Content uploaded by Laili Farhana M.I.
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Laili Farhana M.I. on Aug 27, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Informatics in Education, 2022, Vol. 00, No. 00, –
© 2021 Vilnius University, ETH Zürich
DOI: 10.15388/infedu.2022.07
ACCEPTED VERSION (WITHOUT THE JOURNAL LAYOUT).
____________________________
*Corresponding author
A Strategy of Learning Computational Thinking through
Game Based in Virtual Reality: Systematic Review and
Conceptual Framework
Sukirman SUKIRMAN1,2, Laili Farhana Md IBHARIM1*, Che Soh
SAID1, Budi MURTIYASA2
1Faculty of Art, Computing, and Creative Industry, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Perak, Malaysia
2Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia
e-mail: sukirman@ums.ac.id, laili@fskik.upsi.edu.my, chesoh@fskik.upsi.edu.my, Budi.Murtiyasa@ums.ac.id
Received: February 2021
Abstract. Research trends on computational thinking (CT) and its learning strategies are
showing an increase. The strategies are varying, for example is using games to provide
enjoyment, engagement, and experience. To improve the high level of immersion and
presence of game objects, learning strategies through games can be improved by virtual
reality (VR) technology and its application. However, a systematic review that
specifically discusses game based in VR (GBiVR) settings is lacking. This paper reports
previous studies systematically about the strategies used to learn CT through games and
VR applications. 15 papers were selected through Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. As the result, this study
proposes a conceptual framework for designing a strategy to learn CT through GBiVR
settings. The framework consists of critical aspects of variables that can be considered in
the learning environment like game elements, VR features, and CT skills. All the aspects
are discussed below.
Keywords: systematic review, conceptual framework, computational thinking, game-
based learning, virtual reality, prisma
1. Introduction
Research trends on computational thinking (CT) are showing an increase in recent
decades (Ilic et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2020). It can be seen from the international research
publications about CT or relates are improved in two periods (2006-2012 and 2013-2018)
from 3798 to 7175 or escalated narrowly double, whereas it is only indexed by Web of
Science (WoS) (Tang et al., 2020). The researches also showed that subjects and
participants involved are not only higher education degrees, but also secondary level and
even primary students, for example, Fagerlund et al. (2020) even conducted a research to
assess CT skills of 4th grade students through Scratch programming projects. One of the
reasons why this research is growing because CT offers a set of strategies to resolve
complex problems by applying computer sciences’ reasoning processes (Hooshyar et al.,
2021). In the computer science (CS) area itself, Zhang & Nouri (2019) stated that CT is
considered as the core amongst prevalent topics such as computing, programming,
coding, and problem-solving as illustrated in Fig. 1. They added that programming and
coding are often interchangeable in colloquial use. Coding can be pointed as the writing
of computer programming code, while programming itself is more than just coding since
involves complex tasks such as understanding a problem, designing, coding, and
maintenance. The larger concept is computing which covers CT, coding, programming,
and computing. Hence, students who mastered CT are potentially to resolve problems
encountered in programming scope or related it as well. As we know, programming lies
behind all digital technology, software, and systems around us today. However, CT is not
merely about CS, but it is a combination of thinking skills that are crucial for handling
complex problems, such as theoretical (mathematical) thinking, engineering thinking, and
scientific thinking (Chou, 2019).
Fig. 1. Relationship among prevalent topics.
CT is described as thought processes involved in formulating problems and their
solutions that are represented in an effective form to be carried out by an information-
processing agent (Cuny et al., 2010). CT is believed as one competence that should be
expertized by all educational levels of 21st-century students as it promotes a way of
thinking inspired by CS styles in solving problems (Nouri et al., 2020; Zhang & Nouri,
2019). Even, Wing (2006) argued that CT is not only for CS students, but it is a
fundamental skill that should be understood by everyone outside CS learners, like
reading, writing, and arithmetic. By learning CT, students may benefit from the
principles, concepts, and approaches commonly applied to computer science.
Many countries have started or currently in the process to introduce CT and CS or
elements thereof in their official national curricula, for example, England, Finland,
Sweden, Portugal, Malaysia, and many others (Nouri et al., 2020; Saad, 2020). They
realize that CT is important for everybody since we live in this digital era and deal with
technology based on computers. In Indonesia, the ministry of education and culture
(Kemdikbud) issued a regulation to apply CS in the middle (junior and high) schools as
a standalone subject with the name "Informatika", where the basic core of the subject is
CT (Kemdikbud, 2019). In this subject, CT is placed in the bottom layer among the
foundation of knowledge area, computing practice, and information communication
technology (ICT). However, CT actually has been introduced in many countries through
the Bebras challenge, an international competition that aims to promote CT among
students of all levels since several years ago (Bavera et al., 2020). More than 50 countries
are currently participating in this challenge which is the involved participants do not
require to have prior knowledge of programming or CS. It means that CT has
internationally acknowledged and should be adopted to prepare a better young generation.
As it is known, today’s society is massively computerized in all spheres.
Along with the advance of CS and its applications today, many studies reported that
integrate CT into school curricula would benefit students learning processes, both
cognitive and non-cognitive aspects (Hooshyar et al., 2021; Malva et al., 2020; Román-
González et al., 2017). Lot of tools and devices used for teaching CT are becoming more
diverse, from visual block-based programming like Scratch, Blockly, Kodu, Construct 2,
and App Invertor (Zhang & Nouri, 2019), as far as augmented reality (AR) (Cleto et al.,
2020) and virtual reality (VR) application (Chen et al., 2020). Additionally, strategies
adopted for learning CT are also varying, for example, project-based learning, problem-
based learning, cooperative learning, and game-based learning (GBL) (Hsu et al., 2018).
The majority goal is to improve the learning processes to be fun for all students, provide
enjoyment, engagement, and getting more experiences.
One popular setting employed to teach CT that allows learners more enjoy and free
to demonstrate their own goals is GBL (Hsu et al., 2018). This strategy offers a high
degree of autonomy and lets learners make multiple decisions on how to execute and how
the approach that used to tackle the problems which encountered in the environment
(Nietfeld, 2020). Actually, the approaches to acquire CT with GBL can be designed in
two settings, (1) learning through designing a game and (2) learning through gameplay
(Turchi et al., 2019). Learning through designing a game entails students to design and
develop a game that contains goals and rules so that can be played by others. The activities
and instructions are followed by students and they learn from the challenging tasks
assigned. When learning to design and develop a game, learners may study CT such as
problem-solving, decomposition, abstraction, and pattern recognition (Cetin, 2016;
Turchi et al., 2019). Meanwhile, learning through gameplay refers to learners acquire CT
concepts by playing a game and accomplish the tasks provided in the games. For example,
Penguin Go, a video game designed with Blockly to facilitate students of middle schools
for learning CT (Zhao & Shute, 2019). In this game, students may learn an algorithm
concept by developing a sequence of steps and explicitly put them into a program.
To enhance users’ experience in a high level of immersion and presence, the learning
strategy through gameplay settings in a game can be designed through VR features
(Radianti et al., 2020). It is because VR provides a sense of “being” in the task
environment instead so that makes users feel actually “there”. VR is an artificial object
and its environment generated by computer technologies to simulate real-world artifacts
and provide a new digital environment that makes users feel like present in the new world
(Berntsen et al., 2016). Applying a game based in virtual reality (GBiVR) for training or
learning means incorporating learning material contents into the gameplay to enhance
playability, interactivity, playfulness, presence, and immersion so that makes users more
enjoy while studying. Compared to just a VR learning environment (VRLE) only, GBiVR
offers more challenges and enjoyment that encourage learning motivation (Giannakos,
2013). Additionally, compared to traditional classroom instruction, Shi et al. (2019) stated
that GBiVR has two promising characteristics, they are (1) active learning driven by the
experience of challenge, engagement, and playfulness; and 2) representation of situated
knowledge which provides facilities knowledge acquisition.
Due to the increasing scholarly attention to CT learning, there have been several
systematic reviews of tools or strategies employed to teach or learn CT, such as visual
block-based programming Scratch (Zhang & Nouri, 2019), robot (Yang et al., 2020), toys
and kit (Yu & Roque, 2019) or even without a computer and its application named as
“unplugged” (Huang & Looi, 2020). However, a systematic review that specifically
discusses GBiVR as a tool and strategy for learning CT is lacking or even has not been
conducted. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate systematically from previous studies
about the strategy that can be used for learning CT through GBiVR. The main research
question (RQ) of this study is “What are the essential factors that should be considered in
developing a strategy to learn CT through GBiVR?”. Based on the review, we propose a
conceptual framework of learning CT through GBiVR that potentially can be used to
guide the development and implementation of the strategy to learn CT through GBiVR.
2. Methodology
This systematic review employs Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines that consist of four steps, namely identification,
screening, eligibility, and included as illustrated in Fig. 2 (Liberati et al., 2009). This
strategy was chosen due to the direction allows us to reduce potential bias, produce a good
quality of the reports and meta-analysis, and may be adopted to all types of systematic
reviews, not limited to clinical trials (Salvador-Ullauri et al., 2020). Additionally,
PRISMA provides checklist items that lead us to analyze and synthesize the data collected
systematically.
Table 1
Detail results obtained by the search protocol
Database sources
Documents identified
Scopus
109
WoS
6
IEEE Xplore
13
ACM Digital Library
48
Science Direct
16
Springer Link
98
Wiley Online Library
11
Total
301
2.1. Search strategies and database sources
Determining appropriate keywords and selecting databases are the most crucial steps in a
systematic review. The results may affect to the answer of research questions. The
keywords used in this systematic review are “computational thinking”, “game” and
“virtual reality”. The searching strategies were performed by the combination of
keywords separately and sequentially utilizing the feature of “search within results”,
namely "computational thinking" followed by "game" and then "virtual reality". The
searching was performed to the database sources that provide a facility of “search within
results”, namely Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and IEEE Xplore. Additionally, the
searching was also conducted to ACM digital library, Science Direct, Springer Link, and
Wiley Online Library in a slightly different way due to the facility of “search within
results” is not provided. However, the keywords and combinations used were kept in the
same, utilizing the Boolean operator “AND” and quotation mark. The final search was
carried out in the last week of November 2020 which yielded 301 documents. The detailed
result obtained by the search protocol that has been defined previously is provided in
Table 1. It can be seen that the most found documents are recorded in the Scopus database
followed by Springer Link, they are 109 and 98 respectively. However, the records still
need to be assessed to find out the requirements of inclusion criteria.
Fig. 2. PRISMA flowchart employed in this study.
2.2. Eligibility criteria
Before screening processes, the duplicate records generated by the different databases
should be removed first, and they remained 265 documents. The records excluded from
the screening processes were 108 and remained 157 documents. The record was
eliminated when it met the exclusion criteria, and it will be selected when it met the
inclusion criteria as seen in Table 2. The conference name was excluded because it is just
the name of event and there was no content related to the RQ. Irrelevant documents refer
to the records that do not contain both CT and VR, so that although the record contain CT
but does not contain VR or the opposite, it was excluded. The documents also must be
written in English, if not in English, they will be excluded. The record was also excluded
if it was a research that has not been accomplished or ongoing research, so that it was
lacking result that cannot be analyzed further. The documents that contain the word
“augmented reality” were also excluded due to its characteristic is different from VR,
start from the definition until the device used. Based on the criteria provided in Table 2,
we excluded 145 documents as ineligible criteria and remained 12 records as eligible
criteria.
Table 2
Exclusion and inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria
Name of conference events
Non-review articles
Irrelevant documents
Relevant studies
Non English documents
Written in English
Ongoing research publications
Completed research
Contain word “augmented reality”
Appropriate to the research question
After finished all the steps within PRISMA guidelines, we included 3 additional papers
that are considered eligible but escaped from the search processes that recommended by
the other authors. It was carried out by a snowballing approach, a strategy to retrieve
relevant articles based on target papers' references list or paper citing (Wohlin, 2014).
The criteria of inclusion and exclusion were also same as the ones applied in the PRISMA
framework. Initially, some authors recommended 5 additional articles to be included, but
after scrutinized and analyzed the contents, we decided excluded 2 articles. We excluded
them because the articles were not containing CT contents despite them containing VR
and learning outcomes. The aforementioned processes through PRISMA guidelines are
diagrammatically illustrated in Fig. 2. The final result of the papers that we identified as
being relevant to this systematic review is 15 documents. The selected documents have
been through rigorous screening based on determined criteria written in Table 2.
Fig. 3. Weight of Evidence (WoE) scores calculated from 15 selected papers.
2.3. Quality assessment of the documents
The next step is assessing the quality of selected papers. To assess the quality, we adopted
an assessment strategy proposed by Feng et al. (2018) and Connolly et al. (2012). The
assessment of the selected documents of this study was involving in two raters using the
questions below:
i. How relevant is the focus of the study to address the research question of this
review?
ii. How appropriate are the methods and analysis used to answer the research
question of this review?
iii. How appropriate is the research design for addressing the research question?
A score of the weight of evidence (WoE) that is used to assess the quality of papers
is between 1 and 3, which means 1 is low quality, 2 is medium, and 3 is a high-quality
article. Based on the 3 provided questions above, an article has a score between 3 and 9.
Each paper is assessed by two raters from an internal author and an external author who
has the same background research in VR or CT. The scores were then calculated to obtain
the mean of the final score to represent the quality of all reviewed articles in this study.
The mean score of 15 papers is 6.73, while the standard deviation is 1.668. Fig. 3
illustrates the histogram that describes the frequency score of 15 papers assessed by two
raters. It can be seen that the curve illustrated in the histogram is left-skewed which the
mean score is closer to the left. Therefore, it shows that the quality of selected articles
quite good.
2.4. Data Extraction and Analysis
Final selected papers were extracted by reading each full-text manuscript and coding it
with a scheme in an Excel file format. Therefore, the findings were systematically well
organized to ease the analysis. The coding scheme was compiled based on the formulated
research questions and the available detailed information in the papers. The main scheme
was arranged through the following fragments:
o Author information consists of the authors’ last name and publication year.
o The title of the reviewed manuscript.
o Objectives of the study
o Methodology, research design, or strategies adopted in the research.
o Obtained results and conclusions based on the findings and discussions.
o Elements or factors considered in the research.
o Research variables including independent and dependent variables.
o Strategies and instruments to collect data.
o Challenges, limitations, and future works.
Table 2
Selected papers based on inclusion criteria
No.
Authors & Year
Types
Publisher
1
(Parmar et al., 2016)
CP
IEEE
2
(Lin et al., 2017)
CP
ACM
3
(A Dengel, 2018)
CP
IEEE
4
(Banic & Gamboa, 2019)
CP
IEEE
5
(Berns et al., 2019)
CP
ACM
6
(Kao, 2019)
CP
ACM
7
(Lai et al., 2019)
JA
Routledge
8
(Turchi et al., 2019)
JA
Springer
9
(Andreas Dengel, 2020)
CP
ACM
10
(Chen et al., 2020)
JA
Frontiers
11
(Jin et al., 2020)
CP
ACM
12
(Leonard et al., 2020)
JA
Routledge
13
(Nguyen et al., 2020)
CP
Springer
14
(Pearl et al., 2020)
CP
ACM
15
(Segura et al., 2020)
JA
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
CP: conference proceeding; JA: journal article.
3. Results
This section provides the findings based on 15 papers that have been selected, coded, and
analyzed systematically. It consists of 10 conference proceedings papers, and 5 others are
articles published in journals as provided in Table 2. The articles were published by
reputable publishers such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), Springer International Publishing,
Routledge - Taylor & Francis, and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. They are known as a good
quality publisher in many spheres, mainly computer science and related. The majority of
the articles are published in 2020, namely 7 articles, followed by 2019 which consists of
5 articles, and 3 others are published in 2018, 2017, and 2016. It means that the articles
are fresh and up to date since the publications are recently issued. The number of
publications is also showing an increase, which means that the trend about the strategy of
learning CT and its related through game based in VR settings is positively growing over
the year.
3.1. Learning Objectives and Pedagogical Types
Based on the 15 selected papers for review, it was identified that the main objectives of
the studies can be classified to be four categories, namely fostering CT, introducing
programming concepts, teaching CS concepts, and leveraging CT concepts in courses for
problem-solving. All of the studies were set up in the VR environment either in game-
based learning (GBL) settings or non-GBL settings. Fig. 4 illustrates the total number of
each setting based on the objective categories classified in Fig.1. It can be seen that
teaching the concepts of CS is the most widely conducted which a total of 5 articles, while
leveraging CT concepts for problem-solving is the lowest one which only 2 papers.
Fig. 4. Main objectives of the studies.
More deeply related to CT, it can be grouped to become two pedagogical types,
namely (1) CT acts as a learning outcome, and (2) CT acts as a strategy of learning. Table
3 shows the objectives classification based on the pedagogical types. CT acts as a strategy
of learning means utilizing or incorporating CT concepts for an approach to tackle the
problem as the research conducted by Lai et al. (2019) and Chen et al. (2020). Lai et al.
(2019) integrate the concept of CT education into a course on plot image-based VR. In
that research, students were allowed to demonstrate the CT skills to resolve problems that
designed in the plot such as broke the plot down into problem decomposition, problem
exploration, and program algorithm. Meanwhile, Chen et al. (2020) combine head-
mounted VR and CT experiments to drive students to create ideas for real disaster relief
scenarios. In their research, students were allowed to think about different script situations
to find a suitable maker design for the project.
Table 3
Classification of objectives based on pedagogical types.
Objectives
Including
Pedagogical
types
Authors
Leverages CT
concepts for
problem-solving
Integrating CT concepts into plot
planning, leveraging CT concepts
to create ideas for disaster
scenarios
Strategy
(Lai et al., 2019),
(Chen et al., 2020)
Teaching CS
concepts
Facilitates learning CS, enhance
the understanding of CS, teaching
CS itself, making CS more
tangible, presenting CS concepts
Outcome
(Parmar et al., 2016),
(A Dengel, 2018),
(Banic & Gamboa,
2019), (Berns et al.,
2019), (Andreas
Dengel, 2020)
Introducing
Programming
concepts
Introduce programming concepts,
Aid users learning (Java)
programming, propose a
programming environment based
on VR, teaching the basic
programming concepts.
Outcome
(Lin et al., 2017),
(Kao, 2019),
(Nguyen et al.,
2020), (Segura et al.,
2020)
Fostering CT
Fostering CT through
collaborative game-based
learning, to boost children’s
creativity and CT skill, teaching
CT, to lower the threshold the
construction of computational
algorithms
Outcome
(Turchi et al., 2019),
(Jin et al., 2020),
(Leonard et al.,
2020), (Pearl et al.,
2020)
CT acts as a learning outcome means that CT is set up for the goal of learning. The
example is the research that conducted by Turchi et al. (2019), Jin et al. (2020), Leonard
et al. (2020), and Pearl et al. (2020). Turchi et al. (2019) conducted a research to improve
CT skills emphasizing two different elements provided in GBL settings, namely
playfulness, and collaboration. They investigate whether the CT skills can be enhanced
through gameplay in a GBL setting or vice versa. The result stated that the overall
response was showing positive feedback despite the participants needed some practices
at the beginning. Slightly different from Turchi et al. (2019), Leonard et al. (2020) taught
CT through the creating of dance performances for virtual characters in a VR
environment. Students were explained that dance choreography and computer
programming have similar compositional processes. Therefore, the students were set to
engage in several choreographic and programming tasks. From this setting, the students
can learn several computational concepts like repetition as loop, theme-and-variations as
Boolean logic, variations as variables, and unison in dance as parallelism. The research
showed that students’ CT abilities were improved.
However, the majority of the studies sought to make the learning of CT and
prevalent topics to be more fun and more provided new experiences through VR
technology. With the new settings in the VR environment, students can learn more engage
and enjoy the activities. Students also can improve their knowledge, abilities, and change
their perceptions about who computer scientists are and what they actually do (Leonard
et al., 2020). Additionally, students are also motivated and unleash their ability to think
more creatively and differently to solve a problem (Chen et al., 2020).
3.2. Study Designs and Settings
From the 15 selected papers, experimental research is the type most employed as
illustrated in Fig. 5, namely 33% or 5 articles (Banic & Gamboa, 2019; Chen et al., 2020;
Lai et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2017; Segura et al., 2020), followed by exploratory 27% or 4
articles (Andreas Dengel, 2020; Leonard et al., 2020; Parmar et al., 2016; Turchi et al.,
2019), and pilot testing 20% or 3 articles (Berns et al., 2019; Jin et al., 2020; Nguyen et
al., 2020). Meanwhile, 13% or 2 articles (A Dengel, 2018; Pearl et al., 2020) are unclearly
explained and 7% or 1 article (Kao, 2019) employed research and development (R&D)
by recruiting experts through an online portal. In the experimental research, Segura et al.
(2020) conducted three times experiment with different purposes of each, namely (1) to
evaluate the general performance of the system and its user experience, (2) to assess the
acceptance of users, and (3) to evaluate whether the designed system is better or the
opposite which was set up through the experimental group and control group.
Fig. 5. Study designs that employed in the researches.
Almost all research in the experimental type is designing the setting in two groups,
intervention or experimental group and control group. The difference is the approach
used, for example, Banic & Gamboa (2019) employed visual design problem-based
learning by allowing students to create 3D sculptures compared to traditional strategy,
while Lin et al. (2017) allowed both groups to use the developed system with different
tasks. Lai et al. (2019) and Chen et al. (2020) almost had the same design, grouping the
classes into two groups with the same treatment at the beginning to make sure that all
groups had the same basic knowledge, then made different interventions in the middle of
learning processes to identify the differences between the intervention group and natural
group.
In the exploratory type, Parmar et al. (2016) and Leonard et al. (2020) almost used
the same design. They allowed students to create dance choreography with a CT concepts
approach. The differences are Leonard et al. (2020) needed a longer time and more
participants involved than Parmar et al. (2016). Meanwhile, both Turchi et al. (2019) and
Andreas Dengel (2020) divided the participants into several groups, eight and three
respectively. The participants were allowed to play the game designed by both
researchers, then they explored and observed the participants’ attitude toward overall the
application system. Additionally, they also asked participants to complete questionnaires
provided by the researchers.
3.3. Variables and Learning Impacts
Table 4 shows the classification of variables that are generally concerned in the research
based on the 15 reviewed papers. We categorized them into four types such as game
elements, VR features, CT concepts, and learning impacts. The elements of the game
consist of playability, engagement, excitement, interesting, enjoyment, customization,
playfulness, collaborative, interactivity, and visual layout. Meanwhile, elements of VR
are telepresence, social presence, metaphorical representation, presence, immersion,
embodied interaction, social interaction, and visibility of the abstract objects. CT
elements consist of decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, algorithm design/
thinking, answer set programming, finite state machine, problem-solving, recursively
thinking, heuristic, data representation, debugging (evaluating solutions), sequence, loop,
and variable. In the meanwhile, learning impacts comprise creativity, self-directed
learning/ autonomy, independently, persistence/maintain, learning experience, learning
interest, learning motivation, learning outcomes, knowledge & comprehension, practical
motivation, mental model of computer scientists, common sense, creative thinking, and
systemic reasoning. Based on these variables and the categories, we constructed a
conceptual framework that is discussed in the next separated section.
The first variable in the game elements is playability, which refers to how easy or
how long duration of a game can be played by users. Playability is closely related to others
variables in the game elements. According to Paavilainen (2020), the playability of a
game is defined as the design quality of the game, formed by its functionality, usability,
and gameplay. However, he argued that games with good playability are not necessarily
fun, sometimes games with poor playability may provide an enjoyable experience. The
main objective of playability is to provide enjoyment and playfulness. Hence, it can
improve the excitement and interest to play the games. As the research conducted by
Parmar et al. (2016) and Banic & Gamboa (2019), they are more concerned about the
enhancement of users’ engagement prefer than playability. Their strategies were to design
enjoyable tasks with an interesting visual layout and provide a virtual character with the
immersive embodied interaction supported by VR technology. Hence, utilizing game
elements in the VR settings can improve user experiences and playability as well.
Table 4
Classification of the research variables
Game Elements
VR Features
CT Concepts
Learning impacts
Playability
Telepresence
Decomposition
Creativity
Engagement
Social presence
Pattern recognition
Self-directed learning/
autonomy
Excitement
Metaphorical
representation
Abstraction
Independently
Interesting
Presence
Algorithm
design/thinking
Persistence/Maintain
Enjoyment
Immersion
Answer set
programming
Learning experience
Customization
Embodied
interaction
Finite state machine
Learning interest
Playfulness
Social interaction
Problem-solving
Learning motivation
Collaborative
Visibility of abstract
Recursively thinking
Learning outcomes
Interactivity
Visual aspects
Heuristic
Knowledge, &
comprehension
Visual layout
Data representation
Practical motivation
Debugging (evaluating
solutions)
The mental model of
computer scientists
Sequence
Common sense
Loop
Creative thinking
Variable
Systemic reasoning
In the VR environment, Parmar et al. (2016) measured telepresence by designing
various questions that lead to the sense of “being there”, for example, “Did you feel like
you were inside and surrounded by the environment?”. If we analyzed, it is similar to the
term “presence” or “virtual presence” as stated by Lombard & Ditton (1997) and Selzer
et al. (2019). All three different terms have the same meaning; it is a concept of being
perceptually present in the virtual environment generated by VR. However, Parmar et al.
(2016) slightly distinguish it with the term “social presence” since they used virtual
character for the research, but the concept is still the same as “presence”. On the other
hand, Leonard et al. (2020) investigated other VR features that showed distinct
relationships namely social, embodied interactions and their expressed learning
engagement in computational practices. They also stated that embodied experiences
obtained in a VR environment allowed students to engage in a variety of computational
practices.
Related to CT, it can be viewed from two designs as explained in section 3.1, CT as
the learning outcome and CT as the strategy of learning. Turchi et al. (2019) designed CT
as the learning outcome through collaborative game-based learning. The CT concepts
considered in their research are decomposition, abstraction, algorithmic thinking,
problem-solving, data representation, and debugging. Problem-solving is described as
understanding what the goal of the problem is and finding a solution to solve it, while
algorithmic thinking explained as a way to find a solution through a set of steps. In line
with Turchi et al. (2019), Leonard et al. (2020) also designed CT as the learning outcome.
CT concepts adopted in their research are sequence, loop, and variables. To measure the
concept of sequence, students were asked to construct a dance movement of the virtual
character and investigate how they accomplish it. Leonard et al. (2020) believed that the
concept of a sequence is similar to dance choreography that has iteration. In the
meanwhile, CT designed as the strategy of learning is applied by Lai et al. (2019) and
Chen et al. (2020), namely problem decomposition, program algorithm, pattern
recognition, and abstraction. Lai et al. (2019) integrated the concept of CT into a course
on plot image-based VR. They stated that the used approaches are able to make students
more familiar with scenarios, improve their learning interest and overall academic
performance. Almost similar to Lai et al. (2019), Chen et al. (2020) employed the CT
concept to allow students to think about the different script situations in a scenario of
emergency disaster training. They stated that it is able to strengthen students’ practical
learning motivation and programming skills as well.
Based on the reviewed papers, the researchers stated that their design of studies has
several impacts on learning. As the research conducted by Banic & Gamboa (2019) said
that self-directed learning of students in the concepts of computer programming was
improved. Additionally, based on the observations, Banic & Gamboa (2019) stated that
students’ creativity to find out solutions was increased as well and students independently
sought to learn more computer programming concepts on their own. Even, Leonard et al.
(2020) claimed that their interventions were able to change students’ computational
perspectives and mental model of who computer scientists. The majority revealed that
their research may improve students’ learning experiences, motivation, common sense,
creative thinking, and systematic reasoning (Berns et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2019; Segura et
al., 2020).
3.4. Software and Hardware Devices
Fig. 6 (a) illustrates the VR devices used in the 15 selected papers. Mostly, the papers did
not clearly mention what the devices used in the researches, 57% or more than half. They
only mentioned head-mounted display (HMD) devices. Oculus, both Rift or Quest types,
are the most used in the papers with a total of 33% or five articles. Meanwhile, only 14%
or two articles used HTC Vive to generated VR environments. The papers that utilized
Oculus Rift in the researches are Parmar et al. (2016), Lin et al. (2017), Leonard et al.
(2020), and Pearl et al. (2020), while Jin et al. (2020) used Oculus Quest type. The reason
why Jin et al. (2020) chose this platform since it provides an all-in-one VR gaming system
that may track users' motion without cables so that support immersive learning
experiences. Andreas Dengel (2020) and Segura et al. (2020) used HTC Vive for their
researches to construct the VR application system. Segura et al. (2020) selected HTC
Vive because it is free and provides the functional plugin for other software like Unity
3D, so that may help developers to build user interfaces.
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. (a) VR devices and (b) Software used to develop VR application.
Unity 3D software is the type most used to build VR application systems as
illustrated in Fig. 6(b), 53% or 8 papers. This software is selected for several reasons as
stated by Segura et al. (2020), (1) provides the required tools to create interactive 3D
environments, (2) the documentation for application programming interface (API) is
complete and well-documented, and (3) the software can be implemented for many
different platforms like PCs, mobile devices, web-based, and even consoles. Meanwhile,
40% or 6 papers did not mention what the type of software used in the researches is. One
paper or 7% used A-frame, web-based software to develop the VR application system,
namely Berns et al. (2019). They chose A-frame due to the framework allows the
developers to plug into an entity so that may add appearance, behavior, or functionality.
4. Discussion
Based on the articles reviewed above, we summarized several factors that can be
considered to develop and implement the learning of CT skills through game based in VR
settings. We proposed a conceptual framework to implement a strategy of learning CT
skills through GBiVR as depicted in Fig. 7. Generally, it can be grouped into 3 parts, they
are game elements, VR features, and CT concepts or CT skills. The Game elements and
VR features can be encapsulated to be VRGACT (virtual reality game application for
CT). The Game elements and VR features are positioned as the independent variables that
intervene in CT skills as the dependent variables. We only selected several aspects of
game elements, VR features, and CT concepts that should be considered in the proposed
conceptual framework. This selection is based on the identification and analysis
conducted in the previous sections. The selected aspects in the proposed conceptual
framework are playability and interactivity gained from game elements, while presence
and immersion are the elements proposed from the VR environment. Meanwhile,
enjoyment is variable generated by the combination of both game elements and VR
features collectively. By playing game in the VRGACT world, users or students are
expected to be more enjoy the designed environment and its gameplay. Finally, CT skills
that we selected as the goal of learning are composed of decomposition, pattern
recognition, abstraction, and algorithm design which in line with the research designed
by Chen et al. (2020).
Fig. 7. Conceptual framework to implement the learning of CT skills through GBiVR
The first element is playability, which refers to the ability of VRGACT to provide
an environment that allows users to play and learn at the same time as discussed in the
section 3.3. It is in line with the research conducted by Turchi et al. (2019) that the VR-
based game application should be playable and learnable to support learning to play and
playing to learn. Playability is an important factor that should be considered while design
a game since it is the core of the game and determine its quality (Paavilainen, 2020).
Playability also describes the degree to which a game is fun to play and usable, with an
emphasis on the interaction style and plot quality of the game (Usability First, 2020). The
appropriate value of playability will give users obtaining more positive experience in
assimilating the educational and playful concepts underlying the dynamic game.
Another important element in the conceptual framework is interactivity, which
relates to the ability of VRGACT to respond and give appropriate feedback to users while
playing. Hence, it can engage the users as the research carried out by Leonard et al.
(2020). Interactivity establishes a two-way communication process between users or
players as the learners and the features provided by the game apps. The communication
will construct learning activities that involve the taught material contents and the
available properties of the apps. In the GBiVR, interactivity can be designed in both
physical and virtual forms, so that improve users’ involvement and participation. The
physical form can be designed as the embodied interaction, while the virtual form is the
effect generated by the VRGACT system.
Elements of VR we proposed on the conceptual framework are presence and
immersion. The presence or virtual presence is a concept of being perceptually present in
a virtual environment so deeply as “if the medium were not there” (Selzer et al., 2019).
The feature of presence makes the objects designed virtually become more real so that
allows users to apply embodied interaction between users and the virtual objects as the
research carried out by Leonard et al. (2020). By this feature, Leonard et al. (2020) found
distinct relationships between students’ social, embodied interactions, and learning
engagement. Meanwhile, immersion in VR pertains to users’ perception of being
physically present in a non-physical world like a digital environment. This perception can
be generated by visual displays, sounds, and other stimuli surrounding the users that
influence the perception. Berns et al. (2019) stated in their researches that visual aspects
or displays may improve overall learning experiences so that students enjoy to see the
results produced by the VR game application system. The combination of game elements
and VR features finally should make users enjoy to play and learn in the environment
created by the application. When students enjoy the settings, they will automatically
complete all the tasks provided by the system. Further, the factor of enjoyment will make
users more engaged and self-directed learning as argued by Banic & Gamboa (2019).
That is why we selected enjoyment as the element that should be considered in the
conceptual framework.
We propose CT skills as the dependent variables in the conceptual framework,
which consists of four components, they are decomposition, pattern recognition,
abstraction, and algorithm design. Actually, the definition of CT is varying due to the
consensus of it has not been reached, but the majority of researchers do not dispute the
definition (Selby & Woollard, 2013). Chen et al. (2020) applied four CT components
aforementioned to experiment with their research. Students were allowed to think about
different script situations by CT concepts and discuss to find a suitable maker of the
project to resolve disaster relief scenarios. In this research, students have a chance to
demonstrate CT skills. The result shows that the practical motivation of the participants
was strengthened. Decomposition refers to the ability to break a complex problem down
into simpler parts so that it is easier to be handled. Among the simple problems as the
result of decomposition are often found patterns. The ability to find out similarities or
patterns among the decomposed problems in CT is called pattern recognition or
sometimes called generalization. Abstraction pertains to the skill to remove or filtering
out the characteristics of patterns that are not needed. Then, to execute and finish the
recognized pattern problems are needed algorithm design or a set of step-by-step
instructions to lead and tackle the problems.
Based on these reviews, the research conducted through this proposed conceptual
framework can be evaluated by several approaches. For example, Chen et al. (2020)
employed the technology acceptance model (TAM) to evaluate the students’ experience
of using VR game applications and the learning effectiveness after the experiments with
CT concepts. On the other hand, Segura et al. (2020) used surveys to evaluate the user
experience, general performance, and effectiveness of the developed application system.
The surveys were developed by the team to find out the result directly from the
participants. Hence, it can be stated that the evaluation strategy can be carried out by
many approaches based on the need of the aspects that will be known.
5. Conclusion
According to the results and discussions obtained from the 15 reviewed papers, we
proposed a conceptual framework to design an approach for learning CT through GBiVR
settings. We categorized it into three main parts, they are game elements, VR features,
and CT skills. The CT skills can be design in two ways, as learning outcomes and as the
strategy of learning. In this conceptual framework, we more emphasize that CT is
designed as the learning outcome. The study can be designed in experimental research or
exploratory with two groups, intervention, and control group, to find out the differences.
To make more engagement, the development of VRGACT application system should
consider the elements of game and VR by optimizing the software and hardware function.
Hence, students can be more engaged and enjoy the learning environment. This study
contributes to the future design of the GBiVR framework to conduct a research related to
the topics of CT, GBL, VR technology and its application. However, the articles that can
be reviewed in this study are limited since the research on learning CT through GBiVR
is still rarely conducted or perhaps currently in progress. This conceptual framework is
constructed based on the previous studies. Therefore, experiments to students as the real
participants are necessary to confirm the proposed framework and find out the impacts
and limitations.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Rector of Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta (UMS) and the Dean of
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education UMS for supporting this study. The study is
fully funded by Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta. This study is a part Doctor of
Philosophy program in Information Technology Education, Faculty of Art, Computing,
and Creative Industry, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia.
References
Banic, A., & Gamboa, R. (2019). Visual Design Problem-based Learning in a Virtual
Environment Improves Computational Thinking and Programming Knowledge.
2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 1588–
1593. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2019.8798013
Bavera, F., Quintero, T., Daniele, M., & Buffarini, F. (2020). Computational Thinking
Skills in Primary Teachers: Evaluation Using Bebras BT - Computer Science –
CACIC 2019 (P. Pesado & M. Arroyo (eds.); pp. 405–415). Springer International
Publishing.
Berns, C., Chin, G., Savitz, J., Kiesling, J., & Martin, F. (2019). MYR: A Web-Based
Platform for Teaching Coding Using VR. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical
Symposium on Computer Science Education, 77–83.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287482
Cetin, I. (2016). Preservice Teachers’ Introduction to Computing: Exploring Utilization
of Scratch. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(7), 997–1021.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116642774
Chen, S.-Y., Lai, Y.-H., & Lin, Y.-S. (2020). Research on Head-Mounted Virtual
Reality and Computational Thinking Experiments to Improve the Learning Effect
of AIoT Maker Course: Case of Earthquake Relief Scenes. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 1164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01164
Chou, P.-N. (2019). Using ScratchJr to Foster Young Children’s Computational
Thinking Competence: A Case Study in a Third-Grade Computer Class. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 0735633119872908.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119872908
Cleto, B., Sylla, C., Ferreira, L., & Moura, J. M. (2020). CodeCubes: Coding with
Augmented Reality. In R. Queirós, F. Portela, M. Pinto, & A. Simões (Eds.), First
International Computer Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2020) (Vol.
81, pp. 7:1--7:9). Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.ICPEC.2020.7
Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A
systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious
games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004
Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for
non-computer scientists. Unpublished Manuscript in Progress, Referenced in
Http://Www. Cs. Cmu. Edu/~ CompThink/Resources/TheLinkWing. Pdf.
Dengel, A. (2018). Seeking the Treasures of Theoretical Computer Science Education:
Towards Educational Virtual Reality for the Visualization of Finite State
Machines. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and
Learning for Engineering (TALE), 1107–1112.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE.2018.8615288
Dengel, Andreas. (2020). How Important is Immersion for Learning in Computer
Science Replugged Games? Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium
on Computer Science Education, 1165–1171.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366837
FAGERLUND, J., HÄKKINEN, P., VESISENAHO, M., & VIIRI, J. (2020). Assessing
4th Grade Students’ Computational Thinking through Scratch Programming
Projects. Informatics in Education, 19(4), 611–640.
https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.27
Feng, Z., González, V. A., Amor, R., Lovreglio, R., & Cabrera-Guerrero, G. (2018).
Immersive virtual reality serious games for evacuation training and research: A
systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 127, 252–266.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.002
Hooshyar, D., Malva, L., Yang, Y., Pedaste, M., Wang, M., & Lim, H. (2021). An
adaptive educational computer game: Effects on students’ knowledge and learning
attitude in computational thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106575.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106575
Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach
computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature.
Computers & Education, 126, 296–310.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
Huang, W., & Looi, C.-K. (2020). A critical review of literature on “unplugged”
pedagogies in K-12 computer science and computational thinking education.
Computer Science Education, 1–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1789411
Ilic, U., Haseski, H. İ., & Tugtekin, U. (2018). Publication trends over 10 years of
computational thinking research. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9(2),
131–153. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.414798
Jin, Q., Liu, Y., Yuan, Y., Yarosh, L., & Rosenberg, E. S. (2020). VWorld: An
Immersive VR System for Learning Programming. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM
Interaction Design and Children Conference: Extended Abstracts, 235–240.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3397843
Kao, D. (2019). JavaStrike: A Java Programming Engine Embedded in Virtual Worlds.
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital
Games. https://doi.org/10.1145/3337722.3341828
Kemdikbud, D. (2019). Kesiapan Sekolah Menengah Pertama dan Sekolah Menengah
Atas dalam Menerapkan Informatika sebagai Mata Pelajaran pada Tahun
2019/2020.
Lai, Y.-H., Chen, S.-Y., Lai, C.-F., Chang, Y.-C., & Su, Y.-S. (2019). Study on
enhancing AIoT computational thinking skills by plot image-based VR.
Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1580750
Leonard, A. E., Daily, S. B., Jörg, S., & Babu, S. V. (2020). Coding moves: Design and
research of teaching computational thinking through dance choreography and
virtual interactions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1760754
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A.,
Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA
statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that
evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, b2700.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700
Lin, L., Parmar, D., Babu, S. V, Leonard, A. E., Daily, S. B., & Jörg, S. (2017). How
Character Customization Affects Learning in Computational Thinking.
Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Perception.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3119881.3119884
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x
Malva, L., Hooshyar, D., Yang, Y., & Pedaste, M. (2020). Engaging Estonian primary
school children in computational thinking through adaptive educational games: A
qualitative study. 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies (ICALT), 188–190.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT49669.2020.00061
Nguyen, V. T., Zhang, Y., Jung, K., Xing, W., & Dang, T. (2020). VRASP: A Virtual
Reality Environment for Learning Answer Set Programming BT - Practical
Aspects of Declarative Languages (E. Komendantskaya & Y. A. Liu (eds.); pp.
82–91). Springer International Publishing.
Nietfeld, J. L. (2020). Predicting transfer from a game-based learning environment.
Computers & Education, 146, 103780.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103780
Nouri, J., Zhang, L., Mannila, L., & Norén, E. (2020). Development of computational
thinking, digital competence and 21st century skills when learning programming
in K-9. Education Inquiry, 11(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2019.1627844
Paavilainen, J. (2020). Defining Playability of Games: Functionality, Usability, and
Gameplay. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Academic
Mindtrek, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377290.3377309
Parmar, D., Isaac, J., Babu, S. V, D’Souza, N., Leonard, A. E., Jörg, S., Gundersen, K.,
& Daily, S. B. (2016). Programming moves: Design and evaluation of applying
embodied interaction in virtual environments to enhance computational thinking
in middle school students. 2016 IEEE Virtual Reality (VR), 131–140.
https://doi.org/10.1109/VR.2016.7504696
Pearl, H., Arrants, S., Swanson, H., & Trninic, D. (2020). The AL Goldberg Machine: A
Virtual Environment for Engaging Learners in Algorithmic Practices.
Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference:
Extended Abstracts, 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397617.3397845
Radianti, J., Majchrzak, T. A., Fromm, J., & Wohlgenannt, I. (2020). A systematic
review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design
elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147,
103778. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which
cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the
Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
Saad, A. (2020). Students’ Computational Thinking Skill through Cooperative Learning
Based on Hands-on, Inquiry-based, and Student-centric Learning Approaches.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 290–296.
Salvador-Ullauri, L., Acosta-Vargas, P., & Luján-Mora, S. (2020). Web-Based Serious
Games and Accessibility: A Systematic Literature Review. In Applied Sciences
(Vol. 10, Issue 21). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217859
Segura, R. J., del Pino, F. J., Ogáyar, C. J., & Rueda, A. J. (2020). VR-OCKS: A virtual
reality game for learning the basic concepts of programming. Computer
Applications in Engineering Education, 28(1), 31–41.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22172
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition.
University of Southampton (E-prints). https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/
Selzer, M. N., Gazcon, N. F., & Larrea, M. L. (2019). Effects of virtual presence and
learning outcome using low-end virtual reality systems. Displays, 59, 9–15.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2019.04.002
Shi, A., Wang, Y., & Ding, N. (2019). The effect of game–based immersive virtual
reality learning environment on learning outcomes: designing an intrinsic
integrated educational game for pre–class learning. Interactive Learning
Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1681467
Tang, K.-Y., Chou, T.-L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2020). A Content Analysis of Computational
Thinking Research: An International Publication Trends and Research Typology.
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 9–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00442-8
Turchi, T., Fogli, D., & Malizia, A. (2019). Fostering computational thinking through
collaborative game-based learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(10),
13649–13673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7229-9
Usability First. (2020). Playability (Glossary). Foraker Labs.
https://www.usabilityfirst.com/glossary/playability/
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Commun. ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for Snowballing in Systematic Literature Studies and a
Replication in Software Engineering. Proceedings of the 18th International
Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268
Yang, K., Liu, X., & Chen, G. (2020). The Influence of Robots on Students?
Computational Thinking: A Literature Review. International Journal of
Information and Education Technology, 10(8).
Yu, J., & Roque, R. (2019). A review of computational toys and kits for young children.
International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 17–36.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.001
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking
through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
Zhao, W., & Shute, V. J. (2019). Can playing a video game foster computational
thinking skills? Computers & Education, 141, 103633.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103633
Sukirman is a staff of Informatics Engineering Department, Faculty of Teacher Training
and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta (UMS), Indonesia. He takes
Doctor of Philosophy program in Information Technology Education, Faculty of Art,
Computing, and Creative Industry, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI), Malaysia.
His research interests are computational thinking, game-based learning, virtual and
augmented (mixed) reality for educational purposes.
Laili Farhana Md Ibharim is a senior lecturer at the Computing Department, Faculty
of Art, Computing and Creative Industry, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI). She
has graduated with her Ph.D. in Multimedia in Education. She has been teaching game
design and development courses from 2011 until the present. Various agencies are often
invited her as a consultant and trainee for teaching and learning courses, especially for
gamification and game-based learning. Her interests are any research projects or practices
in Game Design and Development, Game-Based Learning, Gamification, Human-
Computer Interaction, Usability Engineering, and Multimedia in Education, specifically
designing technologies and content creation.
Che Soh Said is a senior lecturer of the Deparment of Computing, Faculty of Art,
Computing and Creative Industry, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. He holds master of
science in computer science from Universiti Putra Malaysia, and Ph.D degree in
instructional technology from Universiti Sains Malaysia. His research interest including
study the impact of virtual environment, gaming and multimedia technologies in
education.
Budi Murtiyasa is a Professor of Mathematics Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah
Surakarta, Indonesia. Research interests in the field of ICT in education include the use
of technology to improve the quality of learning and its management. Some of the
research topics that have been carried out include the development of smart classes, ICT-
based multimedia development, and mobile learning. Currently doing research on
gamification in mathematics learning. He is also active in providing training for young
lecturers in the field of learning technology.
