Computational Thinking Through Scaffolded Game Development Activities: A Study with Graphical Programming
This study investigates the effectiveness of scaffolded game development activities in enhancing computational thinking (CT) skills among young learne.
- Pub. date: October 15, 2025
- Online Pub. date: August 08, 2025
- Pages: 1137-1149
- 22 Downloads
- 45 Views
- 0 Citations
Abstract:
This study investigates the effectiveness of scaffolded game development activities in enhancing computational thinking (CT) skills among young learners using a graphical programming environment. While prior research highlights the value of block-based programming in CT education, few studies explore how structured scaffolding supports learners in completing full game projects. Grounded in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and Wing’s CT framework, this study involved 310 participants aged 10 to 15, including their teachers, in a tiered sequence of programming tasks using mBlock programming platform. Learners progressed from basic to more complex programming constructs, namely, loops, conditionals, variables, and debugging, which are included in the development of a complete Pac-Man or Snake game. Quantitative results demonstrated significant improvements in CT skills across all age groups. Qualitative data revealed increased learner engagement, reduced programming anxiety, and enhanced interest in computational problem-solving. The findings suggest that scaffolded game development is a promising strategy for early CT instruction, offering both cognitive and affective benefits. This work contributes to current literature by demonstrating how structured support and creative programming tasks can jointly promote CT proficiency and learner motivation in foundational computing education.
Keywords: Computational thinking, game development, graphical programming, tiered scaffolding.
References
Bachiller-Burgos, P., Barbecho, I., Calderita, L. V., Bustos, P., & Manso, L. J. (2020). LearnBlock: A robot-agnostic educational programming tool. IEEE Access, 8, 30012-30026. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2972410
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, (pp. 1-25). American Educational Research Association. http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf
Dilmen, K., Kert, S. B., & Uğraş, T. (2023). Children’s coding experiences in a block-based coding environment: A usability study on code.org. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 10839-10864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11625-8
Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2001). Re-conceptualizing" scaffolding" and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 36/37(2/1), 40-54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23869224
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2021). Computational thinking, between papert and wing. Science and Education, 30(4), 883-908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Margolis, A. A. (2020). Zone of Proximal development, scaffolding and teaching practice. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 16(3), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2020160303
Noordin, N. H., Abdullah, K. K. B. H., & Eu, P. S. (2024). Assessing the Effectiveness of UMP STEM Cube as a Tool for Developing Digital Making Skill Sets. IEEE Transactions on Education, 67(6), 857-867. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2024.3376448
Rao, T. S. S., & Bhagat, K. K. (2024). Computational thinking for the digital age: A systematic review of tools, pedagogical strategies, and assessment practices. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72, 1893-1924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10364-y
Shabani, K., Khatib, M., & Ebadi, S. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 237-248. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n4p237
Shin, Y., Jung, J., Choi, S., & Jung, B. (2025). The influence of scaffolding for computational thinking on cognitive load and problem-solving skills in collaborative programming. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 583-606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13104-0
Srisangngam, P., & Dechsura, C. (2020). STEM education activities development to promote computational thinking’s Students. 2020 5th International STEM Education Conference (ISTEM-Ed) (pp. 103-105). https://doi.org/10.1109/iSTEM-Ed50324.2020.9332734
Sun, D., Looi, C.-K., Li, Y., Zhu, C., Zhu, C., & Cheng, M. (2024). Block-based versus text-based programming: A comparison of learners’ programming behaviors, computational thinking skills and attitudes toward programming. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72, 1067-1089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10328-8
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: Support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instructional Science, 43, 615-641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z
Wan, H., Zhang, X., Yang, X., & Li, S. (2024). Which approach is effective: Comparing problematization-oriented and structuring-oriented scaffolding in instructional videos for programming education. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 17807-17823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12550-0
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wing, J. M. (2017). Computational thinking’s influence on research and education for all. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/922
Ye, H., Liang, B., Ng, O.-L., & Chai, C. S. (2023). Integration of computational thinking in K-12 mathematics education: A systematic review on CT-based mathematics instruction and student learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 10, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00396-w