Review Article

Effects of science education on computational thinking: A meta-analysis

Gülbin Kıyıcı 1 * , Havva Yamak 2
More Detail
1 Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, TURKEY2 Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Gazi Faculty of Education, Gazi University, Ankara, TURKEY* Corresponding Author
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), October 2026, 525-546, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18904
Published: 01 July 2026
OPEN ACCESS   38 Views   20 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the findings of studies in science education conducted between 2006 and 2021 (April) to improve computational thinking. The research process began with a literature review and the establishment of eligibility criteria. Following this, a coding form was developed to ensure the reliability of the coding, a pilot coding process was conducted, and the coding form and coding guide were finalized. This process concluded with data analysis, evaluation of findings, and reporting (investigator coding and parallel coding). The overall mean effect size (d = 0.714) for the 32 primary studies that met the inclusion criteria resulted in a moderate effect. Additionally, many moderator variables were determined (publication type, language, country, the status of the pilot study, year of publication, method, design, model, sampling method of the study group, the demographic structure of the study group, school type of study group, application research area, duration of application, the person performing the application, using the computer, coding, robotics, algorithm and flipped classroom method in the application, type of measurement tool, and the person who developed the measurement tools). Finally, an in-depth discussion of how these variables identified as moderators relate to their effectiveness was included.
Keywords: computational thinking, meta-analysis, science education

CITATION (APA)

Kıyıcı, G., & Yamak, H. (2026). Effects of science education on computational thinking: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/18904

REFERENCES

  1. *Adsay, C., Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., & Erdoğmuş, F. U. (2020). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin blok temelli kodlama eğitimine dönük öz-yeterlik agı düzeyleri, STEM ve bilgi işlemsel düşünme beceri düzeyleri [Middle school students’ self-efficacy network levels towards block-based coding education, STEM and computational thinking skills]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 10(2), 469-489. https://doi.org/10.17943/etku.696224
  2. Akçayır, G. (2018). Artırılmış gerçekliğin eğitimde etkisinin incelenmesi: Meta-analiz ve sistematik kaynak taraması araştırması [Examining the impact of augmented reality in education: A meta-analysis and systematic literature review study] [PhD thesis, Gazi University].
  3. *Akşit, O. (2018). Enhancing science learning through computational thinking and modeling in middle school classrooms: A mixed methods study [PhD thesis, North Carolina State University].
  4. *Akyol, B. E. (2020). STEM etkinliklerinin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilgi işlemsel, eeştirel, yaratıcı düşünme ve problem çözme becerilerine etkisi [The impact of STEM activities on the computational, critical, creative thinking, and problem-solving skills of prospective science teachers] [PhD thesis, Erciyes University].
  5. Armağan, F. Ö. (2011). Kavramsal değişim metinlerinin etkililiği: Meta analiz çalışması [The effectiveness of conceptual change texts: A meta-analysis study] [Gazi University].
  6. Ayaz, M. F. (2014). Proje tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin fen derslerindeki akademik başarılarına ve fen derslerine yönelik tutumlarına etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The effect of project-based learning approach on students’ academic achievement and attitudes towards science courses: A meta-analysis study] [PhD thesis, Dicle University]. https://doi.org/10.12780/uusbd.63667
  7. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
  8. *Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0
  9. Basu, S., Biswas, G., Kinnebrew, J., & Rafi, T. (2015). Relations between modeling behavior and learning in a computational thinking based science learning environment. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 184-189).
  10. Başol, G., & Erbay, Ş. (2017). Portfolyo kullanımının akademik başarıya etkisi: Bir meta analiz çalışması [The impact of portfolio use on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study]. Hacettepe Eğitim Dergisi, 32(2), 396-412. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2017025320
  11. Batdı, V. (2014). Kavam haritası tekniği ile geleneksel öğrenme yönteminin kullanılmasının öğrencilerin başaroları, bilgilerinin kalıcılığı ve tutumlarına etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The effect of using concept mapping techniques and traditional learning methods on students’ achievement, retention of knowledge, and attitudes: A meta-analysis study]. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (42), 93-102.
  12. *Batı, K., & Yetişir, M. İ. (2021). Examination of Turkish middle school STEM teachers’ knowledge about computational thinking and views regarding information and communications technology. Computers in the Schools, 38(1), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2021.1882206
  13. Batı, K., Yetişir, M. İ., Çalışkan, I., Güneş, G., & Saçan, E. G. (2018). Teaching the concept of time: A steam-based program on computational thinking in science education. Cogent Education, 5(1), Article 1507306. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1507306
  14. Becker, B. J. (2005). Failsafe N or file-drawer number. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 111-126). John Wiley & Sons.
  15. Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088-1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
  16. *Bolat, Y. İ. (2020). STEM temelli matematik etkinliklerinin problem çözme ve bilgi i̇şlemsel düşünme becerisi ile STEM alanlarına olan i̇lgiye katkılarının araştırılması [Investigation of the contributions of STEM-based mathematics activities to problem solving and computational thinking skills and interest in STEM fields] [PhD thesis, Atatürk University].
  17. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
  18. *Cakır, E., & Yaman, S. (2018). Ters yüz sınıf modelinin öğrencilerin fen başarısı ve bilgisayarca düşünme becerileri üzerine etkisi [The effect of the flipped classroom model on students’ science achievement and computational thinking skills]. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Education Faculty, 38(1), 75-99.
  19. Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. In D. A. Kenny, & T. D. Little (Eds.), Applied meta-analysis for social science research. The Guilford Press.
  20. *Christensen, D. M. (2020). Learning biological evolution through computational thinking [PhD thesis, Temple University].
  21. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
  22. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053
  23. Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment. In Guidebook for clinical pychology interns. McGraw Hill. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0222-1_8
  24. Cömert, S., & Kıyıcı, F. B. (2013). Fen bilgisi öğretiminde oluşturmacu yaklaşım uygulamaısnın akademik başarıya etkisinin belirlenmesi [Determining the effect of applying the constructivist approach in science education on academic achievement]. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (7), 151-162.
  25. *Çimentepe, H. E. (2019). STEM etkinliklerinin akademik başarı, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve bilgisayarca düşünme becerilerine etkisi [The impact of STEM activities on academic achievement, scientific process skills, and computational thinking skills] [Master’s thesis, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University].
  26. Dağyar, M., & Demirel, M. (2015). Effects of problem-based learning on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Eğitim ve Bilim, 40(181), 139-174. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4429
  27. Delen, I., & Sen, S. (2022). Effect of design-based learning on achievement in K-12 education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(2), 330-356. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21800
  28. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905
  29. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629-634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
  30. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761676
  31. *Fakhriyah, F., Masfuah, S., & Mardapi, D. (2019). Developing scientific literacy-based teaching materials to improve students’ computational thinking skills. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(4), 482-491. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i4.19259
  32. Fleiss, J., Levin, B., & Paik, M. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley.
  33. *Garneli, V., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). Programming video games and simulations in science education: exploring computational thinking through code analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 386-401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1337036
  34. Göktaş, E. (2017). Eğitim politikası bağlamında işbirlikli öğrenme ve geleneksel öğrenme yöntemlerinin başarı ve tutuma etkisinin meta analitik biçimde incelenmesi [A meta-analytic examination of the impact of collaborative learning and traditional learning methods on achievement and attitude within the context of education policy] [PhD thesis, Marmara University].
  35. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2017). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 19-38). Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350057142.ch-003
  36. Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Brock-Utne, B. (2010). An exploration of the importance of piloting and access as action research. Educational Action Research, 18(3), 359-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2010.499815
  37. Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482940040101
  38. Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 183-187). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1508865.1508931
  39. *Hava, K., & Ünlü, Z. (2021). Investigation of the relationship between middle school students’ computational thinking skills and their STEM career interest and attitudes toward inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30, 484-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09892-y
  40. Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557-560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
  41. Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers and Education, 126, 296-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
  42. Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
  43. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta analysis. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985031
  44. *Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M., Lédeczi, Á., Grover, S., Wolf, R., Blair, K. P., Chin, D., Conlin, L., Basu, S., & McElhaney, K. (2020). C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 83-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9
  45. Ibılı, E., Günbatar, M. S., & Sırakaya, M. (2020). Bilgi-işlemsel düşünme becerilerinin incelenmesi: Meslek liseleri örneklemi [Examination of computational thinking skills: A sample of vocational high schools]. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(2), 1067-1078. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.683577
  46. *Irgens, G. A., Dabholkar, S., Bain, C., Woods, P., Hall, K., Swanson, H., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2020). Modeling and measuring high school students’ computational thinking practices in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 137-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09811-1
  47. *Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z
  48. Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science , technology , engineering , and math ( CT-STEM ). Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting. http://ccl.sesp.northwestern.edu/papers/2014/OrtonKaiNorthwestern-1.pdf
  49. Kalelioglu, F., Gulbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal Modern Computing, 4(3), 583-596.
  50. *Karaahmetoğlu, K., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2019). The effect of project-based Arduino educational robot applications on students’ computational thinking skills and their perception of basic STEM skill levels. Participatory Educational Research, 6(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.8.6.2
  51. Kıyıcı, G. (2022). Fen eğitiminde hesaplamalı düşünme araştırmalarının incelenmesi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [Examining research on computational thinking in science education: A meta-analysis study] [PhD thesis, Gazi University].
  52. Korkmaz, Ö., Çakır, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2015). Bilgisayarca düşünme beceri düzeyleri ölçeğinin (BDBD) ortaokul düzeyine uyarlanması [Adaptation of the computational thinking skills level scale (CTSL) to the middle school level]. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 143-162.
  53. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), Article 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  54. Lei, H., Chiu, M. M., Li, F., Wang, X., & Geng, Y. (2020). Computational thinking and academic achievement: A meta-analysis among students. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, Article 105439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105439
  55. *Leonard, J., Mitchell, M., Barnes-Johnson, J., Unertl, A., Outka-Hill, J., Robinson, R., & Hester-Croff, C. (2018). Preparing teachers to engage rural students in computational thinking through robotics, game design, and culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 386-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117732317
  56. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
  57. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta analysis overview. In L. Bickman, & D. Rog (Eds.), Applied social research methods series. SAGE.
  58. Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Oxford University Press.
  59. Luo, F., Antonenko, P. D., & Davis, E. C. (2020). Exploring the evolution of two girls ‘ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education, 146, Article 103759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103759
  60. *Mensan, T., Osman, K., & Majid, N. A. A. (2020). Development and validation of unplugged activity of computational thinking in science module to integrate computational thinking in primary science education. Science Education International, 31(2), 142-149. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i2.2
  61. *Merkouris, A., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). Programming touch and full-body interaction with a remotely controlled robot in a secondary education STEM course. In Proceedings of 22nd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291533.3291537
  62. Mittlböck, M., & Heinzl, H. (2006). A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Statistics in Medicine, 25(24), 4321-4333. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2692
  63. Mullen, B., Muellerleile, P., & Bryant, B. (2001). Cumulative meta-analysis: A consideration of indicators of sufficiency and stability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1450-1462. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711006
  64. NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596
  65. Orwin, R. G., & Boruch, R. F. (1982). RRT meets RDD: Statistical strategies for assuring response privacy in telephone surveys. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 46(4), 560-571. https://doi.org/10.1086/268752
  66. Othman, N. (1996). The effects of cooperative learning and traditional mathematics instruction in grades k-12: A meta-analysis of findings [PhD thesis, West Virginia University].
  67. *Ouyang, Y., Hayden, K. L., & Remold, J. (2018). Introducing computational thinking through non-programming science activities. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 308-313). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159520
  68. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  69. Perkins, D. N ., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303-326. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058003303
  70. Pigott, T. D. (2012). Advances in meta-analysis. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2278-5
  71. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire [MSLQ]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t09161-000
  72. Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: M.U.P.P.E.T. American Journal of Physics, 61(3), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17295
  73. Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 265-269). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734357
  74. *Ridlo, Z. R., Indrawati, Afafa, L., Bahri, S., Kamila, I. S., & Rusdianto. (2021). The effectiveness of research-based learning model of teaching integrated with computer simulation in astronomy course in improving student computational thinking skills. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1839, Article 012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1839/1/012027
  75. Rohaeti, E., & Huda, N. (2025). Assessing computational thinking skills of science and mathematics upper-secondary school students. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/17248
  76. *Román-González, M., Pérez-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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
  77. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638-641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
  78. Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
  79. Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1-61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011434026437
  80. Shin, I. S., & Kim, J. H. (2013). The effect of problem-based learning in nursing education: A meta-analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(5), 1103-1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9436-2
  81. *Sırakaya, M., Sırakaya, D. A., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2020). The impact of STEM attitude and thinking style on computational thinking determined via structural equation modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 561-572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09836-6
  82. Silver, I. A., & Kelsay, J. D. (2021). The moderating effects of population characteristics: A potential biasing factor when employing non-random samples to conduct experimental research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19, 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09478-7
  83. Sterne, J., & Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis. In R. H. R., A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 99-110). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470870168.ch6
  84. *Sun, L., Hu, L., Yang, W., Zhou, D., & Wang, X. (2020). STEM learning attitude predicts computational thinking skills among primary school students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37, 346-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12493
  85. Şen, Ş., & Yılmaz, A. (2013). İşbirlikçi öğrenmenin kavramsal değişim üzerindeki etkisi: Bir meta analiz çalışması [The impact of collaborative learning on conceptual change: A meta-analysis study]. Karaelmas Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1, 21-32.
  86. *Tchoubar, T. (2018). eLearning model creating readiness to use global information [PhD thesis, Stony Brook University].
  87. Tutal, Ö. (2019). Aktif öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, derse yönelik tutumlarına ve öğrenilenlerin kalıcılığına etkisi: Bir meta-analiz çalışması [The effect of active learning approach on students’ academic achievement, attitudes towards the course, and retention of learning: A meta-analysis study] [PhD thesis, Dicle University].
  88. *Uşengül, L., & Bahçeci, F. (2020). The effect of Lego Wedo 2.0 Education on academic achievement and attitudes and computational thinking skills of learners toward science. World Journal of Education, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n4p83
  89. Üstün, U. (2012). To what extent is problem-based learning effective as compared to traditional teaching in science education? A meta-analysis study [PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University].
  90. Vevea, J. L., & Zelinsky, N. A. M. (2019). Evaluating coding decision. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 173-206). SAGE.
  91. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6
  92. *Walliman, G. (2015). Genost: A system for introductory computer science education with a focus on computational thinking [PhD thesis, Arizona State University].
  93. Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming, and learning probability: A case study in a connected mathematics framework. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 253-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-3123(95)90010-1
  94. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories – An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1
  95. Wilensky, U., Brady, C. E., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/2633031
  96. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  97. Yavru, Ö., & Gürdal, A. (1998). İlköğretim okullarının 4. ve 5. sınıflarında laboratuvar deneylerinin öğrencilerin mekanik konusundaki başarısına ve kavramları kazanmasına etkisi [The effect of laboratory experiments on students’ success and acquisition of concepts in mechanics in 4th and 5th grades of primary schools]. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(10), 327-338.
  98. *Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., & Lin, Q. (2020). Improving and assessing computational thinking in maker activities: The integration with physics and engineering learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 189-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8
  99. *Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Bolduc, F., & Murray, W. G. (2019). LP based integration of computing and science education in middle schools. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education (pp. 44-50). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3300115.3309512