Block-based visual programming tools are widely used in elementary education. Nonetheless, these tools alone may not ensure the spontaneous and efficient acquisition of concepts and skills in computational thinking (CT). Using mind mapping as a form of scaffolding to facilitate the visualization of abstract thinking processes may enhance the effectiveness of programming instruction. This study therefore investigated the effects of mind mapping-based scaffolding that integrates five CT skills on elementary students’ CT development. Eighty-six fifth-grade students participated in our pretest-posttest quasi-experimental study. In the experimental group, mind mapping-based scaffolding was used to help students learn programming, while in the comparison group it was not used. The results showed that both groups achieved significant improvements in concept understanding and skill development; however, students instructed using mind mapping-based scaffolding obtained notably superior performance in understanding CT concepts and mastering CT skills. The results also revealed that the students had positive perceptions of mind mapping-based scaffolding, although challenges were also identified. This study enriches the relevant empirical research and offers insights for practitioners on designing effective scaffolding to promote students’ CT development.
AkcaogluM.KoehlerM. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the game-design and learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers and Education, 75(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.003
3.
AksitO.WiebeE. N. (2020). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z
4.
AndersonN. D. (2016). A call for computational thinking in undergraduate psychology. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 15(3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659252
5.
BasogainX.OlabeM. A.OlabeJ. C.RicoM. J. (2018). Computational thinking in pre-university blended learning classrooms. Computers in Human Behavior, 80(1), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.058
BrennanK.ResnickM. (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 (1, pp. 1–25). AERA. https://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf
8.
Buitrago FlórezF.CasallasR.HernándezM.ReyesA.RestrepoS.DaniesG. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096
9.
BuzanT. (2006). Use your head: Innovative learning and thinking techniques to fulfill your potential (mind set). BBC Active.
10.
ChaoP. Y. (2016). Exploring students’ computational practice, design and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Computers and Education, 95(1), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.010
11.
ChengY. P.LaiC. F.ChenY. T.WangW. S.HuangY. M.WuT. T. (2023). Enhancing student’s computational thinking skills with student-generated questions strategy in a game-based learning platform. Computers and Education, 200(1), Article 104794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104794
12.
ChevalierM.GiangC.El-HamamsyL.BonnetE.PapaspyrosV.PelletJ. P.AudrinC.RomeroM.BaumbergerB.MondadaF.MondadaF. (2022). The role of feedback and guidance as intervention methods to foster computational thinking in educational robotics learning activities for primary school. Computers and Education, 180(1), Article 104431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104431
13.
ChevalierM.GiangC.PiattiA.MondadaF. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z
14.
ChouP. N. (2020). Using ScratchJr to foster young children’s computational thinking competence: A case study in a third-grade computer class. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 570–595. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119872908
DaviesM. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter?Higher Education, 62(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
18.
FalloonG. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using scratch jnr. on the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(6), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12155
19.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). Sage.
20.
FuQ. K.LinC. J.HwangG. J.ZhangL. (2019). Impacts of a mind mapping-based contextual gaming approach on EFL students’ writing performance, learning perceptions and generative uses in an English course. Computers and Education, 137, 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.005
21.
GaoX. M.HewK. F. (2022). Toward a 5E-based flipped classroom model for teaching computational thinking in elementary school: Effects on student computational thinking and problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 512–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211037757
22.
GaoX. M.HewK. F. (2023). A flipped systematic debugging approach to enhance elementary students’ program debugging performance and optimize cognitive load. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(5), 1064–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221133560
23.
GroverS.PeaR. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In SentanceS.BarendsenE.SchulteC. (Eds.), Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 20–38). Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350057142.ch-00
24.
GroverS.PeaR.CooperS. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142
25.
GuenagaM.EguíluzA.GaraizarP.GibajaJ. (2021). How do students develop computational thinking? Assessing early programmers in a maze-based online game. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 259–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1903248
26.
IsmailM. N.NgahN. A.UmarI. N. (2010). The effects of mind mapping with cooperative learning on programming performance, problem solving skill and metacognitive knowledge among computer science students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.1.b
27.
JiangB.LiZ. (2021). Effect of scratch on computational thinking skills of Chinese primary school students. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00190-z
28.
JohnsonR. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282–292.
29.
KadarR.WahabN. A.OthmanJ.ShamsuddinM.MahlanS. B. (2021). A study of difficulties in teaching and learning programming: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(3), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v10-i3/11100
30.
KongS. C. (2017). Development and validation of a programming self-efficacy scale for senior primary school learners. In KongS. C.SheldonJ.LiK. Y. (Eds.), Conference proceedings of international conference on computational thinking education 2017 (pp. 97–102). The Education University of Hong Kong. Retrieved November 02, 2024, from. https://www.eduhk.hk/cte2017/doc/CTE2017_Proceedings.pdf
31.
LaiY. H.ChenS. Y.LaiC. F.ChangY. C.SuY. S. (2021). Study on enhancing AIoT computational thinking skills by plot image-based VR. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(3), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1580750
32.
LeeI.Malyn-SmithJ. (2020). Computational thinking integration patterns along the framework defining computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09802-x
33.
LiY.SchoenfeldA. H.diSessaA. A.GraesserA. C.BensonL. C.EnglishL. D.DuschlR. A. (2020). On computational thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00044-w
34.
LinC. J. (2019). An online peer assessment approach to supporting mind-mapping flipped learning activities for college English writing courses. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(3), 385–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00144-6
35.
LinC. J.HwangG. J.FuQ. K.ChenJ. F. (2018). A flipped contextual game-based learning approach to enhancing EFL students’ English business writing performance and reflective behaviors. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 21(3), 117–131. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/26458512
36.
LiuY.TongY.YangY. (2018). The application of mind mapping into college computer programming teaching. Procedia Computer Science, 129(1), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.03.047
37.
MalychaC. P.MaierG. W. (2017a). Enhancing creativity on different complexity levels by eliciting mental models. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 11(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000080
38.
MalychaC. P.MaierG. W. (2017b). The random-map technique: Enhancing mind-mapping with a conceptual combination technique to foster creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1302763
39.
MayerR. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
40.
MayerR. E.WittrockM. C. (2006). Problem solving. In AlexanderP. A.WinneP. H. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 287–304). Erlbaum.
41.
MerchieE.Van KeerH. (2016). Mind mapping as a meta-learning strategy: Stimulating pre-adolescents’ text-learning strategies and performance?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46(1), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.005
42.
Merino-ArmeroJ. M.González-CaleroJ. A.Cozar-GutierrezR. (2022). Computational thinking in K-12 education. An insight through meta-analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(3), 410–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1870250
43.
MetcalfS. J.ReillyJ. M.JeonS.WangA.PyersA.BrennanK.DedeC. (2021). Assessing computational thinking through the lenses of functionality and computational fluency. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1866932
44.
Ou YangF. C.LaiH. M.WangY. W. (2023). Effect of augmented reality-based virtual educational robotics on programming students’ enjoyment of learning, computational thinking skills, and academic achievement. Computers and Education, 195(1), Article 104721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104721
45.
PapavlasopoulouS.GiannakosM. N.JaccheriL. (2019). Exploring children’s learning experience in constructionism-based coding activities through design-based research. Computers in Human Behavior, 99(1), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.008
46.
PolatÖ.AydınE. (2020). The effect of mind mapping on young children’s critical thinking skills. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38(1), Article 100743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100743
ResnickM.MaloneyJ.Monroy-HernándezA.RuskN.EastmondE.BrennanK.MillnerA.RosenbaumE.SilverJ.SilvermanB.KafaiY. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
49.
Rodríguez-MartínezJ. A.González-CaleroJ. A.Sáez-LópezJ. M. (2020). Computational thinking and mathematics using scratch: An experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612448
50.
Román-GonzálezM.Moreno-LeónJ.RoblesG. (2019). Combining assessment tools for a comprehensive evaluation of computational thinking interventions. In KongS. C.AbelsonH. (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 79–98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_6
51.
Román-GonzálezM.Pérez-GonzálezJ. C.Jiménez-FernándezC. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72(1), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
52.
Sáez-LópezJ. M.Román-GonzálezM.Vázquez-CanoE. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two-year case study using “scratch” in five schools. Computers and Education, 97(1), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003
53.
SallehS. M.ShukurZ.JudiH. M. (2018). Scaffolding model for efficient programming learning based on cognitive load theory. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 118(7), 77–83. https://acadpubl.eu/jsi/2018-118-7-9/articles/7/10.pdf
54.
SchererR.SiddiqF.Sánchez ViverosB. (2020). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning computer programming: Effective instructional approaches and conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 109(1), Article 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106349
55.
SentanceS.CsizmadiaA. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0
SuY. S.ShaoM.ZhaoL. (2022). Effect of mind mapping on creative thinking of children in scratch visual programming education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 906–929. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211053383
58.
SunL.HuL.ZhouD. (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
59.
TangX.YinY.LinQ.HadadR.ZhaiX. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education, 148(1), Article 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
60.
TheesM.KappS.StrzysM. P.BeilF.LukowiczP.KuhnJ. (2020). Effects of augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 108(1), Article 106316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106316
61.
TheodoropoulosA.LepourasG. (2020). Digital game-based learning and computational thinking in P-12 education: A systematic literature review on playing games for learning programming. In KalogiannakisM.PapadakisS. (Eds.), Handbook of research on tools for teaching computational thinking in p-12 education (pp. 159–183). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4576-8.CH007
62.
TikvaC.TambourisE. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in k-12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Computers and Education, 162(1), Article 104083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104083
63.
TsaiC. Y. (2019). Improving students’ understanding of basic programming concepts through visual programming language: The role of self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.038
64.
Van GogT.RummelN. (2010). Example-based learning: Integrating cognitive and socialcognitive research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9134-7
65.
Van GogT.RummelN.RenklA. (2019). Learning how to solve problems by studying examples. In DunloskyJ.RawsonK. A. (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of cognition and education (pp. 183–208). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.009
66.
Van MerriënboerJ. J.SwellerJ. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
67.
WangC.ShenJ.ChaoJ. (2022). Integrating computational thinking in STEM education: A literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(8), 1949–1972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10227-5
WongG. K. (2024). Amplifying children’s computational problem-solving skills: A hybrid-based design for programming education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(2), 1761–1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11880-9
70.
WongG. K.JiangS. (2018). Computational thinking education for children: Algorithmic thinking and debugging. In LeeM. J. W.NikolicS.RosM.ShenJ.LeiL. C. U.WongG. K. W.VenkatarayaluN. (Eds.), 2018 IEEE international conference on teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (pp. 328–334). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2018.8615232
71.
WuS. Y.SuY. S. (2021). Visual programming environments and computational thinking performance of fifth-and sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(6), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120988807
72.
YeJ.LaiX.WongG. K. W. (2022). The transfer effects of computational thinking: A systematic review with meta‐analysis and qualitative synthesis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(6), 1620–1638. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12723
73.
ZhangJ. H.MengB.ZouL. C.ZhuY.HwangG. J. (2021). Progressive flowchart development scaffolding to improve university students’ computational thinking and programming self-efficacy. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3792–3809. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1943687
74.
ZhangL. C.NouriJ. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through scratch in k-9. Computers & Education, 141(1), Article 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
75.
ZhaoL.LiuX.WangC.SuY. S. (2022). Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers and Education, 181(1), Article 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445
76.
ZhengX.JohnsonT. E.ZhouC. (2020). A pilot study examining the impact of collaborative mind mapping strategy in a flipped classroom: Learning achievement, self-efficacy, motivation, and students’ acceptance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3527–3545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09868-0
