The effect of computational thinking on creativity: A meta-analysis for teaching strategies

Münire İrem Günaltay; Sıla Balcı; Sevil Orhan Özen

doi:10.29329/pedper.2025.125

Authors

Münire İrem Günaltay Uşak University-Curriculum and Instruction https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0364-3883
Sıla Balcı Uşak University-Curriculum and Instruction https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7257-3258
Sevil Orhan Özen Uşak University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29329/pedper.2025.125

Keywords:

Computational thinking, Creativity, Meta-analysis, Plugged, Unplugged

Abstract

This meta-analysis aims to examine the relationship between computational thinking (CT) and creativity, to understand the effect of CT on creativity, and to evaluate this effect in different contexts to develop applicable recommendations for teaching strategies. A literature search was conducted in the Web of Science and Scopus databases during the fall of 2024 using the keywords “computational thinking” OR “CT” and “creativity” OR “creative thinking,” and it was filtered for full-text articles published in English after 2016. This search identified 410 studies, of which seven studies, with eight effect size, met the inclusion criteria. The included studies provided the necessary experimental data (Mean, SD and t of F-value) for measuring creativity after CT intervention. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges’s g under a random effects model to correct for small sample bias; heterogeneity was assessed with Q and I² statistics. Publication bias was analyzed by funnel plot and Duval and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill test, confirming the reliability of the findings. In this meta-analysis, moderator variables such as publication year, country, discipline, grade, CT activity and intervention duration were considered. By identifying in which contexts the effects are stronger or weaker through these moderators, the study guides the design and implementation of CT activities in education. The results showed that CT has a significant and positive effect on creativity (Hedges’s g = 0.68) with moderating disciplines, grade and year. This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how CT can be integrated into educational environments to foster creativity, providing both theoretical and practical contributions to the field of technology.

References

*Aytekin, A., & Topçu, M. S. (2024). Improving 6th Grade Students’ Creative Problem Solving Skills Through Plugged and Unplugged Computational Thinking Approaches. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-25.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-024-10130-y

*Berk, G., & Gülcü, A. (2024). The Effect of Computer-Supported Stem Applications on Secondary Students' Achievement and Computational Thinking Skills. Participatory Educational Research, 11(4), 160-183.

http://dc.di.org./10.17275/per.24.54.11.4

*Canbeldek, M., & Isikoglu, N. (2023). Exploring the effects of “productive children: coding and robotics education program” in early childhood education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(3), 3359-3379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11315-x

Castro-Zubizarreta, A., García-Lastra, M., & González del Río, O. M. (2024). Enfoque Steam Y Educación Infantil: Una Revisión Sistemática De La Literatura. Ensayos: Revista de la Facultad de Educación de Albacete, 39(1).

*Chang, C. Y., Du, Z., Kuo, H. C., & Chang, C. C. (2023). Investigating the Impact of Design Thinking-Based STEAM PBL on Students’ Creativity and Computational Thinking. IEEE Transactions on Education. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2023.3297221

Geist, E. (2016). Robots, programming and coding, oh my! Childhood Education, 92(4), 298-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.1208008

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational researcher, 5(10), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003

Habeeb, K. M., Alnajjar, A. M., & Jafer, Y. (2024). Effects of an interdisciplinary approach in science and arts on cognitive development of kindergarten children. Education 3-13, 1-12. cle: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2406417

Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), 89-106.

*Hsu, T. C., & Chen, M. S. (2022). The engagement of students when learning to use a personal audio classifier to control robot cars in a computational thinking board game. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00202-1

Israel-Fishelson, R., Hershkovitz, A., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2021). The associations between computational thinking and creativity: The role of personal characteristics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(8), 1415-1447. https://doi:10.1177/0735633120940954

Israel-Fishelson, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2022). Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: A scoping review (2011–2020). Computers & Education, 176, 104353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353

Kalelioğlu, F. ve Gülbahar, Y. (2015, Eylül). Bilgi işlemsel düşünme nedir ve nasıl öğretilir? 3. Uluslararası Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Öğretmen Eğitimi Sempozyumu, Trabzon, Türkiye.

Lin, P. H., & Chen, S. Y. (2020). Design and evaluation of a deep learning recommendation based augmented reality system for teaching programming and computational thinking. Ieee Access, 8, 45689-45699. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2977679

Margulieux, L. E., Enderle, P., Junor Clarke, P., King, N., Sullivan, C., Zoss, M., & Many, J. (2022). Integrating Computing into Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs across the Core: Language, Mathematics, and Science. Journal of Computer Science Integration, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2022.11.15.35

Murcia, K., Pepper, C., Joubert, M., Cross, E., & Wilson, S. (2020). A framework for identifying and developing children’s creative thinking while coding with digital technologies. Issues in Educational Research, 30(4), 1395–1417. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.606316903368280

Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 128, 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.005

*Seo, Y. H., & Kim, J. H. (2016). Analyzing the effects of coding education through pair programming for the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(46), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i46/107837

Sigayret, K., Tricot, A., & Blanc, N. (2022). Unplugged or plugged-in programming learning: A comparative experimental study. Computers & Education, 184, 104505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104505

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

*Hu, L., & Wang, H. (2024). Unplugged activities in the elementary school mathematics classroom: The effects on students’ computational thinking and mathematical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 54, 101653.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101653

Yılmaz, T., & İzmirli, S. (2023). Effect of unplugged and plugged coding activities on secondary school students’ computational thinking skills. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 6(4), 1180-1193.

https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1375335