The Effect of the Modality on Students’ Computational Thinking, Programming Attitude, and Programming Achievement


  • Ibrahim Cetin Abant Izzet Baysal University
  • Tarık OTU


Modality, computational thinking, programming, constructionism


The purpose of the current study was to explore the effect of modality (constructionist mBlock, Scratch, and Python interventions) on six-grade students’ computational thinking, programming attitude, and achievement. The pre-test and post-test quasi-experimental design was used to explore the research questions. The study group consisted of 105 six grade students from three different classes. A constructionist learning environment was formed for Scratch, mBlock, and Python groups. All groups were given 8 week-instruction. Instruction included two forty-minute sessions each week. The data were collected through the programming achievement test, computational thinking test, and computer programming attitude scale. The results of the study showed that mBlock group outperformed the Scratch and Python groups with respect to computer programming attitude. Students who attended mBlock and Scratch groups had higher levels of programming achievement than those of the students who attended the Python group.  No significant differences with respect to computational thinking were observed between the groups. This study has implications for educators who are teaching computational thinking and programming. Further research was recommended to explore the effect of modality.


Download data is not yet available.


Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835. DOI:

Arnon, I., Cottrill, J., Dubinsky, E., Oktac, A., Fuentes, S. R., Trigueros, M., ... Weller, K. (2013). APOS theory: A framework for research and curriculum development in mathematics education. New York, NY: Springer. DOI:

Bell T. & Vahrenhold J. (2018). CS unplugged—how is it used, and does ıt work?. In: Böckenhauer HJ., Komm D., Unger W. (Eds), Adventures between lower bounds and higher altitudes (pp. 497-521). Springer, Cham.

Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E., Hvorecky, J., Kouchnirenko, A., & Miller, P. (1997). Mini-languages: a way to learn programming principles. Education and information technologies, 2(1), 65-83. DOI:

Cakiroglu, U., Cevik, I., Koseli, E., & Aydin, M. (2021). Understanding students’ abstractions in block-based programming environments: A performance based evaluation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100888.

Cetin, I. (2020). Teaching loops concept through visualization construction. Informatics in Education, 19(4), 589-609.

Cetin, I., & Dubinsky, E. (2017). Reflective abstraction in computational thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47, 70-80. DOI:

Chao, P. Y. (2016). Exploring students' computational practice, design, and performance of problem-solving through a visual programming environment. Computers & Education, 95, 202–215. DOI:

Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39. DOI:

Dijkstra E.W. (1982). Selected writings on computing: a personal perspective. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. New York, NY: Springer. DOI:

Dubinsky, E. (1995). ISETL: A programming language for learning mathematics. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 48(9), 1027–1051 DOI:

Green, S.B., & Salkind, N.J. (2013). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: analyzing and understanding data. New Jersey: Pearson.

Gul, D., Cetin, I., & Ozden, M. Y. (2022). A scale for measuring middle school students' attitudes toward programming. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 30(1), 251-258.

Herrmann, T. (2003). Learning and teaching in socio-technical environments. In Informatics and the Digital Society (pp. 59-71). Springer, Boston, MA. DOI:

Hu, Y., Chen, C. H., & Su, C. Y. (2021). Exploring the effectiveness and moderators of block-based visual programming on student learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1467-1493.

Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Educational psychology interactive, 3(2), 1-5.

Kandemir, C. M., Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2021). Pedagogy of teaching introductory text‐based programming in terms of computational thinking concepts and practices. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 29-45.

Kert, S. B., Erkoc, M. F., & Yeni, S. (2020). The effect of robotics on six graders’ academic achievement, computational thinking skills and conceptual knowledge levels. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38, 100714.

Knuth, D. E. (1985). Algorithmic thinking and mathematical thinking. The American Mathematical Monthly, 92(3), 170-181. DOI:

Korkmaz, O., Cakir, R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in human behavior, 72, 558-569. DOI:

Kölling, M. (2015). Lessons from the design of three educational programming environments: Blue, BlueJ, and Greenfoot. International Journal of People-Oriented Programming (IJPOP), 4(1), 5-32. DOI:

Kölling, M., Brown, N. C., & Altadmri, A. (2017). Frame-based editing. Journal of Visual Languages and Sentient Systems, 3(1), 40-67. DOI:

Krendl, K. A., & Broihier, M. (1992). Student responses to computers: a longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8(2), 215–227. DOI:

Major, L., Kyriacou, T., & Brereton, O. P. (2012). Systematic literature review: teaching novices programming using robots. IET Software, 6(6), 502-513. DOI:

Mihci, C., & Ozdener Donmez, N. (2017). Teaching gui-programming concepts to prospective K12 ICT teachers: MIT App Inventor as an alternative to text-based languages. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 3(2), 543-559. DOI:

Mladenović, M., Mladenović, S., & Žanko, Ž. (2020). Impact of used programming language for K-12 students' understanding of the loop concept. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(1), 79-98.

Moons, J., & Backer, C. (2013). The design and pilot evaluation of an interactive learning environment for introductory programming influenced by cognitive load theory and constructivism. Computers & Education, 60, 368–384. DOI:

Noone, M., & Mooney, A. (2018). Visual and textual programming languages: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(2), 149-174. DOI:

Panskyi, T., Rowinska, Z., & Biedron, S. (2019). Out-of-school assistance in the teaching of visual creative programming in the game-based environment–Case study: Poland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34, 100593.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms, Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York, Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.

Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2(3), 176-186. DOI:

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., ... Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. DOI:

Román-González, M., Perez-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. DOI:

Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using "Scratch" in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141. DOI:

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Viveros, B. S. (2020). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning computer programming: Effective instructional approaches and conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106349.

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3-20. DOI:

Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). A systematic mapping study on teaching and learning Computational Thinking through programming in higher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100849.

Topalli, D., & Cagiltay, N. E. (2018). Improving programming skills in engineering education through problem-based game projects with scratch. Computers & Education, 120, 64–74. DOI:

Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–25. DOI:

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. DOI:

Wing, J. M. (2011, February). Research notebook: Computational thinking- what and why? The Link Magazine, 20–23. Retrieved from

Xu, Z., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Tian, F., & Umapathy, K. (2019). Block-based versus text-based programming environments on novice student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis study. Computer Science Education, 29(2-3), 177-204.

Zhang, Y., Luo, R., Zhu, Y., & Yin, Y. (2021). Educational robots improve k-12 students’ computational thinking and STEM attitudes: systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1-32.



How to Cite

Cetin, I., & OTU, T. (2023). The Effect of the Modality on Students’ Computational Thinking, Programming Attitude, and Programming Achievement . International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 6(2).