., & Kilhamn, C. (2021). Exploring the intersection of algebraic and computational thinking.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 23(2), 170–185 https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2020.177
9012
Brewer, J. A. (2007). Introduction to early childhood education: Preschool through primary grades (6th
ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon
Carter, J., & Jenkins, T. (1999, June). Gender and programming: What’s going on?. In Proceedings of the
4th annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Sci-
ence Education (pp. 1–4)
Celen, Y. (2020). Student Opinions on the Use of Geogebra Software in Mathematics Teaching. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 19(4), 84–88
Cengiz, C. (2014). The effect of reflective journals kept by pre-service science teachers on reflective think-
ing and achievement in general chemistry laboratory. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Karadeniz Technical
University, Trabzon
13
Chevallard, Y., & Bosch, M. (2020). Didactic transposition in mathematics education.Encyclopedia of

mathematics education,214–218
Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051–1058
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1051
Colley, A., & Comber, C. (2003). Age and gender differences in computer use and attitudes among sec-
ondary school students: what has changed? Educational Research, 45(2), 155–165. https://doi.
org/10.1080/0013188032000103235
Coravu, L., Marian, M., & Ganea, E. (2015, September). Scratch and recreational coding for kids. In 2015
14th RoEduNet International Conference-Networking in Education and Research (RoEduNet NER)
(pp. 85–89). IEEE
https://doi.org/10.1109/RoEduNet.2015.7311973
Corbalan, G., Paas, F., & Cuypers, H. (2010). Computer-based feedback in linear algebra: Effects on trans-
fer performance and motivation. Computers & Education, 55(2), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.03.002
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2018). Karma Yöntem Araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve Yürütülmesi (Çev. Ed.
Y. Dede ve S. B. Demir). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık
Curzon, P. (2015). Computational thinking: Searching to speak. Available at: http://teachinglondoncom-
puting.org/free-workshops/computational-thinkingsearching-to-speak/
Çatlak, Ş., Tekdal, M., & Baz, F. (2015). The status of teaching programming with Scratch: a document
review work. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 4(3), 13–25
Çiftci, S., & Bildiren, A. (2020). The effect of coding courses on the cognitive abilities and problem-
solving skills of preschool children. Computer science education, 30(1), 3–21
Dasso, A., Funes, A., Riesco, D., Montejano, G., Peralta, M., & Salgado, C. (2005). Teaching program-
ming. Proceedings of JEITICS, Educación en Informáticay TICs en Argentina, 183–186
Davadas, S. D., & Lay, Y. F. (2020). Contributing factors of secondary students’ attitude towards math-
ematics. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(2), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.12973/
eu-jer.9.2.489
Demirel, M., & Yağcı, E. (2012). Perceptions of primary school teacher candidates about lifelong learning.
Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 1, 100–111
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative pro-
cess. Boston: D. C. Heath
Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., & Martínez-Her-
ráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications and outcomes. Computers
& Education, 63, 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.020
Du, J., Wimmer, H., & Rada, R. (2016). “Hour of Code”: Can it change students’ attitudes toward pro-
gramming? Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 53–73.
https://doi.org/10.28945/3421
Durak, H. Y., & Guyer, T. (2019). Programming with Scratch in primary school, indicators related to effec-
tiveness of education process and analysis of these indicators in terms of various variables. Gifted
Education International, 35(3), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429419854223
Elia, I., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Kolovou, A. (2009). Exploring strategy use and strategy flex-
ibility in non-routine problem solving by primary school high achievers in mathematics. Zdm Math-
ematics Education, 41(5), 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-009-0184-6
Erol, O., & Çırak, N. S. (2022). The effect of a programming tool scratch on the problem-solving skills of
middle school students. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 4065–4086
Ersoy, Y. (2003). Teknoloji destekli matematik eğitimi 1: Gelişmeler, politikalar ve stratejiler. İlköğretim-
Online, 2(1), 18–27
Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with “Scratch” on future teachers’
opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 258–
262. https://doi.org/10.1145/1595496.1562957
Ferracane, M. F. (2020). Redesigning traditional education. Redesigning Organizations (pp. 329–343).
Cham: Springer
Fichtner, B. (2005). Reflective learning-Problems and Questions Concerning a Current Contextualization
of the Vygotskian Approach. In (Eds.) Hoffmann, M. H.G., Lenhard, J. and Seeger, F. Activity and
Sign Grounding Mathematics Education (179–190). US: Springer
Flanagan, S. (2015). Introduce programming in a fun, creative way. Tech Directions, 74(6), 18
13
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in a digital
age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study international report (p. 308).
Springer Nature
Furber, S. (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. London: The
Royal Society
Garner, S. (2003). Learning resources and tools to aid novices learn programming. In Informing science &
information technology education joint conference (INSITE) (pp. 213–222)
Gelibolu, M. F. (2009). Evaluation of application of computer assisted logic instruction materials devel-
opped in realistic mathematics approach in 9th grade mathematics lessons. Unpublished Masters
Thesis. Ege University, Izmir
Genç Çelik, N., & Şengül, S. (2005). The effect of mastery learning method on the achievement and
retention level of 6th grade primary school students in the mathematics class. Journal of Uludag
University Faculty of Education, 18(1), 107–122
Gonzalez, C. (Ed.). (2012). Student Usability in Educational Software and Games: Improving Experi-
ences: Improving Experiences. IGI Global
Göksün, D. O., & Kurt, A. A. (2017). The relationship between pre-service teachers’ use of 21st century
learner skills and 21st century teacher skills. Education and Science, 42(190), 107–130. https://doi.
org/10.15390/eb.2017.7089
Havenga, M., Breed, B., Mentz, E., Govender, D., Govender, I., Dignum, F., & Dignum, V. (2013). Meta-
cognitive and problem-solving skills to promote self-directed learning in computer programming:
Teachers’ experiences. SA-eDUC Journal, 10(2), 1–14
Hill, C. (2015). Programming environments for children: Creating a language that grows with you. Unpub-
lished PhD Thesis, UC Santa Barbara
Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical Methods for Psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove CA: Duxbury
Hsu, H. M. J. (2014, February). Gender differences in Scratch Game design. In 2014 International Con-
ference on Information, Business and Education Technology (ICIBET 2014) (pp. 100–103). Atlantis
Press
Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking:
Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson
Hwa, S. P. (2018). Pedagogical change in mathematics learning: Harnessing the power of digital game-
based learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 259–276
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2007). ISTE Standards for Students 2007.
Retrieved on December 04, 2020, from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2011). Operational definition of computational
thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved on December 25, 2020 from https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/
ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2015). Computational thinking for all.
Retrieved on December 14, 2020 from
https://www.iste.org/explore/Solutions/Computational-thinking-for-all
International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE] (2016). ISTE Standards for Students 2016.
Retrieved on December 05, 2020 from https://www.iste.org/standards/downloads
Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014a). The effect of instructional techniques on critical thinking and criti-
cal thinking dispositions in online discussion. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1),
248–258
Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014b). The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solv-
ing skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33–50. https://
doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2014.03
Kalogiannakis, M., Ampartzaki, M., Papadakis, S., & Skaraki, E. (2018). Teaching natural science con-
cepts to young children with mobile devices and hands-on activities. A case study. International
Journal of Teaching and Case Studies, 9(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtcs.2018.090965
Kaput, J. J. (1999). Teaching and learning a new algebra. In T. Romberg, & E. Fennema (Eds.), Math-
ematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 133–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc
Kenedi, A. K., Helsa, Y., Ariani, Y., Zainil, M., & Hendri, S. (2019). Mathematical Connection of Elemen-
tary School Students to Solve Mathematical Problems. Journal on Mathematics Education, 10(1),
69–80
13
Kızılkaya, G., & Aşkar, P. (2009). The development of a reflective thinking skill scale towards problem
solving. Education and Science, 34(154), 82–92
Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research
in Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 390–419). New York: Macmillan
Kim, S., Choe, I., & Kaufman, J. C. (2019). The development and evaluation of the effect of creative
problem-solving program on young children’s creativity and character. Thinking Skills and Creativ-
ity, 33, 100590
Kobsiripat, W. (2015). Effects of the media to promote the scratch programming capabilities creativity
of elementary school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 227–232. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.651
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2015). Computational thinking levels scale (CTLS) adaptation
for secondary school level. Gazi Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(2), 143–162
Kukul, V. (2013). Eğitsel Dijital Oyunlar. Pegem A Akademi Yayıncılık, 320 s, Ankara
Kuo, M., Barnes, M., & Jordan, C. (2019). Do experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evi-
dence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 305. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00305
Kutluca, T., & Bırgın, O. (2007). Evaluation of prospective mathematics teachers’ views about computer
assisted teaching material developed in the linear equation topic. Gazi University Journal of Gazi
Educational Faculty, 2, 81–97
Lewis, C. M. (2010, March). How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals: Logo
vs. Scratch. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education
(pp. 346–350)
Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking: Theory into practice.Teaching for Higher
Order Thinking,131–137
Lind, K. K. (1998). Science in early childhood developing and acquiring fundamental concepts and skills
(pp. 3–18). Washington DC: National Science Foundation
Linn, M. C. (1985). Fostering equitable consequences from computer learning environments. Sex Roles,
13(3–4), 229–240
Liu, Y. C., Huang, T. H., & Sung, C. L. (2021). The determinants of impact of personal traits on computa-
tional thinking with programming instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1983610
Lockheed, M. E. (1985). Women, girls, and computers: A first look at the evidence. Sex Roles, 13(3–4),
115–122
Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Peppler, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008, June). Media designs with
Scratch: What urban youth can learn about programming in a computer clubhouse. In Proceedings of
the 8th International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 3 (pp. 81–82)
Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming lan-
guage and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 1–15. https://
doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363
Mangaroska, K., Sharma, K., Gašević, D., & Giannakos, M. (2022). Exploring students’ cognitive and
affective states during problem solving through multimodal data: Lessons learned from a program-
ming activity. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 40–59
Margolis, J., & Goode, J. (2016). Ten lessons for computer science for all. ACM Inroads, 7(4), 52–56.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2988236
Mayer-Smith, J., Pedretti, E., & Woodrow, J. (2000). Closing of the gender gap in technology enriched
science education: a case study. Computers & Education, 35(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0360-1315(00)00018-X
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. London:
Sage
Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018a). Information Technologies and Software National Cur-
riculum (for grades 5 and 6). Ankara: Board of Education
Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018b). Mathematics National Curriculum (for grades 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Ankara: Board of Education
Olkun, S., & Toluk Uçar, Z. (2006). İlköğretimde matematik öğretimine çağdaş yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Eki-
noks Yayınları
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2011). Better Policies to Support
Eco-innovation, OECD Studies on Environmental Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1787/9789264096684-en
13
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Inc., Publishers
Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. NY: Basic Books
Polya, G. (1973). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (2nd ed.).). Princeton, New Jer-
sey: Princeton University Press
Quaiser-Pohl, C., Geiser, C., & Lehmann, W. (2006). The relationship between computer-game prefer-
ence, gender, and mental-rotation ability. Personality and Individual differences, 40(3), 609–619.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.015
Resnick, M. (2013). Learn to code, code to learn: How programming prepares kids for more than math.
EdSurge (May 8, 2013)
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., & Kafai, Y.
(2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67
Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005, June). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In
Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 117–122)
Rodríguez-Martínez, J. A., González-Calero, J. A., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2020). Computational thinking
and mathematics using Scratch: an experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Envi-
ronments, 28(3), 316–327
Rowe, A. J. (2007). Yaratıcı Zekâ. Prestij Yayınları, 220 s., Istanbul
Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M. G., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary
school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 73–88
Scratch About (2021). Retrieved on August 25, 2021 from http://scratch.mit.edu/about/
Scratch Stats (2021). Retrieved on August 25, 2021 from https://scratch.mit.edu/statistics/
ScratchEd Team. (2011). Creative computing: A design-based introduction to computational thinking.
MIT Media Lab
Settle, A., & Perkovic, L. (2010). Computational thinking across the curriculum: A conceptual framework.
Technical Report, DePaul University College of Computing and Digital Media. Retrieved on January
11, 2021, from https://via.library.depaul.edu/tr/13
Shashaani, L., & Khalili, A. (2001). Gender and computers: Similarities and differences in Iranian col-
lege students’ attitudes toward computers. Computers & Education, 37(3–4), 363–375. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00059-8
Shanta, S., & Wells, J. G. (2020). T/E design based learning: assessing student critical thinking and prob-
lem solving abilities.International Journal of Technology and Design Education,1–19
Shermis, S. S. (1992). Critical Thinking: Helping Students Learn Reflectively. Bloomington: EDINFO
Press
Sholihah, T. M., & Lastariwati, B. (2020). Problem Based Learning to Increase Competence of Critical
Thinking and Problem Solving. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 14(1), 148–154
Sivilotti, P. A., & Laugel, S. A. (2008). Scratching the surface of advanced topics in software engineering:
a workshop module for middle school students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 291–295. https://doi.
org/10.1145/1352322.1352235
Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021). Improving 7th-graders’ computational thinking skills through
unplugged programming activities: A study on the influence of multiple factors. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 42, 100926
Syamsuddin, A. (2020). Describing taxonomy of reflective thinking for field dependent-prospective math-
ematics teacher in solving mathematics problem. International Journal of Scientific & Technology
Research, 9(3), 4418–4421
Taşlıbeyaz, E. (2010). A case study research intended for mathematics perception at computer aided math-
ematics teaching for secondary students: Application of high school 3rd year. Unpublished Masters
Thesis, Atatürk University, Erzurum
Tatar, E., Zengin, Y., & Kağızmanlı, T. B. (2013). The use of dynamic mathematics software and interac-
tive white board technology in mathematics teaching. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics
Education, 4(2), 104–123
Taylor, M., Harlow, A., & Forret, M. (2010). Using a computer programming environment and an interac-
tive whiteboard to investigate some mathematical thinking. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences, 8, 561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.078
Tutak, T. (2008). The effects of using concrete materials and dynamic geometry software on students’ cog-
nitive learning, attitudes, and understanding levels of Van Hiele geometry. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon
Ünver, G. (2011). Eğitimde yeni yönelimler (5. Baskı). Ö. Demirel (Ed.), Yansıtıcı düşünme (137–148).
Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayınlar&#305
13
Üstünoğlu, E. (2006). Üst düzey düşünme becerilerini geliştirmede bilişsel soruların rolü. Çağdaş Eğitim
Dergisi, 331, 17–24
Verbruggen, S., Depaepe, F., & Torbeyns, J. (2021). Effectiveness of educational technology in early math-
ematics education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Child-Computer Interac-
tion, 27, 100220
Wei, X., Lin, L., Meng, N., Tan, W., & Kong, S. C. (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming
on elementary school students’ computational thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Educa-
tion, 160, 104023
Weinfurt, K. P. (2000). Repeated measures analysis: ANOVA, MANOVA, and HLM. Yarnold (Eds.),
Reading and understanding MORE multivariate statistics (pp. 317–361). American Psychological
Association. Grimm
Wells, P., De Lange, P., & Fieger, P. (2008). Integrating a virtual learning environment into a second-
year accounting course: determinants of overall student perception. Accounting & Finance, 48(3),
503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2007.00249.x
Weng, X., Ng, O. L., Cui, Z., & Leung, S. (2022). Creativity Development with Problem-Based Digital
Making and Block-Based Programming for Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathemat-
ics Learning in Middle School Contexts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1–25. https://
doi.org/10.1177/07356331221115661
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
Wing, J. M. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in
Computing, 2014, 26
Witrock, M. C. (1978). The cognitive movement in instruction. Education Psychologist, 13, 15–29. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00461527809529192
Yıldırım, I. (2011). In the framework of technologically supported math education, to explore the usage
of alternative measurement materials. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep
Yıldız, A., Baltacı, S., & Aktümen, M. (2012). Elementary mathematics teacher candidates’ processes of
problem solving about three-dimensional objects through dynamic mathematics software. Kastamonu
Eğitim Dergisi, 20(2), 592–604
Zengin, Y. (2019). Development of mathematical connection skills in a dynamic learning environment.
Education and Information Technologies, 24(3), 2175–2194
Zuckerman, O., Blau, I., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2009). Children’s participation patterns in online com-
munities. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 263–274
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article
is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
[email protected]

Ingenuity of Scratch Programming On Reflective Thi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ingenuity of Scratch Programming On Reflective Thi

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

Ingenuity of Scratch Programming On Reflective Thi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:5493–5517

Ingenuity of scratch programming on reflective thinking

Semirhan Gökçe1 · Arzu Aydoğan Yenmez1

Keywords Computational thinking · Problem solving · Reflective thinking ·

Fig. 1 A screenshot of Scratch interface

Fig. 2 Sections of theoretical framework

1.1 Theoretical Framework

1.1.1 Teaching programing to children

Programming makes our lives easier, so it is no surprise that teaching programming

1.1.2 Gender differences in programming

1.1.3 Scratch programming

Scratch is a free programming language developed by Massachusetts Institute of

1.1.4 Reflective and computational thinking skills

Fig. 3 Procedure of the study

Standards for Students report although the sub-headings of computational thinking,

2.2 Scratch instruction

Fig. 4 The cyclical structure of

Fig. 5 An example code block used in Scratch instruction: Snake game

Fig. 8 The cyclical structure of the development of an example game

2.3 Data collection tools

2.3.1 Reflective thinking scale towards problem solving

Table 1 Statistics for normality Scale Type Skewness Kurtosis

2.3.2 Computational thinking levels scale

2.3.3 Written opinion forms

2.4 Data analysis

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of Scale Type Gender Mean SD

3.1 Quantitative results

The descriptive statistics of reflective thinking and computational thinking scores in

Fig. 9 The gender difference in reflective and computational thinking scores

3.2 Qualitative results

In this study, the effects of Scratch instruction on mathematical learning were

Programming education has become increasingly important in today’s world, as the

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

You might also like