Programming for Everybody

Successful Development of Computational Thinking in Children,

Teachers, and University Students from in Developing Countries

Cristian Vidal-Silva1*† , Jesennia Cárdenas-Cobo2 ,

Miguel Tupac-Yupanqui3 , Aurora Sánchez4† , Jorge Serrano4†
1 Escuela de Ingenierı́a en Desarrollo de Videojuegos y Realidad Virtual,
Universidad de Talca, Avenida Lircay S/N, Talca, 3460000, Maule, Chile.
2 Facultad de Ciencias e Ingenierı́as, Universidad Estatal de Milagro,

Cdla. Universitaria Km. 1.5 vı́a Km. 26, Milagro, 091706, Guayas,
Ecuador.
3 EAP Ingenierı́a de Sistemas e Informática, Universidad Continental,

Cdla. Universitaria Km. 1.5 vı́a Km. 26, San Antonio, 12000, Huancayo,
Perú.
4 Departamento de Administración, Universidad Católica del Norte,

Avenida Angamos 0610, Antofagasta, 1270398, Antofagasta, Chile.

*Corresponding author(s). E-mail(s): [email protected];

Contributing authors: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract
Purpose: The information society is a reality nowadays, and computational
thinking has become a relevant competence for everybody, regardless of age, social
status, and primary activity. Information society is everywhere in contemporary
life, and algorithmic thinking represents significant competencies for individu-
als, irrespective of their educational background and social condition. Developing
and applying programming competencies represents a high-value know-how abil-
ity for the current environment and available technologies. Block-based coding
and design tools like Scratch and TinkerCAD Arduino allow people, regardless
of age and social status, to successfully develop programming competencies in
online environments. Methods: This article presents empirical evidence of the
positive impact of the block-based programming language Scratch and the elec-
tronic Arduino-based design circuit TikerCAD in practical workshops to develop

1
 computational thinking with children, school teachers, and university students.
Results: The obtained results permit finding patterns and almost transversal
teaching approaches to develop a primary computational thinking base in Scratch
and TinkerCAD, applying only block-based languages in both tools and textual
programming in the second one. The motivation and wishes of learning in all
participants were hegemonic. Those results demonstrate the positive impact of
Scratch and TinkerCAD Arduino on developing computational thinking com-
petencies without restrictions. This work shows the application of Scratch and
TinkerCAD Arduino in non-WEIRD contexts and, during the pandemic time,
demonstrates the relevance of online education. Conclusion: Obtained results
show that developing programming competencies with Scratch and TinkerCAD
Arduino motivated students’ autonomy, motivation for learning, and applying
those competencies in other knowledge areas. Those results encourage us to
continue using Scratch and TinkerCAD Arduino for developing programming
competencies everywhere without restrictions.

Keywords: Programming competencies, non-WEIRD, Scratch, TinkerCAD Arduino,

online education

1 Introduction
In the current information society, computational thinking is a critical competency
relevant to people from various fields and ages [1–3]. As Groover and Pea [4] describe,
it involves problem-solving skills and logical thinking patterns that enable individuals
to break down complex problems into manageable steps. Likewise, the work of Wing [5]
remarks that computational thinking is the “thought processes involved in formulating
problems and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that an
information-processing agent can effectively carry out.” This approach goes beyond
programming and can be applied in everyday life.
Computational thinking is increasingly recognized as a crucial skill for the 21st
century, and its development in children has garnered significant attention [6]. This
skill involves problem-solving, algorithmic thinking, and the ability to break down
complex tasks into smaller, manageable parts. By nurturing computational thinking
competencies in children, we equip them with problem-solving skills not limited to
computer science but extend to a wide range of real-world scenarios [7]. As Wing
[8] noted, ”Computational thinking is a fundamental skill for everyone, not just for
computer scientists.” This skill fosters logical reasoning, creativity, and a systematic
approach to complex problems, which can be applied in academic and everyday life
activities.
Developing computational thinking competencies among teachers across various
subject areas is increasingly relevant in the modern educational landscape [9]. As
technology advances, it becomes crucial for educators to not only teach traditional
subjects but also equip students with the problem-solving skills associated with com-
putational thinking [10]. This integration is seen as a way to prepare students for
the challenges of the digital age and foster critical thinking. For example, according

2
to Wing [8], computational thinking involves breaking down complex problems into
smaller, manageable parts, which can be applied to subjects like mathematics, sci-
ence, and even the humanities. In this way, teachers from various fields should possess
computational thinking competencies and teach these skills to their students, foster-
ing a multidisciplinary approach to education that transcends traditional boundaries
[11, 12].

1.1 Problem statement, goal, and contributions

The application of computational thinking is becoming increasingly pervasive in a
wide range of domains. In engineering, mathematics, biology, economics, and social
sciences, computational thinking helps to analyze data, model systems, and optimize
processes [8, 13]. Hence, developing computational thinking is necessary nowadays,
and tools exist for that purpose. This work describes workshop sessions for, applying
Scratch and TinkerCAD Arduino, developing computational thinking, and highlight-
ing the positive results. In each workshop session, the participants, school students,
school teachers, and university students from different countries, continue applying the
tools and advancing in their domain, particularly university students. Those results
demonstrate the tools’ application effectiveness regardless of the social conditions and
age of the participants.
The main objective of this article is to summarize positive results in developing
computational thinking in school children, teachers, and university students apply-
ing similar education approaches. Hence, a relevant contribution of this research is a
standard methodology for developing computational thinking by applying Scratch and
TinkerCAD Arduino. Specifically, this work applies Scratch and TinkerCAD Arduino
to 15 school students aged ten to fourteen years old from Viña del Mar, Chile; 428
school children aged eight to twelve from Milagro, Guayas, Ecuador; 14 school teach-
ers of different topics from Antofagasta, Chile; and 82 system engineering university
students from Huancayo, Perú.
This article measures and evaluates the development of programming competencies
through a validated instrument [14] looking to generate a long-term impact on people
who like to develop computational thinking in developing countries by providing a
peer learning opportunity to develop programming competencies.

1.2 Threats to Validity

This article considers the following threats that could distort the expected results.
• Although this research was conducted in different places, with different participants,
results are not completely comparable because participants differ in age mainly
and previous knowledge. We cannot compare the obtained university students with
school children or teachers with school students, although all of them are positive
concerning the main goal of developing computational thinking.
• Experiments were performed at different times during the same year. Although
experiments were conducted in the same year, different times and weather conditions
may affect the participants’ performance.

3
• To avoid the bias implied by the screening process, this work carried out a fully
transparent evaluation process using multiple-choice questions with only one correct
option.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the main char-
acteristics of WEIRD and non-WEIRD communities and details issues and current
benefits of the teaching-learning of programming. Section 3 defines the research ques-
tions, material, objectives, impact, and applied tools. Section 4 gives details and
discusses the academic results obtained using Scratch and CARAMBA in the teaching-
learning process for developing programming competencies. The paper concludes by
summarizing the benefits of our educational experience and motivation for contin-
uing to apply Scratch and CARAMBA for developing programming competencies
anywhere, regardless of the WEIRD or non-WEIRD status of the school area.

2 Background
3 Methodology
4 Data Analysis & Results
5 Conclusions
References
[1] Sarı, U., Pektaş, H.M., Şen, Ö.F., Çelik, H.: Algorithmic thinking development
through physical computing activities with arduino in stem education. Education
and Information Technologies 27(5), 6669–6689 (2022)

[2] Cárdenas-Cobo, J., Vidal-Silva, C., Arévalo, L., Torres, M.: Applying recom-
mendation system for developing programming competencies in children from a
non-weird context. Education and Information Technologies, 1–32 (2023)

[3] Gökçe, S., Yenmez, A.A.: Ingenuity of scratch programming on reflective thinking
towards problem solving and computational thinking. Education and Information
Technologies 28(5), 5493–5517 (2023)

[4] Grover, S., Pea, R.: Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come.
Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school
19(1), 19–38 (2018)

[5] Wing, J.M.: Computational Thinking: What and Why? thelink - The Magazine
of the Varnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science 49(3), 1–6 (2010)

[6] Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., Zhai, X.: Assessing computational thinking:
A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education 148, 103798
(2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798

4
 [7] Lai, R.P.: Beyond programming: A computer-based assessment of computational
thinking competency. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)
22(2), 1–27 (2021)

[8] Wing, J.M.: Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49(3), 33–35
(2006)

[9] Ung, L.-L., Labadin, J., Mohamad, F.S.: Computational thinking for teachers:
Development of a localised e-learning system. Computers & Education 177,
104379 (2022)

[10] Nouri, J., Zhang, L., Mannila, L., Norén, E.: Development of computational think-
ing, digital competence and 21st century skills when learning programming in
k-9. Education Inquiry 11(1), 1–17 (2020)

[11] Bower, M., Wood, L.N., Lai, J.W., Highfield, K., Veal, J., Howe, C., Lister,
R., Mason, R.: Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of
school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 42(3), 53–72 (2017)

[12] Saad, A., Zainudin, S.: A review of project-based learning (pbl) and computa-
tional thinking (ct) in teaching and learning. Learning and Motivation 78, 101802
(2022)

[13] Ogegbo, A.A., Ramnarain, U.: A systematic review of computational thinking in

science classrooms. Studies in Science Education 58(2), 203–230 (2022)

[14] Román-González, M.: Codigoalfabetización y pensamiento computacional en edu-

cación primaria y secundaria: validación de un instrumento y evaluación de
programas. Tesis, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (España).
Escuela Internacional de Doctorado. Programa de Doctorado en Educación
(2016)