Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc

“Start from scratch”: Integrating computational thinking skills in

teacher education program
Orit Broza *, Liat Biberman-Shalev , Nurit Chamo
Academic College Levinsky-Wingate, Tel-Aviv, Israel

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the digital age, our lives become more dependent on technology, yet the digital gap is inten­
Blogs sifying especially because most people lack digital literacy. As a modest step to handle this
Constructionism challenge, we designed a course named "Play with me in Code" to develop pre-service teachers’
Creativity
(PSTs) thinking skills and expose them to learning by creation using computational thinking and
Gamification
Scaffolding
programming as part of the constructionism paradigm. The added value of using Scratch in the
Scratch context of teacher education lies not only in familiarity with a programming language but with an
Teacher education emphasis on experiencing self-directed learning tackling with problem solving situations, crea­
tivity, socioemotional competencies, and logical computational thinking. The present study aims
to examine 25 PSTs’ attitudes towards facing challenges of coding with Scratch. To this end, a
mixed-method approach was activated by using questionnaires, blog posts, and reflections.
Findings revealed that the learning environment encouraged PSTs’ use of abstraction and
decomposition to address a complex problem or to design a complex game. Study’s conclusions
relate to the importance of providing PSTs opportunities to experience learning by programming
for raising their awareness of the importance of enhancing thinking skills and creativity in the
future.

1. Introduction

In the digital age in which we live today, children and adults spend long hours in front of various screens and our lives depend on
technology to a growing degree. Over time, hardware, software, and the human factor will become increasingly intertwined and the
blurring between the digital and real worlds will increase (Dwivedi, et.al, 2022). In light of these trends, it is likely that most people
have a little idea of how to read the language of technology and thus the digital gap is intensifying and making it harder to promote
social justice through education (Ferreira et al., 2015). Moreover, according to the World Economic Forum report (2018), many
students in the future will engage in professions that do not yet exist, however, it is certain that there will be technology and a need for
creative thinking to deal with uncertainty situations (e.g. flexibility, problem solving). The more technology is involved in our lives the
more programming will be a skill that will be required in all professions in the future, a generic language, just like reading and writing
(Nolan, 2021). Therefore, there is a major and immediate need to prepare future teachers for these changes and to try to bridge this gap
(Yadav, et.al, 2017).
Concerning the above rationale, the current study presents a unique course in the context of teacher preparation titled: ’Play with
me in Code’ which was included in the university-based courses of the elementary school program. The main aims of the course were to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (O. Broza).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101285
Received 23 November 2022; Received in revised form 3 March 2023; Accepted 15 March 2023
Available online 17 March 2023
1871-1871/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

expose pre-service teachers (hereafter, PSTs) to a new and unknown content context: computational thinking and programming in the
educational field using ’Scratch’. The added value of this innovative course lies in the potential it brings for the development of high-
order and creative thinking skills.
Scratch is a friendly-used program and is often found to be familiar to elementary school students. It enables meaningful learning
processes because it is a playful environment inviting experiential and exploratory learning in which the freedom to play with ideas is
given. Just like game-based learning environments it invites learners, with different competencies, to discover problem-solving
strategies enjoyably.
The learning processes with Scratch encourage logical thinking development, tackling big problems by breaking them down into
smaller problems, identifying and using common solutions to common problems and afford also collaboration (Resnick et al., 2009;
Resnick, 2012; Wing, 2006). All the above competences promote high order thinking skills and creativity.
Since the present study use a new content area using digital technologies, we wish to explore both PSTs attitudes towards tech­
nology and programming alongside with the ways they faced challenges across the learning process. Exploring these aspects may help
to shed light on the way to promote awareness for computational thinking in order to develop high order thinking skills instructions
among PSTs, as a preparation for teaching in teacher education college.

2. Literature review

2.1. Constructionism: learning by creation

Based on the constructivist premise that knowledge is actively constructed by actually building schemas as a result of learners’
interactions in the world, the constructionist theory adds that knowledge building cannot do otherwise than "learning by making"
(Papert & Harel, 1991). According to Holbert et al. (2020) "Constructionism is a framework for learning to understand something by
making an artifact for and with other people, which to be built, requires the builders to use that understanding." (P.1). Moreover,
constructionism theory defines learning not only as the activity by which knowledge is developed and deployed, a mental knowledge
or hands on construction of an artifacts, but, the process of the construction itself is learning. Artifacts, tools and social interactions not
only effect on the learners but being changed and modify by the learner. Learning by creation process involve students with high level
of cognitive function and attention: creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making (Land & Baytak, 2010; Yang &
Chang, 2013). Learning by creation encourage creative thinking (Scott, Leritz & Mumford, 2004) which is demonstrated in four di­
mensions (Guilford, 1973; Torrance, 1969): fluency (a variety of ideas), flexibility (being able to move from one thinking form to
another), originality (unusual and unexpected thinking patterns), and elaboration (expanding a given idea).
Resnick (2012) developed with his team at MIT Media Lab, an environment giving children an understanding of the principles of
computational thinking. He coined the four P’s elements (i.e., Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play) which are strongly aligned with the
constructionist approach to education. These elements are reflected in the Scratch environment as learners create with the help of
simple commands that appear visually on tiles just like Lego, videos, animations, and games.

2.2. Computational thinking

The term "computational thinking" (hereafter CT) was coined by Papert (1972) While creating the Logo programming language.
Papert’s goal was to search for a way to engage students with concepts in math and geometry, namely programming products to
acquire knowledge in mathematics (Papert & Harel, 1991).
Later, Wing (2006) redefined the concept of CT as a domain which "involves solving problems, designing systems, and under­
standing human behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science” (p. 33). Accepted processes and key skills in
relation to CT include formulation of problems, organization and logical analysis of data, data representation through abstraction with
the help of models and simulations, proposal and evaluation of several solutions, decomposition of a problem into sub-problems,
implementation of a possible solution and its examination (debugging), and generalization.
Günbatar (2019) added the social aspects of its use by arguing that CT approach emphasizes acquiring broad and multidisciplinary
skills and knowledge that can be applied in a variety of contexts. He emphasized that CT is not necessarily programming. Although the
skills borrowed from computer science, they are not only cognitive, but also social skills that promote learning, such as teamwork and
time planning.

2.3. Game based learning

Although there is no unequivocal definition in the literature regarding play, there is agreement between researchers regarding one
of its essential characteristics, which is the fact that the game is part of a human activity that develops already in early childhood and
includes an emphasis on the process and less on the product (Cheng et al., 2015). Games can take place individually, in pairs or in
groups, and are independent of location. The uniqueness of the game is that it operates within the framework of rules that the par­
ticipants accept, and usually it is done willingly and with pleasure. Within the predetermined framework, which usually includes goals
and objectives, there is a free space that allows experimentation, original thinking, and curiosity, including the freedom to fail and try
again until success, without the negative effects that failure can have outside of the game (Gee, 2007).
Since a game call for experiential and exploratory learning during which the freedom to play with ideas is given, it has a significant
potential for being integrating in school learning. From the 1980s onwards, there was a great enthusiasm to use computer games as

2
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

part of a trend of improvement teaching and learning processes in the school and transition from a "teacher centered" to a "learner
centered" approach (Sandford, Ulicsak, Facer & Rudd, 2006; Squire & Jenkins, 2003). Digital games allow learners to invest energy and
thought in solving problems and invite them to discover solution ways and strategies in a fun way. Such thinking develops in the player
self-directed learning towards previous attempts, and at the same time consciously maintaining the successful moves and building
connections between them (Gee, 2007). Moreover, the game is a simulation of reality, therefore, the game activity allows to examine
the different variations that exists in social interactions and prompts the development of the skills required for this (Shaffer, 2012).
However, alongside the advantages, quite a few voices are heard against the integration of games in school learning, because in
practice the learner does not always succeed on his own in reaching the levels of abstraction expected by the game developers. In such
cases, he can develop a behavioral pattern of pure trial and error, which is legitimate in a game environment, but without strategic
thinking and therefore does not promote learning (Kim & Ifenthaler, 2019).
Children and adults who use a Scratch environment display a behavior of ’flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), (i.e., balance point
between a challenge and ability, when a learner concentrates and is involved in a task and loses the dimension of time). Yet, to reach a
state of ’flow’, the action must be challenging but not frustrating, requiring exercising of skills and abilities and also be accompanied by
a sense of personal development and improvement. The Scratch environment is properly designed and may lead learners to a state of
flow, just like in digital play (Gee, 2007; Killi, 2005), and consequently lead to feelings of pleasure and challenges that contribute to
learning (Malone & Lepper, 1987).

2.4. The potential of scratch as a personalized learning environment

In order to meet the goal of CT instruction and learning by creation among PSTs, we have to take into account individuals’ diversity
(e.g. previous knowledge and needs as starting point. The idea of Personalized Learning Environment (hereafter, PLE) has been of
interest to many educators and researchers in recent decades (see for example, Shemshack & Spector, 2020). The common definition
was "tailor-made" instruction for students’ needs (Cowart, 2021; Robinson & Sebba, 2010). However, Campbell et al. (2007) argue that
PLE is not a new approach and is basically based on the constructivist theory. In fact, humanistic education and cognitive psychology
placed the differences between human beings at the center of education and sought to put learners at its center, to adapt learning
content to their learning styles, thus developing the potential inherent in each learner to its maximum (Rogers, 1973). At the same
time, it seems that a way has not yet been found how to personally meet every student’s need and the idea has not, so far, been
implemented in depth in education systems due to past perceptions of collectivism and standardization (Darling-Hammond, 1995).
During the last decade, personalized education was associated with digital environments in order to help addressing students’
diversity. There is a piece of growing evidence that points to the idea that technology may enable the practical implementation of PLE
because technology can be used to diagnose needs, analyze factors, and more easily develop customized environments (Bray &
McClaskey, 2016.(In line with constructionism, it seems that many researchers conclude that PLE empowers learners and enables them
to develop highly independent and reflective learning skills (Lee & Hannafin, 2016; Tetzlaff et al., 2021). Yet, although the idea of PLE
is increasingly discussed in K-12 and higher education contexts by scholars who have introduced the idea of PLE as a mean to make this
adjustment in practice, still, researchers and practitioners lack a current and comprehensive framework to design, develop and apply it
(Bray & McClaskey, 2016; Zhang, et.al, 2020).
There is empirical evidence that great complexity arises when trying to move PLE into practice. This is especially related to the fact
that students differ from one another in many areas such as gender, age, socioeconomic status, learning styles, prior knowledge, and
more (Zhang et al., 2020). Therefore, a profound understanding and knowledge of learners, besides technology support, are necessary
to develop PLE (Tetzlaff et al., 2021). Greater challenges are related to the need to bring PSTs to understand the contributions of PLE
and the ways to design them. In this regard, the Horizon 2016 reported (Johnson et al., 2016) that PLE was declared as one of the goals
of education and viewed as one of the most difficult challenges facing higher education.
There are some evidence of using Scratch environment as PLE. It affords programming accessible and engaging for everyone by its
unique friendly design and invites learners, with different competencies, to discover problem-solving strategies enjoyably. Moreover,
Scratch allows teachers to adapt their teaching style to the students’ individual characteristics. Kordaki (2012) found a diverse cat­
egories of programming learning activities which were performed by students within Scratch, for example: free creative activities such
as simple games and animations; Solving a specific problem; Multiple solution tasks; Multiple solution tasks etc. The diversity of
learning settings might help teachers to design appropriate opportunities for heterogenic classroom.
Moon et al. (2020) found that the interactivity and visualization of scratch as learning environment increased student engagement,
due to its sequencing and feedback, two components that provide information on learners’ skill progression during programming (e.g.
learning). Another project named CARAMBA, used Scratch to personalize student learning by suggesting experience of programing for
students in higher education (Cárdenas-Cobo et al., 2019). They used this Scratch based tutorial independently, challenging them­
selves, in order to learn basic programing concepts. Their performances at the pass tests show a positive effect on learning. Other
findings regarding improving learners’ interest and motivation were found in Zhong’ s (2019) study who observed enjoinment from
the process of creation in Scratch among students in primary school who constantly improved their ideas and work.

2.5. Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards programming

In the context of PSTs’ preparation, the existing research base in relation to programing and computational thinking is still limited
(Yadav, et.al, 2017). Some studies found that PSTs hold variety of attitudes toward programming. On the one hand, they have positive
opinions concerning the importance of programming (Sáez-López et.al, 2020). On the other hand, obstacles such as the need for

3
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

training, time, as well as resources and means were raised by PSTs. Those might be related to pedagogical beliefs of PSTs about the
barriers in the use of technology in the classroom in general and their perceived competence (Gudmundsdottir et al., 2020; Lachner, et.
al, 2021).
There are some evidences in the literature regarding diverse effects of technology-based intervention on PSTs’ motivation and self-
efficacy. For example, Gleasman and Kim (2020) examined intervention program which integrated Scratch programming as a tool to
teach elementary mathematics conceptually. They investigated the connections PSTs made between computational thinking and
meaningful mathematics (i.e. not only technical procedures). Specifically, the ability of PSTs to design a lesson teaching mathematics
conceptually through the programming. Surveys’ results indicated that comparing pre and post interventions, overall attitudes to­
wards computational thinking and its integration into mathematics instruction increased slightly across participants. However, their
confidence in programming was significantly increased. Butler and Leahy (2021) investigated PSTs’ understandings of computational
thinking by engaging in a digital learning environment such as Scratch. They found that PSTs were able to make connections between
the pedagogy of constructionism and computational thinking by designing challenges for children as part of their classroom practicum.
According to their research, PSTs articulated a range of teaching strategies such as questioning, as a key strategy for prompting
students to in-depth discussions based on algorithmically reasoning in the process of debugging. PSTs reported that the ability to think
with the objects and manipulate them developed their computational thinking skills, improve their ability to reason and to solve
everyday problems.

2.6. Description of ’play with me in code’ course

2.6.1. Rational
Based on the literature above, the course objectives were to engage PSTs with technology by experience first steps in coding
language and computational thinking. A major objective was to remove barriers from computational thinking alongside develop the
ability to evaluate a process of significant learning in an unfamiliar environment and to deeply understand the role of the learner and
the teacher in the digital age. Expected learning outcomes were to experience the meaning of being an active independent learner in a
PLE by struggling with high order thinking skills and problem solving using creative thinking. Moreover, to program a simple game in
Scratch which is connected to a subject matter that are specialized in and practice in their practicum field.

2.6.2. Course design

The course was designed online and co-taught by a lecturer from the college and a moderator from external educational company
which is specializing in the development of technological learning environments. The design of the course included a content aspect (i.
e., learning the code language through experience in building simulations/games), and a pedagogical aspect (i.e., discussing which
aspects of creativity are present in their problem-solving process). Each lesson included a ’Scratch’ experience and reflective thinking
about how we learned, namely, how we formulated problems, how we analyzed our data, and whether we evaluated our solutions?

2.6.3. Course moduls

The course included three main modules. The first module (4 meetings; 90 min for each meeting) introduced the theories and
examples of educational games and discussed the challenges and dilemmas involved in integrating computer games into teaching at
school. The second module (4 meetings; 90 min for each meeting) focused on the Scratch program (motion, conditions, and loops)
learning operations. The moderator instructed students to create a simple operation and PSTs practiced the same or created their own
operation using the same code. At the end of the lesson, PSTs were invited to share, experiment, and learn from one another’s

Fig. 1. Shared folder.

4
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

explorations to help them in a shared folder (see for example Fig. 1). The lecturer encouraged the PSTs to look at one another’s projects
to get inspiration, receive help, or simply observe and learn from someone else’s creative process. Discussions were explicitly focused
on the four dimensions of creativity: the variety of ideas (fluency), the challenges of moving from one thinking form to another
(flexibility), strive to unusual and unexpected thinking patterns(originality), and expanding a given idea from the web or a peer
(elaboration).
The third module (4 meetings; 90 min for each meeting) was devoted to design projects in pairs, programming final projects, and
presenting and evaluating them collaboratively. Fig. 2 shows a screenshot of one project titled: ’An escape room in mathematics’.
An important principle in the course process was the combination of theoretical and practical aspects in each meeting ending up
with reflective thinking about what was learned and how it may help make progress towards the final project – a game design. Students
recorded their thoughts in a communal blog located in the MOODLE platform which accompanied the course. This course design was
laid on the assumption that across the course and through the transition from the role of the actor (first module) to the role of the
programmer (in modules 2–4), PSTs may experience how, as learners, they become from content consumers to content producers and
thus actively build their knowledge and creative thinking competences.

2.6.4. Research questions

In this study, we use the platform Scratch to enable PSTs to experience CT skills in teacher education program. Following the
literature review, two research questions were phrased:

1 What characterized the PSTs’ attitudes towards CT pre and post the course?
2 How did PSTs cope with the challenges of computational thinking?

3. Methodology

The study conducted a mixed-methods methodology (Creswell, 2014) in order to get a rich perspective of the learning in the
environment. The research method is based on design studies in the learning sciences methodology (Design-Based Research) which is
usually focused on the set of relationships between the learner, the environment and the type of activity (Collins et al., 2016). In
contrast to research based on controlled experiments that are done in laboratories, design research is a methodological framework that
takes into account the complexity of the system involved in the research and the multitude of variables that appear, some of which are
known and some of which are being discovered during the study (Barab & Squire, 2004; Brown, 1992).

3.1. Participants

Research population consisted of 24 sophomore PSTs who were trained to become elementary school teachers (23 were female and
1 was male). These PSTs specialized in different disciplinary fields (e.g. Science, Mathematics, Literature and English). Their average
age was 22. All the participants started from scratch, i.e. did not hold a prior knowledge in programming. It is worth noting that all the
participants subscribed to the course from their own will.

Fig. 2. Screenshot of the project process and its code.

5
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

3.2. Research tools and analysis

The quantitative tools were pre and post course attitudes questionnaire, which was develop on the basis of questionnaires that exist
in the Collegiate Research Authority’s database dealing with similar topics. All the students received a questionnaire link using ‘Google
Form’ which was uploaded to the MOODLE of the course and were asked to fill it up at home before entering the course. The ques­
tionnaire was anonymous and consisted of 3 parts. Since it is a new area and content of knowledge the first part included 7 statements
towards digital game-based learning (e.g., Using computer games may improve my teaching; The use of digital games in school is
inconsistent with my perceptions of being a teacher) on a 6 points scale of 1 (do not agree at all) to 6 (extremely agree). The second part of
the questionnaire included 6 statements towards problem solving and competences in challenging situations (e.g. self-efficacy) (e.g.,
I’m sure I can handle unexpected situations; When I am faced with a problem, I usually think of a number of ideas how to deal with it)
on a 4 points scale of 1 (do not agree at all) to 4 (extremely agree). Finaly, the third part included 8 statements towards technology and
programming (e.g., Only math teachers can teach elementary school students programming; I get anxious when I am told I will have to
teach elementary school students programming) also on a 4 points scale of 1 (do not agree at all) to 4 (extremely agree).
Since it is the first iteration of the course design, post-course questionnaires included also two open questions asking students: (1)
"Can you please indicate 3 things you would suggest maintaining in the course and 3 things you would like to change in the course?" (2)
"What will I apply in my class in the future?" Qualitative tools were the above open questions and students’ reflective blogs docu­
mentations at the end of each lesson during the third module (4 lessons). They were asked to reflect on their feelings, challenges, the
way they faced challenges, and which supports they used to solve problems in the environment.
The quantitative analysis was based on descriptive statistics, and T-tests for measuring the differences between students’ attitudes
pre and post the course. The qualitative content was analyzed thematically and was used to shed light on the learning process and on
the quantitative results to confirm their reliability.

3.3. Findings

This section will first provide descriptive statistics findings from the questionaries and then add qualitative evidence from the open
questions and the blog posts.

3.4. PSTs’ attitudes towards CT pre and post the course

3.4.1. Attitudes towards technology in general

In order to get some information regarding PSTs attitude towards technology in general, we asked them about their experience with
digital tools, programing and computer use. Table 1 describes the averages of the related assertions.
Table 1 presents that PSTs holds positive attitudes towards learning a new use of computers or programing (statements 2, 4, and 6).
Although, t-tests were not significant, (probably related to the small sample) surprisingly, the difference between pre- and post-course
averages in statements 1, 3, 5 and 7 might indicates that the PSTs’ confidence was undermined following the course. A possible
explanation might be that CT was perceived very challenging and therefore affect the score of the posttest. Reinforcing this explanation
was the fact that 8 out of 25 students (32%) stated that they were unable to teach Scratch because they did not feel confident doing so.
However, results regarding the open question: "What will I apply in my class in the future?" (Table 2) indicate that digital game-based
learning pedagogy and programing using Scratch were mentioned most frequently (36%). These findings demonstrate a gap between
PSTs learning experiences and their perceived teaching abilities.

3.4.2. Attitudes towards digital game-based learning

Table 3 illustrates pre and post course attitudes towards integrating games in teaching.
In general, the results indicate positive attitudes towards game-based learning, significantly in relation to " Using computer games
may improve my teaching". Namely, independently of the course experience, students had a positive perception towards integrating
games in their instruction. Since the last two statements (6,7) were negatively phrased, the decrease in the average supports increase in
the positive attitudes towards games as well.

Table 1
Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards technology competences.
Statement PRE POST t Ratio
M M

1. I usually learn new technology fast 3.2 2.9 0.31

2. I successfully deal with computer studies 3.1 3.3 0.57
3. I get anxious when I am told I will have to teach elementary school students programming 1.9 2.0 0.80
4. I am willing to learn technological means for the purpose of improving teaching 3.8 3.8 0.79
5. Working with a computer is time consuming 2.0 3.0 0.28
6. I’m sure I can learn a new type of computer use 3.8 3.8 0.76
7. I do not like computer technology 1.7 2.0 0.39
8. Only math teachers can teach elementary school students programming 1.2 1.2 0.79

Scale: Low = 1; High = 4.

6
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

Table 2
Frequency of themes related to open question: "What will I apply in my class in the future?"
(posttest).
Category %

a) collaboration skills 8%
b) creative thinking skills 20%
c) self-directed skills 24%
d) problem solving skills 28%
e) digital game-based learning pedagogy 36%
f) programing with Scratch 36%

Table 3
Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards digital game-based learning.
Statement PRE POST t Ratio
M M

1. Using computer games may improve my teaching 5.0 5.5 0.03*

2. Using computer games can lead to alienation between you as a teacher and your students 2.2 2.2 1.00
3. Learning through digital games increases collaboration between students 5.3 5.5 0.25
4. The use of digital games in school is inconsistent with my perceptions of being a teacher 2.3 2.2 0.84
5. The use of digital games in teaching fundamentally changes my role as a teacher 3.7 3.9 0.65
6. It is not right to integrate digital games in my teaching field 1.5 1.3 0.52
7. Digital games are used more for fun and less for learning 2.1 1.7 0.27

Scale: Low = 1; High = 6;.

*
p<.05.

3.4.3. Attitudes towards sense of competence in general

Analyzing the sense of competences of the PSTs in general demonstrate an interesting change following the course (Table 4).
Table 4 indicates a high sense of competence before the course, in contrast to our concerns at the design stage. Although there was
not a significant difference between the pre-post attitudes, still the mean scores increase in almost all parameters between pre and the
post-course answers. The following qualitative results might explain this increase.

3.4.4. "The sky is the limit" – evidence from PSTs’ reflections

PSTs were delighted to have their own agency in the programing environment. They reported that it was exciting, "different from
other courses", difficult and challenging at the same time. The following excerpts demonstrate a growth in PSTs’ self-competence of CT
while tackling the process of problem solving indicating an emergence of competences of flexibility (being able to move from one
thinking form to another) and elaboration (expanding a given idea). We add in a square bracket a conceptualization of the main CT
component in the learning process to which they refer to:
S: I learned in the course not to avoid difficulty. Even when I was exposed to something new, which poses many difficulties in the way of
application there is no need to despair, one can turn to help, look for materials if any and ask them to explain and refine. [data rep­
resentation and building a model]
K: Another thing I learned is that a challenge can add interest to learning. I really enjoyed solving various problems with Scratch, despite
or perhaps thanks to the frustration of failure that pushed me to try and think more. [evaluation of several solutions and debugging]
A: The process was complex and long, I sat for hours on the computer trying to figure out what went wrong or how to make things
work, but success in the end, this feeling of seeing a game ready was just worth it… I realized there was nothing I could not do.
[implementation of a possible solution and its examination]

Table 4
Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards sense of competence in general.
Statement PRE POST t Ratio
M M

1 I can always solve difficult problems if I try hard enough 3.5 3.7 0.18
1 I’m sure I can handle unexpected situations 3.3 3.4 0.81
1 It is easy for me to stick to my goals and achieve them 3.3 3.5 0.09
1 I am able to remain calm in the face of difficulties because I rely on my coping skills 3.0 3.1 0.39
1 When I am faced with a problem, I usually think of a number of ideas how to deal with it 3.3 3.6 0.44
1 I can find a solution to almost any problem, if I put effort into it 3.5 3.5 0.62

Scale: Low = 1; High = 4.

7
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

PSTs’ final projects were beyond what they thought possible, due to the environments’ personalized characteristics which afforded
creativity as demonstrated in a presentative example below:
K: I think I learned from the course the power of creation within learning. I felt during the work that Scratch is built but there is a
lot of room for personal expression, and once I felt I had a place to use my creativity and display my products in the gallery, learning and
developing became a fun and entertaining experience.
Some of them reported about their error detection process by using games’ legitimate strategy of ’trial and error’:
H: Thinking together in collaboration, saves a lot of time in locating the problem by way of trial and error (playing with the codes and
their locations) especially when I am already at a very advanced stage with a lot of codes."
Collaboration was demonstrated in two contexts: (1) when a difficulty arises; (2) while working on the final projects. Here some
evidence of collaboration in those contexts respectively:
M: "When I encounter a difficulty, I help my classmates in order to understand what I missed in building the [code] sequence…we consult
together and help each other while practicing".
S: "There was full cooperation throughout the entire planning process of the final project. There were a few differences of opinion in the
formulation and writing of the game-questions, but we quickly reached an agreement. When we moved from the planning phase to the
implementation phase, things were easier, clearer, and more understandable… I was surprised that despite all the difficulties I
encountered, I was able to express the theme I have chosen through the game of Scratch in the best way I could."
Collaboration was demonstrated also in our categorization of the open question about things that PSTs were asked to retain in the
course. 22% of PSTs offer to retain it in the course as demonstrated in Table 5:
Furthermore, all four P’s that Resnick (2012) coined (Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play) received attention in the PSTs’ answers as
demonstrated through Table 5. The fact that almost half of the students reported that they like to preserve its content knowledge, more
than half ask to deeper in it and extend. This finding might point that although CT was challenging for them, they appreciate its value
for learning.

4. Conclusions and discussion

The aim of this study was to explore PSTs attitudes towards facing challenges of CT in the training program for becoming an
elementary schoolteacher.
Findings indicated that the Scratch encouraged learners’ high order thinking, such as: abstraction, building a model, structured
problem decomposition. The technology environment afforded PSTs to act and reflect using multiple distributed resources to play with
a variety of ideas, choose the scaffold or support they need to expand a given idea, and the freedom to try and error (Resnick, 2009;
Guilford, 1973; Torrance, 1969; Scott, Leritz & Mumford, 2004). To establish their thinking skills and creativity competences, they
needed a supportive and personalized learning environment. The scratch environment served as a "playground" where PSTs could
choose their own resources to progress, and it encourage them to go beyond their perceived competences. They govern their learning
pace, and the social aspect became significant when they work in collaboration. Setting the goal for game programming somehow
motivated the PSTs and transferred the responsibility for learning onto them. They became more conscious for their learning processes,
as well as which resources to use and how.
However, the learning process affected PSTs attitudes towards technology competences in the posttests, as was demonstrated in
Table 1. This finding implicates on the course design. Perhaps we need to provide a deep infrastructure of knowledge to master the
technology (i.e., basic scratch) before using it to teach the pedagogy (problem solving and high order thinking skills), so there will be
no tension between the pressure to learn the software and the pressure to solve problems using the software. It seems that it was
difficult for PSTs to learn new content and new pedagogy aspects in parallel.
Although some of PSTs did not always succeed in reaching the high levels of abstraction and sometimes used a behavioral pattern of
trial and error without building a strategic thinking, which is legitimate in a game environment (Shute et al., 2009), still, some
competences such as: implementation of a possible solution and its examination, data representation and building a model and
evaluation of several solutions and debugging (Wing, 2006) were emerged and found critical for implementation of high level of
thinking (Lee & Hannafin, 2016).
The above conclusion might explain PSTs’ concerns about their teaching competence which were partially realized. Findings
pointed that experiencing in CT did not raise the PSTs’ perceived competences for teaching programing, on the contrary, it seems that
this experience developed some reduction in their perceptions. This was demonstrated primarily by the gap between the PSTs’ learning
experiences and their perceived teaching abilities. Although not significantly, after learning in the course the PSTs reported on a
decrease in their ability to learn technology fast and an increase in perceiving that integrating technology in the classroom is a time
consuming. This finding might be in line with PSTs’ desire to delve deeper into the course contents and extend it. In this regard, one
may conclude that integrating CT in the context of teacher education should take into account the possibility that PSTs will decrease
positive attitudes toward technology which in return will increase their avoidance from integrating technology in their future
classroom. The current study found that although the PSTs struggled in the programming process, they did reflect a growth in their
understanding that the cognitive and social aspects of CT (Günbatar, 2019) are valuable for learning and instruction processes.
The current study has some limitation which need to be discussed. First, the sample is rather small and needs to be broaden

8
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

Table 5
Things to retain and change in the course.
Category Total statement in category (%)
(N ¼ 24)

Retain
Lecturer availability 20%
Autonomy 12%
Collaborative learning 20%
Product based learning 44%
Course content knowledge 44%
Change
Desire to delve deeper into course content and extend it 56%
More time for personal project 12%

including a verity of demographic characteristics of the participants. Second, it is recommended to build questionnaires on homo­
geneous scales preferably between 1 and 5 all. Moreover, the attitudes of the participants toward technology were rather high at the
beginning of the course as they choose to learn in it. Continuing studies should also include PSTs who are less technology oriented.
It takes a long time to develop solid programming skills, certainly, when the expectation of policy makers is to teach the students at
school to do so. Therefore, this study takes a modest step in bridging the digital gap and highlight the potential inherent in integrating
CT in teacher education. There is still a long way to go in developing the course so that both the sense of competence, motivation and
knowledge will be stable enough.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Orit Broza: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing,
Software. Liat Biberman-Shalev: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Nurit Chamo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-Based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2010). A case study of educational game design by kids and for kids. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5242–5246.
Bray, B., & McClaskey, K. (2016). How to personalize learning: A practical guide for getting started and going deeper. Corwin Press.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Butler, D., & Leahy, M. (2021). Developing preservice teachers’ understanding of computational thinking: A constructionist approach. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 52(3), 1060–1077.
Cárdenas-Cobo, J., Puris, A., Novoa-Hernández, P., Galindo, J. A., & Benavides, D. (2019). Recommender systems and scratch: an integrated approach for enhancing
computer programming learning. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 13(2), 387–403.
Cheng, M. T., Chen, J. H., Chu, S. J., & Chen, S. Y. (2015). The use of serious games in science education: A review of selected empirical research from 2002 to 2013.
Journal of Computers in Education, 2, 353–375.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2016). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Design-based research: Clarifying the terms (pp. 15–42).
Psychology Press.
Cowart, E. (2021). Implementation of personalized learning in a new charter school. Journal for Undergraduate Ethnography, 11(3), 21–35.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. In The new zealand dental journal (4th ed.,, 86. Los Angeles: SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208956
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Restructuring schools for student success. Daedalus, 124(4), 153–162. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027341.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Baabdullah, A. M., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Giannakis, M., Al-Debei, M. M., et al. (2022). Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary
perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 66, Article
102542.
Ferreira, E., Ponte, C., Silva, M. J., & Azevedo, C. (2015). Mind the gap: digital practices and school. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence
(IJDLDC), 6(3), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDLDC.2015070102
Gee, J. P. (2007). Good video games+ good learning: Collected essays on video games, learning, and literacy. Peter Lang.
Gleasman, C., & Kim, C. (2020). Pre-service teacher’s use of block-based programming and computational thinking to teach elementary mathematics. Digital
Experiences in Mathematics Education, 6(1), 52–90.
Gudmundsdottir, G. B., Gassó, H. H., Rubio, J. C. C., & Hatlevik, O. E. (2020). Student teachers’ responsible use of ICT: Examining two samples in Spain and Norway.
Computers & Education, 152, Article 103877.
Guilford, J. P. (1973). Characteristics of creativity. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Gifted Children Section.
Günbatar, M. (2019). Computational thinking within the context of professional life: Change in CT skill from the viewpoint of teachers. Education and Information
Technologies, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09919-x. Denning, P. J. (2009). Beyond computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 52(6),
28–30.
Holbert, N., Berland, M., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). Designing constructionist futures: The art, theory, and practice of learning designs. MIT Press.
Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. The New Media Consortium,
1–50.
Killi, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet and Higher Education, 8, 13–24.

9
O. Broza et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 48 (2023) 101285

Kim, Y. J., & Ifenthaler, D. (2019). Game-based assessment: The past ten years and moving forward. Game-Based Assessment Revisited, 3–11.
Kordaki, M. (2012). Diverse categories of programming learning activities could be performed within Scratch. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1162–1166.
Lachner, A., Fabian, A., Franke, U., Preiß, J., Jacob, L., Führer, C., et al. (2021). Fostering pre-service teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK):
A quasi-experimental field study. Computers & Education, 174, Article 104304.
Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 64(4), 707–734.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction, 3, 223–253.
Moon, J., Do, J., Lee, D., et al. (2020). A conceptual framework for teaching computational thinking in personalized OERs. Smart Learning Environment, 7(6). https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0108-z
Nolan, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence, its diffusion and uses in manufacturing". OECD going digital toolkit notes. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/
249e2003-en. No. 12.
Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children thinking. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 9(5), 245–255.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1–11.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11),
60–67. M. Resnick, “Reviving Papert’s Dream,” in Educational Technology, vol. 52, no. 4, 2012, pp. 42-46.
Resnick, M. (2012). Reviving Papert’s dream. Educational Technology, 52(4), 42–46.
Robinson, C., & Sebba, J. (2010). Personalising learning through the use of technology. Computers & Education, 54, 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.
2009.09.021
Sáez-López, J. M., del Olmo-Muñoz, J., González-Calero, J. A., & Cózar-Gutiérrez, R. (2020). Exploring the effect of training in visual block programming for
preservice teachers. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(3), 65.
Sandford, R., Ulicsak, M., Facer, K., & Rudd, T. (2006). Teaching with games, 112 p. 12). Computer Education-Stafford-Computer-Education Group.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388.
Shaffer, D. W. (2012). Models of situated action: Computer games and the problem of transfer. C. Steinkuehler, K. D. Squire, & S. A. Barab (Eds.). Games, learning, and
society: Learning and meaning in the digital age (pp. 403–431). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shemshack, A., & Spector, J. M. (2020). A systematic literature review of personalized learning terms. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 1–20.
Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., Bauer, M. I., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessment to monitor and foster learning: Flow
and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. J. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), The Social Science of Serious Games: Theories and Applications. Philadelphia, PA: Routledge/LEA.
Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2003). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight (American Society of Ophthalmic Registered Nurses), 3(1), 5–33.
Tetzlaff, L., Schmiedek, F., & Brod, G. (2021). Developing personalized education: A dynamic framework. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 863–882.
Torrance, E.P. (1969). Creativity. What research says to the teacher, Series, No. 28.
Wing, JM. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Forum, W. E. (2018). The future of jobs report 2018. December. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp.
205–220). Cham: Springer.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement.
Computers & Education, 68, 334–344.
Zhang, L., Basham, J. D., & Yang, S. (2020). Understanding the implementation of personalized learning: A research synthesis. Educational Research Review, 31, Article
100339.
Zhong, W. (2019). Design and application of scratch personalized learning resources based on VAK learning style theory-take Q school for example. Open Journal of
Social Sciences, 7, 346–361. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.78025

Dr. Orit Broza holds a Ph.D. in mathematics education. She is a senior lecturer in the Department of Education and Department of Mathematics. Previously she was the
Head of the Primary School Practicum program at Levinsky College of Education. Her research interests are learning processes of low achieving students in mathematics;
digital game based learning; interactions between teachers, students and mediated tools in technology -rich learning environments.

Dr. Liat Biberman-Shalev holds a Ph.D. in sociology of education. Previously, she was Head of the Department of Education and the M.Teach Program (Master in
Teaching combined with teaching certification) at Levinsky College of Education. At present, she is a senior research associate in the Research Authority and a senior
lecturer in the Department of Education at the college. As a sociologist of education, her research interests are global education and incorporation of social justice in
education systems. She attributes particular importance to reforms that aim to redesign teacher education programs for the purpose of adjusting them to a reality of an
inter-dependence world.

Dr. Nurit Chamo is senior lecturer and researcher at Levinsky College of Education and in other bodies associated with the college. Her teaching areas are qualitative
research, curriculum planning, identity, and leadership in education. She initiated ventures of teacher education, among them designing models of academia-classroom
in M.Teach studies; in-service teachers’ professional development programs; the researching teacher and the initiating teachers; pre-service principal education outline;
“leading teachers” outline; and development of M.Teach programs for primary and secondary education. Her research activities are the shaping of professional and
cultural identity in various contexts; Jewish peoplehood; intervention of third sector bodies in a pluralistic Jewish education; and second career in education.

10