CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Teaching and Learning ProgrammingEducational Games and GamificationEducational Robotics and Engineering

Enhancing computational thinking and spatial reasoning skills in gamification programming learning: A comparative study of tangible, block and paper‐and‐pencil tools

Open access
Gong, Xin, Xu, Weiqi, Yu, Shufan, Ma, Jingjing, Qiao, Ailing·2025·British Journal of Educational Technology
DOI 10.1111/bjet.13482
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Tangible programming tools have become a mainstream teaching aid in gamification programming learning (GPL) due to their interactivity and ability to enhance novice learners' computational thinking and spatial reasoning skills. However, comparing the relative efficacy of different programming tools that simultaneously support these skills was not adequately explored. This study designed and evaluated three programming tools: the tangible programming tool (TPG), which uses real touchable objects; the block programming tool (BPG), which employs virtual programming blocks and 3D game scenarios; and the paper‐and‐pencil programming tool (PPG), which uses paper and pen to draw. The study involved 112 seventh‐grade students from three natural classes: Class A (TPG, n 1 =37), Class B (BPG, n 2 =38), and Class C (PPG, n 3 =37). These students completed four gamification programming tasks and CT skills, spatial reasoning skills, enjoyment, cognitive load and GPL task list measurements. The results indicated that the tangible programming tool led to lower cognitive load, significant improvement in spatial reasoning skills and better abstraction and problem decomposition skills. The block programming tool provided a more enjoyable experience and facilitated students' algorithm design and efficiency. The paper‐and‐pencil programming tool was found to be less effective in improving spatial reasoning skills. This study's findings can help programming educators cultivate students' thinking skills and improve their learning experience by effectively selecting the most appropriate programming tools.

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 · 10.1111/bjet.13482

Cites

2 of 2 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?

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: 63

  1. Baykal, G. E., Alaca, I. V., Yantaç, A. E., & Göksun, T. (2018). A review on complementary natures of tangible user interfaces (TUIs) and early spatial learning. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 16, 104-113. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijcci. 2018. 01. 003 · DOI
  2. Bers, M. U., González-González, C., & Armas-Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138, 130-145. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2019. 04. 013 · DOI
  3. Carreño-León, M., Sandoval-Bringas, A., Álvarez-Rodríguez, F., & Camacho-González, Y. (2018). Gamification technique for teaching programming. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 2009-2014). Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ EDUCON. 2018. 8363482 · DOI
  4. Cheng, Y. P., Lai, C. F., Chen, Y. T., Wang, W. S., Huang, Y. M., & Wu, T. T. (2023). Enhancing student's com- putational thinking skills with student-generated questions strategy in a game-based learning platform. Computers & Education, 200, 104794. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2023. 104794 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Chittum, J. R., Jones, B. D., Akalin, S., & Schram, Á. B. (2017). The effects of an afterschool STEM program on students' motivation and engagement. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1-16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s4059 4-017-0065-4 · DOI
  6. Chiu, C. F., & Huang, H. Y. (2015). Guided debugging practices of game based programming for novice program- mers. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(5), 343-347. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7763/ IJIET. 2015. V5. 527 · DOI
  7. Città, G., Gentile, M., Allegra, M., Arrigo, M., Conti, D., Ottaviano, S., Reale, F., & Sciortino, M. (2019). The effects of mental rotation on computational thinking. Computers & Education, 141, 103613. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2019. 103613 · DOI
  8. Clarke-Midura, J., Silvis, D., Shumway, J. F., Lee, V. R., & Kozlowski, J. S. (2021). Developing a kindergarten com- putational thinking assessment using evidence-centered design: The case of algorithmic thinking. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 117-140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08993 408. 2021. 1877988 · DOI
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
  10. Dagienė, V., & Sentance, S. (2016). It's computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. In A. Brodnik & F. Tort (Eds.), Informatics in Schools: Improvement of Informatics Knowledge and Perception: 9th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives, ISSEP 2016, Münster, Germany, October 13-15, 2016, Proceedings 9 (pp. 28-39). Springer International Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3-319-46747 -4_ 3 · DOI
  11. 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, 1-26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063 9-023-11625 -8 · DOI
  12. Dúo-Terrón, P. (2023). Analysis of scratch software in scientific production for 20 years: Programming in educa- tion to develop computational thinking and STEAM disciplines. Education Sciences, 13(4), 404. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci130 40404 · DOI
  13. Erol, O., & Kurt, A. A. (2017). The effects of teaching programming with scratch on pre-service information tech- nology teachers' motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 11-18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2017. 08. 017 · DOI
  14. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5-6 years old kindergarten children in a com- puter programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2012. 11. 016 · DOI
  15. Figueiredo, J., & Garcia-Penalvo, F. J. (2020). Increasing student motivation in computer programming with gamification. In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 997-1000). Porto, Portugal. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ EDUCO N45650. 2020. 9125283 · DOI
  16. Garcia, M. B. (2021). Cooperative learning in computer programming: A quasi-experimental evaluation of Jigsaw teaching strategy with novice programmers. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4839-4856. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063 9-021-10502 -6 · DOI
  17. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., & Avvisati, F. (2015). Computer-generated log-file analyses as a window into students' minds? A showcase study based on the PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving. Computers & Education, 91, 92-105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2015. 10. 018 · DOI
  18. Gün, E. T., & Atasoy, B. (2017). The effects of augmented reality on elementary school students' spatial ability and academic achievement. Egitim ve Bilim-Education and Science, 42(191), 31-51. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15390/ EB. 2017. 7140 · DOI
  19. Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170-179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2015. 07. 045 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., Richardson, A. E., Ishikawa, T., & Lovelace, K. (2006). Spatial abilities at different scales: Individual differences in aptitude-test performance and spatial-layout learning. Intelligence, 34(2), 151-176. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. intell. 2005. 09. 005 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Hu, Y., Chen, C. H., & Su, C. Y. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness and moderators of block-based visual pro- gramming on student learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1467- 1493. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07356 33120 945935 · DOI
  22. Huang, S. Y., Tarng, W., & Ou, K. L. (2023). Effectiveness of AR board game on computational thinking and programming skills for elementary school students. Systems, 11(1), 25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ syste ms110 10025 · DOI
  23. Huang, T. C., & Lin, C. Y. (2017). From 3D modeling to 3D printing: Development of a differentiated spatial ability teaching model. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 604-613. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tele. 2016. 10. 005 · DOI
  24. Jordan, P. W. (2002). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. Taylor & Francis.
  25. Kim, B., Kim, T., & Kim, J. (2013). Paper-and-pencil programming strategy toward computational thinking for non- majors: Design your solution. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(4), 437-459. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2190/ EC. 49.4. b Lahtinen, E., Ala-Mutka, K., & Järvinen, H.-M. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 14-18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 11519 54. 1067453 · DOI
  26. Lawhead, P. B., Bland, C. G., Barnes, D. J., Duncan, M. E., Goldweber, M., Hollingsworth, R. G., & Schep, M. (2002). A road map for teaching introductory programming using LEGO© mindstorms robots. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 191-201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 782941. 783002 · DOI
  27. Lee, L. K., Cheung, T. K., Ho, L. T., Yiu, W. H., & Wu, N. I. (2021). A cross-platform game for learning computa- tional thinking with the support of collaborative learning. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 30(3), 334-357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJIL. 2021. 118188 · DOI
  28. Lindberg, R. S. N., Laine, T. H., & Haaranen, L. (2018). Gamifying programming education in K-12: A review of pro- gramming curricula in seven countries and programming games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1979-1995. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjet. 12685 · DOI
  29. Liu, F., Zhao, L., Zhao, J., Dai, Q., Fan, C., & Shen, J. (2022). Educational process mining for discovering students' problem-solving ability in computer programming education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 15(6), 709-719. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ TLT. 2022. 3216276 · DOI
  30. Melcer, E., & Isbister, K. (2017). Embodiment, collaboration, and challenge in educational programming games: Exploring use of tangibles and mouse. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 1-6). Hyannis, Massachusetts. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 31020 71. 3116222 · DOI
  31. Misirli, A., Komis, V., & Ravanis, K. (2019). The construction of spatial awareness in early childhood: The effect of an educational scenario-based programming environment. Review of Science, Mathematic & ICT Education, 13(1), 111-124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 26220/ rev. 3122 · DOI
  32. Molina-Carmona, R., Pertegal-Felices, M., Jimeno-Morenilla, A., & Mora-Mora, H. (2018). Virtual reality learning activities for multimedia students to enhance spatial ability. Sustainability, 10(4), 1074. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ su100 41074 · DOI
  33. Moore, T. J., Brophy, S. P., Tank, K. M., Lopez, R. D., Johnston, A. C., Hynes, M. M., & Gajdzik, E. (2020). Multiple representations in computational thinking tasks: A clinical study of second-grade students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 19-34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1095 6-020-09812 -0 · DOI
  34. Ou-Yang, F. C., Lai, H. M., & Wang, Y. W. (2023). Effect of augmented reality-based virtual educational robotics on programming students' enjoyment of learning, computational thinking skills, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 195, 104721. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2022. 104721 · DOI
  35. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ S1532 6985E P3801_ 8 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Pearce, J., Ainley, M., & Howard, S. (2005). The ebb and flow of online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 745-771. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0747 -5632(04) 00036 -6 · DOI
  37. Pérez-Marín, D., Hijón-Neira, R., & Pizarro, C. (2022). Coding in early years education: Which factors influ- ence the skills of sequencing and plotting a route, and to what extent? International Journal of Early Years Education, 30(4), 969-985. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09669 760. 2022. 2037076 · DOI
  38. Pouw, W. T. J. L., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2014). An embedded and embodied cognition review of instructional manipulatives. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 51-72. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1064 8-014-9255-5 · DOI
  39. Quevedo Gutierrez, E., & Zapatera Llinares, A. (2021). Assessment of scratch programming language as a didac- tic tool to teach functions. Education Sciences, 11(9), 499. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ educs ci110 90499 · DOI
  40. Ramful, A., Lowrie, T., & Logan, T. (2016). Measurement of spatial ability: Construction and validation of the spatial reasoning instrument for middle school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 1-19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07342 82916 659207 14678535, 2025, 1, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13482 by Mount Vernon Nazarene University, Wiley Online Library on [29/12/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License · DOI
  41. Robert, L., Miyahara, D., Lafourcade, P., Libralesso, L., & Mizuki, T. (2022). Physical zero-knowledge proof and NP-completeness proof of Suguru puzzle. Information and Computation, 285, 104858. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ic. 2021. 104858 · DOI
  42. Rojas-López, A., Rincón-Flores, E. G., Mena, J., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2019). Engagement in the course of programming in higher education through the use of gamification. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(3), 583-597. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1020 9-019-00680 -z · DOI
  43. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2016. 08. 047 · DOI
  44. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory. Basic psychological needs in motivation, develop- ment and wellness. The Guilford Press.
  45. Sapounidis, T., & Demetriadis, S. (2013). Tangible versus graphical user interfaces for robot programming: Exploring cross-age children's preferences. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 17(8), 1775-1786. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s0077 9-013-0641-7 · DOI
  46. Sapounidis, T., Demetriadis, S., & Stamelos, I. (2015). Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangi- ble robot programming tools. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 19(1), 225-237. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s0077 9-014-0774-3 · DOI
  47. Shaban, A., Pearson, E., & Chang, V. (2021). Evaluation of user experience, cognitive load, and training perfor- mance of a gamified cognitive training application for children with learning disabilities. Frontiers in Computer Science, 3, 617056. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fcomp. 2021. 617056 · DOI
  48. Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411-417. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tics. 2008. 07. 006 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Sharma, K., Papavlasopoulou, S., & Giannakos, M. (2019). Coding games and robots to enhance computational thinking: How collaboration and engagement moderate children's attitudes? International Journal of Child- Computer Interaction, 21, 65-76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijcci. 2019. 04. 004 · DOI
  50. Sırakaya, M., & Alsancak Sırakaya, D. (2020). Augmented reality in STEM education: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(8), 1556-1569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10494 820. 2020. 1722713 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Song, J. B. (2019). The effectiveness of an unplugged coding education system that enables coding education without computers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 10(1), 129-137. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13189/ ujer. 2019. 071514 · DOI
  52. Souza, A. C. D., Alexandre, N. M. C., Guirardello, E. D. B., Souza, A. C. D., Alexandre, N. M. C., & Guirardello, E. D. B. (2017). Propriedades psicométricas na avaliação de instrumentos: Avaliação da confiabilidade e da validade. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, 26(3), 649-659. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5123/ S1679 -49742 01700 0300022 · DOI
  53. Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). "I want my robot to look for food": Comparing Kindergartner's programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293-319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1079 8-014-9287-7 · DOI
  54. Strawhacker, A., Lee, M., & Bers, M. U. (2018). Teaching tools, teachers' rules: Exploring the impact of teaching styles on young children's programming knowledge in ScratchJr. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 347-376. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1079 8-017-9400-9 · DOI
  55. Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021). Which way of design programming activities is more effective to promote K-12 students' computational thinking skills? A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1048-1062. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcal. 12545 · DOI
  56. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10221 93728205 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Wang, X. Y., Xing, Q., Jin, Q., & Wang, D. L. (2024). "Be a lighting programmer": Supporting children collabora- tive learning through tangible programming system. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 40(10), 2622-2640. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10447 318. 2022. 2163783 · DOI
  58. Wang, Y. (2023). Can gamification assist learning? A study to design and explore the uses of educational music games for adults and young learners. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(8), 2015-2035. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07356 33122 1098148 · DOI
  59. Werbach, K., & Hunter, D. (2012). For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. Wharton Digital Press.
  60. Xie, L., Antle, A. N., & Motamedi, N. (2008). Are tangibles more fun?: Comparing children's enjoyment and en- gagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (pp. 191-198). Bonn, Germany. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 13473 90. 1347433 · DOI
  61. Yildiz Durak, H. (2020). The effects of using different tools in programming teaching of secondary school stu- dents on engagement, computational thinking and reflective thinking skills for problem solving. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 179-195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1075 8-018-9391-y · DOI
  62. Zhan, Z., He, L., Tong, Y., Liang, X., Guo, S., & Lan, X. (2022). The effectiveness of gamification in program- ming education: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100096. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. caeai. 2022. 100096 · DOI
  63. Zhong, B., Xia, L., & Su, S. (2022). Effects of programming tools with different degrees of embodiment on learn- ing Boolean operations. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6211-6231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1063 9-021-10884 -7 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gong, X., Xu, W., Yu, S., Ma, J., & Qiao, A.
Affiliations
  • Capital Normal University (CN)
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Central China Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Qiao, Ailing
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-05-25
Volume
56
Issue
1
Pages
80-102
ISSN
  • 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8535
DOI
10.1111/bjet.13482
OpenAlex
W4399022046
Cited by
25
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 1
FWCI
6.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
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, spatial reasoning, block-based programming, cognitive load, student enjoyment, abstraction, problem decomposition, algorithm design, novice programmers, seventh grade students

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