Zhang

Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:193–216
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11181-7
Playing coding games to learn computational thinking:

What motivates students to use this tool at home?
Shuhan Zhang1 · Gary K. W. Wong1 · Peter C. F. Chan2
Received: 2 January 2022 / Accepted: 16 June 2022 / Published online: 27 June 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
2022
Abstract
Coding games are widely used to teach computational thinking (CT). Studies have
broadly investigated the role of coding games in supporting CT learning in formal
classroom contexts, but there has been limited exploration of their use in informal
home-based settings. This study investigated the factors that motivated students to
use a coding game called Coding Galaxy in a home-based setting. It explored the
connections between the students’ perceptions of and usage of the tool. An 11-day
intervention was conducted at a primary school in Hong Kong with 104 partici-
pants. The students’ perceptions of the game were collected via questionnaires and
information on their use of the tool was extracted from log files. Results indicated
that coding motivation and feeling of enjoyment were predictors of the actual use
of the game, with coding motivation the dominant factor. Focus group interviews
were also conducted to further explore the students’ motivation to play the game.
Through comparisons of active and inactive users, the qualitative findings supported
the quantitative results, indicating that students who were more intrinsically moti-
vated tended to be more active in using the game. The implications of the study for
researchers and practitioners in CT education are discussed.
Keywords Computational thinking · Coding · Programming · Digital games · K–12

education
* Shuhan Zhang
[email protected]
Gary K. W. Wong
[email protected]
Peter C. F. Chan
[email protected]
1
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
2
NetDragon, Hong Kong, China
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
194 Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:193–216
1 Introduction
In today’s digital society, computation has permeated various aspects of our

lives, and computational skills have gradually become critical. In recent years,
the need to cultivate computational thinking (CT) skills has been stressed and
enormous efforts have been made to promote CT education. The emergence of
CT can be traced back to 1980, when Seymour Papert proposed the term “algo-
rithmic thinking” to describe “the art of deliberately thinking like a computer,
according, for example, to the stereotype of a computer program that proceeds
in a step-by-step, literal, mechanical fashion” (Papert, 1980, p. 27). The term CT
has attracted renewed attention since 2006, when Jeanette Wing conceptualized
it as “an approach to solving problems, designing systems, and understanding
human behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science”
(Wing, 2006, p. 33).
Wing (2006) indicated that CT is not merely professional know-how for com-
puter scientists but rather a set of useful skills for everyone—analytical skills that
should be grasped by young people. Wing’s call for attention to the importance
of CT sparked a wave of integration of CT into K–12 education (Bocconi et al.,
2016). With coding, or computer programming, as the main vehicle for support-
ing CT learning activities (Grover & Pea, 2013), momentum has gathered world-
wide for the introduction of coding to national elementary school curricula (e.g.,
in England, as cited in Kotsopoulos et al., 2017) and secondary school curricula
(e.g., in France, as cited in Bey et al., 2019).
Meanwhile, distance learning has gradually joined structured classroom
instruction as a major educational setting. COVID-19 has increased the impor-
tance of home-based and technology-enabled learning activities, as educators
have become keenly aware of the need to deal with unexpected events that may
interfere with conventional face-to-face teaching (Daniel, 2020). To support dis-
tance learning for coding, appropriate instructional tools are needed to allow stu-
dents to undertake independent coding practice. Of the manifold learning tools
for CT, including programming platforms, robotics, digital games, and unplugged
activities (Shute et al., 2017), digital games have advantages in supporting learn-
ing in both formal classroom and student-centered e-learning settings, as they
provide low barriers of entry for distance learners and an interactive learning
environment with explicit goals in which feedback and scaffolding are provided
(Giannakoulas & Xinogalos, 2018).
Many initiatives have been launched to integrate coding games into K–12 edu-
cation, and their effects on learning have been widely reported, including coding
acquisition (Bachu & Bernard, 2011), problem-solving skills (Kazimoglu et al.,
2012), and learning attitudes (Theodoropoulos et al., 2017). The use of digital
coding games has been most widely explored in the classroom setting, where
students were asked to complete certain tasks in the presence of a teacher (e.g.,
Buffum et al., 2016; Zhao & Shute, 2019); few studies have been conducted in
e-learning settings (e.g., Yücel & Rızvanoğlu, 2019). With distance learning an
important setting for CT education today, more research is needed into students’
13
Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:193–216 195
learning experiences in this context. Furthermore, researchers have concentrated

on the learning effects of digital coding games, failing to study how these tools
are utilized by students. This is an important consideration, given that the benefits
of a learning tool are highly dependent on users’ experience of it (Pituch & Lee,
2006). To fill a gap in research on students’ learning experience of coding tools
in distance learning contexts, the present study explored how a particular cod-
ing game was used by young students and investigated the factors that influenced
their intention to play the game in a home-based informal setting.
2 Background
2.1 Digital games for coding
Coding for children can be traced back to the theory of constructionism (Papert,
1980), which describes how students learn by constructing things. Papert (1980)
stressed the importance of engaging children in creating their own projects and
reflecting on their own thinking during the learning process. Since the term “com-
putational thinking” was re-introduced by Wing (2006), numerous initiatives have
been taken to develop child-friendly coding tools (Bers, 2018) that can provide a
playground for students to practice CT and coding skills (Lockwood & Mooney,
2018). These tools are associated with open task environments, in which students
can create programming projects with no task constraints, or goal-oriented envi-
ronments, in which concrete tasks are assigned to guide user progression (Manske
et al., 2019). Digital coding games are the main representative of goal-oriented tools
and offer an interactive coding environment with explicit goals and instant feedback
embedded (Giannakoulas & Xinogalos, 2018). This presents low barriers to entry
for novice students, who can progress in their coding practice with clear objectives
and helpful scaffolding (Giannakoulas & Xinogalos, 2018).
Digital games for coding are generally designed with a puzzle interface, such as
Koadable (Pila et al., 2019) and Program Your Robot (Kazimoglu et al., 2012), with
players completing missions by devising coding solutions based on provided com-
mands. Some games target novice coding learners with block-based solutions, such
as Run Marco (Giannakoulas & Xinogalos, 2018) and TurtleTalk (Jung et al., 2019),
and others target more experienced learners with text-based solutions, such as Code
Combat (Yücel & Rızvanoğlu, 2019) and PascAl Shopper (Bachu & Bernard, 2011).
There have been numerous attempts to adopt coding games in CT education (e.g.,
Theodoropoulos et al., 2017; Zhi et al., 2018; Pila et al., 2019), and positive results
have been widely reported. The effectiveness of these tools in supporting student
learning has been reported in terms of CT skills (e.g., Kusnendar & Prabawa, 2019),
coding comprehension (e.g., Bachu & Bernard, 2011), computer science concepts
(Werneburg et al., 2018), and reasoning ability (Rose, 2016). In addition, several
studies have shown that these tools can improve learning attitudes, such as atti-
tudes towards computer science (Zhao & Shute, 2019) and towards coding (Yücel
& Rızvanoğlu, 2019). Nonetheless, some challenges remain. Yücel and Rızvanoğlu
(2019), for example, noted that students’ lack of interest in coding may damage their
13
attitude towards coding games, and Kazimoglu et al. (2012) reported negative feed-
back on a coding game from students, observing that the improper design of the
game rules (e.g., awards) had negatively influenced their interest in the coding game.
In summary, coding games are a popular tool for learning CT and have been widely
studied in the literature, with both benefits and challenges reported.
Despite these recent advances, there are three directions in which research on
coding games could be further developed. First, studies have focused on formal
classroom learning, in the presence of teachers, as the educational setting (e.g.,
Theodoropoulos et al., 2017; Pila et al., 2019). There has been little research in the
context of distance learning, despite the stress placed on student-centered learning
in coding education (Luo et al., 2020) due to the importance of learning by explor-
ing in this field (Meerbaum-Salant et al., 2011). Furthermore, the development of
remote education has been accelerated by disruptions to normal face-to-face teach-
ing during the COVID-19 pandemic (Daniel, 2020). It is therefore well worth study-
ing how students interact with coding games as learning tools in a home-based
learning context.
Second, although studies have provided rich insights into the effects of coding
games on learning (e.g., Theodoropoulos et al., 2017; Pila et al., 2019), explorations
of what motivates students to use these learning tools are scarce. Given the barriers
that have been identified to students’ productive use of coding games, such as their
lack of interest in coding (Yücel & Rızvanoğlu, 2019) and lack of satisfaction with
game design (Kazimoglu et al., 2012), it is worth exploring how students perceive
these tools to guide educational practitioners on further improvement of the tools.
More work is therefore needed to investigate the factors that drive students to use
coding games.
Third, studies that have explored students’ intention to play educational games
have focused on the design of these tools (e.g., Cheng et al., 2013; Giannakoulas &
Xinogalos, 2018), with less attention paid to subject content. This is understandable,
given that content factors are often considered outcomes of using the tools rather
than motivators. However, with students now exposed to many available educational
tools, it is vital to explore what drives them to choose a particular tool in the first
place before they have an idea of its design. In the context of coding games, there
may be factors beyond game design that affect students’ motivation (e.g., percep-
tions of the subject content) that have yet to be explored.
2.2 Factors influencing the actual use of digital games
A wide range of factors behind the intention to use digital tools have been explored,
with the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1993) often serving as the
theoretical underpinning (e.g., Hsu & Lu, 2004, Cheng et al., 2013; Giannakoulas
& Xinogalos, 2018). The TAM was developed to explain users’ intention to use a
technical tool by identifying the effects of external factors on internal beliefs, atti-
tudes, and intentions (Davis, 1993). Two factors have been put forward as playing a
major role in users’ intention to use a tool (Min et al., 2019; Nikou & Economides,
2017): perceived usefulness, reflecting the degree to which an individual perceives
13
the tool as likely to improve their performance, and perceived ease of use, reflecting
the degree to which an individual perceives the tool to be simple and convenient to
use (Davis, 1993). The TAM has been widely used in the game coding context, in
which the effects of both of these variables have been observed (e.g., Çakır et al.,
2021; Giannakos, 2013).
Apart from the features of digital games as technology systems, studies have
identified specifically game-related features as factors influencing user acceptance,
among which feeling of enjoyment (e.g., Ha et al., 2007; Ibrahim et al., 2011) and
feeling of competence (e.g., Kim & Shute, 2015; Ryan et al., 2006) have been most
widely reported. Feeling of enjoyment reflects the degree to which users perceive a
game as enjoyable (Ha et al., 2007) and has been identified as a potentially impor-
tant factor explaining user intentions in game-based learning environments (Gian-
nakos, 2013). Meanwhile, as users can improve their self-esteem through successful
task resolution (Giannakos, 2013), the feeling of competence they gain from solving
in-game problems may also exert a major influence on their intention to use a game
(Kim & Shute, 2015).
Nonetheless, as mentioned above, studies have reported that negative attitudes
towards coding games may relate specifically to the subject content (e.g., students
might have no interest in coding or hold the stereotypical view that coding is dif-
ficult) (Yücel & Rızvanoğlu, 2019). This observation led us to assume that atti-
tudes towards game content could be a factor in students’ interest in coding games,
and thus to include an examination of motivation, which has been identified as a
major aspect of learning attitudes. It has been argued that motivation plays a criti-
cal role in student learning, as the driving force that empowers students to perform
well and overcome challenges (Tohidi & Jabbari, 2012), and empirical studies have
supported a close link between motivation and academic achievement (Majer, 2009;
Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009). Therefore, we included factors related to students’ atti-
tudes towards coding to examine whether coding motivation affected their intention
to use a coding game.
2.3 The present study
To address the identified gaps in the literature, this study investigated the factors that
influenced students’ intention to use a coding game in an informal home-based set-
ting, covering factors from the TAM (perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use),
specifically game-related features (feeling of enjoyment, feeling of competence), and
perceptions of game content (coding motivation). The research model is presented
in Fig. 1. The study addressed the following research questions.
RQ1: To what extent is students’ evaluation of a coding game (perceived useful-

ness, perceived ease of use, feeling of enjoyment, feeling of competence) related
to their actual use of the game?
RQ2: To what extent are students’ attitudes towards coding (coding motivation)
related to their actual use of a coding game?
RQ3: What motivates students to play a coding game at home?
13
Fig. 1 Research model
By answering these questions, this study contributes to the literature in three

ways. First, the study was conducted in an informal learning context, thus provid-
ing insights into how to motivate students when coding learning activities are con-
ducted in a home-based setting. Second, the study shifted the emphasis of research
on intention to use coding games from assessing chiefly the design of the tools to
considering how students perceive the subject content. Unraveling the relationships
between these factors and user intentions sheds light on the mechanisms underlying
the effective adoption of coding games as tools for CT education. Third, the study
examined the connections between the aforementioned factors and user intentions
based on actual user gameplay data extracted from log files, thus enriching under-
standing of user intentions with empirical evidence.
3 Method
3.1 Participants
Students from a primary school in Hong Kong were invited to participate. This
cohort was selected based on their participation in a three-year longitudinal study
led by the second author on developing CT in a school-based curriculum. This
helped to mitigate the challenges that might normally be faced by students using an
unfamiliar coding tool in a home-based context. This group of students was judged
to have had sufficient exposure to the basics of CT problems to have attained the pre-
requisite skills for the coding game. As a public institution with a student body that
was generally middle-class or below, the school was representative of local primary
13
schools in Hong Kong. The students were informed of the objectives of the study in
advance, and 104 Grade 6 students (aged 11–12) agreed to participate.
3.2 Apparatus
The coding game adopted in this study was Coding Galaxy (CG, see Fig. 2), which
has been successfully used to teach CT in Hong Kong primary schools (Zhang et al.,
2021). The game is designed for young beginners before they move on to the code-
making tools that are commonly used in CT or coding education. CG has mobile
and Web versions, providing great flexibility for learners in terms of device type,
time of play, and location of play. CG has multiple language settings (English, Span-
ish, Chinese, etc.) and simple controls (dragging commands into an answer panel) to
suit young learners worldwide.
CG is a game coding platform with 200 missions requiring the use of five basic
CT constructs: sequences, loops, debugging, conditionals, and functions. The mis-
sion preface is presented in Fig. 3. CG provides an arrow-based coding environment
with a storyline requiring the user to help a character (an astronaut) to reach their
destination while collecting as many crystals as possible (if any) on the way (see
Fig. 2). To complete the task, the player needs to identify a viable route from the
initial state to the destination and build it using the provided coding commands in
the arrow-based coding language. To solve the puzzle, the following CT skills are
needed: (1) decomposition—dividing the terrain into segments; (2) abstraction—
identifying which segments are useful for developing the route and disregarding
those that are irrelevant; (3) pattern recognition—identifying patterns in the struc-
tures of different segments; (4) use of algorithms—formulating a program with a set
of ordered steps that can be carried out by the device; and (5) debugging—detecting
and fixing errors when the program does not work as expected.
Fig. 2 Coding Galaxy mission preface
13
Fig. 3 Coding Galaxy puzzle
3.3 Measures
3.3.1 Pre‑intervention questionnaire
Before the intervention (see Sect. 3.4 for more information), information on
coding motivation (CM) was collected to gauge the students’ attitudes towards
coding. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), the two major types of motivation
are intrinsic motivation, which guides an individual to do something “because it
is inherently interesting or enjoyable,” and extrinsic motivation, which leads an
individual to complete a task “because it leads to a separable outcome” (p. 55).
As intrinsic motivation best reflects the inherent tendency to want to complete a
task (Ryan & Deci, 2000), we focused on measuring the students’ intrinsic moti-
vation to code. The measure was adapted from the programming motivation scale
used by Jiang and Wong (2017), which yielded proper psychometric qualities in
the Chinese context. The adapted scale comprised nine items (e.g., “Learning
coding is fun”) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (see Appendix A).
3.3.2 Post‑intervention questionnaire
After the intervention, the factors related to the students’ perceptions of the game
were assessed. Two variables from the TAM—perceived ease of use (PEU) and per-
ceived usefulness (PU)—were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with items
adapted from Davis et al. (1989); for example, “Learning how to play the game was
easy for me” (PEU) and “The game improved my understanding of sequence” (PU).
Two game-specific factors—feeling of enjoyment (FE) and feeling of competence
(FC)—were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale with items adapted from Kim and
13
Shute (2015), such as “Playing the game was fun” (FE) and “I felt competent in
playing the game” (FC). The full questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.
3.3.3 Gameplay data
Gameplay data were extracted from the players’ game records. Data on the actions
and statistics of each player (e.g., in-game performance, total time spent on a mis-
sion, number of trials for a mission) were logged by the game. In this study, we used
an indicator related to the actual use of the game, mission completion, which refers
to the percentage of the assigned missions that the students completed during the
intervention period (the number of completed missions as a percentage of the num-
ber of assigned missions). The data for this indicator were extracted from the log
files of each player.
3.3.4 Focus group interviews
To better understand the students’ user intentions, we purposively selected students

for focus group interviews. Specifically, 20 active users and 20 inactive users were
identified as candidates based on their actual use of the game. After ensuring an
even distribution of students at different levels of academic performance, 24 of the
candidate students (12 active users and 12 inactive users) were invited to partici-
pate in the group interviews. Sample questions are “What aspects of the game were
attractive to you?”, “What motivated you to play the game at home?”, “What moti-
vated you to try to get the highest score?”, “What aspects of the game were unat-
tractive to you?”, “For what reasons did you not want to play the game at home?”,
“Why did you not want to get the highest score?”, and “What did you learn from the
game?” The focus group interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.
A qualitative thematic analysis was conducted by the first author using an inductive
approach, with a reliability check performed by the third author.
3.4 Procedure
The intervention was implemented in June 2019 and lasted for 11 days. A proce-
dural diagram is displayed in Fig. 4. On the first day, the pre-intervention question-
naire was administered to collect CM scores, and the students were provided with
some basic instructions for playing the game. Over the following 10 days, the stu-
dents were given full access to the game chapters on sequence, loops, debugging,
Fig. 4 Data collection procedures
13
conditionals, and functions. No constraints were imposed on the students’ usage of

the tool. On the last day, the post-intervention questionnaire was administered to
collect the students’ perceptions of the game design (PU, PEU, FE, and FC), after
which the focus group interviews were conducted.
4 Results
4.1 Psychometrics of the measurements
To examine the psychometric properties of the selected measures, validity and reli-
ability tests were performed based on the criteria proposed by Fornell and Larcker
(1981). First, to identify construct validity, the factor loading for each item regarding
its corresponding latent factor was checked, based on which the average variance
extracted (AVE) and composite reliability were calculated. Second, reliability evi-
dence was reported via Cronbach’s alpha to indicate the internal consistency of each
construct. Third, analyses of discriminant validity were carried out to check that the
constructs were independent of each other.
The results for construct validity and reliability are displayed in Table 1. The
Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values were in the range of 0.72–0.92
and 0.84–0.93 respectively, all above the cutoff point of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1994), indi-
cating the adequate reliability of each construct. The AVE values were between 0.49
and 0.76, with only one construct (coding motivation) slightly below the threshold
of 0.5 (Segers, 1997). Given that this value was close to the threshold and the con-
struct showed satisfactory parameters for other properties, the original scale was
retained. Further, discriminant validity was checked to ensure that the measured con-
structs were independent of each other. Based on the criterion suggested by Fornell
and Larcker (1981), the correlation coefficients between constructs should not be
greater than the square root of the AVE for each construct. The results are reported
in Table 2, in which the square root of the AVE for each of the corresponding con-
structs is highlighted in bold. All of the bivariate correlations were positive and sig-
nificant in the range of 0.346–0.698, with no coefficients exceeding the square root
of the AVE for the corresponding construct, indicating that the latent factors were
independent of each other. Thus, the measures showed good psychometric qualities.
Finally, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was tested to identify the influ-
ence of the attributes of the research instruments. An independent samples t-test was
performed for each construct with gender as the grouping variable, and the results
indicated that equality of variance was met for all constructs.
4.2 Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 3. Items rated on the Likert scale
were converted into a numerical scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree), with a midpoint of 3. For each respondent, the mean score for the
included items was calculated to represent the score for each construct. For each
13
Table 1 Construct validity and reliability

Construct Item Factor loading Cronbach’s alpha AVE Composite
reliability
Coding Motivation CM1 0.782 0.868 0.492 0.897

CM2 0.718
CM3 0.683
CM4 0.671
CM5 0.686
CM6 0.693
CM7 0.712
CM8 0.762
CM9 0.594
Perceived Ease of Use PEU1 0.849 0.844 0.764 0.906
PEU2 0.896
PEU3 0.876
Perceived Usefulness PU1 0.839 0.915 0.575 0.931
PU2 0.786
PU3 0.808
PU4 0.787
PU5 0.815
PU6 0.693
PU7 0.589
PU8 0.806
PU9 0.702
PU10 0.723
Feeling of Enjoyment FE1 0.862 0.909 0.735 0.932
FE2 0.872
FE3 0.859
FE4 0.865
FE5 0.827
Feeling of Competence FC1 0.831 0.720 0.643 0.844
FC2 0.805
FC3 0.769
Table 2 Discriminant validity

Coding Motivation Perceived Perceived Feeling of Feeling of
Ease of Use Usefulness Enjoyment Competence
Coding Motivation 0.702

Perceived Ease of Use 0.346** 0.873
Perceived Usefulness 0.465** 0.544** 0.758
Feeling of Enjoyment 0.348** 0.377** 0.638** 0.857
Feeling of Competence 0.395** 0.479** 0.642** 0.698** 0.802
Note: **p < .01
13
construct, the mean score was above the midpoint, ranging from 3 to 4. Regard-
ing gameplay data, mission completion was reported as a percentage, with the
results showing that the participants completed an average of 53.2% of the assigned
missions.
4.3 Regression analyses
4.3.1 Statistical methods
Regression analyses were conducted to identify the relationships between the pro-
posed factors and the students’ intention to use the coding game (RQ1 and RQ2).
Factors related to perceptions of the game design (PEU, PU, FE, FC) and percep-
tions of the subject content (CM) were entered as independent variables, and the
factor extracted from the gameplay data (mission completion) was selected as the
dependent variable.
Regression models were selected with caution based on the characteristics of
the dependent variable, with three steps followed. First, the distribution of mission
completion was checked and found to be left-skewed. Next, the data were therefore
log-transformed, which is a common way to transform skewed data to conform to
normality (Feng et al., 2014). Third, the distribution of the log-transformed data
was checked visually, indicating a normal distribution (see Fig. 5). Thereby, a linear
regression model was selected and the log-transformed value of mission completion
was used as the dependent variable, referred to as log-transformed mission comple-
tion (LMC). All of the statistical analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Statistics
27.
4.3.2 Results of regression analysis
Prior to conducting the linear regression analysis, the relevant assumptions were
tested. First, a sample size of 104 was considered adequate given the five inde-
pendent variables in the analysis (Tabachnick et al., 2007). Second, a check for
normality was conducted for the dependent variable using the Shapiro–Wilk
normality test, which confirmed a normal distribution (p = 0.258). Third, a vis-
ual check of the scatter plots for individual constructs was conducted, and the
results revealed that the criterion for linearity was met. Fourth, the assumption of
Table 3 Descriptive statistics Construct Mean SD
Game design Perceived Ease of Use 3.72 0.81

Perceived Usefulness 3.66 0.65
Feeling of Enjoyment 3.35 0.87
Feeling of Competence 3.42 0.76
Subject content Coding Motivation 3.51 0.63
Gameplay data Mission Completion 53% 37%
13
Fig. 5 Histogram of LMC
multicollinearity was examined, and it was shown that the tolerance values for the
independent variables were between 0.425 and 0.761 and the variance inflation
factor (VIF) ranged from 1.32 to 2.36, all indicating acceptable values (Menard,
2001). A collinearity diagnosis was then performed (see Table 4). According to
the statistical output, the condition index was suitable for each dimension, and
none of the dimensions had more than one value above 0.9 for the proportion
of variance, indicating no collinearity problem (Hair et al., 2010). Fifth, a resid-
ual plot was examined (see Fig. 6), which displayed a fairly random dispersion
around the residual = 0 line over the range of the predicted value of the dependent
Table 4 Collinearity diagnostics

Dimension Condition index Variance proportions
Coding Perceived Perceived Feeling of Feeling of
Motivation Ease of Use Usefulness Enjoyment Competence
1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 11.81 0.06 0.00 0.34 0.05 0.07
3 14.85 0.73 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.17
4 19.83 0.05 0.01 0.49 0.88 0.01
5 20.34 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.71
6 23.28 0.12 0.99 0.15 0.03 0.04
13
Fig. 6 Residual plot
variable, suggesting that the data were homoscedastic and a linear model was
appropriate.
After ensuring that the assumptions required for multiple regression analysis
were satisfied, a hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was conducted. The
analysis was performed in three stages based on the order of inclusion of the inde-
pendent variables. First, the factors stemmed from the TAM (PEU and PU) were
entered. Second, the factors related to the game (FE and FC) were entered. Finally,
the variable associated with the subject content (CM) was entered. The variables
were entered in this order because the original hypotheses were developed from the
TAM, based on which we added additional variables related to the reported factors
specific to digital games, after which we extended the model with a factor related to
the motivation to learn the subject content.
The regression results are displayed in Table 5. At Stage 1, PEU and PU did not
contribute significantly to the model, F(2, 90) = 1.041, p = 0.357. Adding FE and FC
at Stage 2 explained an additional 4.8% of the variance in LMC, but the change in
R2 was non-significant, F(2, 88) = 2.271, p = 0.109. At this stage, FE was the most
important predictor of LMC, explaining 4.7% of the variance. Finally, at Stage 3,
the addition of CM to the regression model explained an additional 8.2% of the vari-
ance, and the change in R2 was significant, F(1, 87) = 8.455, p < 0.01. Figure 7 pre-
sents a summary of the final model. With all five independent variables included
in the model, only FE (β = 0.319, p < 0.05) and CM (β = 0.329, p < 0.01) were sig-
nificant predictors of LMC. The most important predictor of LMC was CM, which
uniquely explained 8.2% of the variance.
4.4 Results of focus group interviews
To more deeply investigate the students’ intention to use the game (RQ3), percep-
tions of the game and the game-play experience were collected from active users
13
Table 5 Summary of linear Variable β t sr2 R R2 ∆R2

regression analysis for variables
predicting Log-transformed Stage 1 .150 .023 .023
Mission Completion
Perceived Ease of Use -.134 -1.079 .013
Perceived Usefulness .173 1.391 .021
Stage 2 .266 .071 .048
Perceived Ease of Use -.124 -.991 .010
Perceived Usefulness .042 .274 .001
Feeling of Enjoyment .324* 2.115 .047
Feeling of Competence -.127 -.808 .007
Stage 3 .391 .153 .082
Perceived Ease of Use -.159 -1.318 .017
Perceived Usefulness -.061 -.402 .002
Feeling of Enjoyment .319* 2.168 .046
Feeling of Competence -.171 -1.128 .012
Motivation in Coding .329** 2.908 .082
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01
Fig. 7 Results of the regression model
and inactive users. The first author and the third author coded the results using an
inductive approach and the results were compared to examine inter-rater reliabil-
ity. The rate of agreement was desirable (91.6%) and discrepancies were resolved
through discussion until a consensus was reached. Table 6 displays a summary of
the themes that emerged with example quotes, categorized based on the interview
questions (see Sect. 3.3.3).
The results indicate that the game was attractive to the students for its well-
designed interface and simple instructions. The students were motivated to play
13
Table 6 Main themes and example quotes extracted from focus group interviews of two profiles of stu-
dents (AU = active users; IU = inactive users)
Themes Example quotes
Attractiveness of the game

• Appealing interface (AU = 4) “The interface of is the space, which looks very
fancy.”
• Easy to use (AU = 2; IU = 3) “The in-game instructions are clear. I can learn
pcik up the game quite easily.”
• Challenging tasks (AU = 1) “Some tasks are very challenging. I like challenging
myself.”
• Award mechanism (IU = 1) “I like the game giving stars when I complete each
mission. It gives me a sense of achievement.”
Drivers for playing the game
• Interesting gameplay experience (AU = 4; IU = 3) “I find the game interesting. I enjoy playing it.”
• Extrinsic influence (IU = 3) “The teacher asked us to play the game.”
• Personal curiosity (AU = 1) “I am very curious. I want to see how far I can
reach in the game.”
Drivers for getting all stars
• Being compulsive to do the best (AU = 4; IU = 2) “I saw there are three stars in total, so I am a bit
obsessive–compulsive to get them all.”
Unattractiveness of the game
• Single playing mode (AU = 5; IU = 2) “Every mission is the same–same interface, same
character, so I got bored sometimes.”
• Too difficult (IU = 3) “The later chapters are so difficult, especially
Loops.”
Reasons for not playing the game
• No time (AU = 3; IU = 2) “I have a lot of homework to do. Didn’t have time
for the game.”
• No interest in coding (IU = 2) “I don’t like coding, so I don’t want to play a coding
game.”
Reasons for not getting all stars
• Failed attempts (AU = 3; IU = 1); “I wanted to get three stars at the beginning. I tried
a few times for the tasks but could not get it, so I
gave up.”
• To quickly complete the tasks (IU = 4); “I want to quickly get to the next mission and
quickly finish all the tasks.”
Attainment from the game
• More coding knowledge (AU = 2; IU = 1) “I learned more coding knowledge from the game.”
• Improvement in problem-solving skills (AU = 3) “The game taught me that for the same problem,
there can be more than one solutions, and I can
pick the most effective one from it.”
• Greater self-efficacy (IU = 3) “After playing the game, I am more patient with dif-
ficult problems. I think I can solve these problems
independently now.”
13
the game for several reasons, including the exciting gameplay experience, extrin-
sic influence from the school, and intrinsic curiosity about their personal potential
in the game. They also emphasized their desire to win the game and receive high
scores. Nonetheless, some shortcomings of the game were discussed. It was noted
that playing the game for a long time might lead to boredom because of the uniform
playing mode across missions. In addition, some chapters might be overly challeng-
ing for young students, which might damage their confidence in proceeding with
later missions. Regarding reasons for not using the game at home, a heavy work-
load from other subjects was proposed by both user groups, and a lack of interest in
coding was reported by the inactive users. As for attempts to get the highest score,
some students performed multiple trials before giving up, while other (mainly inac-
tive) users tried fewer times, seeking to finish the task more quickly. Nevertheless,
perceived improvements from playing the game were frequently reported, covering
coding knowledge, problem-solving skills, and self-efficacy.
To summarize, differences were detected between the active and inactive user
groups. The active users appreciated the game for its interface and task content,
whereas the inactive students tended to concentrate more on the gameplay experi-
ence, noting its ease of use and the feeling of accomplishment it gave them. The
active users also tended to play the game for interest and curiosity, whereas their
inactive counterparts played the game for extrinsic reasons (e.g., as an assignment).
Regarding the motivation to get the highest scores, the active students made more
attempts to obtain the highest scores before quitting, whereas the inactive players
appeared to have rushed to finish the tasks. Overall, however, the students from both
groups perceived cognitive and attitudinal improvements from playing the game.
5 Discussion
To shed light on students’ motivation to use coding games in an informal context,

this study explored the factors influencing students’ actual use of a coding game in
a home-based setting. Based on the TAM framework and features of digital games,
five factors were investigated, and significant positive effects of coding motivation
and game enjoyment were found. Additionally, focus group interviews with both
active and inactive users indicated that intrinsic motivation was a critical force driv-
ing students to use the game at home. These results indicate that motivation to learn
the subject matter can have a great influence on students’ interest in using coding
applications. The implications of the results for research and practice are as follows.
To leverage digital games as CT learning activities to support student-centered
learning in classroom and distance settings, promoting acceptance of these tools is a
major consideration for practitioners. The results of this study indicate that students’
motivation to code was the dominant predictor of actual use, implying that for cod-
ing games, students’ interest may derive not only from the playability of the game
but also from their interest in the subject content. Interestingly, the results resonate
with the qualitative findings of Yücel and Rızvanoğlu (2019). In their study, students
were invited to explore a coding game called Code Combat for an hour and were
then interviewed about their game experience. Several students reported negative
13
attitudes towards the game when they were told it was related to coding, which was
echoed in our findings regarding the influence of attitudes towards coding on the
intention to use coding games. Although digital games are considered a playground
for learning practices, acceptance of these tools may vary across individuals, and
passion for the subject appears to be an important individual-level variable. Thus,
for educational practitioners seeking to adopt coding games to support CT learning
activities, students’ interest in coding as such should be promoted to ensure a high
acceptance rate and fruitful usage of the tool.
Regarding the responses from the focus group interviews, comparisons were
made between active users and inactive users, and the results chimed with our quan-
titative findings. A good game design (e.g., ease of use and a good award mecha-
nism) enhanced interest in the game among the inactive users. In comparison, the
importance of a positive in-game experience (e.g., enjoying the challenge and find-
ing the game interesting) was stressed by the active users, indicating that their inter-
est may have been aroused by intrinsic motivation (e.g., interest in coding). This
implies that active and inactive users may have different sources of motivation, and
it is a reasonable conjecture that intrinsic motivation drove the students to be more
active in using the game. This result, synchronized with our quantitative findings,
stresses the importance of promoting students’ intrinsic motivation to code.
Another major predictor was game enjoyment, which resonates with relevant
studies of digital educational games (e.g., Ibrahim et al., 2011; Camilleri & Camill-
eri, 2019). Approaches to improving game enjoyment have been widely discussed,
such as designing storylines appropriate to the target group (Yeni & Cagiltay, 2017)
and allowing for offline access (Ha et al., 2007). Some specific suggestions for cod-
ing games were proposed by the participants in our focus groups, the most common
of which was to add collaborative challenges. This aligns with the emerging trend
of distributed pair programming as a distanced collaborative mode for solving CT
and programming problems (Xu & Correia, 2021). Studies have reported that col-
laborative programming can lead to greater engagement among students (e.g., Wu
et al., 2019), which fits the goal of increasing players’ enjoyment of coding games.
A multiplayer collaborative mode is therefore suggested to developers for the future
design of coding games.
The results of the present study show that ease of use and usefulness did not pre-
dict the use of the game, which contradicts the findings of a host of TAM studies
of digital games (e.g., Hsu & Lu, 2004; Ha et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2013). A pos-
sible explanation for this inconsistency is the difference in data collection method
adopted by this study. Whereas previous related studies have collected user inten-
tions through self-reported data, with players recalling the frequency with which
they have used a tool (e.g., Hsu & Lu, 2004; Ibrahim et al., 2011), we collected the
data directly from players’ log files. Users who enjoy using a tool probably remem-
ber their experience of it more clearly, increasing the likelihood of a correlation
between the evaluative factors and user intentions. Given the different context for
collecting data in the present study, the difference in results is unsurprising.
This study has rich implications for a range of stakeholders. For researchers, the
study enhances theoretical understanding of the factors that can increase the use of
digital coding games. Although the TAM stresses the importance of perceived ease
13
of use and perceived usefulness as determinants of using a tool, this study of a cod-
ing game demonstrates that coding motivation and feeling of enjoyment are essential
in predicting user intention in this context. These two variables explained much of
the variance in the use of the coding game. Moreover, our findings can benefit edu-
cational practitioners by illustrating that students’ motivation to learn coding can be
a key factor in engaging them to use coding tools. Coding games are widely applied
in K–12 education for their playful and interactive features. Also, they allow flex-
ibility for instructors regarding educational settings, being applicable for both class-
room teaching and distance learning. Most importantly, the self-directed nature of
these tools allow for their use when responding to emergencies (e.g., COVID-19)
that hinder physical instruction. Studying the factors that influence student accept-
ance of coding games can provide practical guidelines for CT education practition-
ers seeking to implement these tools across learning contexts. Especially, although
games might be enjoyable tools for teaching and learning, their actual use by stu-
dents may depend not only on their format but also on the learning content. If stu-
dents are interested in the content a game intends to deliver, their actual use of the
tool is likely to be high. Therefore, increasing students’ interest in coding may be the
key to addressing the issue of a lack of motivation to use coding applications. If this
prerequisite is met, appropriate coding games will probably be more welcomed by
young learners.
6 Conclusion and future research
This study explored the factors that influenced students’ intention to use a coding
game. Through statistical analyses of hierarchical multiple linear regression, two
factors commonly tested in TAM studies (PU, PEU) were adopted to frame the data
collection, with the model extended with variables related to digital games (FE, FC)
and factors linked to the subject content (CM). Focus group interviews were carried
out to explore user intentions and comparisons were made between active and inac-
tive users. The results were in line with the findings of the regression analyses. CM
and FE predicted actual use, with CM being the dominant factor. The implication
for researchers is that variables regarding interest in coding may explain much of the
variance in the usage of coding games. For practitioners in CT education, collabo-
rative programming can be embedded into coding applications to improve student
engagement. In addition, although various coding tools are designed with motivat-
ing features, it is vital to promote students’ interest in coding per se.
There are several limitations of this study, which we intend to minimize in future
studies. First, the diversity of the participants was limited in terms of age and coding
experience, which may limit the generalizability of the results. In future research,
we intend to recruit participants from diverse demographic backgrounds (e.g., age
brackets, game experience) to allow for the exploration of moderating effects. Sec-
ond, the duration of the intervention was relatively short. It is likely that the less
active students had limited spare time during the 10-day period, given that the game
has more than 200 missions. Future research should eliminate the effect of time
pressure on user behavior and provide sufficient time for students to explore the tool.
13
Third, although the feeling of enjoyment was identified as influencing actual use,
it was surveyed after the activity, making it difficult to determine whether it was a
cause or an outcome. This may be unavoidable, as perceptions of tool features can-
not be collected before users try a tool. Caution is therefore suggested when inter-
preting results related to the tool features.
Appendix
A. Pre‑intervention questionnaire
Items 1 2 3 4 5
Coding motivation
1. Learning coding is fun.
2. I think I have the ability to do coding well.
3. I would like to continue learning coding activities because it is useful.
4. When I participate in coding activities, I think about how much I enjoy them.
5. I think coding is fun.
6. I think coding is important.
7. I believe that participating in coding is beneficial to me.
8. I like coding very much.
9. I think learning coding activities can solve daily life problems.
B. Post‑intervention questionnaire
Items 1 2 3 4 5
Perceived ease of use

1. Learning how to play the game was easy for me.
2. I found it easy to get the game to do what I wanted it to do.
3. It was easy for me to become skillful in playing the game.
Perceived usefulness
1. The coding game improved my understanding of sequence.
2. The coding game improved my understanding of loops.
3. The coding game improved my understanding of conditionals.
4. The coding game improved my understanding of functions.
5. Since playing the coding game, I am better able to explore connections between
the whole and parts.
6. Since playing the coding game, I am better able to find and solve problems when
they arise to make things work.
7. Since playing the coding game, I am better at problem-solving in terms of devel-
oping and testing possible solutions bit by bit.
8. Since playing the coding game, I am better at making something by building on
existing code, projects or ideas.
9. Since playing the coding game, I am better at creating and expressing ideas
through this new medium.
10. Since playing the coding game, I feel more empowered to ask questions about
and with technology.
13
Items 1 2 3 4 5
Enjoyment
1. I enjoyed playing the coding game very much.
2. Playing the coding game was fun.
3. I would play the coding game in my spare time.
4. I would have played the coding game for longer if I could.
5. I would recommend the coding game to my friends.
Competence
1. I felt competent in playing the coding game.
2. I felt very capable when playing the coding game.
3. My ability to play the coding game was well matched to the game’s challenges.
Acknowledgements We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Netdragon for the full support
in enabling the access to Coding Galaxy for data collection and in providing log data for running the
analyses.
Funding This project was funded by the General Research Fund of the Research Grants Council of Hong
Kong (Project No. 18615216).
Data availability statement The research data associated with this paper can be accessed on request from
the corresponding author.
Declarations
Conflict of interest None.
References
Bachu, E., & Bernard, M. (2011). Enhancing computer programming fluency through game playing.
International Journal of Computing, 1(3).
Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding and computational thinking in early childhood: The impact of ScratchJr in
Europe. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 8. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3868
Bey, A., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Broisin, J. (2019). Unsupervised automatic detection of learners’ pro-
gramming behavior. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning.
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., Engelhardt, K., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2016).
Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. European Commission, JRC Science
for Policy Report, 68.
Buffum, P. S., Frankosky, M., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Collabora-
tion and Gender Equity in Game-Based Learning for Middle School Computer Science. Computing
in Science & Engineering, 18(2), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2016.37.
Çakır, R., Şahin, H., Balci, H., & Vergili, M. (2021). The effect of basic robotic coding in-service train-
ing on teachers’ acceptance of technology, self-development, and computational thinking skills
in technology use. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(2), 237–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40692-020-00178-1
Camilleri, A., & Camilleri, M. A. (2019). The students’ perceived use, ease of use and enjoyment of
educational games at home and at school. 13th Annual International Technology, Education and
Development Conference. Valencia, Spain.
Cheng, Y.-M., Lou, S.-J., Kuo, S.-H., & Shih, R.-C. (2013). Investigating elementary school students’
technology acceptance by applying digital game-based learning to environmental education. Aus-
tralasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.65
13
Daniel, J. (2020). Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11125-020-09464-3.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions
and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487. https://doi.
org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A com-
parison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mnsc.35.8.982
Feng, C., Wang, H., Lu, N., Chen, T., He, H., & Lu, Y. (2014). Log-transformation and its implications
for data analysis. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry, 26(2), 105.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and meas-
urement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224378101800313
Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Enjoy and learn with educational games: Examining factors affecting learn-
ing performance. Computers & Education, 68, 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.
06.005
Giannakoulas, A., & Xinogalos, S. (2018). A pilot study on the effectiveness and acceptance of an educa-
tional game for teaching programming concepts to primary school students. Education and Informa-
tion Technologies, 23(5), 2029–2052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9702-x
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educa-
tional Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Ha, I., Yoon, Y., & Choi, M. (2007). Determinants of adoption of mobile games under mobile broad-
band wireless access environment. Information & Management, 44(3), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.im.2007.01.001
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Advanced diagnostics for multiple
regression: A supplement to multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
Hsu, C.-L., & Lu, H.-P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influ-
ences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41(7), 853–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2003.08.014
Ibrahim, R., Khalil, K., & Jaafar, A. (2011). Towards educational games acceptance model (EGAM):
A revised unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). International Journal of
Research and Reviews in Computer Science, 2(3), 839.
Jiang, S., & Wong, G. K. (2017). Assessing primary school students’ intrinsic motivation of computa-
tional thinking. In 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning
for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 469–474). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2017.8252381
Jung, H., Kim, H. J., So, S., Kim, J., & Oh, C. (2019). TurtleTalk: An educational programming game for
children with voice user interface. Paper presented at the Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Con-
ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312773
Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). A serious game for developing compu-
tational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavio-
ral Sciences, 47, 1991–1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.938
Kim, Y. J., & Shute, V. J. (2015). The interplay of game elements with psychometric qualities, learning,
and enjoyment in game-based assessment. Computers & Education, 87, 340–356. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2015.07.009
Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S., Namukasa, I. K., Somanath, S., Weber, J., & Yiu, C. (2017). A
pedagogical framework for computational thinking. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education,
3(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0031-2
Kusnendar, J., & Prabawa, H. (2019). Bajo’s Adventure: An effort to develop students computational
thinking skills through mobile application. Journal of Physics: Conference Series.
Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2018). Computational thinking in education: Where does it fit? A sys-
tematic literary review. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 2(1), 41.
https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v2i1.26
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
Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-efficacy and academic success among ethnically diverse first-generation com-
munity college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(4), 243. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0017852
13
Manske, S., Werneburg, S., & Hoppe, H. U. (2019). Learner Modeling and Learning Analytics in Com-
putational Thinking Games for Education. In Data Analytics Approaches in Educational Games and
Gamification Systems (pp. 187–212). Springer.
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2011). Habits of programming in scratch. In Pro-
ceedings of the 16th annual joint conference on Innovation and technology in computer science
education.
Menard, S. (2001). Collinearity. Applied logistic regression analysis Second Edition (Quantitative appli-
cations in the social sciences), (pp. 75–78) Sage Publications, Inc.
Min, S., So, K. K. F., & Jeong, M. (2019). Consumer adoption of the Uber mobile application: Insights
from diffusion of innovation theory and technology acceptance model. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 36(7), 770–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1507866
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and moti-
vational factors into a combined model of Self-Determination Theory and Technology Acceptance.
Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.020
Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory. Tata McGraw-hill education.
Papert, S. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books.
Pila, S., Aladé, F., Sheehan, K. J., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. A. (2019). Learning to code via tablet
applications: An evaluation of Daisy the Dinosaur and Kodable as learning tools for young children.
Computers & Education, 128, 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.006
Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y.-K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers
& Education, 47(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007
Rose, S. (2016). Bricolage Programming and Problem Solving Ability in Young Children: An Explora-
tory Study. European Conference on Games Based Learning, 914.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new direc-
tions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-
determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-006-9051-8
Segers, M. S. (1997). An alternative for assessing problem-solving skills: The overall test. Studies in Edu-
cational Evaluation, 23(4), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86216-5
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational
Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of school achievement.
Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.004
Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Theodoropoulos, A., Antoniou, A., & Lepouras, G. (2017). How do different cognitive styles affect learn-
ing programming? Insights from a game-based approach in Greek schools. ACM Transactions on
Computing Education (TOCE), 17(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/2940330
Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). The effects of motivation in education. Procedia-Social and Behav-
ioral Sciences, 31, 820-824.
Werneburg, S., Manske, S., Feldkamp, J., & Hoppe, H. U. (2018). Improving on guidance in a gaming
environment to foster computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference
on Computers in Education.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/
10.1145/1118178.1118215.
Wu, B., Hu, Y., Ruis, A. R., & Wang, M. (2019). Analysing computational thinking in collaborative
programming: A quantitative ethnography approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3),
421–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12348
Xu, F. & Correia, A. (2021). A systematic review of distributed pair programming based on the team
effectiveness model. In Proceedings of Fifth APSCE International Conference on Computational
Thinking and STEM Education 2021 (CTE-STEM).
Yeni, S., & Cagiltay, K. (2017). A heuristic evaluation to support the instructional and enjoyment aspects
of a math game. Program, 51(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/PROG-07-2016-0050
Yücel, Y., & Rızvanoğlu, K. (2019). Battling gender stereotypes: A user study of a code-learning game,
“Code Combat”, with middle school children. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 352–365. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.029
13
Zhang, S., Wong, K. W. G., Chan, C. F. P. (2021). Achievement and effort in acquiring computational
thinking concepts: a log-based analysis in a game-based learning environment. In Proceedings of
Fifth APSCE International Conference on Computational Thinking and STEM Education 2021
(CTE-STEM).
Zhao, W., & Shute, V. J. (2019). Can playing a video game foster computational thinking skills? Comput-
ers & Education, 141, 103633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103633.
Zhi, R., Lytle, N., & Price, T. W. (2018). Exploring instructional support design in an educational game
for K-12 computing education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159519
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
13

Zhang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zhang

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Zhang

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Education and Information Technologies (2023) 28:193–216

Playing coding games to learn computational thinking:

Shuhan Zhang1 · Gary K. W. Wong1 · Peter C. F. Chan2

Keywords Computational thinking · Coding · Programming · Digital games · K–12

In today’s digital society, computation has permeated various aspects of our

learning experiences in this context. Furthermore, researchers have concentrated

2.1 Digital games for coding

2.2 Factors influencing the actual use of digital games

2.3 The present study

RQ1: To what extent is students’ evaluation of a coding game (perceived useful-

Fig. 1 Research model

By answering these questions, this study contributes to the literature in three

Fig. 2 Coding Galaxy mission preface

Fig. 3 Coding Galaxy puzzle

3.3.4 Focus group interviews

To better understand the students’ user intentions, we purposively selected students

Fig. 4 Data collection procedures

conditionals, and functions. No constraints were imposed on the students’ usage of

4.1 Psychometrics of the measurements

Table 1 Construct validity and reliability

Coding Motivation CM1 0.782 0.868 0.492 0.897

Table 2 Discriminant validity

Coding Motivation 0.702

Note: **p < .01

4.3.2 Results of regression analysis

Table 3 Descriptive statistics Construct Mean SD

Game design Perceived Ease of Use 3.72 0.81

Fig. 5 Histogram of LMC

Table 4 Collinearity diagnostics

1 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fig. 6 Residual plot

4.4 Results of focus group interviews

Table 5 Summary of linear Variable β t sr2 R R2 ∆R2

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01

Fig. 7 Results of the regression model

Attractiveness of the game

To shed light on students’ motivation to use coding games in an informal context,

6 Conclusion and future research

Perceived ease of use

Conflict of interest None.

You might also like

2.1 Digital games for coding

2.2 Factors influencing the actual use of digital games

2.3 The present study

3.3.4 Focus group interviews

4.1 Psychometrics of the measurements

4.3.2 Results of regression analysis

4.4 Results of focus group interviews

6 Conclusion and future research