Investigating the effectiveness of scratch block-based programming on computational thinking and geometric problem-solving skills of seventh-grade students

Rafiepour, A.; Karimi, P.

doi:10.22061/tej.2026.12019.3221

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran 2 Mahani Math Center, Afzalipour Research Institute, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Iran

10.22061/tej.2026.12019.3221

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Programming, as an interdisciplinary activity, creates an active link between mathematics and computer science, which can serve to solve problems, learn abstract concepts, and develop computational thinking. In recent years, the use of visual environments such as Scratch in mathematics education has received special attention. Despite this, there is little evidence regarding the impact of block-based programming on geometric skills and computational thinking in the first cycle of secondary school (middle school). The present study aimed to investigate the effect of block-based programming in the Scratch environment on the computational thinking and geometric problem-solving skills of seventh-grade students.
Methods: The present research was applied in terms of purpose and was conducted with a mixed (quantitative-qualitative) approach with two research groups, experimental and control. The statistical population consisted of seventh-grade male students in Mahan city during the academic year 2024-2025, and the sampling method was random. The sample included 60 students who were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control group, with 30 students in each group. The educational intervention lasted for eight weeks and focused on teaching the concepts of the ‘Geometry and Reasoning’ chapter from the seventh-grade mathematics textbook. The data collection instrument in the quantitative section was the Romano Gonzalez et al. standard computational thinking test, which was administered as a pre-test and post-test. Its reliability was reported with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.79. Also, the quantitative data were analyzed with SPSS software, and the pre-test and post-test data of computational thinking in both the experimental and control groups followed a normal distribution, which allowed the use of parametric tests (paired t-test and independent t-test). In the qualitative section, the learning process and perception of geometric concepts in the seventh-grade mathematics textbook were examined by utilizing content analysis of students' programming projects in the Dr. Scratch program and semi-structured interviews.
Findings: In the experimental group, the average scores for computational thinking increased from 10.73 (SD= 4.727) in the pre-test to 14.57 (SD= 4.739) in the post-test, which was confirmed by a paired t-test showing a significant difference (p < 0.001). In contrast, the control group showed little change from 10.60 to 10.90, indicating no significant difference (p = 0.405). The calculation of Cohen's d effect size for the experimental group indicated a strong effect, supporting the effectiveness of the Scratch intervention. In the Scratch Program, four main features of computational thinking in students' digital artifacts were presented, applicable to seventh-grade foundational geometry questions. These features include translating abstract concepts into tangible objects, developing generalizable algorithms, multi-faceted representation of problems, and the repeatability of recognizable solutions.
Conclusion: Statistical findings from a paired t-test revealed that programming in the Scratch environment significantly increased computational thinking scores in the experimental group. Qualitative data, including students' programming projects, semi-structured interviews, and analysis of educational images and videos, also indicated that students were able to represent geometric concepts such as symmetry and rotation in a more tangible and multifaceted way in their Scratch projects. From this perspective, this research, by integrating the two domains of computational thinking and geometry education, provides an innovative platform for designing educational experiences and integrating technology and the learning of mathematical concepts. This article emphasizes that block-based programming should be considered not merely as a technological tool, but as a cognitive mediator in mathematics education. This approach can pave the way for transformation in teaching and learning methods of complex geometric concepts and be an effective tool for mathematics teachers to teach abstract concepts to students.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Educational Technology

COPYRIGHTS
© 2025 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

References

[1] Ng OL, Leung A, Ye H. Exploring computational thinking as a boundary object between mathematics and computer programming for STEM teaching and learning. ZDM Math Educ. 2023;55(7):1315–1329. doi:10.1007/s11858-023-01509-z

[2] Papert S. Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Eugene (OR): Harvester; 1980.

[3].Papert S. What's the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Syst J. 2000;39(3-4):720–729.

doi:10.1147/sj.393.0720

[4] Solomon C, Harvey B, Kahn K, Lieberman H, Miller ML, Minsky M, Papert A, Silverman B. History of Logo. Proc ACM Program Lang. 2020;4(HOPL):79. doi:10.1145/3386329

[5] Wu TT, Asmara A, Huang YM, Permata Hapsari I. Identification of problem-solving techniques in computational thinking studies: systematic literature review. SAGE Open. 2024;14(2). doi:10.1177/21582440241249897

[6] Schiza K, Kynigos C. Programming to animate letter models: a context for mathematical competence? In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (CERME13). Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics; ERME; 2023.

[7] Brennan K, Resnick M. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association; 2012 Apr 13–17; Vancouver.

[8] Wing JM. Computational thinking. Commun ACM. 2006;49(3):33–35. doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215

[9] Wing J. Research notebook: computational thinking—what and why. Link Mag. 2011;6:20–23.

[10] Weintrop D, Beheshti E, Horn M, et al. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. J Sci Educ Technol. 2016;25:127–147.

doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

[11] Lye SY, Koh JHL. Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: what is next for K-12? Comput Hum Behav. 2014;41:51–61.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

[12] Sanalan V, Taşlıbeyaz E. Discovering Turkish Generation-Z in the context of educational technology. J Educ Issues. 2020;6(2). doi:10.5296/jei.v6i2.17552

[13] Kalelioglu F, Gülbahar Y, Kukul V. A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Balt J Mod Comput. 2016;4(3):583.

[14] Kafai YB, Resnick M, editors. Constructionism in practice: designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. New York: Routledge; 2012. doi:10.4324/9780203053492

[15] Duckworth D, Fraillon J. Computational thinking framework. In: Fraillon J, Rožman M, editors. IEA international computer and information literacy study 2023. Cham: Springer; 2025. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61194-0_3

[16] Noss R, Hoyles C. Constructionism and microworlds. In: Duval E, Sharples M, Sutherland R, editors. Technology enhanced learning. Cham: Springer; 2017.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02600-8_3

[17] Hoyles C, Noss R. A computational lens on design research. ZDM Math Educ. 2015;47:1039–1045.

doi:10.1007/s11858-015-0731-2

[18] Resnick M, Maloney J, Monroy-Hernández A, Rusk N, Eastmond E, Brennan K, et al. Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM. 2009;52(11):60–67.

doi:10.1145/1592761.1592779

[19] Rafiepour A. Using big-data and modeling real-world phenomena in statistics education. Andishe. 2021;26(1):25–35. [In Persian].

[20] Rafiepour A, Farsani D. Cultural historical review of Iranian school mathematics curriculum: the role of computational thinking. J Math Educ. 2021;12(3):411–426.

[21] Leung A. Realizing STEM heuristic in a mathematics problem solving activity. In: Anderson D, Milner-Bolotin M, Santos R, Petrina S, editors. Proceedings of the 6th International STEM in Education Conference (STEM 2021); 2021. p. 242–248. doi:10.14288/1.0402129

[22] Ng O, Liu M, Cui Z. Students’ in-moment challenges and developing maker perspectives during problem-based digital making. J Res Technol Educ. 2021.

doi:10.1080/15391523.2021.1967817

[23] Aho AV. Computation and computational thinking. Comput J. 2012;55(7):832–835. doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxs074

[24] Ye H, Liang B, Ng O, Chai CS. Integration of computational thinking in K-12 mathematics education: a systematic review on CT-based mathematics instruction and student learning. Int J STEM Educ. 2023;10(1):1–26.doi:10.1186/s40594-023-00396-w

[25] Kadijevich DM, Stephens M, Rafiepour A. Emergence of computational/algorithmic thinking and its impact on the mathematics curriculum. In: Shimizu Y, Vithal R, editors. Mathematics curriculum reforms around the world. Cham: Springer; 2023. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13548-4_23

[26] Price TW, Barnes T. Comparing textual and block interfaces in a novice programming environment. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research; 2015 Aug; p. 91–99. doi:10.1145/2787622.2787712

[27] Yu Q, Yu K, Li B. Effects of block-based visual programming on K-12 students’ learning outcomes. J Educ Comput Res. 2025;63(1):64–98. doi:10.1177/07356331241293163

[28] Jensen M, Julien A, Schemeding A, Rafiepour A. An analytical framework for programming tasks in mathematics textbooks. In: Proceedings of CERME 13; Budapest, Hungary; 2023.

[29] Chantal B, Mgombelo J, Muller E, Rafiepour A, Sacristán A. Features of ‘authentic’ programming-based mathematical tasks. In: Proceedings of the 5th ERME Topic Conference MEDA 2018; Copenhagen, Denmark; 2018 Sep 5–7. p. 301–302.

[30] Rodríguez-Martínez JA, González-Calero JA, Sáez-López JM. Computational thinking and mathematics using Scratch: an experiment with sixth-grade students. Interact Learn Environ. 2020;28(3):316–327. doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1612448

[31] OECD Staff. OECD economic outlook. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2001.

[32] Bocconi S, Chioccariello A, Dettori G, Ferrari A, Engelhardt K, Kampylis P, et al. Developing computational thinking in compulsory education. Luxembourg: European Commission, JRC Science for Policy Report; 2016.

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2791/792158

[33] Grover S, Pea R. Computational thinking in K–12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res. 2013;42(1):38–43. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051

[34] Jiang B, Li Z. Effect of Scratch on computational thinking skills of Chinese primary school students. J Comput Educ. 2021;8:505–525. doi:10.1007/s40692-021-00190-z

[35] Montiel H, Gomez-Zermeño MG. Educational challenges for computational thinking in K–12 education: a systematic literature review of “Scratch” as an innovative programming tool. Computers. 2021;10(6):69.

doi:10.3390/computers10060069

[36] Sáez-López JM, Sevillano-García ML, Vazquez-Cano E. The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2019; 67(6): 1405–1425. doi:10.1007/s11423-019-09648-5

[37] Moslemi Nejad Arani S, Zarei A, Sarani A. The effect of online and in-person problem-based learning on learners' willingness to communicate, self-efficacy, and classroom anxiety. Educ Technol. 2023;18(1):19–36. [In Persian]. doi:10.22061/tej.2023.9904.2915.

[38] Sheybani Khanehkar M, Yafatian N. Examining the effect of gamification-based teaching on self-regulation in tenth-grade vocational and technical students' mathematics learning. Educ Technol. 2024; 18(4): 829–842. [In Persian]. doi:10.22061/tej.2024.10728.3045.

[39] Rafiepour A, Radmehr M. The impact of Blocky programming on probabilistic thinking of seventh-grade students. In: Proceedings of CERME 13; Budapest, Hungary; 2023.

[40] Creswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2017.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.02.003 Get rights and content

[41] Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1989;11(3):255–274.

doi:10.3102/01623737011003255

[42] Denzin NK. The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Routledge; 2017. doi:10.4324/9781315134543

[43] Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Putting the human back in “human research methodology”: the researcher in mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res. 2010; 4(4): 271–277. doi:10.1177/1558689810382532

[44] Román-González M, Pérez-González JC, Jiménez-Fernández C. Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Comput Hum Behav. 2017;72:678–691. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047

[45] Moreno-León J, Robles G. Dr. Scratch: a web tool to automatically evaluate Scratch projects. In: Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '15); New York (NY): Association for Computing Machinery; 2015. p. 132–133. doi:10.1145/2818314.2818338

[46] Afkhami R, Asghari N, Medghalchi A, Pashaei F. Promoting seventh-grade students' mental constructions in generalizing shape patterns: applying APOS theory and awareness of structure. Educ Technol. 1403;18(2):387–398. [In Persian]

doi:10.22061/tej.2023.9986.2924.

[47] Afkhami R, Asghari N, Medghalchi A. Promoting functional thinking: identifying prerequisite schemas of seventh-grade students in generalizing bivariate figural patterns. Educ Technol. 2020;14(3):707–722. [In Persian]

doi:10.22061/jte.2019.4844.2127.

[48] Rabi S, Asghari N, Haghighi A, Fariborzi Araqi MA. Investigating the representations of geometric shapes of high school students: the role of cognitive perceptions in solving geometric tasks involving shapes. Tadris Pajouhi. 1403;12(3):174–208. [In Persian]