Changing a Generation's Way of Thinking: Teaching Computational Thinking Through

Programming
Author(s): Francisco Buitrago Flórez, Rubby Casallas, Marcela Hernández, Alejandro Reyes,
Silvia Restrepo and Giovanna Danies
Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 87, No. 4 (August 2017), pp. 834-860
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44667676
Accessed: 14-11-2023 16:32 +00:00

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Review of Educational Research

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Review of Educational Research
August 2017, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 834-860
DOI: 10.3102/0034654317710096
© 2017 AERA, http://rer.aera.net

Changing a Generation's Way of Thinking:

Teaching Computational Thinking Through
Programming

Francisco Buitrago Florez, Rubby Casallas, Marcela Hernández,

Alejandro Reyes, Silvia Restrepo, and Giovanna Danies
Universidad de los Andes

Computational thinking (CT) uses concepts that are essential to computing

and information science to solve problems, design and evaluate complex sys-
tems, and understand human reasoning and behavior. This way of thinking
has important implications in computer sciences as well as in almost every
other field. Therefore, we contend that CT should be taught in elementary
schools and included in every university s educational curriculum. Several
studies that measure the impact of teaching programming, analytical think-
ing, and CT have been conducted. In this review, we analyze and discuss
findings from these studies and highlight the importance of learning pro-
gramming with a focus on the development of CT skills at a young age. We
also describe the tools that are available to improve the teaching of CT and
provide a state-of-the-art overview of how programming is being taught at
schools and universities in Colombia and around the world.

Keywords: computational thinking, programming, computer science education,

schools, higher education

Computational thinking (CT) is a way of approaching everyday situations and

solving problems by utilizing concepts that are fundamental to computer science.
As Wing (2006, p. 1) stated, "Computational thinking is reformulating a seem-
ingly difficult problem into one we know how to solve, perhaps by reduction,
embedding, transformation, or simulation." This process not only prepares stu-
dents in the field of computer science but also provides students with tools and
skills to approach and solve a wide range of problems in different areas of knowl-
edge (Werner, Denner, Campe, & Kawamoto, 2012). Nowadays, CT influences
fields related to the natural and social sciences and facilitates the acquisition of
skills to solve problems, design systems, and understand the power and limits of
human and machine intelligence.

834

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

In this review, we begin with a section that describes our literature search strat-
egy. Next, we include a section in which we discuss how programming can be
used to develop skills related to CT in students from school to higher education,
and we highlight the importance of peer-based collaborative environments and
concept maps and how these tools enhance a meaningful programming experi-
ence. In the third section, we review the impact of programming in diverse fields
of study as well as the issues faced when teaching and learning programming in
higher education. Last, we provide a state-of-the-art overview of how program-
ming is being taught in schools. In this final section, we address the challenges
faced by early programmers and describe the tools that are available to improve
the teaching process of CT at schools worldwide.

Method

To obtain an overview of the state of the art of teaching and learning pro-
gramming in educational institutions, we made an extensive, worldwide search
of papers in journals and proceedings of the Association for Computing
Machinery Digital Library, as well as in journals specialized in education of
computing or programming (e.g., Review of Educational Research , Computer
Science Education , Education and Information Technologies , Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching , Journal of Virtual Worlds Research ,
Educational Technology & Society , among others). Several key words and key
phrases were used throughout our search. Among these were "teaching/learning
programming," "issues in teaching/learning programming," "challenges for
novice programmers," "programming in schools," "programming in higher edu-
cation," "coding for children," "woman in computing," "coding in the 21st cen-
tury," "programming in the United States/Europe/Asia/Latin America,"
"approaches to teaching/learning programming," "collaborative teaching/learn-
ing in programming."
Subsequently, we searched for literature that might not be published in indexed
journals or proceedings. We performed an open search in Google Scholar using
the same key words and key phrases to gather information from associations of
teachers and individual initiatives in the field. Given that these references were
from unindexed sources, we decided to restrict the search to associations of teach-
ers in leading countries in this area. Additionally, we gathered information from
nonprofit organizations that aim to encourage the teaching and learning of pro-
gramming at any age.
We ended up with 92 references, including journal articles, reviews, proceed-
ings, short communications, and governmental standards from established asso-
ciations of teachers in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and
Germany. No restrictions regarding the date of publication were taken into
account. However, information published in the last 15 years was the most rele-
vant for this review. A deep and careful examination was conducted with each of
the references found. The most relevant information related to the processes, prac-
tices, tools, and experiences in teaching and learning programming both from
K-12 and in higher education, was retrieved.

835

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Results

Programming as a Tool for Mind Development

Several lines of evidence exist to support the implementation of CT in schools
as well as in higher education. First, children are now, more than ever, exposed to
considerable amounts of data, sometimes not curated, delivered in several for-
mats, and most of the time, not interconnected. CT can provide children with the
tools to extract the knowledge that might be hidden in the data. Second, we are
used to teaching reductionist science (i.e., isolated mechanisms or metabolic path-
ways), but need to start teaching the systems as they are: complex. Most of the
times, because of the lack of time, teachers do not ask or guide their students to
make connections between the materials they receive. Third, CT helps enhance
the thinking abilities as individuals can superimpose and combine multiple layers
of abstraction as a computer programmer does when developing algorithms.
To understand the complexity and importance of teaching CT, it is important to
differentiate among specific key terms: computer programming, computational
thinking, and algorithmic thinking. We define computer programming as the pro-
cess through which a person is able to provide a set of instructions that will com-
municate, as specifically and accurately as possible, a procedure, method, practice,
or task to a machine. This set of instructions must be coded using a specific pro-
gramming language (Vihavainen, Airaksinen, & Watson, 2014). We define CT as
a way of reasoning that compiles several high-level skills and practices that are at
the heart of computing, but applicable to many areas far beyond computer sci-
ence. The distinction between CT and algorithmic thinking in the literature is
somewhat unclear. However, in this review, we define algorithmic thinking as a
way of obtaining a solution through a series of steps. Thus, CT, as defined by
Syslo (2015), is a broader term that involves among other skills, algorithmic
thinking, logic, abstraction, generalization, decomposition, and debugging.
In theory, teaching programming is the best approach to teach CT. Programming
is initially taught by introducing the student to a programming language. Yet very
soon after the course begins, the student is faced with several challenges including
problem-solving situations, debugging, program design, and implementation. For
a long time, teaching to program was considered the best tool for developing
minds. However, by the mid-1980s, results of several studies suggested that
teaching to program failed to catalyze the development of higher-order thinking
skills (Sleeman, 1986). The reasons for this failure are complex. Whereas some
authors argue that the way programming was taught was to blame, others blame
the nature of programming itself (Sleeman, 1986).
Several studies have shown that students who take programming classes per-
form better on logical reasoning and problem-solving skills (Tu & Johnson, 1990).
To be successful in developing a critical mindset, a computer programming course
must (a) specifically define the learning and teaching objectives (including prob-
lem solving as an objective), (b) include appropriate educational tools and strate-
gies such as the design and use of concept maps, and (c) consider and understand
the differences between novices and experts in programming (specifically differ-
ences in their levels of abstraction). Nowadays, technology is ubiquitously

836

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

present in students' life and the fear of interacting with the physical machines has
diminished. Werner, Denner, et al. (2012) showed that middle school students
who had more access to computers and/or more confidence with them, performed
better in their problem-solving exercises and algorithmic thinking. However, as
noted by Saeli, Perrenet, Jochems, and Zwaneveld (201 1) and supported by stud-
ies performed by both Kurland, Pea, Clement, and Mawby (1986) and Paperi
(1993), teaching programming can be a very difficult task. Therefore, suitable
educational tools and strategies must support programming courses, so that any
individual may become proficient in programming and may further develop their
thinking abilities in a reasonable time.
Programming must be seen as a tool to develop concepts and skills related to
CT and computer science (e.g., resourcefulness, problem solving, abstraction,
algorithmic thinking), rather than a human-machine communication tool, related
to the information and communications technology field (ICT; French Academy
of Sciences, 2013). Thus, instead of teaching students solely how to write code,
programming courses must include the development of skills related to CT as a
learning objective. Students who are exposed to CT through programming,
develop algorithmic thinking, problem solving, logic, and debugging skills.
Hence, the programming that is taught in computer science should be focused on
the development of CT skills. Furthermore, computer science must be considered
an essential discipline (on a par with mathematics, for example) that every person
should learn from primary school onwards. According to Jones, Mitchell, and
Humphreys (2013), computer science comprises foundational principles as well
as widely applicable ideas and concepts. This discipline incorporates techniques
and methods for solving problems and advancing knowledge (such as abstraction
and logical reasoning), and a distinct way of thinking and working that sets it
apart from other disciplines.
Concepts within computer science have longevity (most of the ideas and con-
cepts from 20 or more years ago are still applicable today) and every core princi-
ple can be taught or illustrated without relying on the use of a specific technology.
Therefore, teaching fundamentals and concepts in programming as the core for an
entire discipline, instead of solely training students in the details of specific pro-
gramming languages - which might become useless with time - is crucial for the
development of CT skills (French Academy of Sciences, 2013).

Peer-Based Collaborative Environments and Concept Maps

Peer-based collaborative environments have shown to significantly stimulate
and enrich educational programming (Jakovljevic, 2003). In these collaborative
environments, students are able to use web-based conferencing, desktop video-
conferencing, and instant messaging to develop their tasks in a collaborative vir-
tual team. Despite the availability of online tools and tutorials, hands-on instruction
and guidance from peers or instructors is crucial for students to be able to rapidly
solve their inquiries so that they can increase the quality of their projects and
solidify what they have learned. Furthermore, there is evidence that peer-based
collaborative environments help engender enthusiasm for programming among
students and help students complete projects with grander goals in less time
(Chase & Okie, 2000).

837

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

In parallel with collaborative environments, concept maps have also been

shown to enhance a meaningful programming experience for learners at a higher
education institution (Jakovljevic, 2003). Concept maps are graphical representa-
tions of the knowledge that helps the learner organize the information, analyze it,
and then relate and connect it to create new structures that can be applied to any
subject (Novak, 1991). This educational tool is considered a metacognitive tool,
that is, a strategy that helps learning or understanding knowledge (Novak, 1990).
In the field of education, concept mapping was developed in 1972, but it was only
in the late 1980s and early 1990s that it was identified as a tool for building pow-
erful knowledge structures by engaging the students in a meaningful learning
experience (Cardellini, 2004; Novak, 1998).
Concept maps can guide a student from lower to higher levels of thinking as
depicted in the Bloom's taxonomy. Furthermore, they can help represent all
domains of learning, the cognitive, the affective, and the psychomotor (Novak,
1990). Previous studies have shown how the implementation of concept maps has
enhanced learning in mathematics (Cardemone, 1975; Novak & Afamasaga-
Fuata'i, 2009), genetics (Bogden, 1997), engineering (Turns, Atman, & Admas,
2000), chemistry (Pendley, Bretz, & Novak, 1994), physics (Moreira, 1977), and
programming (Jakovljevic, 2003). Novice programmers can use concept maps to
design their programs, to help them think about what the program will do, and to
describe how they will execute a task. Also, concept maps can help novice pro-
grammers organize basic concepts of programming to then use them correctly in
their programs (Novak, 1991). The importance of pedagogical tools in program-
ming courses used to achieve the goals of CT will be more thoroughly developed
in the fourth section.

Teaching and Learning Programming in Higher Education

Over the last decade, computer science and programming have grown remark-
ably and have permeated several fields, such as biology, chemistry, physics, medi-
cine, engineering, art, music, and social sciences. Furthermore, new subfields
such as bioinformatics, internet security and ethics, gaming, artificial intelligence,
among others have been created (Kay, van der Hoek, & Richardson, 2005). As
shown in Table 1, computer programming focused on the development of CT
skills is an ability that is very useful and can be very rewarding for students in
numerous disciplines (Piteira & Costa, 2012). However, teaching programming
languages in higher education has proven to be an extremely difficult and chal-
lenging task for professors and a difficult subject for students to learn (Mow,
2006). Therefore, experts in this area have been analyzing the difficulties faced by
novice students taking introductory programming courses, especially as studies
indicate that programming places a heavy cognitive load on freshmen students
(Ahmadzadeh, Elliman, & Higgins, 2005; Flowers, Carver, & Jackson, 2004). It
is important to underscore the fact that most freshmen students have had no pro-
gramming background knowledge or experience (Tuugalei & Mow, 2012).
According to Flowers et al. (2004), even after 2 years of learning programming,
many students are still struggling to be proficient.
Programming requires memorizing a wide range of information and displaying
several skills at the same time. A student must think about the details of syntax

838

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TABLE 1

Fields in which programming and computational thinking (CT) can be directly applied

Area Activities related to programming and CT

Biology Genome sequencing, genome assembly, and gene prediction

Protein interaction modeling
Metabolic pathway reconstruction
Population and systems biology
Chemistry Discovery and design of drugs
Molecular dynamics simulations
Chemical pathways modeling
Study of fundamental properties of atoms and molecules
Physics Physical behavior of materials
Optical performance simulations
Astrophysics modeling
Physical interaction in biomolecules
Medicine High-throughput biomedical assays
Neuronal pathways modeling
Physiology performance simulations
Medical surgery automation
Analysis of drugs and environmental toxins
Medical illustration

Engineering Mobile and internet computing

Gaming
Robotics

Computer and network security

Artificial intelligence
Data base systems
Arts Image design
Movie animation
Music Acoustics simulations

Recording techniques
Sound synthesis and manipulation
Computer music
Social Sciences Demographic simulations
Pandemic reaction modeling
Computational finance

and semantics of the programming language used, elaborate some mental model
of how to solve each problem, and be able to distinguish between solving the
problem and specifying the solution in a way that a computer would be able to
execute it (Pane & Myers, 1996). Consequently, a student must be capable of
using abilities related to CT such as algorithmic thinking (in order to obtain a
solution through clearly defined steps), evaluation (ensuring that an algorithmic

839

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

solution is a good one), decomposition (splitting the situation in several parts),

and abstraction (in order to basically make problems or systems easier to think
about by removing unnecessary complexity and details; Curzon, Dorling, Ng,
Selby, & Woollard, 2014).
Numerous problems associated with the learning of programming have been
described for several years. Lahtinen, Mutka, and Jarvinen (2005) stated that nov-
ice programmers are typically limited to the surface knowledge of programs,
often using a "line by line" programming approach instead of meaningful pro-
gram structures involving CT skills. This approach most likely leads to a failure
in terms of applying the knowledge they have obtained. Additionally, it seems that
students may know the syntax and semantics of individual statements, but do not
know how to combine them into valid programs, as they lack detailed mental
models, and are thus unable to solve problems in an efficient way (Winslow,
1996). Moreover, most students present several issues when they have to under-
stand notions about loops, conditionals, arrays, and recursion (Robins, Rountree,
& Rountree, 2003) as well as pointers and references, finding bugs from their own
programs, structured and abstract data types, and error handling (Lahtinen et al.,
2005; Piteira & Costa, 2013; Tuugalei & Mow, 2012).
In addressing these problems, diverse strategies have been tested in freshmen
students. After an extensive survey of both students and professors, Lahtinen et al.
(2005) reported that practical sessions in computer rooms were rated as the most
useful strategies. On the Internet, students encounter a significant number of
examples of codes (executable), programming tutorials, educational videos, and
contents available on educational platforms such as Moodle and Blackboard
(Piteira & Costa, 2013).
Vihavainen et al. (2014) conducted a literature review to learn about the differ-
ent intervention approaches to address the concerns. The authors grouped inter-
ventions into four different categories. The first category was Collaboration and
Peer Support. This category included (a) Peer-Led Team Learning activities in
which team-based learning is provided to help the students in introductory pro-
gramming courses (Lasserre & Szostak, 2011); (b) Pair Programming Activities
in which two students with specific roles work collaboratively at one computer on
the same design, algorithm, code, or test (Williams, McDowell, Nagappan,
Fernald, & Werner, 2003); and (c) Cooperative and Collaborative Practices in
which an undergraduate student co-teaches the class as the students are organized
in cooperative groups (Chase & Okie, 2000). The second category was named
Relatable Content and Contextualization. This one included (a) Media
Computation in which design, audio, and web page programs are used to facilitate
teaching programming (Tew, Fowler, & Guzdial, 2005); (b) Real-World Projects
in which a set of lab exercises based on real-world problems are used by the
teacher with the class (De La Mora & Reilly, 2012); and (c) Courses involving
games in which using game maker platforms students are encouraged to design a
game as desired (Rankin, Gooch, & Gooch, 2008).
The third category was named Course Setup, Assessment, and Resourcing.
This group of interventions included (a) Adjusting Course Content so that which
students' bottlenecks are analyzed and then the requirements are adjusted (Shaffer
& Rosson, 2013) and (b) Changing the Grading Schema so that all assignments

840

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

are evaluated in a way that would increase the pass rate and consequently generate
a better atmosphere in the class (Nikula, Gotel, & Kasurinen, 2011). Finally,
Category 4 was named Hybrid Approaches. This category combines the method-
ologies applied in the previous three categories, including Media Computation
with Pair Programming, Peer-Led Team Learning, and Collaborative Learning
with Relatable Content.
At the end of their review, Vihavainen et al. (2014) concluded that, on average,
using these types of interventions improves programming courses pass rates by
nearly one third compared with a traditional lecture and lab-based approach.
These authors also concluded that courses with relatable content (e.g., media
computation) and cooperative elements (e.g., pair programming) had increased
pass rates and intrinsic student motivation, whereas courses that relied exclusively
on a single approach resulted in students performing poorly.
We want to highlight a specific example at the Universidad de los Andes
(Bogotá, Colombia). For at least a decade, the Systems and Computing Engineering
Department has been conducting surveys and working on some of the most com-
mon problems related to teaching and learning programming. These include (a)
motivational problems (i.e., finding that some students have the impression that
success depends on something beyond their control regardless of the understand-
ing of the theory, algorithmic skills, or the time spent working on a program), (b)
lack of congruence between the concepts and skills taught in introductory courses
and the ability to write specific programs to solve a problem in an efficient way,
and (c) methodological problems in teaching programming. The instructor
expected that students would be able to learn on their own by going over exam-
ples presented in class and are then expected to design their own programs
(Villalobos, Calderon, & Jimenez, 2009; Villalobos, Casallas, & Marcos, 2005).
In order to address the issues with computing courses described above, the
Systems and Computing Engineering Department at Universidad de los Andes
has been working on a robust interactive platform called Cupi2 (http://Cupi2.
uniandes.edu.co) since 2006. This interactive platform encompasses an extensive
set of resources that include lectures, workshops, books, articles, lab examples,
concept maps, tutorials for students and teachers, as well as reports about class
schema and student performance on every programming course taught at the uni-
versity (Vega, Jimenez, & Villalobos, 2013). Cupi2 was developed as an initiative
to tackle major challenges in teaching and learning programming. The main goal
was to design learning strategies that use problem-based learning (PBL) and bot-
tom-up approaches to introduce simple concepts (data types, operators, and
expressions) and then lead students toward more complex concepts such as con-
trol structures, methods, parameters, vectors, and collections in a Java environ-
ment (Villalobos & Casallas, 2006).
An introductory course to programming called APO I (algorithms and object-
oriented programming) is taught every semester at Universidad de los Andes. This
course uses the Cupi2 interactive platform and is taken by students in any of the
undergraduate programs from the School of Engineering, the School of Sciences
(except for students in biology and microbiology), and some students in the music
department, reaching more than 1,000 students per semester. Each class has fewer
than 26 students (to improve the one to one interaction between students and

841

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

teachers) and is divided into six levels, which reflect the difficulty and skills
required. In Levels 1 to 5, students are taught the main concepts related to object-
oriented programming through lectures and examples included in the textbook
written by professors associated to the Cupi2 interactive platform. Furthermore,
students attend lab sessions where they have the opportunity to practice problems
that are partially solved in a java environment called Eclipse (http://www.eclipse.
org/), using the resources available in the Cupi2 platform. Through CupiTaller ,
which stands for "CupiWorkshop," students from all academic programs taking
APO I or APO II (the course that follows APO I) may access a physical space
where they may receive personalized tutoring to strengthen their programming
abilities.
At the end of the course (Level 6), students are challenged to solve a complete
exercise using all the tools, syntax, and skills learned throughout the semester.
These efforts have resulted in an improvement in the success rates and motivation
of the students. A nearly 50% decline in the number of students failing the course
has been observed as well as a consistent reduction in the number of students that
drop the course. Moreover, questions related to the students' perception of the
course showed a 20% increase after the introduction of Cupi2 (Villalobos et al.,
2005). Around 25 universities in Colombia work with and develop materials for
Cupi2 each year, creating a large and diverse community for teaching and learn-
ing programming (Villalobos et al., 2009).
Unfortunately, regardless of all the efforts done to overcome the difficulties
associated to learning programming (i.e., Cupi2), a substantial number of students
are still challenged by abstract programming concepts and logical reasoning.
Responses to the end of semester surveys of the APO I course indicate that stu-
dents in Level 1, particularly, believe that they could have learned more if they
would have had prior experience with programming before taking this first-
semester course. In short, the lack of prior experience limits the skills and syn-
taxes that can be taught, thus hindering the learning of specialized languages such
as C, C++, Matlab, Python, Arena, Strata, ArcGIS, and other useful programming
languages. To address this concern, we contend that high school students should
learn skills related to CT and algorithmic logic, so that it will be easier for them to
learn and adapt to new programming languages as well as different software dur-
ing their undergraduate studies. High school students should be exposed to the
development of logic, abstraction, decomposition, and evaluation as well as the
comprehension of basic algorithmic design, in order to facilitate the learning of
programming in higher education.
An unpublished study at Universidad de los Andes provides support for this
claim. Briefly, we retrieved data from all students who took APO I between the
spring semester of 2010 and the spring semester of 2015 and identified the high
school that the students had attended. As the total number of high schools was more
than 900, we selected 61 schools that represented more than half of the students.
Each school was contacted directly to assess if programming was taught at any
level. Analyses were conducted on a total of 3,855 students using R (R Development
Core Team, 2008). Results indicated a significant difference in the average final
grades between students who had been previously exposed to programming in high
school and those who had had no prior exposure to programming (p value = 2.53

842

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

e-08). Students who had been exposed to programming in high school obtained an
average grade of 4.5 out of 5.0 (SD = 0.76), and students with no prior experience
in programming obtained an average grade of 3.9 (SD = 0.79; t/corrected = 0.77).
Introducing students in elementary and higher school to algorithmic thinking,
abstraction, evaluation, problem solving, decomposition, and debugging will
most certainly help develop critical skills before college. These skills may result
in an easier transition from school to university, and allow professors to focus
their undergraduate programming courses on teaching useful features of specific
programming languages, as well as reinforcing, but not developing, CT skills.
This idea will be further discussed in the following section.

Teaching and Learning Programming in Schools

Barr and Stephenson (201 1) argued that today's students will live and work in
a world that is heavily influenced by computing principles. In the midst of this
trend, CT has become a prerequisite skill for many endeavors of the 21st century.
It is a skill that empowers students and thus it is highly beneficial for them to be
competent in CT (National Research Council [NRC] 2010). Given that CT is per-
meating several fields in which most of the students will develop an undergradu-
ate program, it is important to introduce these concepts in schools. Specifically,
CT concepts should appear as early as in elementary school, and continue through
secondary school and beyond (Quails & Sherrel, 2010). In this section, we will
discuss the different strategies that have been proposed to teach CT in an effective
way (using programming as the central core of computer science) to elementary
and high school students.
Three psychological theories have been put forward to explain the most effec-
tive ways of teaching: objectivism, cognitivism, and constructivism (Luo, 2005).
Briefly, objectivism describes the world as an environment made up of objects
and proposes that learning is grounded in observation, a process to create corre-
sponding representations of these objects in the minds of learners (Lakoff, 1987).
Cognitivism focuses on how human memory works to promote learning. It con-
siders learning as "involving the acquisition or reorganization of the cognitive
structures through which humans process and store information" (Good & Brophy,
1990, p. 187). Finally, Ben- Ari (2001) contended that the dominant theory of
learning in all the areas of knowledge, including CT, is the constructivism. This
theory proposes that knowledge is actively constructed by the student using expe-
riences and previously acquired knowledge, and not passively absorbed from
textbooks and lectures. Furthermore, the Ben-Ari claimed that in terms of CT,
passive learning will likely fail because each student brings a different cognitive
framework to the classroom, and each student will construct knowledge in a dif-
ferent way. Thus, learning must be active; the student must construct knowledge
assisted by guidance from the instructor and feedback from other students.
Based on a constructivist approach, programming has been suggested as the
main strategy to address CT in schools (Hromkovic, 2006; Wing, 2006). Although
CT is broader than programming, the latter is a central process for CT. Programming
encourages creativity, logical thinking, precision, and problem solving, and helps
improve the personal, learning, and thinking skills required in the modern school
curriculum (NRC, 2010). Generally, programming is taught using programming

843

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

languages; nevertheless, teaching programming to elementary and high school

students can be extremely difficult. Linn (1985) stated an ideal chain for learning
computer programming, which gradually goes from program comprehension and
ends with program generation, based on lectures and practical exercises. The
chain has three main links: Single Language Features, Design Skills, and General
Problem-Solving Skills (Saeli et al., 2011). According to Linn, the ideal chain
should start with the understanding of the language features, knowledge that can
be assessed by asking students to reformulate or change a language feature in a
program so that the program does something different (Saeli et al., 2011). The
second link of the chain consists of design skills, which are a group of techniques
used to combine language features to form a program. The third link of the chain
is useful for learning new formal systems. Asking students to solve problems
using an unfamiliar formal system such as a new programming language can help
transmit problem-solving skills (Saeli et al., 201 1). Although this chain of cogni-
tive accomplishment requires an extensive amount of time, it forms a good sum-
mary of what could be meant by deep learning in introductory programming
(Robins et al., 2003).
Even if the previously mentioned approach to teach programming has been
well-described and widely used, introductory courses of programming in schools,
called CS0 (Computer Science 0) and CSI (Computer Science 1) may have as
high as a third of the students failing the course when only using lectures and lab-
based exercises (Bennedsen & Caspersen, 2007). A recent study showed that
despite the advances in pedagogy, research, and application, students still fail in
trying to learn programming, and more important, the course failure rates are not
yet, substantially influenced by aspects of external teaching context, such as the
programming language taught in the course (Watson, 1997). In other words, the
problem might not be the language used to teach programming, but the teaching
intervention approach used to reach the attention and interest of the student as
well as the support provided in the process.

Challenges Faced by Early Programmers, Programming Languages, and

Pedagogical Tools Used in Schools
Over the past 15 years, in most of the schools where programming is taught,
programming languages that are professional in nature (such as C, C++, and Java)
are used as the main tool for teaching based on the availability of engineers able
to teach the course, online material, and third-party vendors who provide support
around the world (Costa & Aparicio, 2014; Grandell, Peltomaki, Back, &
Salaskoski, 2006). However, these languages have extensive and complex syn-
taxes, leading to great difficulties for beginners (Jenkins, 2002). The methodology
involves traditional teaching methods, normally based on lectures and specific
programming language syntaxes, in combination with guides and computer lab
sessions (Bennedsen & Caspersen, 2007). Nevertheless, these approaches often
fail in motivating students and in getting them involved in deep programming
activities (Lahtinen et al., 2005; Schulte & Bennedsen, 2006).
One of the difficulties faced by novice programmers include dealing with the
verbosity in specialized programming languages, which makes it harder for them
to learn algorithmic thinking (Grandell et al., 2006). Novice programmers have to

844

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

deal with abstract concepts. They need to understand a given problem, identify the
steps to approach such problem, and be able to design a solution. Students should
know how to subdivide a given solution into easy and simpler pseudo-code and
ought to be able to conceive hypothetical error situations in order to test their
programs and find possible missteps (Esteves, Fonseca, Morgado, & Martins,
2008). Furthermore, novice programmers have difficulties understanding even
the most basic concepts in programming such as variables, data type, machine
structure, and functioning, given that there are no real-life analogies related to
these concepts (Lahtinen et al., 2005; Miliszewka & Tan, 2007). Last, even after
understanding the basic concepts in programming, programmers must learn the
specificities of the programming language they intend to use (Lahtinen et al.,
2005; Winslow, 1996).
Another important fact that should be considered as a major challenge in learn-
ing and teaching programming is the low enrollment and interest of women in
computer science courses and programs. Researchers have identified a variety of
factors that may contribute to this issue. These factors include concerns about the
computing culture, lack of encouragement from peers (Kelleher, Paushc, &
Kiesler, 2007), lack of motivation, and gender stereotypes (Doube & Lang, 2012).
Extremely strong school stereotypes are held in STEM (science, technology, engi-
neering, and mathematics) fields, including computer science, where females
have a lower self-concept of ability than males ranging from an early age
(Denissen, Zarett, & Eccles, 2007) to postgraduate studies (Cohoon & Asprey,
2006), despite an equivalent and sometimes higher level of achievement (Eccles,
2007).
In the STEM field of computing, females have significantly less confidence
than males in their ability to learn and succeed (Singh, Allen, Scheckler, &
Darlington, 2007). Furthermore, there is a widespread perception that computer
experts are socially isolated "geeks" or "nerds" obsessed with technology, a way
of living that does not match with most women (Margolis & Fischer, 2002) who
tend to be more socially oriented (Herring, Christine, Ahuja, & Robinson, 2006).
Doube and Lang (2012) showed that when a course related to computing was
removed from the School of Science and placed in the School of Humanities, not
only was the female enrollment higher but women also reported enjoying the
course and finding applicability to their careers. These authors concluded that
there is a psychological aversion in females due to male stereotyping in comput-
ing discipline, which is also observed in mathematics, science, and other disci-
plines (Lang, 2002). Furthermore, females in high school have indicated that their
disinterest in computing disciplines arose from their classroom experiences,
where they faced isolation, low confidence, felt underrated, and extremely anx-
ious (Pau, Hall, & Grace, 2011). To address some of these issues, students from
Computer Science and Information Technology, have developed educational vid-
eos that enhance learning experiences related to computer programming in a
friendly and familiar environment for women (Ali, 20 1 6; Ali, Raza, & Ali, 20 1 6.).
Despite the difficulties associated with learning programming in school, which
are not easy to solve, we strongly agree with Jeannette Wing's (2006) vision that
CT is an extensive framework of concepts, abilities, and skills that young people
should learn in schools. We also agree with Serafini (2011) that learning

845

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

programming on an adequate level of abstraction is a very effective didactic

approach to CT, independent of the age of the learners. Hence, we decided to
gather, classify, and describe below the most powerful and useful tools available
to start the immersion of novices in programming.

Virtual approaches: Logo, scratch, and python as alternative languages for

beginners. Logo is a mini-language, and in contrast to general-purpose program-
ming languages, it was explicitly developed for teaching programming (Hrom-
kovic, 2006). To write and run programs, novices should not have to deal with
the complexity of an extensive general-purpose programming language such as
C, C++, and Java (Brusilovsky, Calabrese, & Miller, 1998). Logo editors do not
rely on a click-and-drag approach allowing the students to type the instructions
by themselves. This makes students care for the correct syntax and allows them to
practice debugging (Serafini, 2011). Additionally, the open-source programming
environment of XLogo (Le Coq, 2010) presents some interesting features; it runs
on multiple platforms, no Internet connection is needed, runs quite well on slow
computers and is free, encouraging its use as an introductory tool for program-
ming in schools (Serafini, 2011). Furthermore, teaching materials are available
free of charge designed as didactic guidelines and exercises to support teachers
(Hromkovic, 2006).
Scratch is a media-rich programming environment developed by MIT's Media
lab (https://scratch.mit.edu). It allows students to create animations, games, and
interactive art through programming using a computer mouse. The instructions
(or code pieces) can be represented as puzzle pieces that only fit one below the
other if they are syntactically correct (Malan & Leitner, 2007). Scratch is pro-
posed to be a first language for beginners in introductory courses. It was designed
to be user friendly, for all ages, backgrounds, and interests. By using Scratch,
students are encouraged to program their own interactive stories, video games,
animations, and simulations, and are able to then share their creations with others
(Resnick, Maloney, Rusk, & Kafai, 2009). Scratch shows several advantages for
introductory programming courses for freshmen students. It allows the instructor
and the users to avoid syntax issues (e.g., semicolon use), and thus, allows them
to focus on fundamental programmatic constructs (e.g., conditions, loops, vari-
ables). Scratch is able to run as a virtual machine in Linux, Mac OS, UNIX, and
Windows. It has a version for kids (called Scratch Junior) and offers a great
amount of pedagogical material online for free (Malan & Leitner, 2007). In gen-
eral, most of the students (76%) that are exposed to Scratch, claim a positive
influence on their subsequent experiences with specialized languages such as Java
(Resnick et al., 2009).
Python is a high-level scripting language designed by Guido van Rossum to
facilitate learning (van Rossum, 1999). Van Rossum suggested that any student
could become an expert in programming by using python. The use of Python as a
starting programming language, allows novice students to get easily involved into
the main characteristics of CT (e.g., solving problems and thinking algorithmi-
cally (Grandell et al., 2006). This is mainly due to (a) the small, intuitive and clean
syntax used in Python compared with languages such as Java or C++; (b) the
dynamic typing (variables do not need to be declared) which reduces the notation;

846

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

(c) the immediate feedback of potential errors; (d) the enforced structural design
that leads the programmer to an indented and structured way of writing; (e) and
finally, Python is a free and widely used language that comes with a specially
designed text editor, tutorials, books, course material, exercises, and assignments
available on the Web.

Real life experiences : LEGO ® and LEGO ® Mindstorms robot. According to

Hood and Hood (2005), the use of LEGO® bricks is a powerful method for teach-
ing programming and language concepts. The combination of colors and positions
help indicate specific actions that lead to the learning and development of a set
of sequenced instructions, algorithmic thinking, and problem-solving strategies,
all, critical skills in CT. Moreover, whereas the LEGO® brick approach does
not directly involve technology, it allows the participation of a more inclusive
audience given that it evades the intimidation related to the use of computers
(LEGO Dacta A/S, 2007). Another advantage of using LEGO® bricks to teach
programming, is that a base plate and different-shaped LEGO® blocks are easily
acquired. A knowledgeable instructor can design multiple exercises and provide
clear instructions by using a single base plate for each participating student or
team (Hood & Hood, 2005).
The educational robots of the LEGO Company (LEGO Mindstorms "LM";
http://mindstorms.lego.com/) have been broadly used for introducing program-
ming to novice students (Dagdielis, Sartatzemi, & Kagani, 2005; Hussain, Lindh,
& Shukur, 2006; LEGO & A/S, 2007). This approach is inspired on the
Constructionism learning theory (Papert, 1993), where students are able to con-
struct the knowledge for themselves. Lego Mindstorms are easily programmable
robots that contain a broad variety of bricks, sensors, and motors. These robots
can be programmed by using proper software environments to execute different
kinds of orders, and most importantly, to react to different stimuli received through
their sensors (Atmatzidou, Markelis, & Demetriadis, 2008). By using these edu-
cational robots, students learn by playing, creating new knowledge based on a
preexisting one (Hussain et al., 2006; LEGO Dacta A/S, 2007).
There are several advantages correlated to the use of LM in introductory pro-
gramming courses. By using the LM educational robots, students learn through
direct observation of their robots operating and interacting in the real world. Students
can see when they have made a mistake given that the robot may fall off from a
table, crash into a wall, or not interact with environmental conditions. This stimu-
lates them to create robust, expanded, complete, and correct programming, and to
invest a huge amount of time debugging programs (Lawhead, Bland, & Schep,
2003). Furthermore, the use of LM robots reduces the fear factor of using computers
even if the student had had no previous exposure to playing with LEGO® bricks as
a child (Lawhead et al., 2003). Huang, Yang, and Cheng (2013) showed that stu-
dents who used LM to design and build an artifact as a mean to learn basic concepts,
performed better in standardized programming tests in comparison with students
who learned using standard methods such as flowcharts. Atmatzidou et al. (2008)
stated that the engagement of children during a course that used LM educational
robots greatly contributed to the understanding of programming concepts (such as

847

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

counter, flag, repetition), leading to the familiarization of structured programming

principles.

Virtual life experiences : Game-programming. Video games have been widely

used in introductory programming courses as an engaging tool to teach computer
science, graphics, software engineering, and network topics (Al-Bow, Austin, &
Meyer, 2009). Researchers and educators at schools are confident that this tool
can be very helpful in the immersion of novices into programming (Rodger,
Hayes, Lezing, & Slater, 2009). As Al-Bow et al. (2009) highlighted, the number
of papers suggesting the use of video games in introductory programming courses
is quite large as it can be further noted in recent proceedings of conferences such
as ACM SIGGRAPH Sandbox, Future Play, Conference on Game Development
in Computer Science Education, and Foundations of Digital Games.
An example of video game programming is Alice (Conway, Audia, Burnette, &
Christiansen, 2000). This educational software uses an innovative programming
environment to create 3D animations using drag-and-drop programming as well as
a language that is closely related to objects in Java. In this software, each property,
method, and function is attached to an object, with the world being the global object.
A variation of Alice, known as Storytelling Alice was created by Caitlin Keller
(Kelleher et al., 2007) to encourage middle school students, in particular middle
school girls, to leam programming through the creation of short 3D animated mov-
ies. Students are able to better understand a variety of programming concepts (e.g.,
abstraction, modeling, control structures, handlers) by using Alice to make games
(Werner, Campe, & Denner, 2012) and stories (Kelleher et al., 2007).
A second example of video gaming as an introductory strategy to programming
is the Greenfoot environment (www.greenfoot.org). This visual and interactive
software has been specially designed to be simple and easy to use for beginners.
Greenfoot includes tutorials that provide the necessary Java concepts (such as
inheritance, abstraction, and data binding) to create 2D games (Greenfoot Team,
2009). In a summer camp organized for 14- and 15-year-old students (supported
by the NSF and Electronic Arts®), the use of computer games such as Greenfoot
was used to integrate computer science and art design instruction through a proj-
ect-based model methodology. This approach, led to a significant improvement in
self-confidence and computer programming knowledge (Al-Bow et al., 2009).
A third example of an educational gaming environment for teaching and learn-
ing programming is Pex4Fun (from Microsoft Research; http://www.pexforfun.
com/). This web-based tool, allows students to edit code in any browser, to create
or manipulate games, and then execute and analyze the game in the cloud
(Tillmann & de Halleux, 2011). Pex4Fun is able to find interesting and unex-
pected input values that help students understand what the code is actually execut-
ing. This educational gaming environment, permits a connection between teachers
and students by tracking and streaming progress updates in real time. Pex4Fun
has been used to teach and learn software engineering from high school all the
way through graduate school courses (Tillmann & de Halleux, 201 1).
The last example for video gaming learning is the Hour of Code. Code.org® is
a nonprofit organization launched in 2013, and Hour of Code was created in

848

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

collaboration with engineers from Microsoft, Google, Twitter, and Facebook. The
Hour of Code web page was created with the goal of increasing computer science
in schools as well as encouraging participation of women and underrepresented
students of color in this discipline of study (Code.org®, 2013). The strategy is
based on learning basic coding principles through gameplay, using an extensive
set of tutorials (called the hour of code) containing practice exercises, lectures,
and videos designed by technologists including Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg,
and artwork from popular games like Angry Birds (Rovio) and Plants vs. Zombies
(PopCap Game). According to the creators, more than 10 million people have
tried the hour of code (48% female). Among the surveyed teachers who have
signed up to teach the intro courses, 99% (almost 115,000) recommend imple-
menting the website resources into computer science curricula (Code.org®,
2013). Last, one additional advantage is that tutorials can be implemented online,
using a smartphone with or without Internet connection, and free of charge.

Current Status of Teaching Programming in Schools Worldwide

We have identified three main categories to describe the situation of teaching
programming in different countries. These categories are (a) countries where pro-
gramming is taught as a core course within computer science based on a national
curriculum; (b) countries where programming is taught as a tool related to ICT,
but major changes are on the way; and (c) countries where programming is taught
as a tool merely related to ICT.

Countries where programming is taught as a core course within computer sci-

ence. According to Diagiene, Jevsikova, Schulte, Sentance, and Thota (2013),
Germany and Israel are the countries where a strong curriculum in computer sci-
ence (CS) is well established. This curriculum includes problem solving, pro-
gramming, as well as other skills related to CT. In primary and secondary schools
in Germany, students are exposed to robotics and HTML as an introduction to the
main topics related to CS in parallel with a strong focus on privacy and ethics.
High schools in Germany place a strong emphasis on computer programming and
computational theory to develop higher skills related to CS.
Israel on the other hand, has developed and implemented a model for a high
school CS education program based in four pillars: (a) National CS curriculum
and syllabus, (b) Research in CS education, (c) CS teacher preparation programs,
and (d) Mandatory CS teaching license (Hazzan, Gal-Ezer, & Blum, 2008).
Moreover, students interested in CS take five modules over a 2- to 3-year period,
which includes (a) Fundamentals 1 and 2 that introduce central concepts in algo-
rithmic thinking and how to apply them in programming; (b) software design that
introduces data structures, abstract data structures, and designs of complete sys-
tems; (c) second paradigm that introduces object-oriented languages, program-
ming logic, or functional programming; (d) applications that are focused on
computer graphics, management information systems, or Internet programming;
and (e) theory that exposes the students to selected topics in theoretical CS such
as models of computation and finite automata. Additionally, in both countries,
there is a strong focus on teacher training, ranging from CS bachelor degrees to

849

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et ai

extensive pedagogical training certified by the Ministry of Education of each

country.

Countries where programming is taught as a tool for the information and commu-
nications technology field, but major changes are on the way. There are several
countries in which programming has been taught for an extensive period of time
(5 to 20 years) as part of a program where students are exposed mainly to the syn-
taxes of a specific programming language with no clear intention in developing
skills related to CT. However, thanks to the efforts of the CS teacher's associa-
tions and other individuals related to the computer science field, major changes
will become visible in the upcoming future (Jones, 201 1). The CS associations in
the United Kingdom (http://www.computingatschool.org.uk), the United States
(http://www.csta.acm.org), and France (http://www.academie-sciences.fr) have
been working on promoting and highlighting the importance of teaching program-
ming as a core course in schools.
The Computing At School (CAS) association in the UK released a document
(Jones et al., 2013) where they present a review of the CS/ICT curriculum. Several
suggestions related to teaching CS, teacher training, and implementation were
proposed in view of changing the way how CS is being taught in schools through-
out the UK. Moreover, a national curriculum has been proposed in 2013 with the
aim of ensuring that students in the UK would be able to understand and apply
logic and algorithmic thinking, data representation, and communication as well as
analyze and solve problems, and evaluate and apply information technology. This
curriculum is under revision at the moment and will hopefully be implemented in
the near future (Jones et al., 2013).
In the United States, major events have happened in the past 5 years. The
National Science Foundation (NSF) has launched a program called computing
education for the 21st century. Numerous companies and associations including
the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Microsoft, Google, Facebook,
Twitter, and other partners have developed a coalition called Computing in the
Core with the aim of promoting research in CS teaching. Furthermore, they have
developed a platform to attract children into programming and CS in general
(Stephenson & Wilson, 2012). The Computer Science Teacher Association
(CSTA; 2011) has released a revised K-12 CS standards focused on algorithmic
and CT concepts.
In France, the French Academy of Sciences released a report in 2013 (French
Academy of Sciences, 2013) claiming that a full review of the ICT/CS curriculum
has been made with the support of the government. This ICT/CS curriculum for
primary, middle, and high school, aims to achieve a competitive task force in the
future. Briefly, students from primary school are dedicated to develop skills
related to CT by using appropriate programming languages for their age. This
allows them to discover by themselves the main features of algorithmic thinking
and problem solving. Later, students from middle school are encouraged to
acquire specific concepts related to programming (i.e., syntax) as well as to solve
problems on their own, by combining topics in science with programming skills
to perform specific tasks. Finally, students in high school work in the strengthen-
ing of concepts learned in the earlier two stages, offering the opportunity to

850

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

introduce advance constructions such as functions, recursion, dynamic allocation,

types of data and objects, and parallelism.
In countries such as Finland, Canada, Scotland, Singapore, South Korea, Japan,
Greece, and India, there are curricula that include concepts related to CT and ICT.
However, the creation of updated drafts of curricula that intend to include learning
of CT skills through programming are on the way with the purpose of increasing the
number of students in STEM disciplines (Jones, 201 1 ; Sturman & Sizmur, 201 1).

Countries where programming is taught as a tool merely related to the informa-

tion and communications technology. Due to the lack of well-documented infor-
mation and well-established associations in countries not mentioned above, it is
not unreasonable to assume that most countries are dealing with a situation very
similar to that of New Zealand and most countries in Latin America (Jones, 201 1).
In these countries, computing in school curricula is often ignored, probably due
to the fact that computers are used as a tool for teaching (e.g., for web browsing),
for general applications related to ICT (e.g., use of Microsoft office), or as a dis-
cipline without clear guidelines or purposes regarding CT skills (e.g., learning the
syntax of a specific programming language (Jones, 201 1).
In Colombia, there are no clear guidelines provided by the government related to
CT or CS. Most of the guidelines related to technology focus on the creation of pas-
sive users of technology, where students are exposed to a handful of applications
with no clear purpose with regard to the development of skills. However, in some
private schools, minor changes are occurring. In the last Technology for Education
meeting held in Colombia (http://csfr.edu.co/index.php/teb-innovation-time-2015/),
besides discussing tools for teaching ICT, some private schools expressed that they
have been teaching programming for a while with the purpose of introducing CT
skills. Moreover, they spoke about issues related to algorithmic thinking, problem
solving, debugging, and other thinking skills. This has motivated them to reevaluate
the curricula and to think about ways in which programming is being taught. A
couple of schools expressed their intentions of including CS as an official course
within their curricula to develop skills associated to CT.
Furthermore, some organizations such as Eduteka (www.eduteka.org) are
working on initiatives to expose children to CS and CT. This nonprofit organiza-
tion, teaches programming via Scratch (Malan & Leitner, 2007) by using mental
maps and Venn diagrams. Eduteka also works on strategies to increase the number
or girls interested in programming. Another organization from Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, developed ProBot (Moreno & Montano, 2009), a video-
game-like application with the purpose of motivating students and engaging them
in programming via a boxing-contest environment. Finally, the educational sec-
tion of RoboCol (an organization in the Department of Engineering of Universidad
de los Andes focused on the design and construction of robots for contests; https://
robocol.uniandes.edu.co/) teaches programming to kids in elementary schools
using the robots of Lego Mindstorms®.

Discussion

It is clear that computers are present in all areas of society, creating an impor-
tant link between the world's economy and technology and innovation. The

851

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et ai

impact of CS on multiple fields within the industry, science, communications,

humanities, and society in general is becoming more important. Hence, it is cru-
cial to educate our students not only in the passive understanding and application
of digital technology but also to teach them the most important principles of how
computers work. In other words, we believe that students should learn the key
foundations of CS, given that the skills related to CT could be very helpful in any
career at any stage.
However, in order to achieve these goals, the teaching and learning of CS must
be centered and focused around CT. The development of skills related to CT such
as algorithmic thinking, logic, abstraction, problem solving, debugging, among
others, should be the fundamental purpose of CS courses. Moreover, it is impor-
tant to recall that CS means more than solely learning to program in a specific
language, such as Java or C++. Even if programming is central in computing and
CS, programming must be taught in light of the development of skills related to
CT, instead of a passive use of syntax.
Taking into account all the interventions, points of view, and reports analyzed
in this review, it is clear that there are several issues for novice students participat-
ing in introductory courses in CS and programming. Despite the different strate-
gies implemented to support these novice students (ranging from collaborative
team works, peer tutors, pre-introductory programming courses, exercises and
workshops, virtual platforms, virtual tutors, and forums, to changes in the grading
system, programs, and curriculum) multiple adversities are still present when stu-
dents are confronted to algorithmic thinking, logic, debugging, and problem solv-
ing; which in turn are the most important skills related to CT. Furthermore, these
difficulties, in combination with the exhausting labor of learning syntax, gener-
ally leads to frustration, rejection, and poor visions of what programming is, driv-
ing most novices away from CS-related careers.
Consequently, as mentioned in several articles referenced in this review, we
believe that skills related to CT must be taught at primary, middle, and high
school, in order to initiate the cognitive development of students at an earlier age.
CS should be recognized as a discrete subject in schools as is math, biology, or
social studies. Numerous strategies and initiatives that seek to facilitate the learn-
ing and teaching of CT in schools have been developed and put into practice dur-
ing the last decade. Most of these initiatives aim to replace current practices that
use technology in a passive way.
Future Directions

It is important to mention that there is a critical gap in terms of educational

research focused on teaching and learning CS and programming. Despite the sig-
nificant number of articles written by computer scientists that investigate issues
related to teaching and learning CS and programming, research conducted by
experts in the field of education are almost nonexistent in most countries. Because
social and cultural factors have a direct impact in learning, they must be taken into
account in curricula design. Thus, constructivist, sociocultural, and pedagogical
approaches are needed to create curricula that are geared toward the development
of CT skills in primary, middle, and high school. These skills will, without a
doubt, be fundamental for the vast majority of jobs in the 21st century.

852

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 References

Ahmadzadeh, M., Elliman, D., & Higgins, C. (2005). An analysis of patterns of debug-
ging among novice computer science students. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin , 37, 84-88.
doi: 1 0. 1 145/1 1 5 1 954. 1 067472
Al-Bow, M., Austin, D., & Meyer, S. (2009). Using game creation for teaching com-
puter programming to high school students and teachers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin -
ITiCSE '09, 41, 1 04- 1 08. doi: 1 0. 1 1 45/ 1 595496. 1 5629 1 3
Ali, T. (2016). From psychology to logic : Learning computer programming in the
kitchen. Retrieved from http://blossoms.mit.edu/videos/lessons/psychology_logic_
learning_computer_programming_kitchen
Ali, T., Raza, S. W., & Ali, M. (2016). Out for shopping : Understanding linear data
structures. Retrieved from http://blossoms.mit.edu/videos/lessons/out_shopping_
understanding linear data structures
Atmatzidou, S., Markelis, I., & Demetriadis, S. (2008). The use of LEGO Mindstorms
in elementary and secondary education : Game as a way of triggering learning.
Paper presented at the workshop proceedings of SIMPAR, Venice, Italy. Retrieved
from http://www.terecop.eu/downloads/simbar2008/atmatzidou_et_al.pdf
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (201 1). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is
involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM
Inroads , 2, 48-54. doi: 10. 1145/1929887.1929905
Ben- Ari, M. (2001). Constructivism in computer science education. Computers in
Mathematics and Science Teaching, 20, 45-73. doi: 10. 1145/274790.274308
Bennedsen, J., & Caspersen, M. E. (2007). Failure rates in introductory programming.
SIGCSE Bulletin, 39, 32-36. doi: 10. 1145/1272848. 1272879
Bogden, C. A. (1997). The use oj concept mapping as a possible strategy for instruc-
tional design and evaluation in college genetics (Unpublished MS thesis). Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
Brusilovsky, P., Calabrese, E., & Miller, P. (1998). Mini-languages: A way to learn
programming principles. Education and Information Technologies, 2, 65-83.
doi: 10. 1023/A: 101 8636507883
Cardellini, C. (2004). Conceiving of concept maps to foster meaningful learning: An
interview with Joseph D. Novak. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 1303-1308.
doi:10.1021/ed081pl303
Cardemone, P. F. (1975). Concept mapping: A technique of analyzing a discipline and
its use in the curriculum and instruction in a portion of a college level mathematics
skills course. (Unpublished MS thesis). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Chase, J. D., & Okie, E. G. (2000). Combining cooperative learning and peer instruc-
tion in introductory computer science. SIGCSE Bulletin, 32, 372-376.
doi: 10. 1 145/33 1 795.33 1 888
Code.org®. (2013). Hour of code kicks off to introduce k-12 students to computer
programming. IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved from https://www.computer.org/
csdl/mags/co/20 1 3/ 1 l/mco2013 1 10099.pdf
Cohoon, J., & Asprey, W. (2006). A critical review of the research on women's
participation in postsecondary computing education. In J. M. Cohoon & W.
Aspray (Eds.), Women and information technology: Research on underrepresen-
tation (pp. 137-180). Cambridge: MIT Press, doi: 1 0.755 l/mitpress/97802620
33459.003.0005
Computer Science Teacher Association. (201 1). Computer science standards. Retrieved
from https://csta.acm.Org/Curriculum/sub/K 1 2Standards.html

853

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

Conway, M., Audia, S., Burnette, T., & Christiansen, K. (2000, April). Alice : Lessons
learned from building a 3D system for novices. Paper presented at the proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague,
Netherlands, doi: 1 0. 1 145/332040.33248 1
Costa, C. J., & Aparicio, M. (2014, May). Evaluating success of a programming learn-
ing tool. Paper presented at the proceedings of the International Conference on
Information Systems and Design of Communication, Lisbon, Portugal,
doi : 1 0. 1 1 45/26 1 8 1 68.26 1 8 1 80

Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2014). Developing compu-
tational thinking in the classroom: A framework. Retrieved from http://eprints.soton.
ac.uk/id/eprint/369594
Dagdielis, V., Sartatzemi, M., & Kagani, K. (2005, July). Teaching with robots in sec-
ondary schools : Some new and not-so-new pedagogical problems. Paper presented
at the proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2005.255
De La Mora, N., & Reilly, C. F. (2012). The impact of real-world topic labs on student
performance on CSI. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference,
Seattle, WA. doi : 10. 1 1 09/FIE.20 12.6462329
Denissen, J., Zarett, N., & Eccles, J. (2007). I like to do it, I'm able, and I know I am:
Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and
interest. Child Development , 78, 430-447.
Diagiene, V., Jevsikova, T., Schulte, C., Sentance, S., & Thota, N. (2013, March). A
comparison of current trends within computer science teaching in school in Germany
and the UK. Paper presented the 6th International Conference ISSEP, Oldenburg,
Germany. Retrieved from https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/
deliver/index/docId/6 1 87/file/cid06.pdf#page=65
Doube, W., & Lang, C. (2012). Gender and stereotypes in motivation to study com-
puter programming for careers in multimedia. Computer Science Education , 22,
63-78. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ958969
Eccles, J. (2007). Where are all the women? Gender differences in participation in
physical science and engineering. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. William (Eds.), Why aren ì
more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, doi: 10. 1037/1 1546-016
Esteves, M., Fonseca, B., Morgado, L., & Martins, P. (2008, October). Contextualization
of programming learning: A virtual environment study. Paper presented at the pro-
ceedings of the 38th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington,
DC. doi: 10.1 109/FIE.2008.4720544
Flowers, T., Carver, C., & Jackson, J. (2004). Empowering students and building con-
fidence in novice programmers through gauntlet. Paper presented at 34th ASEE/
IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, doi: 10. 1109/FIE.2004. 1408551.
French Academy of Sciences. (2013). Teaching computer science in France, tomorrow
can 't wait. Retrieved from http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/
rads_0513gb.pdf
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1990). Educational psychology: A realistic approach (4th
ed.): White Plains, NY: Longman.
Grandell, L., Peltomaki, M., Back, R.-J., & Salaskoski, T. (2006). Why complicate
things? Introduction programming in high school using phyton. Paper presented at
the proceeding of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education, Hobart,
Australia. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=l 151880

854

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

Greenfoot Team. (2009). Greenfoot environment and apl. Retrieved from http://www.
greenfoot.org
Hazzan, O., Gal-Ezer, J., & Blum, L. (2008). A model for high school computer science
education: The four key elements that make it! SIGCSE Bulletin , 40, 281-285.
doi: 10. 1145/1352135.1352233
Herring, S., Christine, O., Ahuja, M., & Robinson, J. (2006). Gender and the culture of
computing in applied IT education. In E. M. Trauth (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gender
and information technology. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing,
doi: 1 0.40 1 8/978- 1 -59 1 40-8 1 5-4.ch074
Hood, C., & Hood, D. (2005, June). Teaching programming and language concepts
using Legos®. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE con-
ference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Caparica,
Portugal, doi : 1 0. 1 1 45/ 1 1 5 1 954. 1 067454
Hromkovic, J. (2006). Contributing to general education by teaching informatics. ACM
SIGCSE Bulletin, 37, 19-23. doi: 10. 1007/1 1915355 3
Huang, K., Yang, T., & Cheng, C. (2013). Engineering to see and move: Teaching
computer programming with flowcharts vs Lego robots. UET, 5(4). Retrieved from
http ://online-j ournals.org/i-j et/article/view/2943
Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of Lego training on pupils'
school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and attitude: Swedish
data. Educational Technology & Society, 9, 182-194. Retrieved from http://eric.
ed.gov/?id=EJ83685 1
Jakovljevic, M. (2003, September). Concept mapping and appropriate instructional
strategies in promoting programming skills of holistic learners. Paper presented at
the annual research conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists
and Information Technologists on Enablement through Technology (SAICSIT '03),
Johannesburg, South Africa. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.
cfm?id=954048
Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. Paper presented at the 3rd
Annual LTSN ICS Conference, Leeds, England. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.
psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= 10.1.1 .596.9994&rep=rep 1 &type=pdf
Jones, S. (201 1). International comparisons. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/
About/sub/ AboutF iles/IntlComparisonsv5 .pdf
Jones, S., Mitchell, B., & Humphreys, S. (2013). Computing at school in the UK.
Retrieved from http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/cas/
ComputingAtSchoolCACM.pdf
Kay, D., van der Hoek, A., & Richardson, D. (2005). Informatics: A focus on computer
science in context. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37, 55 1-555. Retrieved from http://www.
ics.uci.edu/~andre/papers/C45 .pdf
Kelleher, C., Paushc, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007, April). Storytelling Alice motivates mid-
dle school girls to learn computer programming. Paper presented at the proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA.
doi: 1 0. 1 145/1 240624. 1 240844
Kurland, M., Pea, R., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986). A study of the development
of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Educational
Computing Research, 2, 429-458. Retrieved from http://jec.sagepub.com/con-
tent/2/4/429.abstract
Lahtinen, E., Mutka, K., & Jarvinen, H. (2005). A study of the difficulties of novice
programmers . ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 37, 14-18. doi: 10. 1145/1 15 1954. 1067453

855

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

LakofF, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lang, C. (2002). Tertiary computing course selection: The impact of mathematics anx-
iety on female decision making. AJET, 18, 341-358. doi:10.14742/ajet.vl8i3.1764
Lasserre, P., & Szostak, C. (2011, June). Effects of team-based learning on a CSI
course. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on
Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Darmstadt, Germany,
doi: 1 0. 1 145/1 999747. 1 999787
Lawhead, P., Bland, C., & Schep, M. (2003). A road map for teaching introductory
programming using Lego© Mindstorms robots. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35, 191-
201. doi: 10. 1 145/782941 .783002
Le Coq, L. (2010). Xlogo. Retrieved from http://xlogo.tuxfamily.org/
LEGO Dacta A/S. (2007). Study of educational impact of the Lego Dacta materials.
Retrieved from http://www.lego.com/education/download/infoescuela.pdf
Linn, M. C. (1985). Cognitive consequences of programming instruction in class-
rooms. Educational Researcher, 14, 14-29. doi: 10.3 102/001 3 189X014005014
Luo, D. (2005, July). Using constructivism as a teaching model for computer science.
The China Papers, pp. 36-40. Retrieved from http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/
china/vol5/CP5_itcs_02.pdf
Malan, D., & Leitner, H. (2007). Scratch for budding computer scientists. ACM
SIGCSE Bulletin, 39, 223-227. doi: 10. 1145/1227504.1227388
Margolis, J., & Fischer, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse : Women in computing.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Miliszewka, I., & Tan, G. (2007). Befriending computer programming: A proposed
approach to teaching introductory programming. Issues in Informing Science &
Information Technology, 4, 277-289. Retrieved from http://proceedings.informing-
science.org/InSITE2007/IISITv4p277-289Mili3 1 0.pdf
Moreira, M. (1977). An Ausubelian approach to physics instruction: An experiment in
an introductory college course in electromagnetism (Unpublished MS thesis).
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Moreno, J., & Montano, E. (2009). Probot: Juego para el aprendizaje de la logica en
programación [Probot: Game for learning logic in programming]. Nuevas Ideas en
Informatica Educativa, 5, 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.tise.cl/2009/tise 2009/
pdf/1 .pdf
Mow, C. (2006). The effectiveness of cognitive apprenticeship based learning environ-
ment (cable) in teaching computer programming. Adelaide, South Australia:
University of South Australia.
National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of com-
putational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, doi: 10. 17226/12840
Nikula, U., Gotel, O., & Kasurinen, J. (201 1). A motivation guided holistic rehabilita-
tion of the first programming course. ACM Transactions on Computing Education
(TOCE), U, 24-38. doi: 10. 11 45/204893 1.2048935
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to
facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Science, 19, 29-52. doi: 10. 1007/
BF00377984
Novak, J. D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps. The Science Teacher, 58, 44-^9.
Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ447816
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge : Concept maps as jacil-
itative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

856

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

Novak, J. D., & Afamasaga-Fuata'i, K. (2009). Concept mapping in mathematics:

Research into practice. Berlin, Germany: Springer eBooks.
Pane, J., & Myers, B. (1996). Usability issues in the design oj novice programming
system (Technical Report CMU-CS-96-132). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon
University, School of Computer Science. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.
edu/~pane/cmu-cs-96- 1 32.html
Papērt, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Pau, R., Hall, W., & Grace, M. (2011). "It's boring": Female students experience of
studying ict and computing. Social Science Review , 92, 89-94. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ943938
Pendley, B. D., Bretz, R. L., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Concept maps as a tool to assess
learning in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education , 71, 9-11. doi: 10. 1021/
ed071p9
Piteira, M., & Costa, C. (2012, June). Computer programming and novices program-
mers. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Workshop on Information Systems
and Design of Communication, Lisbon, Portugal, doi: 10. 1145/23 11917.23 11927
Piteira, M., & Costa, C. (2013, July). Learning computer programming. Paper pre-
sented at the proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Information
Systems and Design of Communication, Lisbon, Portugal, doi: 10. 1 145/2503859.250
3871
Quails, J., & Sherrel, B. (2010). Why computational thinking should be integrated into
the curriculum. Journal of Computer Science Colleges, 25, 66-7 1 . Retrieved from
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1747148&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=74854522
2&CFTOKEN=943 80546
R Development Core Team. (2008). R: A language and environment for statisti
computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retriev
from http://www.R-project.org
Rankin, Y., Gooch, A., & Gooch, B. (2008, February). The impact of game design
students' interest in CS. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 3rd Internation
Conference on Game Development in Computer Science Education, Miami, F
doi: 10. 1 145/1463673. 1463680
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Rusk, N., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all.
Communications of the ACM, 52, 60-67. doi: 10. 1 145/1 592761 . 1 592779
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming:
A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13, 137-172. Retrieved
from http://home.cc.gatech.edU/csed/uploads/2/robins03 .pdf
Rodger, S., Hayes, J., Lezing, G., & Slater, D. (2009, March). Engaging middle school
teachers and students with Alice in a diverse set of subjects. Paper presented at the
proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education, Chattanooga, TN. doi: 10.1 145/1 508865. 1 508967
Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching program-
ming in secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics
in Education, 10, 73-88. Retrieved from http://www.fing.edu.uy/grupos/nifcc/mate-
rial/20 1 5/PCK.pdf
Schulte, C., & Bennedsen, J. (2006, September). What do teachers teach in introductory
programming? Paper presented at the proceedings of the Second International Workshop
on Computing Education Research, Canterbury, UK. doi: 1 0. 1 145/1 1 5 1 588. 1151 593

857

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

Serafini, G. (2011) Teaching programming at primary schools: Visions, experiences,

and long-term research prospects. In: I. Kalaš & R. T. Mittermeir (Eds.), Informatics
in schools. Contributing to 21st century education (Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, Vol. 7013). Berlin, Germany: Springer, doi: 10. 1007/978-3-642-24722-
413
Shaffer, S., & Rosson, M. (2013). Increasing student success by modifying
delivery based on student submission data. ACM Inroads , 4 , 81
doi: 10. 1 145/2537753.2537778
Singh, K., Allen, K., Scheckler, R., & Darlington, L. (2007). Women in computer-
related majors: A critical synthesis of research and theory from 1 994 to 2005. Review
of Educational Research, 77, 500-533. doi: 10.3 102/00346543073099 19
Sleeman, D. (1986). The challenges of teaching computer programming.
Communications of the ACM, 29, 840-841. doi: 10. 1145/6592.214913
Stephenson, C., & Wilson, C. (2012). Reforming k-12 computer science education . . .
What will your story be? ACM Inroads, 3, 43^46. doi: 10.1 145/2189835.2189850
Sturman, L., & Sizmur, J. (2011). International comparison of computing in schools.
Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/cisl01/cisl01_home.cfm
Syslo, M. (2015, July). From algorithmic to computational thinking: On the way for
computing for all students. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2015 ACM
Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Vilnius,
Lithuania, doi: 10. 1 145/2729094.2742582
Tew, A., Fowler, C., & Guzdial, M. (2005, February). Tracking an innovation in intro-
ductory CS education from a research university to a two-year college. Paper pre-
sented at the proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer
Science Education, St. Louis, MO. doi: 10. 1145/1047344. 1047481
Tillmann, N., & de Halleux, J. (201 1 , May). Pex4fun: Teaching and learning computer
science via social gaming. Paper presented at the Software Engineering Education
and Training (CSEE&T), 2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference, doi: 10.1 109/
CSEET.2012.13
Tu, J., & Johnson, J. (1990). Can computer programming improve problem-solvin
ability? SIGCSE Bulletin, 22, 30-33. doi: 10. 11 45/ 126445. 126451
Turns, J., Atman, C. J., & Admas, R. (2000). Concept maps for engineering educatio
A cognitively motivated tool supporting varied assessment functions education
IEEE Transactions, 43, 164-173. doi: 10. 11 09/1 3.848069
Tuugalei, I., & Mow, C. (2012). Analyses of student programming errors in java pr
gramming courses. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information
Sciences, 3, 739-749. Retrieved from http://www.cisjournal.org/journalofcomput-
ing/archive/vol3no5/vol3no5_l 1 .pdf
van Rossum, G. M. (1999). Computer programming for everybody. Retrieved fro
https://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e/
Vega, C., Jimenez, C., & Villalobos, J. (2013). A scalable and incremental project-
based learning approach for CS1/CS2 courses. Education and Information
Technologies, 18, 309-329. doi: 10. 1007/s 10639-0 12-9242-8
Vihavainen, A., Airaksinen, J., & Watson, C. (2014, August). A systematic review
approaches for teaching introductory programming and their influence on suc
cess. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on
International Computing Education Research, Glasgow, Scotland, doi: 10. 1145/
2632320.2632349

858

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Computational Thinking Through Programming

Villalobos, J., Calderon, N., & Jimenez, C. (2009). Cupi2 community : Promoting a
networking culture to support teaching programming. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU), Lisbon,
Portugal. Retrieved from https://cupintranet.virtual.uniandes.edu.co/site/index.php/
el-proyecto-topmenu/unicopublicaciones
Villalobos, J., & Casallas, R. (2006). Teaching/learning a first object-oriented pro-
gramming course outside the CS curriculum. Paper presented at the Tenth Workshop
on Pedagogy and Tools for the Teaching and Learning of Object Oriented Concepts,
Nantes, France. Retrieved from https://cupintranet.virtual.uniandes.edu.co/site/
index.php/el-proyecto-topmenu/unicopublicaciones
Villalobos, J., Casallas, R., & Marcos, K. (2005). El reto de diseñar un primer curso de
programación de computadores [The challenge of designing a first course in computer
programming]. Paper presented at the XIII Congreso Iberoamericano de Educación
Superior en Computación, Cali, Colombia. Retrieved from https ://cupintranet. virtual
.uniandes.edu.co/site/index.php/el-proyecto-topmenu/unicopublicaciones
Watson, C. (1997, February). Collaborative learning: A case study for CSI at Grinnell
College and Austin. Paper presented at the proceedings of the twenty-eighth SIGCSE
Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, San Jose, CA.
doi: 1 0. 1 1 45/268084.268 1 64
Werner, L., Campe, S., & Denner, J. (2012, February). Children learning computer
science concepts via Alice game-programming. Paper presented at the proceedings
of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Raleigh,
NC. doi: 10.11 45/2 1 57 1 36.2 1 57263
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. (2012, February). The fairly
performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school.
Paper presented at the SIGCSE '12 Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education, Raleigh, NC. doi: 10. 1 145/
2157136.2157200
Williams, L., McDowell, C., Nagappan, N., Fernald, J., & Werner, L. (2003, Septembe
Building pair programming knowledge through a family of experiments. Paper pr
sented at the ISESE '03 Proceedings of the 2003 International Symposium on
Empirical Software Engineering, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://dl.ac
org/citation.cfin?id=943642
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49( 3), 33-3
doi: 10.1 145/1 118178.1 118215
Winslow, L. (1996). Programming pedagogy - A psychological overview. SIGCS
Bulletin , 28, 17-22. doi: 10.1 145/234867.234872

Authors

FRANCISCO BUITRAGO FLÓREZ obtained his bachelor's degree in microbiology from

Universidad de los Andes in 2010. He then earned a master's degree in biological sci-
ences with an emphasis in bioinformatics in 2012. He worked as a school teacher for 4
years and is now pursuing a doctoral degree in education at the Center for Research and
Training in Education, Universidad de los Andes, Carrera IA # 18A-12, Bogota,
Colombia; email: [email protected]. His research is centered on teaching and
learning computer science and computational thinking for middle and high school
students.

859

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buitrago Florez et al.

RUBBY CASALLAS obtained her PhD from the Université de Grenoble (Scientifique et
Medicale-Joseph Fourier) on informatics where she worked on Historical Objects and
Annotation for Software Engineering Environments. She currently works as a full pro-
fessor at the Systems and Computing Engineering Department, Universidad de los
Andes, Carrera IA # 18A-12, Bogota, Colombia; email: [email protected].
Her main research lines are teaching/learning software engineering and software devel-
opment based on models.

MARCELA HERNANDEZ earned her PhD from the Institut National des Sceinces
Appliquées de Lyon on images and systems. She currently works as a full professor at
the Systems and Computing Engineering Department, Universidad de los Andes,
Carrera IA # 18A-12, Bogota, Colombia; email: [email protected]. co. Her main
research areas are processing of medical images and data warehouse.

ALEJANDRO REYES earned his PhD degree in computational and systems biology from
Washington University in Saint Louis, where he worked on metagenomic analyses of
the human gut viróme. He is currently working as an assistant professor at the
Department of Biological Sciences, Universidad de los Andes, Carrera IA # 18A-12,
Bogota, Colombia; email: [email protected]. He conducts research on compu-
tational biology and metagenomics associates to the human gut.

SILVIA RESTREPO is the vice-president for research at Universidad de los Andes. She is
a full professor in the Department of Biological Sciences, Carrera 1 A # 18A-12, Bogota,
Colombia; email: [email protected]. She earned her PhD from the Université
de Paris VI (Pierre et Marie Curie; Paris, France) on molecular and cellular biology.
She moved to the United States in 2000 as a postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University,
New York, in the Department of Plant Pathology. By mid-2001 she came back to
Colombia as a postdoctoral fellow at the International Center of Tropical Agriculture
(CI AT) to work in the biotechnology facilities. She currently works on population
genetics and genomics of plant pathogens.

GIOVANNA DANIES obtained her PhD from Cornell University (Ithaca, New York) in
plant pathology. She currently works as a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of
Biological Sciences, Universidad de los Andes, Carrera IA # 18A-12, Bogota,
Colombia; email: [email protected]. Her current research focuses on the phenotypic
and genotypie characterization of plant pathogens. She also works actively on an initia-
tive to improve STEM teaching and learning both at Universidad de los Andes as well
as in schools in Colombia and is constantly searching for links between schools, univer-
sity, and industry.

860

This content downloaded from 77.246.50.242 on Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:32:16 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms