Mediation of Scientific Thinking on the Relationship Between Computational Thinking and Learning Performance for High-Performing Learners in Mathematics
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Mediation of Scientific Thinking on the Relationship Between Computational Thinking and Learning Performance for High-Performing Learners in Mathematics
Mathematics should provide space for learners to think, frame mathematics problems, formulate hypotheses, and reflect on mathematical explanations. It is logical to suggest that computational thinking and scientific thinking have an impact on learners’ learning performance. Hence, the focus of the study was to determine whether there is an association between computational thinking and scientific thinking in mathematics, and whether scientific thinking mediates the relationship between computational thinking and learning performance. Thirty-eight high-performing secondary learners participated in the study. The regression analysis revealed the following results: first, computational thinking has a significant effect on learners’ mathematics performance. Second, scientific thinking has a significant impact on learners’ mathematics performance. Third, scientific thinking mediates the relationship between computational thinking and learners’ learning performance. Therefore, computational thinking skills should include mathematical and scientific thinking to improve learning performance in mathematics.
AithalA.AithalP. S. (2020). Development and validation of survey questionnaire and experimental data: A systematical review-based statistical approach. International Journal of Management, Technology, and Social Sciences, 5(2), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4179499
2.
AnaniadouK.ClaroM. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries (OECD Education Working Papers No. 41). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154
BarrD.HarrisonJ.ConeryL. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ918910.pdf.
7.
BedewyD.GabrielA. (2015). Examining perceptions of academic stress and its sources among university learners: The perception of academic stress scale. Health Psychology Open, 2(2), 2055102915596714. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102915596714
8.
BerlandM.WilenskyU. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9552-x
9.
BicerA.CapraroM.LeeY. (2023). Mathematical connection is at the heart of mathematical creativity. Creativity: Theories – Research – Applications, 10(1–2), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.2478/ctra-2023-0002
10.
BinkleyM.ErstadO.HermanJ.RaizenS.RipleyM.Miller-RicciM.RumbleM. (2012). Identifying twenty-first-century skills. In BinkleyM.ErstadO.HermanJ.RaizenS.RipleyM.Miller-RicciM.RumbleM. (Eds.), Evaluation and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2
11.
BoalerJ. (2022). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing learners’ potential through creative mathematics, inspiring messages and innovative teaching (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
12.
BounouA.LavidasK.KomisV.PapadakisS.ManoliP. (2023). Correlation between high school learners’ computational thinking and their performance in STEM and language courses. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1101. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111101
13.
CaiJ.HwangS. (2020). Learning to teach through mathematical problem posing: Theoretical considerations, methodology, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 102, 101391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.01.001
14.
CaiJ.LeikinR. (2020). Affect in mathematical problem posing: Conceptualization, advances, and future directions for research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(3), 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10008-x
15.
CansuF. K.CansuS. K. (2019). An overview of computational thinking. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i1.53
16.
ChalmersC. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
17.
ChenY.TippettC. D. (2017). Project-based inquiry in STEM teaching for preschool children. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(4), em1147. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00667a
CostaE. J. F.CamposL. M. R. S.GuerreroD. D. S. (2017, October). Computational thinking in mathematics education. A joint approach to encourage problem-solving ability [Conference presentation]. 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Indianapolis, IN, United States (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190655
20.
De AndradeV. F.FreireS.BaptistaM. (2021). Constructing scientific explanations for chemical phenomena through drawings among 8th-grade learners. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1), Article em1937. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9614
21.
DesamparadoC. T.MendozaM. P.MinguitoM. M.MonevaJ. C. (2019). Learning styles and academic performance of learners in English subjects. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 9(1), 274–282. https://doi.org/10.29322/IJSRP.9.01.2019.p8536
22.
DorimanaA.UworwabayehoA.NizeyimanaG. (2021). Examining mathematical problem-solving beliefs among Rwandan secondary school teachers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(7), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.7.13
FeurzeigW.PapertS.LawlerB. (2011). Programming languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820903520040
25.
GeorgeD.MalleryP. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
26.
GroverS.PeaR. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
IoannouA.BennettV.RepenningA.KohK. H.BasawapatnaA. (2011, October 5). Computational thinking patterns [Conference presentation]. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 2011. Division C. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/108975/.
KangJ. (2024). Computational thinking and its role in problem-solving, system design, and understanding human behavior. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 34(6), 987–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-024-09954-x
31.
KaradagE.AydınS. (2024). The effect of game-based programming on gifted learners’ computational thinking: A 5E instructional model using scratch and digital game design. Education and Information Technologies, 29(5), 5185–5203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12281-y
32.
KazakoffE. R.SullivanA.BersM. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing skills in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.04.001
33.
KircaliA. C.OzdenerN. (2022). A comparison of plugged and unplugged tools in teaching algorithms at the K-12 level for computational thinking skills. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(4), 1065–1093. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09585-4
34.
KlineP. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing(2nd ed.).Routledge.
35.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
36.
KoerberS.OsterhausC. (2019). Individual differences in early scientific thinking: Assessment, cognitive influences, and their relevance for science learning. Journal of Cognition and Development, 20(4), 510–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2019.1620232
37.
KoerberS.MayerD.OsterhausC.SchwippertK.SodianB. (2015). The development of scientific thinking in elementary school: A comprehensive inventory. Child Development, 86(1), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12298
38.
KopparlaM.BicerA.VelaK.LeeY.BevanD.KwonH.HougenC.NagleC.OzmenZ. M.CapraroR. M. (2019). The effects of problem-posing intervention types on elementary learners’ problem-solving. Educational Studies, 45(6), 708–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1509785
39.
KorkmazO.XuemeiB. A. (2019). Adapting computational thinking scale (CTS) for Chinese high school learners and their thinking scale skills level. Participatory Educational Research, 6(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.2.6.1
40.
KorkmazO.CakırR.OzdenM. Y. (2017). Validity and reliability study of computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
41.
KuhnD. (2010). What is scientific thinking and how does it develop? In GoswamiU. (Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (2nd ed., pp. 497–523). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444325485.ch19
42.
LeeS. W. Y.TuH. Y.ChenG. L.LinH. M. (2023). Exploring the multifaceted roles of mathematics learning in predicting learners’ computational thinking competency. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00455-2
43.
LeeT. Y.MaurielloM. L.AhnJ.BedersonB. B. (2014). CTArcade: Computational thinking with games in school age children. International Journal of Child–Computer Interaction, 2(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.06.003
44.
LiJ. W.LeungS. K.WangM. D.YuenM. (2024). Developing talented children’s computational thinking through multimodal literacies in pop-up storybooks: A case study in Hong Kong. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1377. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121377
45.
MannilaL.DagieneV.DemoB.GrgurinaN.MiroloC.RolandssonL.SettleA. (2014, June). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the 2014 working group reports on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 1–29), Association for Computing Machinery, https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610
46.
McCollisterK.SaylerM. (2010). Lift the ceiling: Increase rigor with critical thinking skills. Gifted Child Today, 33(4), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300410
47.
MesserD.ThomasL.HollimanA.KucirkovaN. (2018). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an educational programming intervention on children’s math skills, spatial awareness, and working memory. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2879–2888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9747-x
MishraP.YadavA., & Deep Play Research Group. (2013). Rethinking technology and creativity in the 21st century. TechTrends, 57(3), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0655-z
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2021). National Achievement Survey 2021: Summary report for classes 3, 5, 8, and 10. Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education, Government of India. ncert.nic.in/pdf/NAS/NAS_2021_Technical-Report-2024.pdf.
NunesT.BryantP.BarrosR.SylvaK. (2012). The relative importance of two different mathematical abilities to mathematical achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02033.x
55.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory(2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
56.
OddenT. O. B.RussR. S. (2019). Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct. Science Education, 103(1), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21455
57.
PapertS. (1990). Kids, computers, and powerful ideas. Essential Books.
58.
PapertS. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics education. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00191473
59.
Phillips GallowayE.McClainJ. B.UccelliP. (2020). Broadening the lens on the science of Reading: A multifaceted perspective on the role of academic language in text understanding. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S331–S345. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.359
60.
RepenningA.BasawapatnaA. R.EscherleN. A. (2017). Principles of computational thinking tools. In Emerging policy of research, application, and computational thinking (pp. 291–305). Springer.
61.
RileyD. D.HuntK. A. (2014). Computational thinking for modern problem solvers. CRC Press.
62.
Roman-GonzalezM.Perez-GonzalezJ. C.Jimenez-FernandezC. (2017). What cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? The criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
63.
SaidZ.FriesenH. L.Al-EneziM. S. (2020). The relationship between scientific reasoning skills and mathematics achievement among high school learners in Kuwait. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(12), em1914. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9306
64.
SanfordJ. F.NaiduJ. T. (2016). Computational thinking concepts for grade school. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 9(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v9i1.9547
65.
SaxenaA.LoC. K.HewK. F.WongG. K. W. (2020). Designing disconnected and plugged-in activities to develop computational thinking: An exploratory study in early childhood education. Asia-Pacific Educational Researcher, 29(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00478-w
66.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them?Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14550301
67.
SelbyC. C.WoollardJ. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. In DoughertyJ. D.NagelK.DeckerA.EiseltK. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 1–12). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445309
68.
SenC.AyZ. S.KirayS. A. (2021). Computational thinking skills of gifted and talented learners in integrated STEM activities based on the engineering design process: The case of robotics and 3D robot modeling. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100931
SpiridonK.KaragiannopoulouE. (2015). The relationship between learning approaches and academic achievement in psychology learners. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 4(1), 28–34. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.pbs.20150401.15
71.
SungW.AhnJ.BlackJ. B. (2017). Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9328-x
72.
SuryansyahS. A.KastolaniW.SomantriL. (2021). Scientific thinking skills in solving global warming problems.in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 683(1), 012025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/683/1/012025
73.
SysłoM. M.KwiatkowskaA. B. (2013, February). Informatics for all high school learners. In DiethelmI.MittermeirR. T. (Eds.), Informatics in schools (pp. 43–56). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36617-8_4
74.
TambunanH. (2019). The effectiveness of the problem-solving strategy and the scientific approach to learners’ mathematical capabilities in high order thinking skills. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 14(2), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/5715
75.
TangX.YinY.LinQ.HadadR.ZhaiX. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, Article 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
76.
ThitimaG.SumaleeC. (2012). Scientific thinking of the learners learning with the knowledge construction model enhancing scientific thinking. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3771–3775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.144
77.
Van BorkkuloS.ChytasC.DrijversP.BarendsenE.TolboomJ. (2023). Spreadsheets in secondary school statistics education: Using authentic data for computational thinking. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 9(3), 420–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-023-00126-4
78.
WatsonA. (2021). Care in mathematics education: Alternative educational spaces and practices. Springer Nature Switzerland.
79.
WeintropD.BeheshtiE.HornM.OrtonK.JonaK.TrouilleL.WilenskyU. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
WingJ. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
WingJ. (2017). Computational thinking’s influence on research and education for all. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/922
84.
YasarO.MaliekalJ.VeronesiP.LittleL. J. (2017, June). The essence of computational thinking and tools to promote it. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://strategy.asee.org/28965
85.
YusoffM. S. B.ArifinW. N.HadieS. N. H. (2021). ABC of questionnaire development and validation for survey research. Education in Medicine Journal, 13(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2021.13.1.10
86.
ZhuZ.ZhangY.ZhuW.MaJ. (2023, July). Computational thinking and academic achievement: The mediator roles of problem-solving ability and learning anxiety. In International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET) (pp. 94–98), IEEE, https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET58841.2023.00027
87.
ZimmermanC. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27(2), 172–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.12.001
