e-ISSN 2444-8729

https://doi.org/10.14201/eks20171823358

Hacia la educación del futuro:

El pensamiento computacional como mecanismo de
aprendizaje generativo

Towards the Education of the Future:

Computational Thinking as a Generative Learning Mechanism
Eduardo Segredo, Gara Miranda, Coromoto León

Dpto. de Ingeniería Informática y de Sistemas, Universidad de La Laguna, Spain. {esegredo, gmiranda, cleon}@ull.edu.es

Resumen Abstract
La transformación de la educación tradicional en una The transformation of traditional education into a Sensitive,
educación “SMART” (del inglés, “Sensitive, Manageable, Manageable, Adaptable, Responsive and Timely (SMART)
Adaptable, Responsive and Timely”) implica la modernización education involves the comprehensive modernisation of all
integral de todos los procesos educativos. Para dicha educational processes. For such a transformation, smart
transformación, la incorporación de nuevas pedagogías se pedagogies are needed as a methodological issue while
vuelve imprescindible a nivel metodológico, mientras que el smart learning environments represent the technological
uso de entornos interactivos e inteligentes de aprendizaje issue, both having as an ultimate goal to cultivate smart
supone un hito fundamental a nivel tecnológico. En learners. Smart learners need to develop 21st century skills
cualquier caso, el objetivo último de esta transformación es so that they can become into smart citizens of our changing
formar y transformar a los estudiantes del futuro para que world. Technology and computers are an essential aspect for
desarrollen habilidades del siglo XXI y puedan convertirse this modernisation, not only in terms of technological support
así en ciudadanos de nuestro mundo en continuo cambio. for smart environments but also in terms of offering new
La tecnología y las computadoras son un aspecto esencial methodologies for smart pedagogy and the development
para esta modernización, no solo en términos de soporte of smart skills. In this context, computational thinking
tecnológico, sino también en términos de ofrecer nuevas appears as a promising mechanism to encourage core
metodologías para el desarrollo de nuevas pedagogías y skills since it offers tools that fit learners’ interests and gives
habilidades. En este contexto, el pensamiento computacional them the possibility to better understand the foundations
aparece como un mecanismo prometedor para fomentar of our ICT-based society and environments. In this work,
estas nuevas competencias básicas, ya que ofrece we raise to make an effort to encourage the development
herramientas que se ajustan a los intereses del alumnado y of computational thinking as an opportunity to transform
les da la posibilidad de comprender mejor los fundamentos traditional pedagogies to smarter methodologies. We
de nuestra sociedad y de los entornos basados en las provide a general background about computational thinking
Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación (TIC). En and analyse the current state-of-the-art of smart education,
este trabajo, planteamos la necesidad de realizar un esfuerzo emphasizing that there is a lack of smart methodologies
para fomentar el desarrollo del pensamiento computacional which can support the training of 21st century smart
como una oportunidad para transformar las pedagogías skills. Finally, we provide —to those educators interested in
tradicionales en metodologías adaptadas al futuro. Además, pursuing the philosophy of smart education— information
presentamos una visión general sobre el pensamiento about initiatives devoted to the dissemination or promotion
computacional y analizamos el estado actual de la educación of computational thinking; existing tools or materials which
“SMART”, haciendo hincapié en la falta de metodologías que support educators for the development of computational
permitan apoyar esta transición. Por último, proporcionamos thinking among the students; and previous experiences and
—a aquellos educadores interesados en conseguir un cambio results about the application of computational thinking in
real— información sobre iniciativas dedicadas a la difusión educational environments.
o promoción del pensamiento computacional; herramientas
o materiales de apoyo para el desarrollo del pensamiento
computacional entre los estudiantes; así como una síntesis
de las experiencias y los resultados existentes en relación a
la aplicación del pensamiento computacional en entornos
educativos.

Palabras clave Keywords

Pensamiento computacional; Educación “SMART”; Resolución Computational thinking; SMART education; Problem solving;
de problemas; Programación informática; Aprendizaje Computer programming; Generative learning
generativo

Recepción: 25-04-2017 Revisión: 10-05-2017 Aceptación: 25-05-2017 Publicación: 30-06-2017

CC BY NC-NB 33 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

1. Introduction

Moving towards the education of the future involves a comprehensive modernization of all educational
processes. Such a modernization implies the introduction of smart technologies, systems and devices
with the aim of creating new opportunities for academic and training organizations in terms of higher
standards and innovative approaches. Most of this modernization is the result of the rapid development
of Computer Science fields. However, Computer Science drives innovation throughout the world
economy, but it remains marginalized throughout the current education systems. It is necessary to
disseminate the real benefits of learning Computer Science in children and young students, focusing
primarily on skills and competences developed since it will improve the future access to the labor
market, regardless of the profession or sector involved. Nowadays, in our digital economy, it is not
enough to be a technological consumer or user, so it is essential to train students —at pre-university
and university levels— to be active citizens and creators in a technology-driven society. Citizens of the
future must have full confidence in the tools and technologies involved in a smart environment.

In order to perform such a transformation, many initiatives have been launched to promote Computer
Science and programming among the population, especially among children and young people.
Learning how to program a computer has many benefits for those who practice it, but the highlight
is that it helps people to think about solving problems. That is the reason why a new approach to
education is being developed currently —at all education levels— for including “computational thinking”
as an essential element of the curricula. In this paper, the foundations and basic concepts about
computational thinking will be presented. Some of the most successful and global initiatives for the
dissemination of Computer Science and computational thinking will be also introduced since they
could serve as a starting point for those interested on the development of these skills among students.
Finally, special attention will be paid to the existing tools which have been specifically designed for
teaching students the basics about programming. A thorough study of existing tools and experiences
focused on enabling the development of computational thinking will be held and made available to
professionals in the educational environments. The achievement of an appropriate education for
the present times, not only requires smart devices and smart systems but also students with an
appropriate training and specific skills which make them possible to manage in a smart environment.

2. Smart education

Given that computational thinking helps to promote problem solving abilities, critical thinking, and
creativity, both educators and business leaders, are increasingly recognizing that it is a new basic

CC BY NC-NB 34 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

skill necessary for economic opportunity and social mobility. In the coming years, we should build on
that progress, by offering every student the opportunity to properly develop this skill. In this sense,
educational environments play a key role. From educational institutions, we should make an effort
to encourage the development of computational thinking as an opportunity to transform traditional
pedagogies into smarter methodologies. This way, we will be able to transform traditional education
into “SMART education”. This term is a concept that has been gaining popularity and recognition in
recent years, especially in higher education environments. In this sense, it seems natural that the
related term “smart University” has also emerged as a key concept in the field. Since it is a relatively
recent and novel research field, there are different views about it and its main concepts. Tikhomirov’s
vision (Tikhomirov & Dneprovskaya, 2015) is that “Smart University is a concept that involves a
comprehensive modernization of all educational processes. … The smart education is able to provide
a new university, where a set of ICT and faculty leads to an entirely new quality of the processes
and outcomes of the educational, research, commercial and other university activities”. According to
(Coccoli, Guercio, Maresca, & Stanganelli, 2014), smart education can be considered as the education
in a smart environment supported by smart technologies, making use of smart tools and smart
devices.

In order to achieve these distinctive features, technology is a fundamental and necessary element, but
it is not sufficient. Technology should be a fundamental tool, but not the ultimate goal when smart
education is being pursued. So, at this moment, if we want to transform the traditional education into
a smart education, the implementation and use of technology itself will not be enough. In this regard,
a smart educational system should offer rich, interactive, and ever-changing learning environments
by exploiting the suite of technologies and services available through the Internet, by empowering
individuals’ abilities and attitudes, and by encouraging them to interact and collaborate in a framework
in which people are co-responsible for raising and appraising the inclination of everyone (Coccoli, et al.,
2014). Such smart educational systems act in the context of smart cities, which offer smart services
and applications to their citizens to enhance their quality of life. Therefore, smart education should
be focused on the use of the available technologies to improve the performance of the educational
institutions and to enhance the quality of their graduates.

2.1. Skills for smart citizens

When thinking about the quality and training of future graduates, it is essential to identify the set of
skills to develop among learners, and try to detect suitable mechanisms to strengthen such skills. The
21st century demands skills and competence from people in order to function and live effectively at
work and leisure time (Zhu, Yu, & Riezebos, 2016). As a key research in the education field, several
studies (Greenstein, 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2012) and initiatives have emerged in order to define,

CC BY NC-NB 35 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

classify, and promote 21st century skills. In (Trilling & Fadel, 2012), three different dimensions were
identified in order to classify 21st century skills: learning and innovation skills (critical thinking and
problem solving, communications and collaboration, creativity and innovation); digital literacy skills
(information literacy, media literacy, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) literacy); and
career and life skills (flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction, social and cross-cultural
interaction, productivity and accountability, leadership, and responsibility). In (Zhu, et al., 2016), the
authors proposed four levels of abilities in smart education that students should master to meet the
needs of the modern society. These abilities are basic knowledge and core skills (reading, writing,
arts, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), etc.); comprehensive abilities (critical
thinking and real-world problem solving); personalized expertise (master information and technology
literacy, creativity, and innovation); and collective intelligence (communicate clearly and effectively,
collaborate effectively and respectfully in diverse teams). The Partnership for 21st Century Learning
(p21.org) has proposed a model based on four main components: core subjects (writing, reading,
mathematics, art, etc.); learning and innovation skills (creativity, innovation, critical thinking and
problem solving, and communication and collaboration); information media and technology skills
(needed to manage the abundance of information and also contribute to the build of IT: information
literacy, media literacy, and ICT literacy). The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and
the Metiri Group (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and Metiri Group, 2003) suggest
that 21st century skills are built on basic literacies of language and numeracy. These literacies are
essential to later develop what are considered the four basic academic achievements: digital-age
literacy, inventive thinking, effective communication, and high productivity. Regarding productivity
skills, it involves prioritizing and planning, using real-world tools, and the ability to produce relevant
high quality products.

Technology is so present in all areas of our lives, that most experts consider fundamental the
inclusion of digital and ICT literacy as a basic ability for all learners and 21st century citizens. Given
the importance of digital skills, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has
organized 21st century skills into different categories to potentially distinguish between those that
are more strongly related to ICT from those that are not (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development, 2009): ICT functional skills (that includes skills relevant to mastering the use of different
ICT applications), ICT skills for learning (which include skills that combine both cognitive abilities or
higher-order thinking skills with functional skills for the use and management of ICT applications),
and 21st century skills which bring all those skills considered necessary in the knowledge society but
where the use of ICT is not a necessary condition.

CC BY NC-NB 36 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

2.2. Smart pedagogies and generative learning

The newly required skills will force the educational institutions to transform and adapt in order to cope
with learners’ needs. It is mandatory to somehow reach integration between the education systems and
the industries and organizations which are requesting multidisciplinary workers with complementary
competencies and skills. As a result, in a smart environment, the curricula and the courses should
also be transformed from traditional to smart, thus promoting a vision that is not limited to the simple
acquisition of knowledge, but aims to create culturally qualified personnel by anticipating users’
demands (Coccoli, et al., 2014). Moreover, in the context of smart education it makes no sense to train
and deal with traditional learners. Smart education must be directed to smart learners: learners of the
21st century who are used to the new technologies and the changing world. So, if smart education
involves the training of new abilities in a new type of learners by using new technologies and in the
context of new curricula, it should be necessary to apply new teaching methodologies. If educators
keep applying traditional training techniques, we hardly will get to different or smarter results. For this
reason, in the context of smart education, it is completely necessary to implement smart pedagogies.
The study of new and smart pedagogies however, is still an open research field which needs to be
deeper analyzed.

Previous works have identified the importance of smart methodologies in the context of smart
education. For example, in (Zhu & He, 2012) the authors stated that “the essence of smart education
is to create intelligent environments by using smart technologies, so that smart pedagogies can be
facilitated as to provide personalized learning services and empower learners, and thus talents of
wisdom who have better value orientation, higher thinking quality, and stronger conduct ability could
be fostered”. In the basis of such a definition, in (Zhu, et al., 2016), three essential elements were
identified in smart education: smart environments, smart pedagogy, and smart learners. This way,
smart pedagogies are needed as a methodological issue, while smart learning environments represent
the technological issue, both having as an ultimate goal to cultivate smart learners as results. In this
sense, smart pedagogies and smart environments support the development of smart learners.

Smart pedagogies deal with learning processes that should be tailored according to the students’
learning needs, including requirements, background, interests, and preferences, among others
(Sampson & Karagiannidis, 2002). Interest-driven personalized learning emphasizes the interests of
students and can foster intrinsic motivations, thus promoting the personalized expertise for students
(Gradel, Edson, Gradel, & Edson, 2011). Smart pedagogies must also deal with new technologies and
smart environments so many studies are devoted to online and cooperative learning (Transforming
American education: Learning powered by technology, 2010). In (Zhu, et al., 2016), a set of instructional

CC BY NC-NB 37 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

strategies were proposed in order to accomplish new pedagogies of smart education:

• Class-based differentiated instruction: differentiated instruction is a process to approach teaching

and learning for students with different abilities in the same class.

• Group-based collaborative learning: two or more people learn something together.

• Individual-based personalized learning: adjusting approach (differentiation) and connecting to the

learners’ interests and experiences to meet the students’ needs and provide supporting to foster
learning ability among individual students.

• Mass-based generative learning: generative learning involves the creation and refinement of
personal mental constructions about the environments (Ritchie & Volkl, 2000).

The basic premise of generative learning theories is that learning occurs when learners apply appropriate
cognitive processes to incoming information (Fiorella & Mayer, 2014): selecting (attending to relevant
material), organizing (mentally organizing incoming material into a coherent cognitive structure) and
integrating (connecting cognitive structures with each other and with relevant material activated
from long-term memory). In (Fiorella & Mayer, 2014) the authors identify eight learning strategies that
promote such understanding: learning by summarizing, learning by mapping, learning by drawing,
learning by imagining, learning by self-testing, learning by self-explaining, learning by teaching, and
learning by enacting. From our point of view, learning by programming should be also considered
as a promising learning strategy since it is able to encompass several of the above features while
representing a source of motivation and interest for learners.

Some of the aforementioned strategies can be supported by the usage of mindtools. Mindtools
(Jonassen, 2014) are computer systems that engage students in meaningfully and constructively
thinking and learning via stimulating or guiding them to interpret, analyze, synthesize, and organize
knowledge during the learning process (Chu, Hwang, & Tsai, 2010). In (Jonassen, Carr, & Yueh, 1998),
it is emphasized the importance of mindtools by addressing that “technologies should not support
learning by attempting to instruct the learners, but rather should be used as knowledge construction
tools that students learn with, not from”. In this way, learners function as designers, and the computers
function as mindtools for interpreting and organizing their personal knowledge (Jonassen, et al.,
1998). Computer applications, such as database systems, spreadsheets, expert systems, semantic
nets, video conferencing systems, multimedia and hypermedia authoring tools, programming tools,
and simulation programs, among others, are potential mindtools if they are used properly (Jonassen,
2000). To help students to comprehend and organize knowledge, solve problems, and make inferences
based on what they have learned, it is important to provide them the right mindtools to deal with
different learning tasks or solve different types of problems at the right time and in the right context

CC BY NC-NB 38 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

(Chu, et al., 2010). Therefore, mindtools also play an important role in helping students to learn in
smart ways (Hwang, 2014). Consequently, rather than using the power of computer technologies to
disseminate information, they should be used in all subject domains as tools for engaging learners in
reflective, critical thinking about the ideas they are studying (Kirschner & Wopereis, 2003).

We are interested in mindtools because they are related to helping users to think for themselves, make
connections among concepts, and create new knowledge. With the usage of mindtools we can train
a way of thinking about and using ICT, other technologies, learning environments, or intentional and
incidental learning activities/opportunities (constructivist in nature), so that users of those tools can
represent, manipulate, and reflect on what they know instead of reproducing what others tell them
(Kirschner & Wopereis, 2003). Some authors however, have detected what it is called the “technological
paradox” (Salomon, 2016): the consistent tendency of the educational system to preserve itself and
its practices by the assimilation of new technologies into existing instructional practices. Technology
becomes “domesticated”, which really means, that it is allowed to do precisely that which fits into the
prevailing educational philosophy of cultural transmission.

Considering the opportunities that technologies offer in the field of education, we are interested in
applying them not only to “modernize” the old methodologies, but also to implement new pedagogical
strategies that better suit within a smart education. We propose the introduction of computational
thinking as a tool for generative learning and a strategy to develop some of the most demanded
skills for nowadays students. Computational thinking can be developed without an explicit usage
of computers. However, we are interested on the development of computational thinking through
computer programming foundations, since it better matches with the students’ interests and
motivations.

3. Computational thinking

Computational thinking could be described as the thought processes involved in problem formulation
and solutions representation, so that these solutions can be implemented by a processing information
agent (either a human, a computer or combinations of both). This term became famous thanks to Wing
(2006), who introduced computational thinking as a procedure that allows problem solving, designing
systems, and understanding human behavior by the use of fundamental concepts of computing.
The concept is relatively recent, so there is still no consensus on its definition, thus having multiple
variants (Barr & Stephenson, 2011; K. Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Grover & Pea, 2013). For instance, the
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), as well as the Computer Science Teachers
Association (CSTA), defines computational thinking as a process for problem solving which includes
at least the following dimensions:

CC BY NC-NB 39 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

• Formulate problems to allow the use of computers to solve them.

• Organize and analyze data logically.

• Represent data through abstractions, models and simulations.

• Automate solutions through algorithmic thinking, i.e. through a series of orderly steps that achieve
those solutions.

• Identify, analyze and implement possible solutions in order to find the most efficient and effective
combination of steps and resources.

• Generalize the process of problem solving to wide range of problems.

Since the first appearance of the term in 2006 (Wing, 2006), computational thinking has attracted
attention in the context of primary and secondary education, and not only in English-speaking
countries, but also in others, such as Spain (García-Peñalvo, 2016a; 2016b; Llorens-Largo, 2015). The
National Research Council (NRC) of the United States recommends mathematics and computational
thinking as one of the eight main practices in the STEM fields (A Framework for K-12 Science Education,
2012). In USA, Computer Science for All is the President’s bold new initiative “to empower all American
students, from kindergarten through high school, to learn computer science and be equipped with the
computational thinking skills they need to be creators, and not just consumers, in the digital economy,
and to be active citizens in our technology-driven world”. Many other initiatives have emerged worldwide
for the dissemination of computational thinking among young people and among the population in
general. This promotion is usually done from the approach of computer programming. In words of
Steve Jobs: “Everybody in this country should learn how to program a computer… because it teaches
you how to think”.

In this sense, some of the definitions of computational thinking believe that students make use of
computational thinking even when they do not use any kind of software tool. Conversely, programming
itself implies that students make use of computational thinking through the construction of artefacts
(Kafai & Burke, 2013; Resnick, et al., 2009). Considering computer programming as a methodology for
computational thinking, in (Brennan & Resnick, 2012), three dimensions were proposed: computational
concepts, computational practices, and computational perspectives. Table 1 shows a description
and some examples for each of those three dimensions. They allow us to understand how students
address programming learning. The knowledge of the programming language involves the syntactic,
semantic, and schematic knowledge (computational concepts), as well as the strategic knowledge
(computing practices).

CC BY NC-NB 40 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

 Dimension Description Examples

Concepts Concepts used by programmers Variables, statements, etc.

Be incremental and iterative

Testing and debugging

Problem solving practices that arise during
Practices
programming tasks Reusability
Abstraction
Modularity
Students’ knowledge about themselves,
Perspectives Express and question ideas about
their relationships with equals, and the
technology
technological world that surrounds them
Table 1. Dimensions for computational thinking

3.1. Computer programming and problem solving

Computer programming, algorithmic programming, or simply programming, is the process of designing,

coding, debugging, and maintaining the source code of computer programs. The source code is written
in a programming language in order to create programs that exhibit a desired behavior. Programs
are usually created to address the solution of a given problem. Programmers analyze problems and
define the algorithms which facilitate their solution through the usage of computers. An algorithm is
a method that consists of a sequence of precise instructions for solving a given problem (Futschek,
2006). Algorithmic thinking is a concept strictly related to computational thinking. It is considered
one of the key concepts which allow people to be fluent in the use of information technology. The
NRC describes algorithmic thinking as a set of concepts that includes functional decomposition,
repetition (iteration and/or recursion), organization of basic data (structures, registers, matrix, list,
etc.), generalization and parameterization, algorithms vs. programs, top-down design, and refinement,
among others. According to (Futschek, 2006), algorithmic thinking includes the following capabilities
or competencies: 1) analyze given problems, 2) specify or represent a problem accurately, 3) find the
basic and appropriate operations (instructions) to solve a given problem, 4) build an algorithm to solve
the problem following the given sequence of actions, 5) think about all possible cases (special or not)
of a given problem, and 6) improve the efficiency of an algorithm.

Algorithmic thinking can be understood as the pre-programming step, i.e., the analysis phase prior to
the implementation of the computer program. Globally thinking about the process: there is a problem
to be solved, so the programmers deeply study and analyze the problem in order to design an algorithm
for its resolution, and finally, they write the source code which implements the designed algorithm.
As a result, a computer program —which is able to solve the given problem— is obtained. In the field

CC BY NC-NB 41 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

of computer programming or software development there are a number of tools which can assist
during this process of analysis, design, and implementation: software for data modelling, planning,
project management, debugging, testing, etc. The usage of such a technology is not only valuable for
computer programmers but also for learners who are interested on training time management, project
management, team management, and decision making, among other abilities.

“Mindtools: Essential Skills for an Excellent Career” (‘Mind Tools’, 2016) is a web platform for training
the practical, straightforward skills necessary to excel in a professional career. These skills can help
learners to become exceptionally effective, thus making possible to become a great manager or leader.
These skills can be trained and, if done in a proper manner, can make the very most of the opportunities
open to students. According to (‘Mind Tools’, 2016), the most essential skills for an excellent career
are leadership skills, team management, strategy tools, problem solving, decision making, project
management, time management, stress management, communication skills, creativity tools, learning
skills, and career skills. Many of those skills are trained when developing computer programs. Problem
solving can be seen as the main task or objective, while some other issues appear necessary during
the problem-solving process. In fact, problems are at the center of what many people do at work every
day. Whether you are solving a problem for a client (internal or external), supporting those who are
solving problems, or discovering new problems to solve, the problems you face can be large or small,
simple or complex, as well as easy or difficult.

A fundamental part of every manager’s role is finding ways to solve them. Therefore, being a confident
problem solver is really important for a person’s success. Much of that confidence comes from having
a good process to use when approaching a problem (Jonassen, 2010). There are four basic steps in
solving a problem (‘Mind Tools’, 2016): 1) defining the problem, 2) generating alternatives, 3) evaluating
and selecting alternatives, and 4) implementing solutions. For the first step, it is necessary to develop
communication abilities and critical thinking. Creativity is essential for the second step. Decision making
is required for the third step. Finally, some abilities for the management of time, projects or teams are
involved in the fourth and last steps. These general steps for problem solving can be extended to
software development environments. In fact, it can be seen as a particular case of problem solving,
since in this case, the unique particularity is that the implementation of solution is made through the
usage of computers. Therefore, those involved in computer programming inherently develop these
skills for problem solving. As we previously mentioned, computational thinking could be described
as the thought processes involved in formulating problems and representing their solutions, so that
these solutions can be executed by an information processing agent. Bearing the above in mind, what
has been called computational thinking is implicitly developed by those engaged in programming or
the development of IT applications: the language of computers and the foundations of computers are
used to talk about the universe and its processes.

CC BY NC-NB 42 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

What we propose in the current work is that computational thinking may be used as a more general
learning methodology, not uniquely devoted to those interested in a professional career in the field of
Computing, but also for every learner interested on training useful and promising skills. We propose
a problem-based smart learning environment including information processing activities, scaffolding
and reflection to develop both, computing practices and computational perspectives (see Table 1). For
educators who are not experts on computer programming issues, the first approach to computational
thinking is to find projects, initiatives, courses, materials, and tools that can help them during the
process.

4. Initiatives and projects

Learning how to program a computer has many benefits for those who practice it, but the highlight
is that it helps people to think about solving problems. That is the reason why a new approach to
education is being developed currently —at all education levels— for including computational thinking
as an essential element of the curricula. Moreover, many initiatives have been launched to promote
programming among the population, especially among children and young people. For instance, we
should note TACCLE 3 – Coding (García-Peñalvo, 2016a), a European Union Erasmus+ KA2 Programme
project aimed to support primary school staff that teaches computing to 4-14 years old children.
Another important initiative is The Hour of Code (‘Code.org’, 2016) is a global initiative consisting of
one-hour introduction to computer science. It was designed to demystify code and show that everyone
can learn the basics. The goal is not to teach everybody to become an expert computer scientist in one
hour. Only one hour is enough to learn that computer science is fun and creative, that it is accessible at
all ages, for all students, regardless of their background. Similar initiatives are: Made With Code, Code
Club, CoderDojo, Code Week, All you need is {C<3DE}, and Bebras Contest, among others.

Computer Science for All (‘Computer Science For All’, 2016) is a project promoted by the White House
which intends to empower a generation of American students with the computer science skills they
need to thrive in a digital economy. Google CS First (‘Google CS First’, 2016) is a project which is
intended to inspire kids to create with technology through free computer science clubs. Google is also
promoting computational thinking by the creation and dissemination of materials and courses for
educators (‘Google for Education’, 2016). In addition to these projects and dissemination initiatives,
some tools have emerged —most of them based on visual programming languages— to allow teaching
programming to non-experts users.

In computing, a visual programming language is any programming language that lets users create
programs by manipulating program elements graphically rather than by specifying them textually. They
allow users to program through visual expressions, spatial arrangements of text and graphic symbols,

CC BY NC-NB 43 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

used either as elements of syntax (Ralston, Reilly, & Hemmendinger, 2000). Traditional programming
languages such as Java or C++ have representations that closely resemble the computer’s way
of thinking (Smith, Cypher, & Tesler, 2000). On the other hand, visual programming languages use
representations that are closer to human language. These visual programming languages are
usually less powerful than traditional languages as they are domain-specific. It is better to use
visual programming languages rather than traditional programming languages to facilitate the three
dimensions of computational thinking because unnecessary syntax is reduced and the commands
are closer to spoken languages. Users usually need only to drag and drop command blocks (Lye &
Koh, 2014). With these features, those programming tools help students to reduce the cognitive load
and “allow students to focus on the logic and structures involved in programming rather than worrying
about the mechanics of writing programs” (Kelleher & Pausch, 2005).

5. Tools for computational thinking

5.1. Logo

Logo (Papert, 1980) is a dialect of Lisp with much of the punctuation removed to make the syntax
accessible to newbies. It was intended to allow users to explore a wide variety of topics from
mathematics and science to language and music. The most well-known part of Logo is the Logo turtle.
It began as a robotic turtle that could draw on the ground and was later replaced by a simulated actor
in a two-dimensional graphical world that can move, turn, and leave trails. The turtle’s directions are
object-centric; if a user tells the turtle to “forward 10” (FD 10), it will move in its own forward direction
rather than a direction defined by the screen. Logo is an interpreted language with descriptive error
messages. Since Logo was the first proposal in such a field, many studies have been conducted in order
to somehow measure the effects that learning programming —and thus developing computational
thinking— have on the development of other cognitive abilities (Clements, 1987; Clements & Gullo,
1984; Miller, Kelly, & Kelly, 1988; Nastasi, Clements, & Battista, 1990; Statz, 1973).

5.2. Scratch

Scratch (Maloney, Resnick, Rusk, Silverman, & Eastmond, 2010; Resnick, et al., 2009) —developed at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab— offers a visually appealing environment
allowing students to learn programming without initially having to write syntactically correct code.
Scratch is based on programming 2D graphical objects called sprites, set against a background called
the stage. Users write scripts with graphical blocks that represent various programming constructs to

CC BY NC-NB 44 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

animate the sprites, make them interact amongst themselves, and change their appearances. Scratch
allows students to import images and sounds, apart from creating their own media, to make media-
rich projects, which can be shared by the community of users in order to create novel ones. Scratch
has an easy-to-use application interface organized into panels, which are presented based on color-
coded commands classified by their functionality. It uses blocks which fit into each other like toy
building bricks, only when their combination is meaningful and right.

Scratch is one of the most extended tools for the introduction of programming to non-experts users
(Maloney, Peppler, Kafai, Resnick, & Rusk, 2008). It is also a consolidated tool for the development of
computational thinking skills (Q. Brown, et al., 2008; Ferrer-Mico, Prats-Fernàndez, & Redo-Sanchez,
2012; Gülbahar & Kalelioğlu, 2014).

5.3. Snap!

Snap! (Harvey, et al., 2014; ‘Snap! (Build Your Own Blocks) 4.0’, 2016) is a free online block-based
educational programming language that allows students to create interactive stories, animations, and
games, among other creations, while they also learn about mathematical and computational ideas.
Snap! was inspired by Scratch, but also targets both novice and more advanced students by including
and expanding Scratch's features. Snap! 4.0 is entirely browser-based with no software that needs to
be installed locally.

The most important features that differentiate Snap! from Scratch include: first class functions or
procedures (their mathematical foundations are called also “Lambda calculus”), first class lists
(including lists of lists), first class sprites (in other words, prototype-oriented instance-based classless
programming), and mix sprites codification of Snap! programs to Python, JavaScript, and C, among
other mainstream languages.

5.4. Alice

Alice (‘Alice’, 2016; Conway, Pausch, Gossweiler, & Burnette, 1994; Cooper, Dann, & Pausch, 2000;
Kelleher & Pausch, 2007; UVa User Interface Group, 1995) is an innovative development environment
that allows three-dimensional animations to be created. At the same time, Alice is an educational
tool aimed to introduce object-oriented programming concepts. Thanks to its usage, students can
learn programming basic notions through the creation of animated stories and simple videogames.
For doing that, different three-dimensional objects (people, animals, and vehicles, among others) are
located in a virtual world, and students design a program in order to animate all those objects. There
exists a variant of Alice, referred to as Looking Glass (‘Looking Glass’, 2016), which was developed
by the Washington University in St. Louis. It provides some novelties with respect to Alice, such as a

CC BY NC-NB 45 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

set of high-definition animations, a library of three-dimensional characters and landscapes, and the
possibility of creating new complex projects by reusing previously published ones, among others.

Several are the works that can be found in the related literature regarding the usage of Alice for
educational purposes, and more particularly, regarding computational thinking (Tabet, Gedawy,
Alshikhabobakr, & Razak, 2016).

5.5. App Inventor

App Inventor (Abelson & Friedman, 2010; ‘MIT App Inventor’, 2016; Xie, Shabir, & Abelson, 2015) is a
visual programming tool based on blocks which allows completely functional applications for Android
devices to be built. Students can program their first application in only a few hours, and build much
more complex applications in a shorter period of time in comparison to the usage of traditional text-
based programming languages. As it was stated by its authors, App Inventor “seeks to democratize
software development by empowering all people, especially young people, to transition from being
consumers of technology to becoming creators of it” (‘MIT App Inventor’, 2016).

With respect to the usage of App Inventor as an educational tool for promoting computational thinking,
there also exist a significant number of papers published in the related literature (Maiorana, Giordano,
& Morelli, 2015; Roscoe, Fearn, & Posey, 2014).

5.6. Greenfoot

Greenfoot (‘Greenfoot’, 2016; Henriksen & Kölling, 2004; Kölling, 2008a, 2010) is aimed to teach object-
oriented programming with Java. Students create worlds where they locate different actors in order
to generate different graphic-based applications, such as games, simulations, and stories, among
others. There exist communities for both learners and educators. The former is called The Gallery and
provides a platform to publish and discuss different projects. With respect to the latter, it is referred to
as the Greenroom (N. Brown, Stevens, & Kölling, 2010), and it allows discussing teaching strategies,
exchanging experiences and sharing resources. In Greenfoot standard textual Java code is used for
coding. Greenfoot enables an easy transition into other development environments, such as BlueJ
(‘BlueJ’, 2016; Kölling, 2008b), as well as into more professional programming tools.

With respect to the related literature, it is worth mentioning that the number of papers published
regarding Greenfoot as a tool for promoting computational thinking is, as far as we know, almost
non-existent in comparison to other tools, like Alice or App Inventor (Rick, Ludwig, Meyer, Rehder, &
Schirmer, 2010). However, several papers comparing Greenfoot, Alice, and Scratch, in terms of their
features, goals, and audiences have been published (Fincher & Utting, 2010; Utting, Cooper, Kölling,
Maloney, & Resnick, 2010).

CC BY NC-NB 46 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

5.7. Pencil Code

Pencil Code (Bau & Bau, 2014; Bau, Bau, Dawson, & Pickens, 2015; ‘Pencil Code’, 2016) allows drawing
art, playing music, and creating games by means of a collaborative programming site. In addition it can
also be used to experiment with mathematical functions, geometry, graphing, webpages, simulations,
and algorithms. Although Pencil Code mainly focuses on the language CoffeeScript (‘CoffeeScript’,
2016), it can also be used for learning JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. It is worth mentioning the wide
range of useful reference materials and examples that are provided at the Pencil Code website.
Educators have a large number of printable classroom materials at their disposal, as well as the Pencil
Code teacher’s manual.

Taking into account that Pencil Code is one of the most recently proposed tools, literature regarding
the usage of this tool for promoting computational thinking is almost non-existent (Weintrop, 2015).

5.8. AgentSheets and AgentCubes

AgentSheets (‘AgentSheets’, 2016; Alex Repenning, 1993) is a tool that allows students to create
agent-based computational science applications, simulations, and games, and share them online. At
the same time, it may be used to teach computer science concepts and logic, as well as to promote
computational and algorithmic thinking. In a similar way, AgentCubes (‘AgentCubes’, 2016; Ioannidou,
Repenning, & Webb, 2009; A. Repenning & Ioannidou, 2006) provides the mechanisms required for
creating three-dimensional shapes. Those shapes can be then programmed, turned into games, and
published online. We should note that, in opposition to the approaches introduced in previous sections,
which are free, complete versions of AgentSheets and AgentCubes must be purchased, although
there is available a trial version of AgentSheets, as well as a free lite version of AgentCubes. Finally, a
completely online version of AgentCubes, termed as AgentCubes online (‘AgentCubes online’, 2016),
can also be found.

In the cases of AgentSheets and AgentCubes, there exist a noticeable number of publications in regard
to their usage to develop computational thinking, and more generally, for educational purposes. For a
complete list of publications, the reader is referred to (‘AgentSheets’, 2016).

5.9. AgentSheets and AgentCubes

The aforementioned tools are ideal for introducing computational thinking —and programming main
foundations— to young people and adults and, of course, at different education stages. However, when
dealing with younger students (especially children under 10), it is necessary to have other tools that

CC BY NC-NB 47 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

are better suited to their needs. In such a case, there are some available apps, games, and educative
tools as: Kodable, Cargobot, ScratchJr, LightbotJr, Robot Turtles, Hopscotch, Lightbot, Kodu, Gamestar
Mechanic, GameMaker, My Robot Friend, SpaceChem, CodeCombat, Minecraft.edu, etc. At the same
time, other tools involve the usage of hardware, thus becoming much more attractive for students:
Raspberry Pi, Hummingbird Robotics Kit, Lego® Mindstorms, Dash and Dot, and Sphero and Ollie,
among others. In most cases they are based on programming robots.

6. Discussion

A comprehensive research has been conducted in order to detect existing initiatives, projects and
tools which can support the development of computational thinking. However, when first approach
is done to a field, it is important to have a general and global view about alternatives and its features.
Table 2 shows a comparison of some of the most important tools we have analyzed in the previous
section. The following dimensions have been selected:

Free software: indicates whether the tool has been released under some free software license or, on
the contrary, if a license has to be purchased.

• Online tool: shows if the tool can be accessed and used through a navigator or if it has to be
installed on a computer.

• Online repository available: is there any online repository where users can upload their projects in
order to share them with the community?

• Project reusability/remixing: can users download projects from an online repository and use them
as the starting point for their new creations?

• Learning difficulty: this dimension is related to the learning difficulty of the tool. Three different
levels have been established (low, medium, and high).

• Block-based/Text-based/Both: indicates if the tool allows users to program through blocks, text, or
if both options are available.

• Target programming language: this dimension shows if the tool is aimed at teaching a specific
programming language.

It can be observed that the number of free software tools is much higher than the number of tools
which have to be purchased. The above shows the tendency to make tools that promote computational
thinking abilities available to the largest possible amount of people. After all, computational thinking
should be viewed as a general approach for problem solving, and it should not be only applied by

CC BY NC-NB 48 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

computer scientists or developers. Another advantage of free software tools is they may be altered by
the community with the aim of improving them and making them more powerful. At the same time,
Table 2 also shows how the tendency is to provide online tools with online repositories where users
can share their creations, as well as download them to start new projects.

With respect to the learning difficulty, and generally speaking, block-based tools are easier to learn and
use than text-based ones, with the exception of Logo. Although Logo is a text-based tool, it provides
a set of very intuitive commands which makes its learning and usage very straightforward. It is worth
mentioning the case of Blockly, which is a library to create visual programming languages. Therefore,
its learning difficulty is much higher than the remaining tools, since it is aimed at developers rather than
learners who want to develop their computational thinking abilities. Finally, we should note that Pencil
Code is the only tool that provides both block-based and text-based programming modes. Moreover,
only a few tools are aimed at teaching specific programming languages: Logo and Pencil Code.

Block-
Online Project Target
Learning based /
Free Online tool repository reusability programming
difficulty Text-based
available / remixing language
/ Both

Logo (Turtle
✓ ✓ ✓ × Low Text-based Lisp (dialect)
Academy)
Block-
Scratch ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low N/A
based
Block-
Snap! ✓ ✓ × × Low
based
N/A

Block-
Alice ✓ × × × Medium
based
N/A

Block-
Looking Glass ✓ × ✓ ✓ Medium
based
N/A

Block-
App Inventor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low N/A
based

Greenfoot ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ High Text-based Java

CoffeeScript,
Pencil Code ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low Both JavaScript,
HTML, CSS
Block-
AgentSheets × ✓ ✓ × Medium
based
N/A

Block-
AgentCubes × ✓ ✓ × Medium
based
N/A

AgentCubes Block-
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Medium N/A
Online based

Table 2. Comparison of tools that promote the development of computational thinking abilities depending on different features

CC BY NC-NB 49 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

7. Conclusions and future steps
Many initiatives have arisen to encourage the presence of computational thinking in primary and
secondary classes (Lye & Koh, 2014). However, not so many countries have made a clear position about
introducing computational thinking in the curricula. From our point of view, computational thinking
could also bring many benefits to pedagogical methodologies. The achievement of smart education
not only requires smart devices and smart systems but also students with an appropriate training and
specific skills which make them possible to manage in a smart environment. For this reason, we have
performed a deep analysis about computational thinking and its possibilities for developing a “smart”
and higher-quality education for the citizens of the future.

The research carried out, as well as the obtained findings and outcomes enable us to extract the
following conclusions:

• For developing more powerful and helpful learning environments, it is not enough to incorporate
new technologies, but it is also mandatory to introduce new learning criteria and methodologies.

• “Being smart” should not be confused with “being digital”, i.e., the ICT infrastructures are the means,
not the end, so it is not enough to train learners on the usage of isolate computer programs. In
our digital economy, it is not enough to be a technological consumer or user, it is necessary to be
active citizens and creators.

• Computational thinking provides a new opportunity for training 21st century skills and for
developing new learning strategies.

• This work provides a thorough review of existing projects, initiatives, tools, and experiences whose
objective is focused on the development of computational thinking abilities. The idea was to
provide a comprehensive and detailed vision for those interested in introducing computational
thinking into their education environments.

As shown in the current work, there are many resources and tools which can help us to promote
computational thinking among learners. However, it would be also interesting to measure how the
training on computational thinking impacts on the students’ development. It is important to measure
not only the development of computational thinking, but also the impact this can have on overall skill
capacities for solving problems in any field. It is not trivial at all to get a measure of the development
of computational thinking, but much less trivial is to establish a relationship among the effects that
this development may have on other cognitive abilities of the individual. Consequently, it would be
worth designing and carrying out qualitative and quantitative analyses about how the development

CC BY NC-NB 50 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

of computational thinking influences the improvement of general skills and the ability to understand,
model, and solve problems.

8. References

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. (2012).
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://nap.edu/catalog/13165

Abelson, H. & Friedman, M. (2010). App Inventor--A view into learning about computers through
building mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 2010 SIGCSE Symposium.

AgentCubes. (2016). Retrieved 25 September 2016, from http://www.agentcubes.com/

AgentSheets. (2016). Retrieved 25 September 2016, from http://www.agentsheets.com/index.html

Alice. (2016). Retrieved 23 September 2016, from http://www.alice.org/index.php

Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12: What is Involved and What
is the Role of the Computer Science Education Community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48-54. doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905

Bau, D., & Bau, D. A. (2014). A Preview of Pencil Code: A Tool for Developing Mastery of Programming.
In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Programming for Mobile & Touch (pp. 21-24). New York, NY,
USA: ACM. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2688471.2688481

Bau, D., Bau, D. A., Dawson, M., & Pickens, C. S. (2015). Pencil Code: Block Code for a Text World. In
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 445-448).
New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771875

BlueJ. (2016). Retrieved 25 September 2016, from http://bluej.org/

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of
computational thinking. Presented at the Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting,
Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved from http://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_
AERA2012_CT.pdf

Brown, N., Stevens, P., & Kölling, M. (2010). Greenroom: A Teacher Community for Collaborative
Resource Development. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 305-305). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1145/1822090.1822181

CC BY NC-NB 51 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

Brown, Q., Mongan, W., Kusic, D., Garbarine, E., Fromm, E., & Fontecchio, A. (2008). Computer Aided
Instruction as a Vehicle for Problem Solving: Scratch Boards in the Middle Years Classroom. Presented
at the 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/computer-aided-
instruction-as-a-vehicle-for-problem-solving-scratch-boards-in-the-middle-years-classroom

Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). A knowledge engineering approach to developing
mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers & Education, 54(1), 289-297. doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.023

Clements, D. H. (1987). Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Logo Programming on Cognitive

Abilities and Achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3(1), 73-94. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.2190/RCNV-2HYF-60CM-K7K7

Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children’s
cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051-1058. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.76.6.1051

Coccoli, M., Guercio, A., Maresca, P., & Stanganelli, L. (2014). Smarter universities: A vision for the fast
changing digital era. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 25(6), 1003-1011. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2014.09.007

Code.org. (2016). Retrieved 26 September 2016, from https://code.org/

CoffeeScript. (2016). Retrieved 25 September 2016, from http://coffeescript.org/

Computer Science For All. (2016, January 30). Retrieved 29 September 2016, from https://www.
whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all

Conway, M., Pausch, R., Gossweiler, R., & Burnette, T. (1994). Alice: A Rapid Prototyping System for
Building Virtual Environments. In Proceedings of Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 295-296). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/259963.260503

Cooper, S., Dann, W., & Pausch, R. (2000). Alice: A 3-D Tool for Introductory Programming Concepts.
Journal of Computing in Small Colleges, 15(5), 107-116.

Ferrer-Mico, T., Prats-Fernàndez, M. À., & Redo-Sanchez, A. (2012). Impact of Scratch Programming on
Students’ Understanding of Their Own Learning Process. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46,
1219-1223. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.278

Fincher, S., & Utting, I. (2010). Machines for Thinking. Trans. Comput. Educ., 10(4), 13:1-13:7. doi: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868360

CC BY NC-NB 52 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Learning as a Generative Activity: Eight Learning Strategies that
Promote Understanding. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.cambridge.org/es/
academic/subjects/psychology/educational-psychology/learning-generative-activity-eight-learning-
strategies-promote-understanding?format=AR&isbn=9781316258576#contentsTabAnchor

Futschek, G. (2006). Algorithmic Thinking: The Key for Understanding Computer Science. In R. T.
Mittermeir (Ed.), Informatics Education - The Bridge between Using and Understanding Computers (pp.
159-168). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11915355_15

García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016a). A brief introduction to TACCLE 3 - coding European project. In 2016

International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) (pp. 1-4). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
SIIE.2016.7751876

García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016b). What Computational Thinking Is. Journal of Information Technology

Research, 9(3), v-viii.

Google CS First. (2016). Retrieved 29 September 2016, from https://www.cs-first.com/

Google for Education. (2016). Retrieved 29 September 2016, from www.google.com/edu/resources/

programs/exploring-computational-thinking/

Gradel, K., Edson, A. J., Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2011). Cooperative Learning: Smart Pedagogy and
Tools for Online and Hybrid Courses. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(2), 193-212. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/ET.39.2.i

Greenfoot. (2016). Retrieved 25 September 2016, from http://www.greenfoot.org/door

Greenstein, L. M. (2012). Assessing 21st Century Skills: A Guide to Evaluating Mastery and Authentic
Learning (1st edition). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K-12 A Review of the State of the Field.
Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Gülbahar, Y., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2014). The Effects of Teaching Programming via Scratch on Problem
Solving Skills: A Discussion from Learners’ Perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33-50.

Harvey, B., Garcia, D. D., Barnes, T., Titterton, N., Miller, O., Armendariz, D., … Paley, J. (2014). Snap!
(Build Your Own Blocks). In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education (pp. 749-749). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2539022

Henriksen, P., & Kölling, M. (2004). Greenfoot: Combining Object Visualisation with Interaction.
In Companion to the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-oriented Programming

CC BY NC-NB 53 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

Systems, Languages, and Applications (pp. 73-82). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1145/1028664.1028701

Hwang, G.-J. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments - a
context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1, Article 4. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0004-5

Ioannidou, A., Repenning, A., & Webb, D. C. (2009). AgentCubes: Incremental 3D end-user development.
Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 20(4), 236-251. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2009.04.001

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as Mindtools for Schools, Engaging Critical Thinking. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to Solve Problems: A Handbook for Designing Problem-Solving

Learning Environments. New York, USA: Taylor & Francis.

Jonassen, D. H. (2014). Mindtools (Productivity and Learning). In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

Science Education (pp. 1-7). Netherlands: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6165-
0_57-1

Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H.-P. (1998). Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical
Thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02818172

Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2013). Computer Programming Goes Back to School. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1),
61-65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500111

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the Barriers to Programming: A Taxonomy of Programming
Environments and Languages for Novice Programmers. ACM Comput. Surv., 37(2), 83-137. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1145/1089733.1089734

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2007). Using Storytelling to Motivate Programming. Commun. ACM, 50(7),
58-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1272516.1272540

Kirschner, P., & Wopereis, I. G. J. H. (2003). Mindtools for teacher communities: A European perspective.
Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 12(1), 105-124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390300200148

Kölling, M. (2008a). Greenfoot: A Highly Graphical Ide for Learning Object-oriented Programming. In
Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education
(pp. 327-327). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1384271.1384370

Kölling, M. (2008b). Using BlueJ to Introduce Programming. In J. Bennedsen, M. E. Caspersen, & M.

Kölling (Eds.), Reflections on the Teaching of Programming (pp. 98-115). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. doi:

CC BY NC-NB 54 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77934-6_9

Kölling, M. (2010). The Greenfoot Programming Environment. Trans. Comput. Educ., 10(4), 14:1-14:21.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868361

Llorens-Largo, F. (2015). Dicen por ahí. . . que la nueva alfabetización pasa por la programación.
ReVisión, 8(2), 11-14.

Looking Glass. (2016). Retrieved 23 September 2016, from https://lookingglass.wustl.edu/

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through
programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

Maiorana, F., Giordano, D., & Morelli, R. (2015). Quizly: A live coding assessment platform for App
Inventor. In 2015 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (pp. 25-30). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/
BLOCKS.2015.7368995

Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by Choice:
Urban Youth Learning Programming with Scratch. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 367-371). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1145/1352135.1352260

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch
Programming Language and Environment. Trans. Comput. Educ., 10(4), 16:1-16:15. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1145/1868358.1868363

Miller, R. B., Kelly, G. N., & Kelly, J. T. (1988). Effects of Logo computer programming experience on
problem solving and spatial relations ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(4), 348-357. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(88)90034-3

Mind Tools: Essential Skills for an Excellent Career. (2016). Retrieved 29 September 2016, from http://
www.mindtools.com/

MIT App Inventor. (2016). Retrieved 23 September 2016, from http://appinventor.mit.edu/explore/

Nastasi, B. K., Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1990). Social-cognitive interactions, motivation, and
cognitive growth in Logo programming and CAI problem-solving environments. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82(1), 150-158. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.150

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and Metiri Group. (2003). 21st Century Skills: Literacy
in the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://pict.sdsu.edu/engauge21st.pdf

CC BY NC-NB 55 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences
for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries (EDU Working paper No. 41). Retrieved from http://www.
oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/WKP(2009)20&doclanguage=en

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York, NY, USA: Basic
Books, Inc.

Pencil Code. (2016). Retrieved 25 September 2016, from https://pencilcode.net/

Ralston, A., Reilly, E. D., & Hemmendinger, D. (2000). Encyclopedia of Computer Science (4th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.

Repenning, A. (1993). Agentsheets: A Tool for Building Domain-oriented Visual Programming

Environments. In Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (pp. 142-143). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/169059.169119

Repenning, A., & Ioannidou, A. (2006). AgentCubes: Raising the Ceiling of End-User Development in
Education through Incremental 3D. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC’06)
(pp. 27-34). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2006.7

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., …
Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for All. Commun. ACM, 52(11), 60-67. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1145/1592761.1592779

Rick, D., Ludwig, J., Meyer, S., Rehder, C., & Schirmer, I. (2010). Introduction to Business Informatics
with Greenfoot Using the Example of Airport Baggage Handling. In Proceedings of the 10th Koli Calling
International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 68-69). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1145/1930464.1930474

Ritchie, D., & Volkl, C. (2000). Effectiveness of Two Generative Learning Strategies in the Science Classroom.
School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 83-89. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.
tb17240.x

Roscoe, J. F., Fearn, S., & Posey, E. (2014). Teaching Computational Thinking by Playing Games and
Building Robots. In 2014 International Conference on Interactive Technologies and Games (iTAG) (pp.
9-12). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/iTAG.2014.15

Salomon, G. (2016). It’s Not Just the Tool but the Educational Rationale that Counts. In E. Elstad
(Ed.), Educational Technology and Polycontextual Bridging (pp. 149-161). Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
SensePublishers. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-645-3_8

CC BY NC-NB 56 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

Sampson, D., & Karagiannidis, C. (2002). Personalised Learning: Educational, Technological and
Standardisation Perspective. Interactive Educational Multimedia, 4, 24-39.

Smith, D. C., Cypher, A., & Tesler, L. (2000). Programming by Example: Novice Programming Comes of
Age. Commun. ACM, 43(3), 75-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/330534.330544

Snap! (Build Your Own Blocks) 4.0. (2016). Retrieved 29 September 2016, from http://snap.berkeley.
edu/

Statz, J. (1973). The Development Of Computer Programming Concepts And Problem-Solving Abilities
Among Ten-Year-Olds Learning Logo. Electrical Engineering and Computer Science - Dissertations.
Retrieved from http://surface.syr.edu/eecs_etd/256

Tabet, N., Gedawy, H., Alshikhabobakr, H., & Razak, S. (2016). From Alice to Python. Introducing Text-
based Programming in Middle Schools. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 124-129). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1145/2899415.2899462

Tikhomirov, V., & Dneprovskaya, N. (2015). Development of strategy for smart University. In Open
Education Global International Conference. Banff, Canada.

Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. (2010). (National Educational

Technology Plan). Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2012). 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times (1st Ed.). San Francisco:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kölling, M., Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch - A
Discussion. Trans. Comput. Educ., 10(4), 17:1-17:11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868364

UVa User Interface Group. (1995). Alice: Rapid Prototyping for Virtual Reality. IEEE Comput. Graph.
Appl., 15(3), 8-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/38.376600

Weintrop, D. (2015). Blocks, text, and the space between: The role of representations in novice
programming environments. In 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric
Computing (VL/HCC) (pp. 301-302). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2015.7357237

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Commun. ACM, 49(3), 33-35. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

Xie, B., Shabir, I., & Abelson, H. (2015). Measuring the Usability and Capability of App Inventor to Create

CC BY NC-NB 57 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2

Mobile Applications. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Programming for Mobile and
Touch (pp. 1-8). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2824823.2824824

Zhu, Z.-T., & He, B. (2012). Smart Education: new frontier of educational informatization. E-Education
Research, 12, 1-13.

Zhu, Z.-T., Yu, M.-H., & Riezebos, P. (2016). A research framework of smart education. Smart Learning
Environments, 3(1), Article 4. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0026-2

CC BY NC-NB 58 EKS, 2017, vol. 18, n. 2