CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 62Teaching and Learning ProgrammingEducational Games and GamificationEducational Robotics and Engineering

Enhancing Confidence in Using Computational Thinking Skills via Playing a Serious Game: A Case Study to Increase Motivation in Learning Computer Programming

Open access
Kazimoglu, Cagin·2020·IEEE Access
DOI 10.1109/access.2020.3043278
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Computer Science (CS) is a profession that positively impacts every single area of society without which today's world would come to a complete halt. Yet, there is a consensus that CS has serious conundrums particularly in attracting students, low motivation for learning computer programming and developing computational thinking (CT) skills. New motivational methods are needed to take the attention of students and adapt to their learning patterns as how people learn have changed drastically over the last two decades. To address these issues, video games and video game-based tools are proposed as a primary approach for motivating and supporting students in developing their skills in CT and support their learning of introductory programming. This research is concerned with the capture of statistical evidence on the educational effectiveness of playing a serious game specifically designed to enhance the development of CT skills to facilitate learning introductory computer programming. A total of 190 students were invited to participate in a quasi-experimental pre-post study for the purpose of analyzing the impact of an adhoc game on students' confidence in learning programming constructs and using their skills in CT. All students were studying a CS degree at the time and they were all registered to a first-year computer programming course. 151 out of 190 students successfully completed the study and the findings suggest that a) the intrinsic motivation to learn programming; b) students' perception of their knowledge and their tangible knowledge in key programming constructs (i.e. programming sequence, methods, decision making and loops); and c) students' confidence in using their CT skills were all statistically and significantly improved after playing the game. Additionally, students perceived computer programming significantly less difficult in their post study responses when compared to their pre study responses.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/access.2020.3043278

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Students' motivation increases when they are actively engaged in CT-based learning and assigned complete responsibility.

    “Kazimoglu (2020) argued that students' motivation increases when they are actively engaged in CT-based learning and assigned complete responsibility.”

    From Incorporating Computational Thinking Into Virtual Laboratories to Enhance Learning Motivation, Engagement, and Higher‐Order Thinking Skills (2025) · cites this paper as Kazimoglu (2020)

    The Abstract and VII. Discussion report increased motivation to learn programming after students played a game designed to practice computational-thinking skills. The paper does not say that students were assigned complete responsibility, or establish that such responsibility increased motivation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 78

  1. T. Beaubouef and J. Mason, "Why the high attrition rate for computer science students: some thoughts and observations," ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 103-106, 2005.
  2. C. Watson and F. W. B. Li, "Failure rates in introductory programming revisited," in Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education, 2014, pp. 39-44.
  3. E. B. Costa, B. Fonseca, M. A. Santana, F. F. de Araújo, and J. Rego, "Evaluating the effectiveness of educational data mining techniques for early prediction of students' academic failure in introductory programming courses," Comput. Human Behav., vol. 73, pp. 247-256, 2017.
  4. M. N. Giannakos, I. O. Pappas, L. Jaccheri, and D. G. Sampson, "Understanding student retention in computer science education: The role of environment, gains, barriers and usefulness," Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 2365-2382, 2017.
  5. R. P. Medeiros, G. L. Ramalho, and T. P. Falcão, "A systematic literature review on teaching and learning introductory programming in higher education," IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 77-90, 2018.
  6. M. McCracken et al., "A multi-national, multi-institutional study of assessment of programming skills of first-year CS students," in Working group reports from ITiCSE on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 2001, pp. 125-180.
  7. R. Lister et al., "A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers," ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 119-150, 2004.
  8. P. Kinnunen and L. Malmi, "Why students drop out CS1 course?," in Proceedings of the second international workshop on Computing education research, 2006, pp. 97-108.
  9. M. Armoni, O. Meerbaum-Salant, and M. Ben-Ari, "From scratch to 'real' programming," ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1-15, 2015.
  10. A. Altadmri and N. C. C. Brown, "37 million compilations: Investigating novice programming mistakes in large-scale student data," in Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2015, pp. 522-527.
  11. J. Voogt, P. Fisser, J. Good, P. Mishra, and A. Yadav, "Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice," Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 715-728, 2015.
  12. J. Bonar and E. Soloway, "Uncovering principles of novice programming," in Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGACT- SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages, 1983, pp. 10-13.
  13. J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen, "Failure rates in introductory programming," AcM SIGcSE Bull., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 32-36, 2007.
  14. L. Porter, M. Guzdial, C. McDowell, and B. Simon, "Success in introductory programming: What works?," Commun. ACM, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 34-36, 2013.
  15. N. J. Coull and I. M. M. Duncan, "Emergent requirements for supporting introductory programming," Innov. Teach. Learn. Inf. Comput. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 78-85, 2011.
  16. C.-C. Liu, Y.-B. Cheng, and C.-W. Huang, "The effect of simulation games on the learning of computational problem solving," Comput. Educ., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 1907-1918, 2011.
  17. L. J. Barker, C. McDowell, and K. Kalahar, "Exploring factors that influence computer science introductory course students to persist in the major," ACM Sigcse Bull., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 153- 157, 2009.
  18. A. Ali and C. Shubra, "Efforts to reverse the trend of enrollment decline in computer science programs," Issues Informing Sci. Inf. Technol., vol. 7, pp. 209-224, 2010.
  19. I. Ouahbi, F. Kaddari, H. Darhmaoui, A. Elachqar, and S. Lahmine, "Learning basic programming concepts by creating games with scratch programming environment," Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 191, pp. 1479-1482, 2015.
  20. S. Combéfis, G. Beresnevičius, and V. Dagienė, "Learning programming through games and contests: overview, characterisation and discussion," Olympiads in Informatics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 39-60, 2016.
  21. Y. B. Kafai and Q. Burke, "Constructionist gaming: Understanding the benefits of making games for learning," Educ. Psychol., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 313-334, 2015.
  22. T. Y. Lee, M. L. Mauriello, J. Ahn, and B. B. Bederson, "CTArcade: Computational thinking with games in school age children," Int. J. Child-Computer Interact., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 26- 33, 2014.
  23. P.-Y. Chao, "Exploring students' computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment," Comput. Educ., vol. 95, pp. 202- 215, 2016.
  24. O. Erol and A. A. Kurt, "The effects of teaching programming with scratch on pre-service information technology teachers' motivation and achievement," Comput. Human Behav., vol. 77, pp. 11-18, 2017.
  25. L. A. Calao, J. Moreno-León, H. E. Correa, and G. Robles, "Developing mathematical thinking with scratch," in Design for teaching and learning in a networked world, Springer, 2015, pp. 17-27.
  26. D. Topalli and N. E. Cagiltay, "Improving programming skills in engineering education through problem-based game projects with Scratch," Comput. Educ., vol. 120, pp. 64-74, 2018.
  27. K. Sung, C. Hillyard, R. L. Angotti, M. W. Panitz, D. S. Goldstein, and J. Nordlinger, "Game-themed programming assignment modules: A pathway for gradual integration of gaming context into existing introductory programming courses," IEEE Trans. Educ., vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 416-427, 2010.
  28. B. Wu and A. I. Wang, "A guideline for game development- based learning: a literature review," Int. J. Comput. Games Technol., vol. 2012, 2012.
  29. N. Pellas and S. Vosinakis, "How can a simulation game support the development of computational problem-solving strategies?," in 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2017, pp. 1129-1136.
  30. S. I. Ch'ng, Y. C. Low, Y. L. Lee, W. C. Chia, and L. S. Yeong, "Video Games: A Potential Vehicle for Teaching Computational Thinking," in Computational Thinking Education, Springer, Singapore, 2019, pp. 247-260.
  31. C. Kazimoglu, M. Kiernan, L. Bacon, and L. Mackinnon, "A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming," Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 47, pp. 1991-1999, 2012.
  32. F. Bellotti, B. Kapralos, K. Lee, P. Moreno-Ger, and R. Berta, "Assessment in and of serious games: an overview," Adv. human-computer Interact., vol. 2013, 2013.
  33. X. Jiang, C. Harteveld, X. Huang, and A. Y. H. Fung, "The computational puzzle design framework: a design guide for games teaching computational thinking," in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, 2019, pp. 1-11.
  34. T. Mitamura, Y. Suzuki, and T. Oohori, "Serious games for learning programming languages," in 2012 IEEE international conference on systems, man, and cybernetics (SMC), 2012, pp. 1812-1817.
  35. T. Hainey et al., "Students' attitudes toward playing games and using games in education: Comparing Scotland and the Netherlands," Comput. Educ., vol. 69, pp. 474-484, 2013.
  36. P. Molins-Ruano, C. Sevilla, S. Santini, P. A. Haya, P. Rodríguez, and G. M. Sacha, "Designing videogames to improve students' motivation," Comput. Human Behav., vol. 31, pp. 571- 579, 2014.
  37. J. Sinclair, M. Butler, M. Morgan, and S. Kalvala, "Measures of student engagement in computer science," in Proceedings of the 2015 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, 2015, pp. 242-247.
  38. J. Bennedsen and M. E. Caspersen, "Failure rates in introductory programming: 12 years later," ACM Inroads, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 30-36, 2019.
  39. M. J. Lee and A. J. Ko, "Comparing the effectiveness of online learning approaches on CS1 learning outcomes," in Proceedings of the eleventh annual international conference on international computing education research, 2015, pp. 237-246.
  40. N. Dalal, P. Dalal, S. Kak, P. Antonenko, and S. Stansberry, "Rapid digital game creation for broadening participation in computing and fostering crucial thinking skills," Int. J. Soc. Humanist. Comput., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 123-137, 2009.
  41. R. Rajaravivarma, "A games-based approach for teaching the introductory programming course," ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 98-102, 2005.
  42. I. Lee, F. Martin, and K. Apone, "Integrating computational thinking across the K--8 curriculum," Acm Inroads, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 64-71, 2014.
  43. S. Papert, "An exploration in the space of mathematics educations," Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 95- 123, 1996.
  44. J. M. Wing, "Computational thinking," Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 33-35, 2006.
  45. J. M. Wing, "Computational thinking and thinking about computing," Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., vol. 366, no. 1881, pp. 3717-3725, 2008.
  46. A. Basawapatna, K. H. Koh, A. Repenning, D. C. Webb, and K. S. Marshall, "Recognizing computational thinking patterns," in Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, 2011, pp. 245-250.
  47. P. Curzon and P. W. McOwan, The power of computational thinking: Games, magic and puzzles to help you become a computational thinker. World Scientific, 2017.
  48. M. L. Wu and K. Richards, "Facilitating computational thinking through game design," in International Conference on Technologies for E-Learning and Digital Entertainment, 2011, pp. 220-227.
  49. J. F. Roscoe, S. Fearn, and E. Posey, "Teaching computational thinking by playing games and building robots," in 2014 International Conference on Interactive Technologies and Games, 2014, pp. 9-12.
  50. D. Weintrop, N. Holbert, M. S. Horn, and U. Wilensky, "Computational thinking in constructionist video games," Int. J. Game-Based Learn., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-17, 2016.
  51. J. Moreno-León, G. Robles, and M. Román-González, "Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking," RED. Rev. Educ. a Distancia, no. 46, pp. 1-23, 2015.
  52. M. J. Marcelino, T. Pessoa, C. Vieira, T. Salvador, and A. J. Mendes, "Learning computational thinking and scratch at distance," Comput. Human Behav., vol. 80, pp. 470-477, 2018.
  53. A. Settle, "Computational thinking in a game design course," in Proceedings of the 2011 conference on Information technology education, 2011, pp. 61-66.
  54. P. Boechler, C. Artym, E. Dejong, M. Carbonaro, and E. Stroulia, "Computational thinking, code complexity, and prior experience in a videogame-building assignment," in 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2014, pp. 396-398.
  55. M. Muratet, P. Torguet, F. Viallet, and J.-P. Jessel, "Experimental feedback on Prog&Play: a serious game for programming practice," in Computer Graphics Forum, 2011, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 61-73.
  56. A. Vahldick, A. J. Mendes, and M. J. Marcelino, "A review of games designed to improve introductory computer programming competencies," in 2014 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) proceedings, 2014, pp. 1-7.
  57. W. Zhao and V. J. Shute, "Can playing a video game foster computational thinking skills?," Comput. Educ., vol. 141, p. 103633, 2019.
  58. A. Repenning et al., "Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation," ACM Trans. Comput. Educ., vol. 15, no. 2, p. 11, 2015.
  59. S. Leutenegger and J. Edgington, "A games first approach to teaching introductory programming," in Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, 2007, pp. 115-118.
  60. M. Eagle and T. Barnes, "Experimental evaluation of an educational game for improved learning in introductory computing," ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 321-325, 2009.
  61. L. A. Gouws, K. Bradshaw, and P. Wentworth, "Computational thinking in educational activities: an evaluation of the educational game light-bot," in Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 2013, pp. 10-15.
  62. C. Kazimoglu, M. Kiernan, L. Bacon, and L. MacKinnon, "Learning programming at the computational thinking level via digital game-play," Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 9, pp. 522-531, 2012.
  63. M. J. Lee and A. J. Ko, "Personifying programming tool feedback improves novice programmers' learning," in Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on Computing education research, 2011, pp. 109-116.
  64. M. Soflano, T. M. Connolly, and T. Hainey, "An application of adaptive games-based learning based on learning style to teach SQL," Comput. Educ., vol. 86, pp. 192-211, 2015.
  65. C. Kazimoglu, M. Kiernan, L. Bacon, and L. MacKinnon, "Understanding computational thinking before programming: developing guidelines for the design of games to learn introductory programming through game-play," Int. J. Game- Based Learn., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 30-52, 2011.
  66. D. T. Campbell and J. C. Stanley, "Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research, Rand Mc," Na1ly Coll. Publ. Chicago, vol. 47, p. 1, 1966.
  67. A. Ater-Kranov, R. Bryant, G. Orr, S. Wallace, and M. Zhang, "Developing a community definition and teaching modules for computational thinking: accomplishments and challenges," in Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Information technology education, 2010, pp. 143-148.
  68. D. B. Wright, "Comparing groups in a before-after design: When t test and ANCOVA produce different results," Br. J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 663-675, 2006.
  69. L. Yang and A. A. Tsiatis, "Efficiency study of estimators for a treatment effect in a pretest-posttest trial," Am. Stat., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 314-321, 2001.
  70. M. Rosenblatt, "A central limit theorem and a strong mixing condition," Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol. 42, no. 1, p. 43, 1956.
  71. M. J. Lee, "Gidget: An online debugging game for learning and engagement in computing education," in 2014 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2014, pp. 193-194.
  72. J. A. Qualls and L. B. Sherrell, "Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum," J. Comput. Sci. Coll., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 66-71, 2010.
  73. L. Perković, A. Settle, S. Hwang, and J. Jones, "A framework for computational thinking across the curriculum," in Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, 2010, pp. 123- 127.
  74. A. Yadav, J. Good, J. Voogt, and P. Fisser, "Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain," in Competence- based vocational and professional education, Springer, 2017, pp. 1051-1067.
  75. B. C. Wilson and S. Shrock, "Contributing to success in an introductory computer science course: a study of twelve factors," Acm sigcse Bull., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 184-188, 2001.
  76. G. White and M. Sivitanides, "An empirical investigation of the relationship between success in mathematics and visual programming courses," J. Inf. Syst. Educ., vol. 14, no. 4, p. 409, 2003.
  77. I. L. Balmes, "Correlation of mathematical ability and programming ability of the computer science students," Asia Pacific J. Educ. Arts Sci., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 85-88, 2017.
  78. L. M. de Souza, B. M. Ferreira, I. M. Félix, L. de Oliveira Brandão, A. A. F. Brandão, and P. A. Pereira, "Mathematics and programming: marriage or divorce?," in 2019 IEEE World Conference on Engineering Education (EDUNINE), 2019, pp. 1-5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kazimoglu, C.
Affiliations
Cyprus International University (CY)
Corresponding author
Kazimoglu, Cagin
ORCID
Kazimoglu, Cagin
Venue
IEEE Access
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2020
Volume
8
Pages
221831-221851
ISSN
2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1109/access.2020.3043278
OpenAlex
W3112675747
Cited by
62
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2
FWCI
5.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Access (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Games and Gamification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
Keywords
computational thinking, serious games, game-based learning, introductory programming, student motivation, intrinsic motivation, programming constructs, educational video games, computer science education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review