Computational thinking (CT) and spatial thinking (ST) are pivotal key competencies for K-12 learners, with robot programming acting as a pivotal medium for fostering them. However, prior research has yet to systematically investigate the differential support that VR and desktop modes provide for the growth of CT and ST. This study aimed to examine the impacts of these modes on learners’ CT and ST performance and learning experience in robot programming. An experiment was conducted with 61 recruited participants, divided into a VR mode (N = 30) and a desktop mode (N = 31). Both modes completed four progressive difficulty tasks involving 3D maze construction and robot path programming. Results showed that the VR mode significantly outperformed the desktop mode in ST. In contrast, the desktop mode excelled in CT. Cognitive load did not differ significantly between the two modes, but the VR mode exhibited higher learning engagement and perceived usefulness. Findings highlight the divergent strengths of the two modes, providing targeted empirical guidance for selecting instructional tools and designing curricula in K-12 robot programming education.
BersM. U.González-GonzálezC.Armas-TorresM. B. (2019). Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers & Education, 138, 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013
3.
BersonI. R.BersonM. J.McKinnonC.AradhyaD.AlyaeeshM.LuoW.ShapiroB. R. (2023). An exploration of robot programming as a foundation for spatial reasoning and computational thinking in preschoolers’ guided play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 65, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.015
4.
BraininE.ShamirA.EdenS. (2022). Robot programming intervention for promoting spatial relations, mental rotation and visual memory of kindergarten children. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(3), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1858464
5.
BravoF. A.GonzalezA. M.GonzalezE. (2017). A review of intuitive robot programming environments for educational purposes. In 2017 IEEE 3rd Colombian Conference on Automatic Control (CCAC) (pp. 1–6). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCAC.2017.8276396
6.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the (pp. 1–25). American Educational Research Association.
7.
CittàG.GentileM.AllegraM.ArrigoM.ContiD.OttavianoS.RealeF.SciortinoM. (2019). The effects of mental rotation on computational thinking. Computers & Education, 141, 103613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103613
8.
Clarke-MiduraJ.SilvisD.ShumwayJ. F.LeeV. R.KozlowskiJ. S. (2021). Developing a kindergarten computational thinking assessment using evidence-centered design: The case of algorithmic thinking. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1877988
9.
CorrisA.ChemeroA. (2022). Embodiment and enactivism. In Mind, cognition, and neuroscience (1st ed., pp. 414–428). Routledge.
10.
DagienėV.SentanceS. (2016). It’s computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. In BrodnikA.TortF. (Eds.), Informatics in schools: Improvement of informatics knowledge and perception (9973, pp. 28–39). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46747-4_3
11.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
12.
DemitriadouE.StavrouliaK. E.LanitisA. (2020). Comparative evaluation of virtual and augmented reality for teaching mathematics in primary education. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09973-5
13.
DimmelJ.BockC. (2019). Dynamic mathematical figures with immersive spatial displays: The case of handwaver. In AldonG.TrgalováJ. (Eds.), Technology in mathematics teaching (13, pp. 99–122). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19741-4_5
14.
FerdinandJ.GaoH.StarkP.BozkirE.GöllnerR.KasneciE.GöllnerR. (2024). The impact of a usefulness intervention on learners’ learning achievement in a virtual biology lesson: An eye-tracking-based approach. Learning and Instruction, 90, 101867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101867
15.
FowlerS.CuttingC.KennedyJ.LeonardS. N.GabrielF.JaeschkeW. (2022). Technology enhanced learning environments and the potential for enhancing spatial reasoning: A mixed methods study. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 34(4), 887–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-021-00368-9
16.
FrederiksenJ. G.SørensenS. M. D.KongeL.SvendsenM. B. S.Nobel-JørgensenM.BjerrumF.AndersenS. A. W. (2020). Cognitive load and performance in immersive virtual reality versus conventional virtual reality simulation training of laparoscopic surgery: A randomized trial. Surgical Endoscopy, 34(3), 1244–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06887-8
17.
GittingerM.WiescheD. (2024). Systematic review of spatial abilities and virtual reality: The role of interaction. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(4), 919–938. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20568
18.
GoldA. U.PendergastP. M.OrmandC. J.BuddD. A.StempienJ. A.MuellerK. J.KravitzK. A. (2018). Spatial skills in undergraduate learners—Influence of gender, motivation, academic training, and childhood play. Geosphere, 14(2), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1130/GES01494.1
19.
GongX.XuW.QiaoA.LiZ. (2025a). Unravelling the computational thinking and spatial thinking development: An exploration of a virtual robot programming environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 41(2), e70007. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.70007
20.
GongX.XuW.YuS.MaJ.QiaoA. (2025b). Enhancing computational thinking and spatialreasoning skills in gamification programming learning: A comparative study of tangible, blockand paper‐and‐pencil tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(1), 80–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13482
21.
GouwsL. A.BradshawK.WentworthP. (2013). Computational thinking in educational activities: An evaluation of the educational game light-bot. Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 10–15). https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2466518
22.
HarrisD.LoganT.LowrieT. (2021). Unpacking mathematical-spatial relations: Problem-solving in static and interactive tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 33(3), 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00316-z
23.
HuangH. M.LiawS. S. (2018). An analysis of learners’ intentions toward virtual reality learning based on constructivist and technology acceptance approaches. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.2503
24.
HuangS. Y.TarngW.OuK. L. (2023). Effectiveness of ar board game on computational thinking and programming skills for elementary school learners. Systems, 11(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11010025
25.
HuangY. M.WangW. S.LeeH. Y.LinC. J.WuT. T. (2024). Empowering virtual reality with feedback and reflection in hands-on learning: Effect of learning engagement and higher-order thinking. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(4), 1413–1427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12959
26.
JinZ.BaiY.SongW.YuQ.YueX.JiaX. (2024). DVRT: Design and evaluation of a virtual reality drone programming teaching system. Computers & Graphics, 125, 104114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2024.104114
27.
JohnsonC. I.BaileyS. K. T.SchroederB. L.MarraffinoM. D. (2022). Procedural learning in virtual reality: The role of immersion, interactivity, and spatial ability. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(4), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000087
28.
KilteniK.GrotenR.SlaterM. (2012). The sense of embodiment in virtual reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 21(4), 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00124
29.
KuznetcovaI.GlassmanM.LinT. J. (2019). Multi-user virtual environments as a pathway to distributed social networks in the classroom. Computers & Education, 130, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.004
30.
KwonK.JeonM.ZhouC.KimK.BrushT. A. (2022). Embodied learning for computational thinking in early primary education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 56(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2022.2158146
31.
MakranskyG.AndreasenN. K.BaceviciuteS.MayerR. E. (2021). Immersive virtual reality increases liking but not learning with a science simulation and generative learning strategies promote learning in immersive virtual reality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000473
32.
MayerR. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005
33.
Mejia-PuigL.ChandrasekeraT. (2023). The virtual body in a design exercise: A conceptual framework for embodied cognition. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 33(5), 1861–1882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09793-8
34.
MooreT. J.BrophyS. P.TankK. M.LopezR. D.JohnstonA. C.HynesM. M.GajdzikE. (2020). Multiple representations in computational thinking tasks: A clinical study of second-grade learners. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09812-0
35.
ÖzgenD. S.AfacanY.SürerE. (2021). Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: A comparative study with paper-based design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(2), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09554-0
36.
PaasF.TuovinenJ. E.TabbersH.Van GervenP. 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/S15326985EP3801_8
PastelS.BürgerD.ChenC. H.PetriK.WitteK. (2022). Comparison of spatial orientation skill between real and virtual environment. Virtual Reality, 26(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00539-w
39.
RamfulA.LowrieT.LoganT. (2016). Measurement of spatial ability: Construction and validation of the spatial reasoning instrument for middle school learners. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916659207
40.
SeguraR. J.Del PinoF. J.OgáyarC. J.RuedaA. J. (2020). VR‐OCKS: A virtual reality game for learning the basic concepts of programming. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22172
41.
SouzaA. C. D.AlexandreN. M. C.GuirardelloE. D. B.SouzaA. C. D.AlexandreN. M. C.GuirardelloE. 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/S1679-49742017000300022
42.
SunF. R.PanL. F.WanR. G.LiH.WuS. J. (2021). Detecting the effect of learner engagement in an SVVR school-based course on higher level competence development in elementary schools by SEM. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1558258
43.
SunN.LagesW. S. (2025). Virtual reality impacts on novice programmers’ self-efficacy. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(5), 2395–2405. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2025.3549567
44.
SungW.AhnJ.BlackJ. B. (2022). Elementary learners’ performance and perceptions of robot coding and debugging: Embodied approach in practice. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 36(4), 681–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2022.2045399
45.
Tonda RamosA.Gómez-CambroneroÁ.MirallesI.RemolarI. (2025). A virtual reality application and an interactive board game for learners learning to program. IEEE Access, 13, 106322–106335. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3578769
46.
WalkingtonC.NathanM. J.WashingtonJ.HunnicuttJ.DarwinT.DaughrityL.SchenckK. (2025). Comparing learning geometry using a tablet to head-mounted display augmented reality: How and when dimensionality matters. Education and Information Technologies, 30(4), 5397–5426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13008-z
47.
WenP.LuF.AliA. Z. M. (2024). Using attentional guidance methods in virtual reality laboratories reduces learners’ cognitive load and improves their academic performance. Virtual Reality, 28(2), 110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-024-01012-0
48.
WonM.UnguD. A. K.MatovuH.TreagustD. F.TsaiC. C.ParkJ.MocerinoM.TaskerR. (2023). Diverse approaches to learning with immersive Virtual Reality identified from a systematic review. Computers & Education, 195, 104701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104701
49.
YohannesA.ChenH. L.ChangC. C. (2023). Effect of an interactive e-book on middle school learners’ mathematics reading and spatial ability. Educational Technology Research and Development, 7(4), 1869–1886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10225-0
50.
ZhangX.ChenY.HuL.HwangG. J.TuY. F. (2025). Developing preschool children’s computational thinking and executive functions: Unplugged vs. robot programming activities. International Journal of STEM Education, 12(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00525-z
51.
ZhangX.ChenY.LiD.HuL.HwangG. J.TuY. F. (2024). Engaging young learners in effective robot education: An embodied learning-based computer programming approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(2), 312–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231213548
52.
ZhengY.ZhangJ.LiY.WuX.DingR.LuoX.LiuP.HuangJ. (2024). Effects of digital game-based learning on learners’ digital etiquette literacy, learning motivations, and engagement. Heliyon, 10(1), e23490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23490
