The DOI matches its DataCite record.
A meta-scoping review of programming and robotics in primary and secondary education
Open accessAbstract
This meta-scoping review explores the nature and scope of evidence syntheses on programming and robotics in primary and secondary education, aiming to identify benefits, challenges, and directions for future research, as well as to appraise the quality of evidence syntheses being conducted. A systematic search was conducted in the Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCOHost, ERIC, and OpenAlex. After screening, 49 relevant evidence syntheses published between 2012 and 2023 were identified, and the Quality of Evidence Synthesis Tool (QuEST) was employed to assess methodological rigor. Systematic reviews dominate evidence syntheses in programming and robotics education, with a recent rise in meta-analyses, and publications were spread across 37 journals indicating interdisciplinary interest. Authors are mainly from Europe and Asia, with mostly domestic collaborations, and the overall medium quality of syntheses points to a need for more robust methodological standards. While programming and robotics education offer benefits such as enhanced cognitive development and creativity, challenges persist including resource limitations, teacher training, and cognitive load. The review calls for high-quality, internationally collaborative research on effective pedagogical practices, cognitive load management, and the integration of AI in education.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“which is particularly notable as studies in education and the wider educational technology field often have much smaller sample sizes (e.g., Forsström et al., 2024).”
From Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: a systematic review (2024) · cites this paper as Forsström et al., 2024
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.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Unpacking student engagement in higher education learning analytics: a systematic review
Bergdahl, N., Bond, M., Sjöberg, J., Dougherty, M., & Oxley, E. (2024) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-024-00493-y · Cited by 138
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Forsström, S., Bond, M., & Njå, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Stavanger (NO)
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Zenodo
- Publisher
- Zenodo
- Published
- 2024-09-23
- OpenAlex
- W6892979253
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Robotics and Engineering
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- programming education, robotics education, primary education, secondary education, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, cognitive load, teacher professional development, creativity, cognitive development, artificial intelligence in education, teaching practice
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
