1241327

research-article2024
RERXXX10.3102/00346543241241327Mills et [Link] and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum

Review of Educational Research

June 2025, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 581­–618
DOI: 10.3102/00346543241241327
[Link]

Article reuse guidelines: [Link]/journals-permissions

© 2024 The Author(s). [Link]

Coding and Computational Thinking Across the

Curriculum: A Review of Educational Outcomes

Kathy A. Mills
Jen Cope
Laura Scholes
Luke Rowe
Australian Catholic University

Teaching coding and computational thinking is an emerging educational

imperative, now embedded in compulsory curriculum in the United States,
Finland, the UK, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and
Australia. This meta-synthesis of 49 studies critically reviews recent interna-
tional research (2009–2022) of coding and computational thinking as core
and integrated across the curriculum. It addresses four essential problems:
(a) What are the key features of learning environments that successfully
develop students’ coding and computational thinking? (b) What is the impact
of student engagement in coding and computational thinking on learning
outcomes across curriculum areas? (c) What pedagogical constraints are
evident for coding and computational thinking, including across curriculum
areas? and (d) Which conceptual frameworks support coding and computa-
tional thinking, and what has been marginalized or excluded? The review
advances knowledge of coding and computational thinking—vital to guide
and develop future AI-based solutions to real-world problems that challenge
disciplinary boundaries.

Keywords: coding, computational thinking, game design, integrated

curriculum, programming

Students across the world are growing up unprepared for rapidly changing
digital environments where occupations that require the application of coding
capabilities and computational thinking skills extend well beyond specialized
technical industries (Shute et al., 2017). Technological developments with
transformative potentials for education have burgeoned in the digital age, with
initiatives targeting student competencies in computer coding or program-
ming literacies and computational thinking—skills that have lifelong validity

581
Mills et al.
(Vee, 2017). However, despite widespread agreement that coding and compu-
tational thinking skills at various levels of abstraction are increasingly rele-
vant to multiple curriculum areas—such as mathematics, writing, and media
literacy—coding still often assumes a minor, compartmentalized place in edu-
cation. Additionally, there is limited research on its scope, potentials, and con-
straints for realizing educational transformation across knowledge domains.
Systematic research is needed to inform and guide cumulative skill develop-
ment for students across levels of education, from early childhood settings to
elementary and high schooling, and to college or university (Lockwood &
Mooney, 2017), with these skills increasingly important in jobs of the future
to understand and develop AI (artificial intelligence)–based programs.
This meta-synthesis analyses research on coding or computer programming
and associated computational thinking skills to identify pathways for education
systems at all levels to design learning environments for coding that are under-
pinned by robust conceptual frameworks, to navigate the pedagogical constraints,
and to guide the integration of computational skills to support learning outcomes
across the curriculum in hybrid ways. Education systems need research to evalu-
ate programs that work against the reduction of coding and its related thinking and
problem-solving skills to niche technical skills to be taught through elective sub-
jects—a position that is no longer tenable for workforce preparedness in the 21st
century. Significantly, 52% of the current computer science and technologies
workforce is employed outside technology-related industries, with a demand for
technology skills increasing across many fields in a distributed knowledge econ-
omy (Deloitte Access Economics, 2017).
Historical Background
While the past decade has seen a rapid prioritizing of coding and computa-
tional thinking in the curriculum supported by educational clubs and after school
programs, the earliest teaching of computer programming in schools began as
early as the 1960s (Feurzeig et al., 2011). Logo, an early coding language, was
developed by Papert and introduced to schools in the UK and United States in the
1980s, catalyzed by Papert’s (1990) vision that Logo could be used as a tool to
change the way we think about the relationship between mathematics and writing,
engaging learners in processes of testing and debugging code. This approach was
seen as a critical alternative to behaviorist approaches that were driving computer-
aided instruction. However, like other educational reforms that are scaled up by
bureaucratic industrialists, Logo was largely ineffectual in schooling, com-
pounded by technical incompatibilities and the limited functionality of school
computers of the time (Hickmott et al., 2018). Coding quickly receded as technol-
ogy programs in education began to prioritize word processing in the 1980s and
internet search skills in the 1990s (Popat & Starkey, 2019).
In the 21st century, coding and computational thinking became propelled for-
ward in education by the work of theorists such as Wing (2006), and later others
(e.g., Lye & Koh, 2014). These theorists argued for the urgent need for students to
have facility with computational thinking: a kind of analytical thinking to solve
problems, design systems, and understand human behavior, using concepts that
are essential to computing (Wing, 2006). “Computational thinking” is defined

582
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
here as thought processes used to articulate solutions as computational steps that
can be executed by a computer. Relatedly, “coding” refers to the act of program-
ming or giving instructions to a computer (e.g., robots, chips, small devices),
applying solutions developed through computational thinking. Subconcepts of
computational thinking include thinking processes of pattern recognition, analy-
sis, problem solving, abstraction, algorithmic thinking, decomposition, and auto-
mation; while core coding involves programming ability, such as using loops,
variables, algorithms, and conditionals (Rich et al., 2021).
The emphasis on computational thinking was accompanied by a shift from
playing games to students making digital games for learning—supported by devel-
opments in gaming trends, “do-it-yourself” (DIY) cultures, and a paradigmatic
shift toward constructionist educational approaches (Kafai, 2018). Computational
thinking and coding became centered in national curriculum agendas by 2016,
when at least 18 countries had introduced coding and its related thinking strategies
into the curriculum: the United Kingdom, Denmark, Austria, Malta, Poland, Spain,
Slovakia, Portugal, Bulgaria, France, Israel, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Lithuania, Ireland, Finland, and Belgium (Uzunboylu et al., 2017). Advanced com-
putational thinking and problem-solving skills are associated with societal benefits
such as increased social cohesion, reduced crime, and lowered welfare costs,
impacting the health, well-being, and social mobility of future generations (Wolfe
& Haveman, 2002).
Research Purpose
Given the global interest in computer coding, programming, game design, and
competencies for computational thinking, a meta-synthesis of the collective con-
tributions of research investigating coding conducted in educational settings,
such as presented here, is much needed. The aim was to systematize the features
of learning environments to develop coding expertise and other learning out-
comes when integrated strategically across curriculum areas, whereby coding is
embedded into subjects such as science, mathematics, history, or English to fos-
ter problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, or discipline-specific knowl-
edge. To date, no published systematic reviews have examined the evidence,
while original studies had pointed to this critical gap (Khanlari, 2016; Tofel-
Grehl et al., 2021). Additionally, we sought to identify any pedagogical con-
straints to these outcomes, and to critique the underlying conceptual frameworks
to guide the teaching of computer coding or programming, because the theoreti-
cal context always plays a role whether explicitly acknowledged or not
(Alexander, 2020). The meta-synthesis systematically examines answers to the
following four research questions (RQs):

RQ1: What are the key features of learning environments that successfully
develop students’ coding and computational thinking?
RQ2: What is the impact of student engagement in coding and computational
thinking on learning outcomes across curriculum areas?
RQ3: What pedagogical constraints are evident for coding and computational
thinking, including across curriculum areas?

583
Mills et al.
RQ4: Which conceptual frameworks support coding and computational think-
ing, and what has been marginalized or excluded?

All the studies included in this review address both the first and second RQs,
while 41 of the 49 studies address the third RQ on pedagogical constraints.
Additionally, 41 of the 49 studies address the fourth RQ regarding learning
approaches that underpin coding, game design, and associated computational
thinking skills in the curriculum.
Method
The methodology of meta-synthesis was adopted—an interpretive analytical
technique that uses the qualitative findings from a large set of peer-reviewed
research to gain a broader and deeper understanding of phenomena than a singular
original study. A meta-synthesis achieves this by searching for patterns across
existing empirical studies (Sandelowski et al., 2006). The integration of qualita-
tive findings in a meta-synthesis—typically from multiple countries, participant
groups, and educational settings—generates new knowledge to answer original
research questions through the synthesis, cross-comparison, and validation of
empirical results (Shuval et al., 2011). Meta-synthesis was selected because of its
ability to bring together multiple cross-national, contemporary studies that utilize
a range of methodologies (Cooper et al., 2009).
Inclusion Criteria and Selection of Studies
Studies were included in this research meta-synthesis if they met the following
eight criteria, which includes methodological requirements for selection: (a) iden-
tify key features of learning environments to develop students’ coding and com-
putational thinking—RQ1; (b) report on the impact of student engagement in
coding and computational thinking on learning outcomes on at least one curricu-
lum area—RQ2; (c) be published in English; (d) have undergone peer review; (e)
be original research; (f) utilized qualitative or mixed methods approaches; (g)
published between 2009 to 2022; and (h) focused on education from early child-
hood to post-secondary. Given previous concentration on P–12 populations (e.g.,
Kite et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020), extending the age range was an important inclu-
sion criterion. To better understand the teaching of coding throughout the educa-
tion system, studies were required to address the first two RQs in the context of
education from early childhood through to postsecondary education. Further
requirements for inclusion were that the research had to be original (primary
sources), peer reviewed, and recently published (2009–2022). This time interval
increases the comparability of the studies in terms of technologies for teaching
coding, while maintaining a manageable data set against criteria of breadth, such
as education levels from K–12 to postsecondary. It coincides with the increased
availability of software such as Scratch and second-generation Lego Mindstorms
to teach coding for younger learners. Consistent with the scope of a meta-synthe-
sis and the descriptive nature of the RQs, we selected only qualitative or mixed
methods studies. Quantitative studies are not included in a meta-synthesis, since
they require statistical analyses of effect sizes, and the corpus of studies would be

584
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
too heterogeneous to be comparable. By excluding quantitative research, this
review does not address comparative outcomes relating to specific dependent
(e.g., standardized test outcomes) and independent variables (e.g., gender).
Nevertheless, our screening of quantitative literature did not reveal any major
themes that were omitted by this meta-synthesis. Examples of excluded studies
include Martin (2017) because this source was not peer reviewed, as well as
Thompson et al. (2018) and Choi (2015) because they were quantitative studies
using multiple standardized instruments.
To identify studies of coding and educational outcomes, electronic searches
were conducted using terms that included “computer,” “coding,” “game design,”
“maker space*,” “robotics,” “computational thinking,” “computer literacy,” and
“computer programming.” The Boolean operator “OR” was used where required
to broaden the search using related terms, while “AND” was used to focus large
returns to search for “coding” in specific fields (e.g., “education,” “media,” “ani-
mation,” “writing,” “math*,” “science,” “literac*,” “multimodal”). Some search
engines did not require the manual entry of Boolean operators.
Databases included ACM Digital Library, Academic Search Complete
(EBSCOhost), Computers and Applied Sciences Complete (EBSCOHost),
Education Source (EBSCOHost), Direct Open Access Journals, Elsevier Science,
Emerald Education eJournal Collection, Learning and Technology Library
Journals, Oxford Academic Journals, ProQuest Central, SAGE Journals,
ScienceDirect, Scopus, SpringerLink Journals, Taylor & Francis Online, and
Wiley Online Library—many of which include conference proceedings that were
included in this review. Google Scholar was used to support the library database
searches. Further, the citation pearl growing technique identified additional rele-
vant research from bibliographies of included studies (Schlosser et al., 2006).
Data Extraction and Analysis
The team of researchers refined the data extraction table content and deter-
mined studies for inclusion, reading through full articles and proceedings to iden-
tify those that met the inclusion criteria, resulting in a total of 49 studies. We
compiled a summary of each included study into a data extraction table, which
was refined by the team with shared understanding of the categories. One
researcher double coded the entries to ensure that the extraction tables provided
sufficient detail on how the studies answered the RQs. The lead researcher then
checked all entries. The table of data extractions for the 49 articles is available as
Supplemental Table S1 in the online version only.
Tabulations were used to summarize and quantify the characteristics of the
complete set of included studies using Excel spreadsheets. These categories
included number of studies for each RQ; country of origin; curriculum areas;
methodologies; participant ethnicities; socioeconomic backgrounds; age or level
of education; education context (e.g., after-school club); and type of computer
coding software used for programming, game design, or robotics. NVivo coding
was then used to systematically code the central and recurring findings extracted
from the complete data set for each of the four RQs, providing the basis for the
results that are analyzed and discussed in this meta-synthesis.

585
 Summary of Characteristics of Included Studies
The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (44.9%), with the
country of origin not specified in 14.3% of studies. The next most frequent loca-
tions for the research were Spain (8.2%) and Canada (6.1%). Other countries
included Israel, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Greece, Russia, UK, Mexico, and
Turkey. Some studies covered more than one of these nations. Table S2 in the
online version of the journal presents a summary of the essential features of each
of the 49 studies reviewed. The table of studies includes an article reference num-
ber, first author, publication year, country, participants, study focus, theory, meth-
odology/methods, curriculum areas, teaching constraints, and strengths of the
learning contexts and can be found at the following link: [Link]
com/file/d/1NdzX5viXNm0JJe9XhVF-Lw1QMIs7CkgE/view?usp=sharing.
The most commonly used methodology applied was case studies (48.9%),
followed by interventions (22.4%), design-based research (10.2%), ethnogra-
phies (10.2%), exploratory or experimental (10.2%), and mixed methods
(8.2%). More than half of the studies selected distinct methodological nomen-
clature not shared by the other studies, while others combined methodologies.
The studies that met the criteria for inclusion spanned a wide range of curricu-
lum areas with technology (34.6%) and STEM (science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics; 34.7%) the most frequently occurring subjects for
researching coding in education, followed by computer science (24.5%), math-
ematics (18.3%), English (14.3%), science (10.2%), and STEAM (includes arts;
8.1%). An additional third of the studies focused on other subjects, such as
architecture, civic education, economics, e-textiles, history, humanities, media,
music, and social studies.
With respect to education contexts, the largest group of studies was conducted
in middle schools (28.6%), primary and elementary schooling constituted 24.5%,
and secondary or high school cohorts made up 16.4% of the studies. Interestingly,
14.9% of the studies focused on teachers as the main participant group of interest;
while a further 12.2% were studies that included diverse age ranges, for example,
adults, families, or large age ranges (e.g., 7 to 18 or 14 to 25). University and col-
lege participants were the focus of 12.2% of the studies reviewed, contrasting
with preschool or kindergarten participants in early childhood coding environ-
ments (4.1%). Note that these categories of education are not mutually exclusive,
since some studies included multiple participant groups across different contexts.
Across the studies that specified the numbers of research participants, a total of
2,542 students participated across the included studies, with a range of 1 to 324
participants per study. Three studies did not provide specific details of their par-
ticipants but rather (a) counted numbers of student digital artefacts produced (n =
1,116; Literat & Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018), (b) focused on a single teaching unit
(Grubbs, 2013), or (c) indicated only a range of participants across multiple sites
(Sheridan et al., 2014).
In some studies, multicultural cohorts were the most frequently described par-
ticipant group (10.2%), while the second largest group in the studies reviewed
were African American or students of color (6.1%), followed by bilingual speak-
ers of Spanish and English (4.1%). Other specific ethnicities included Indigenous

586
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
American (2%), Latina majority (2%), and other minority groups (2%). Other
characteristics used to describe the participant groups, included students with par-
ticular learning needs or who were differently abled (10.2%), gifted students
(4.1%), students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (8.1%), and students from
diverse socioeconomic backgrounds (4.1%). Of the studies that identified the gen-
der of the participants, the total number of identified males was 871 and females
was 854, totaling 1,725. Studies with a male-female gender balance comprised
22.4%, while studies with a male majority constituted 38.8%. Contrastingly, stud-
ies with a female majority comprised only 12.2%.
Most studies did not indicate whether the participants had any previous coding
or game design experience. Only one study specified that the research participants
had diverse previous game design experience, while four studies involved only
novice programmers with no prior experience. Several studies indicated that par-
ticipants had some previous experience in interactive media design or system
design. The learning experiences described in the studies spanned a wide variety
of in-school and out-of-school contexts, with 100% of studies specifying the
learning context, and seven studies including more than one research location.
The largest group of studies focused on face-to-face classes and workshops
(38.8%); a further 16.3% were conducted within online communities, such as
through Scratch.
The second most frequently occurring learning context was after-school clubs
and workshops, including elective classes conducted in conjunction with schools
(12.2%). A smaller group of the studies was conducted in university or college-
based lab programs (6.1%) attended by college-level students, while a further
6.1% were university-based lab programs attended by school children. Other con-
texts included summer school programs (4.08%), makerspaces (4.08%), libraries
(4.08%), a hospital-based program, a website-based coding program with an
online survey, teacher workshops, and a public event. The most frequently selected
coding software used in the studies was Scratch (32.6%), followed by three
equally used software systems: Lego (Mindstorms, Education WeDo, 6.1%),
Game Maker Studio (6.1%), and Makey Makey (6.1%). Arduino LilyPad kits
were also used in multiple studies (4.08%), while an additional 20 studies each
used a lesser-known program that was not common to any other study.
Results
The results are presented in four sections, with each section synthesizing the
findings of the 49 studies to address RQs 1 through 4.
Key Features of Learning Environments for Coding and Computational
Thinking
The first RQ seeks to identify the central elements of successful learning envi-
ronments to develop students’ coding and computational thinking. The results are
divided into subsections that attend to the prominent and recurring themes in the
studies, that: (a) distributed expertise is essential; (b) student-driven learning
works effectively with the support of timely explicit instruction; (c) problem-
solving skills should be taught early; (d) predictive thinking should be balanced

587
Mills et al.
with taking risks; (e) use coding and computational thinking to solve cross-disci-
plinary problems, and (f) utilize supportive online coding communities.

Distributed Expertise Is Essential

The need for distributed expertise in coding and computational thinking pro-
grams emerged as the most frequent finding among the features of successful
learning environments for coding and computational thinking. Distributed exper-
tise refers to cognition and knowledge that is distributed across a learning network
and utilized, for example, when groups work together to provide feedback and
support to one another (Bass et al., 2016). Students become expert novices in key
domains of knowledge and tutor other students in their area of knowledge applica-
tion. Learning experiences may be engineered to capitalize on this knowledge or
arise serendipitously (Brown et al., 1993). Learning to code was consistently
described as most productive when students were positioned as coconstructors of
knowledge, with examples that involved community-centered digital making
(Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2018). In contexts where students required learning
support, imitation of more capable peer experts was effective (Bargagna et al.,
2019). Student pairings were structured to optimize constructive and supportive
task-aligned dialogue (DeVane et al., 2016).
It is important to note that the degree and nature of peer collaboration varied
across the studies. While some interventions paired or grouped students to work
together from the outset, in other contexts students coded individual projects, but
involved peers by providing evaluative feedback, acting on feedback, acknowl-
edging effort, asking for guidance, playtesting, remixing coding, or sharing their
designs with peer audiences (An, 2016; Baytak & Land, 2010; Burke, 2012).
Distributed expertise simultaneously involved both peers and adult experts—
teachers, technical experts, community, and researchers—so that expertise was
intergenerational (Price & Price-Mohr, 2018; Tzou et al., 2019). For example, in
working on long-term independent digital media projects, underrepresented
minority young adults were supported by peers and instructors with a unique com-
bination of external industry experience and awareness of youth development
(Bass et al., 2016). Instructors encouraged creative expression, personal agency,
and sustained and supportive relationships through long-term community proj-
ects. Other examples include an after-school computational problem-solving lab
with middle school students using Kodu Game Lab, where learners were part-
nered with supportive peers, while adult mentors provided high-level cognitive
support to groups of struggling learners (DeVane et al., 2016).
A dominant theme was that within these intergenerational spaces emergent
maker cultures were actively shaped in community, which worked across a
varied array of maker projects and cultural contexts. For example, there were
long-term coding club settings (e.g., four years) in which comaking was prin-
cipally shaped by middle-school youth, utilizing their diverse interests and his-
toricized cultural practices of communities as legitimate resources for making
(Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2018). Likewise, in research with 146 economically
marginalized high school teenagers (in which 93% were students of color),
long-term student-driven 3D animation and game-making coding projects were
aimed to improve cognitive elements, but also encouraged civic engagement

588
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
and personal voice. Students reflected on their identities; their communities;
and their personal, political, and social worlds (Bass et al., 2016).
The same principles were applied in a programming workshop for high school
students involving an online design challenge by Scratch at MIT to code animated
music videos within a supportive learning community of mentors and peer-expert
groups (Fields et al., 2015). In another intergenerational setting, Indigenous fami-
lies were taught coding and robotics for restorative cultural storytelling, where
intergenerational support proved successful when aligned with family and com-
munity interests. The outcome was that families stretched their skills far beyond
basic coding because they were motivated to simulate key elements of cultural
significance in their designs (Tzou et al., 2019).
Across the studies, lessons involving distributed expertise required strategic
pedagogical work of teachers and other adults, particularly when introducing new
concepts or technology devices. Teachers established and reinforced interaction
rules, structures, and timelines to support peer collaboration, which was particu-
larly important to sustain group participation in coding and computational think-
ing projects (Bargagna et al., 2019; Bass et al., 2016).

Student-Driven Learning Works Effectively With the Support of Timely Explicit

Instruction
A consistent finding was that learners made significant gains in programming
concepts when student agency allowed for the student-driven creation of coding
projects in which student ownership and student choice were high, but where
timely explicit instruction was also provided. This included contexts where stu-
dents were self-directed and actively engaged on their own terms, often choosing
the focus of their programming projects to reflect their interests. In such contexts,
students developed an ability to code events; apply parallelism, logic, loops, and
computational practices; while maintaining motivation and commitment to cod-
ing and computational thinking challenges (Sáez-López et al., 2016).
Timely explicit instruction by teachers and other mentors was needed to
advance students’ high-level coding, such as to use cleaner and more efficient
logic and coding strategies (Denner et al., 2012). This approach involved system-
atically demonstrating to students the key ideas and steps required to learn some-
thing new. Teachers broke down complex tasks into simpler steps, used worked
examples, provided opportunities for students to practice with explicit guidance,
and frequently clarified learning objectives (Stockard et al., 2018). Using this
approach, fifth graders developed stronger reasoning skills using Game Maker,
which blended student ownership of learning with strategic scaffolding and guid-
ance by teachers (Baytak & Land, 2010). Similarly, junior high robotics students
using Lego Mindstorms appreciated short, focused segments of teacher instruc-
tion to support their student-driven projects because they were able to immedi-
ately put new knowledge to use, saving them considerable time (Barak & Zadok,
2009). Effective coding interventions used explicit instruction to analyze, anno-
tate, and discuss code (Ascenzi-Moreno et al., 2020), while students with no prior
coding experience required more extensive instructional support, particularly for
understanding high-level computational thinking concepts, more efficient coding,
and debugging (Denner et al., 2012).

589
Mills et al.
The optimal ratio between student-driven coding and teachers’ use of direct
instruction was found in a study of second-grade students learning robotics.
Teachers provided only short periods of instruction because students were impa-
tient to progress with their projects. Teachers kept students on task, managed time,
pointed students to resources, and helped those who had missed classes to catch
up (Egbert et al., 2021). Other research with middle school students emphasized
the importance of the teachers’ explicit guidance, especially at the beginning of
robotics problem-solving projects, to activate students’ prior knowledge and to
establish the task structure (Grubbs, 2013); and while students exercised owner-
ship of projects, adequate teacher expertise was vital (Khanlari, 2016). Approaches
were primarily student-driven—emphasizing student agency and self-direction—
supported by the teachers’ mini-instructional lessons, incidental teaching, valu-
able conversations, social support, and timely reminders. Rigid traditional models
of teaching were found to impose limits and reduce student motivation, and too
much teacher assistance notably reduced troubleshooting skill development
(Hughes & Morrison, 2018; Kafai et al., 2010; Lindsay & Hounsell, 2017).

Teach Problem-Solving Skills Early

A key finding was that problem-solving skills need to be taught early in school-
ing—not introduced for the first time in secondary schooling, a postsecondary
career, or technical training. For example, research with low-income, underrepre-
sented participants found that students were not exposed to problem-based
instruction early enough to develop their capacity sufficiently over time (Bass
et al., 2016). In contrast, coding success was demonstrated in research in early
childhood classrooms involving the use of Kibo robotics kits, which showed that
very young learners could grasp foundational skills involving coding in sequences,
using loops and conditionals, and debugging (Bers et al., 2019). Likewise, groups
of students aged 5 and 6 in a kindergarten classroom using Logo-based computer
programming of games were able to propose alternative, shorter coding solutions
to those of previous players (Fessakis et al., 2013).

Predictive Thinking Should Be Balanced With Taking Risks

Another important finding was that predictive thinking in coding and problem-
solving needs to be balanced with encouragement to take risks with programming
events. Coding sequences are then modified based on an evaluation of the play-
testing or action. Playtesting was often performed by peers as an important stage
of the design process across the studies. While certain apps, like Scratch Junior,
can encourage experimentation in coding and computational thinking methods,
operationalizing the teaching of problem solving requires a supportive learning
culture where students are encouraged to ask for help and can make errors
(Falloon, 2016). In a junior high college robotics class using Lego Mindstorms,
many students were able to solve problems intuitively but needed help to articu-
late and reflect on the problem-solving process rather than relying on lengthy
cycles of trial and error (Barak & Zadok, 2009).

Use Coding and Computational Thinking to Solve Cross-Disciplinary Problems

Importantly, many studies demonstrated the effective teaching of coding and
computational thinking to solve cross-disciplinary problems. For example, a
590
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
study of teaching physics through coding and e-textiles to high school students in
Grades 9 through 12 provided opportunities for students to debug and trouble-
shoot programs. The richly complex intersection of art, design, coding, and math-
ematics led students to engage across multiple disciplinary areas to solve problems
(Tofel-Grehl et al., 2021). Similarly, science-technology research with secondary
students (13–15 years) in a science center workshop made augmented board
games with Scratch (Kafai & Vasudevan, 2015). Pairs completed debug’ems—
Scratch programs with intentional faults—which were directly connected to the
functionality of their digitally supported board games. The students learned to use
sequences, events, operators, parallelism, conditionals, and loops, connecting
problem solving with knowledge beyond the technology curriculum.

Utilize Supportive Online Coding Communities

A key finding was that students learning to code prefer to have a genuine online
audience for their programs to enhance motivation, confidence, and pride in their
coding and computational accomplishments. For example, for young interactive
media designers (ages 7–18), the desire for an audience was important for sharing
their work online. Students engaged in valuable online conversations that informed
their identities and pride as programmers and received acknowledgement of their
efforts from the wider coding community (Brennan, 2016). Other studies found
that students were disappointed when their shared projects did not attract atten-
tion, but were excited when online comments were received, especially those that
originated beyond the school (Burke, 2012).
Interestingly, the confidence and skills to navigate online portals, such as the
online Scratch community, need to be nurtured early in students’ coding and com-
putational thinking development. For example, Year 6 students who learned to
code using Scratch in an after-school club needed a certain level of comfort and
familiarity with the site before being confident to share their coding. Students
were also cautious about remixing code from online participants, preferring to
observe rather than reuse others’ code. Students’ willingness and degree of
engagement with others in online coding communities varied, with some who
friended other users, commented on projects, and uploaded their own projects;
while others did not seek to share projects or seek feedback (Kafai et al., 2010).
Supportive online communities fostered communication beyond the imme-
diate classroom to receive feedback from wider online “affinity groups” with
shared coding interests (Gee, 2003). An example is a multisited study of an
after-school programming Collab Challenge, where high school students
(aged 14–18 years) coded games, animations, and stories that they shared with
members of the broader Scratch community. Participants were motivated to
engage with online communities to share their work, to receive recognition,
and to take responsibility for helping others (Kafai et al., 2012). This and
other research (e.g., Hagge, 2017) highlighted the value of online coding com-
munities for students’ self-expression, where participants gave and received
affirmations and encouragement. However, there were challenges in online
spaces, such as handling negative comments and unrelated political posts, and
students choosing to later remove posted content. This was the case with
research by Literat and Kligler-Vilenchik, (2018), who worked with Scratch

591
Mills et al.
members aged 8 to 13 years of age. Students reacted negatively to some online
content from peers, with younger students notably less equipped to critically
evaluate online comments.
Other studies reported ambivalence among students about online sharing of
coding, contributing to mixed results in terms of the nature and level of support
provided by online communities (Fields et al., 2015; Vasudevan et al., 2015).
Some participants perceived the degree of online support as relatively minor com-
pared to face-to-face support. While the online communication was less formative
in shaping students’ work than regular peers and mentors, students felt that the
online community was generally encouraging, while some modified their projects
based on constructive online feedback (Fields et al., 2015).
In terms of the opportunities that online communities such as Scratch provide
for remixing code, middle school youth (aged 11–13 years) engaged in this prac-
tice to varying degrees, from simple copying to more creative extensions of code,
performed at diverse levels of competency. Overall, remixing online code created
by online users was found to enhance coding and computational thinking at
school, particularly for beginning programmers (Fields et al., 2015; Hagge, 2017;
Literat & Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018).
Impact of Coding and Computational Thinking on Learning Outcomes Across
Curricula
Coding literacy for students was a key driver across the studies, but in answer-
ing our second RQ, we found there was an emphasis on four learning outcomes
identified as (a) computational thinking for problem solving, and creative and
critical thinking; (b) disciplinary knowledge through coding; (c) student agency,
self-direction, motivation, and active engagement; and (d) social and collabora-
tive skills and taking diverse perspectives. In the following four sections, we illus-
trate the findings for RQ2 by detailing the results within these subcategories.

Computational Thinking, Problem Solving, and Creative and Critical Thinking

Many of the articles positioned computational thinking for problem solv-
ing, along with creative and critical thinking, as key learning outcomes of the
research. Of the 49 articles reviewed, while there was some integration of the
desired learning outcomes, 9 studies identified computational thinking for
problem solving as central (e.g., Baytak & Land, 2010; Kafai & Vasudevan,
2015), 21 studies were specifically coded for developing students’ creative
thinking or fostering creativity (e.g., Hughes & Morrison, 2018; Sheridan
et al., 2014), and 7 studies identified critical thinking or evaluative skills (e.g.,
Fields et al., 2015; Ward et al., 2014).
While coding and computational thinking were often taught across the curricu-
lum, most interventions were centrally focused on the successful development of
students’ higher-order thinking skills, critical thinking skills, heuristic strategies,
predictive thinking, risk-taking and experimentation with programming, enhanced
algorithmic thinking, development of more efficient or shorter code, debugging
skills, and improved conceptualization of programming logic. Researchers
observed enhanced collaboration, communication, questioning, confidence, artic-
ulation of knowledge, and interpersonal skills, coupled with the development of

592
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
personal attributes, such as perseverance or tenacity when encountering new chal-
lenges (Barak & Zadok, 2009; Bers et al., 2019; DeVane et al., 2016; Falloon,
2016; Fessakis et al., 2013; Grubbs, 2013; Kafai & Vasudevan, 2015; Tofel-Grehl
et al., 2021).
Coding was deemed a vehicle for fostering problem solving in a range of
fields, such as mathematics, technology, or engineering, as students used critical
thinking based on real-life experiences and interdisciplinary problems (Barak &
Zadok, 2009; Egbert et al., 2021; Sacristán & Pretelín-Ricárdez, 2017). Developing
problem solving through robotics, for instance, highlighted how technology edu-
cation is often embedded across disciplines through STEM curricula. Robotics
emerged as the most frequently researched activity for teaching problem solving,
with programming and playtesting code an essential feature of these environ-
ments (e.g., Barak & Zadok, 2009; Bass et al., 2016; Bers et al., 2019; DeVane
et al., 2016; Grubbs, 2013). For example, a study used robotics to facilitate learn-
ing related to engineering design processes as students solved authentic problems
to think critically to plan, design, and evaluate a robotics program for a local
council to use to clean a sports stadium (Grubbs, 2013). Similarly, students were
engaged in thinking critically to elicit solutions to problems in a study that
engaged second-grade students to design codes for robot pathways (e.g., turning,
going faster), while thinking creatively to design their own tracks for the robots
(Egbert et al., 2021). Developing knowledge of basic robotics was also used to
improve polytechnic orientation of the academic process, where robotics was
considered a special teaching technology (Ospennikova et al., 2015).
Other contexts involved coding and debugging with Scratch and Scratch Junior
(e.g., Falloon, 2016; Kafai & Vasudevan, 2015), other digital game design pro-
grams (DeVane et al., 2016; Fessakis et al., 2013), and making e-textiles (Tofel-
Grehl et al., 2021). Computational participation involved projects that fostered
creative skills to design and remix, alongside traditional conceptions of coding
and programming through digital game creation with tools, such as Kodu and
Scratch, to engage with abstract problem solving (DeVane et al., 2016).
Fostering problem solving, critical thinking, and creativity was an important
goal across the studies. For example, coding was embedded in the social studies
curriculum when 7th-grade classes created different sprites to develop historically
accurate games on containing communism. Aimed to be challenging and fun, cod-
ing equipped students to think critically and creatively (An, 2016), skillsets with
cross-disciplinary application (Abrami et al., 2015).

Disciplinary Knowledge Through Coding

Advancing student disciplinary knowledge was clearly an important outcome
of many of the coding and computational thinking studies. Knowledge goals
within STEM were identified in 42 cases (e.g., Grubbs, 2013; Khanlari, 2016;
Sacristán & Pretelín-Ricárdez, 2017; Tofel-Grehl et al., 2021). For example,
Khalili et al. (2011) focused on developing key concepts in immunology with
high school students through game development in STEM. Seven of the articles
were double coded within the four disciplines; for instance, three studies were
coded for both science and technology (Aragon et al., 2009; Baytak & Land,
2010; Pinto-Llorente et al., 2018). There were also cases where coding and related

593
Mills et al.
problem-solving skills were used to develop disciplinary knowledge beyond
STEM that were related to architecture, civic education, economics, e-textiles,
history, humanities, media, music, and social studies—but were also cross-cate-
gorized for integrating elements of disciplinary knowledge related to technology
(e.g., An, 2016; Gestwicki & McNely, 2012; Literat & Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018;
Ratcliff & Anderson, 2011; Sáez-López et al., 2016).
Some studies examined the potential of coding to support language expression,
providing an approach in language arts where code was used to compose digital
stories, games, animations, and integrated literacy activities (Ascenzi-Moreno
et al., 2020; Brennan, 2016; Parry et al., 2020; Price & Price-Mohr, 2018; Sáez-
López et al., 2016). For example, a code-integrated language arts project used
Scratch to facilitate middle school student storytelling, with the application of
computational thinking practices, like abstraction and debugging, to build on the
idea that code is not experienced in a vacuum (Ascenzi-Moreno et al., 2020). The
idea that code can be annotated, discussed, and used in a story, connected to lan-
guage, literacy, and other aspects of their lives and communities, was a pedagogi-
cal approach used to develop both language arts and computing skills for digital
media skills (Brennan, 2016; Hagge 2017) and multimodal authoring (Ascenzi-
Moreno et al., 2020; Parry et al., 2020; Price & Price-Mohr, 2018; Sáez-López
et al., 2016).
In another instance, Gestwicki and McNely (2012) worked with university
undergraduates using a five-phase design thinking model as a lens for producing
a serious game for an educational museum. The cycle consisted of empathy, prob-
lem definition, ideation, prototyping, and testing and was embedded in a program
to create a game with Root Beer Float Studio in Muncie, Indiana, in cooperation
with The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis. The game included the player in the
role of a museum volunteer who was tasked with creating digital exhibits from the
museum’s collection with the aim to develop coding, designing exhibits, and
thinking for game-based designs.
In our review, we identified 13 studies specifically focused on teaching cross-
disciplinary outcomes, generating evidence of the value of coding for learning
across the curriculum. For example, one study that focused on language arts–
based coding taught multimodal authoring skills and critical media literacies
(Price & Price-Mohr, 2018). The affordances for STEM-arts practices, grounded
in storytelling, engaged cultural ways of knowing while cultivating learning out-
comes in STEM through the design of new technologies (Tzou et al., 2019). As
interdisciplinary learning makes for astute problem solving, these studies offer
important insights that lay the groundwork for future AI-based coding and other
forms of mathematical thinking taught with computational thinking, such as prob-
ability, statistics, and measurement (Hickmott et al., 2018).

Student Agency, Self-Direction, Motivation, and Active Engagement

Coding and computational thinking experiences across the studies demon-
strated opportunities to exercise agency, self-direction, motivation, and to be
actively engaged in the learning process. Activities encouraged creative expres-
sion, personal agency, and pursuing interests (Bass et al., 2016), with attention to
how pedagogies for coding can enhance a strong sense of responsibility and

594
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
autonomy (Franetovic, 2016). Student agency was facilitated through trial-and-
error strategies that involved iterations of debugging. Students applied conceptual
models about how to use space, resources, and time, with students becoming
highly motivated and engaged (Ratcliff & Anderson, 2011; Sacristán & Pretelín-
Ricárdez, 2017; Sáez-López et al., 2016; Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019).
Significant improvements in learning programming concepts, logic, and com-
putational practices were noted in a study of fifth- and sixth-grade students. Sáez-
López et al. (2016) used Scratch in classrooms with 107 students. The pedagogical
design involved students in creating their own stimulating content in sciences and
arts. The intrinsic sense of reward, and sense of ownership of learning overcame
issues related to disability and gender, was demonstrated in a study involving
problem solving with fourth graders (Ratcliff & Anderson, 2011). This also high-
lighted the value of early experiences (Buitrago Flórez et al., 2017).
A focus on media production also offered opportunities for self-direction and
engagement. Parry et al. (2020) show that engaging students in media production in
which participants create video games/stories can also enhance student autonomy.
Identifying pedagogical approaches to support this, McDougall and Potter’s (2019)
application of the “third space” (Gutiérrez, 2008) provides a useful framework for
understanding opportunities for productive disruptions as contested, negotiated, and
political. Young people selected their own ideas for stories, developing self-direc-
tion and a sense of agency, particularly as they had the option to write themselves
into fictional texts. As society transitions to Industry 5.0—where humans and
machines combine—fostering student agency, self-direction, motivation, and active
engagement will be vital to produce unique and customized outputs.

Social and Collaborative Skills and Taking Diverse Perspectives

Coding and computational thinking offered scope to advance participatory cul-
tures, facilitating opportunities to promote interest-driven communities where
students come together to create, remix, and share their work (Grimes & Fields,
2015). Programs such as Scratch were used to provide dynamic spaces for young
programmers to create, comment on peers’ work, and seek help in supportive
forums and sharing expertise to enhance the product (Fields et al., 2015). Such
programs support collaborative environments for unique coding, debugging to
resolve challenges, and engagement with computational concepts as a team (Kafai
et al., 2012; Kafai & Vasudevan, 2015). Participation in online learning communi-
ties was also found to facilitate the development of interpersonal skills and com-
munication (Hagge, 2017).
Students learned the value of taking diverse perspectives when designing a
game or playtesting, and from iterations of feedback (An, 2016; Sheridan et al.,
2014; Tzou et al., 2019). Shifts in classroom dynamics from teacher-centered or
initiated to learner-centered—with a focus on distributed knowledge—can create
more space for students to feel a sense of efficacy and their social presence in the
classroom and learning process, building a community of practice (Hughes &
Morrison, 2018). Game-making allowed students to enhance their problem solv-
ing as they conceptualized the integration of game elements, realized computa-
tional concepts and practices in their game designs, and reflected on their game
design experience.

595
Mills et al.
Social and collaborative skills were fostered through shared interests (Kafai &
Vasudevan, 2015), the need for teams or communities to achieve goals (Brennan,
2016; Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019), and through students’ combined efforts
to create (Grimes & Fields, 2015). Bass et al. (2016) showed student engagement
in several phases of game development involving distributed expertise from peers
and their instructor—building a community of practice through peer feedback.
Other studies embedded coding within literacy (Parry et al., 2020), science (Tofel-
Grehl et al., 2021), and the arts (Sáez-López et al., 2016), pointing to the social
aspects and opportunities to foster alternative points of view.
Pedagogical Constraints for Teaching Coding and Computational Thinking
Constraints for teaching coding and computational thinking were identified in
most of the original studies (84%, 41 out of 49), with just eight of the studies not
addressing this question (RQ3). Most studies (80%) raised multiple concerns
encountered when teaching coding. Some studies drew attention to up to 10 dif-
ferent barriers and constraints occurring in these education innovations (see
Egbert et al., 2021; Gaeta et al., 2019; Khanlari, 2016; Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu,
2019). Across the 41studies, a total of 131 different teaching and learning con-
straints that negatively impacted the teaching of coding and computational think-
ing were identified.
This section presents the results for the third RQ—to identify and discuss the
pedagogical constraints for teaching coding and computational thinking. It
reviews the main types of constraint recurring across the original studies, from
most to least common: (a) lack of teacher and student skills, knowledge, experi-
ence, and creativity, (b) technology context difficulties, (c) social communication
problems, (d) barriers to developing student and teacher coding proficiency, (e)
general learning environment problems, and (f) time constraints.

Teacher and Student Lack of Skills, Knowledge, Experience, and Creativity

Coding constraints associated with limited coding knowledge, slow improve-
ment, or limited creativity constituted the most frequent type of problem and
applied both to teachers and students. The range of factors has significant implica-
tions for teaching coding, from the dual perspectives of teachers and students. For
teachers, the most common constraint concerned their initially low valuing of
coding in projects (17.9%), which was mitigated to some extent by researchers
working with a project teacher (Egbert et al., 2021; Khanlari, 2016).
Limited support for teacher practice and professional development or training
was also frequently noted (see, for example, Bers et al., 2019; Israel et al., 2015;
Lindsay & Hounsell, 2017; Pinto-Llorente et al., 2018). A smaller number of
teachers discussed how their limited experience with coding impacted their con-
fidence to learn and teach these skills (e.g., Rich et al., 2021). Some teachers
experienced stress (Egbert et al., 2021), could provide only limited teacher role
modelling (Denner et al., 2012), and lacked coding-related computational think-
ing proficiency (Snodgrass et al., 2016).
Teachers were critical of some of the primary students’ coded stories in a
study that looked at manipulating code to represent story meaning. The teach-
ers were unimpressed with emerging stories in which story characters were

596
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
underdeveloped and stories lacked appropriate grammar and words to create
interest (Price & Price-Mohr, 2018). In another study that used robotics for
educational purposes, elementary school teachers perceived that the program
did not prepare students for mandated outcomes and tests; the topic was unnec-
essary; and the subject was costly with respect to the time, resources, and effort
required (Khanlari, 2016).
Student-related learning constraints were identified. For example, a study by
An (2016) illustrated how middle school students who were designing and creat-
ing their own games were surprised to discover the amount of creativity and imag-
ination the task required. Teachers identified that a group of mostly novice
programmer middle school students were unwilling to use some computer science
concepts, which necessitated greater instructional support (An, 2016; Denner
et al., 2012). A further example was students’ inability to set up contexts and
objectives of the games: They needed to program with greater empathy for the
experiences of the video game player. This was identified in a study in which
university students designed an educational video game on how museums operate
(Gestwicki & McNely, 2012).
Students’ learning of coding was constrained by their lack of content knowl-
edge (Fessakis et al., 2013; Khalili et al., 2011) or the difficulty in integrating
other subject knowledge—such as mathematics—into coding (Tonbuloğlu &
Tonbuloğlu, 2019). Similarly, a lack of task structure frustrated efforts to simulta-
neously develop computation techniques and problem-solving abilities (e.g.,
DeVane et al., 2016; Ratcliff & Anderson, 2011). Deficiencies found across the
studies were teachers’ low valuing of coding, limited teacher training, or students’
lack of content knowledge or insufficient task support—each detrimental to the
development of coding and computational thinking abilities (Bers et al., 2019;
Denner et al., 2012; Egbert et al., 2021; Fessakis et al., 2013; Khalili et al., 2011;
Khanlari, 2016; Pinto-Llorente et al., 2018; Rich et al., 2021).

Technology Context Constraints

A considerable proportion of studies specified technological factors as an
impediment to teaching and learning coding and computational thinking, with
coding tasks requiring technical expertise to overcome problems with computer
hardware, software, or the internet that was beyond the reach of teachers (Baytak
& Land, 2010; Egbert et al., 2021; Khanlari, 2016). This was coupled with stu-
dents performing inefficient coding actions, such as continual reframing and test-
ing (DeVane et al., 2016), or students making random adjustments to code
(Falloon, 2016).
General technical problems included poor Wi-Fi connections and log in prob-
lems, and network support that was limiting for multiple devices (Gaeta et al.,
2019). Students cited difficulties with the process of publishing games online,
finding that progress required a considerable amount of patience (Frydenberg,
2015). Some platforms supported limited actions, potentially contributing to
unimpressive coded stories (Price & Price-Mohr, 2018).
A further cause for concern was the difficulty inherent in some coding soft-
ware, which resulted in students struggling to use critical coding elements or
to meaningfully combine them (Theodosiou & Karasavvidis, 2015). Certain

597
Mills et al.
programming issues caused students to give up in some cases (Pinto-Llorente
et al., 2018). Other studies noted that coding technology difficulties discour-
aged students from exploring the remixing process (Kafai et al., 2010), or
from debugging (Kafai et al., 2014). Some students chose not to make their
video interactive (Fields et al., 2015), while others overengaged with technol-
ogy (Egbert et al., 2021). The technology’s novelty for students was also
found to diminish by the end of two program cycles (Gaeta et al., 2019). These
examples illustrate how technological limitations, including inherent difficul-
ties of coding infrastructure and software, can create issues that frustrate stu-
dent progress to develop their coding abilities (Baytak & Land, 2010; Egbert
et al., 2021; Frydenberg, 2015; Gaeta et al., 2019; Kafai et al., 2010, 2014).

Social Communication Problems

Several constraints related to social communication problems, especially
within online communities. There were general social communication difficulties
online and offline (e.g., Bargagna et al., 2019; Sheridan et al., 2014), challenges
specific to the online activity (Franetovic, 2016; Kafai et al., 2010), and social
difficulties—such as shared online projects being ignored (Brennan, 2016), com-
petitiveness among friends (Fessakis et al., 2013), and disagreement among teams
(Pinto-Llorente et al., 2018). In other studies of coding offline, student interac-
tions in group work were identified as a constraint when highly engaged students
became intolerant towards their less motivated peers (Franetovic, 2016).
Online community-derived constraints were identified on the Scratch pro-
gramming platform, with students experiencing disappointment and confusion
when their online efforts were ignored, and students avoiding potentially negative
attention from the Scratch community. This discouraged students from sharing
their work, while prompting others to remove posts (Brennan, 2016; Literat &
Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018). Working with online communities was also found to
effect a change in the nature of the project coded by participants. For example,
students changed their personal stories to video games to safeguard the online
exposure of their work, while their personal stories did not transfer well to the
Scratch platform (Burke, 2012). Combative comments or misinformation posted
online resulted in participants being reported or blocked for causing offence
(Literat & Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018). Approximately 40.8% of identified con-
straints across studies addressed unforeseen issues for students communicating
online, pointing to the need to carefully monitor and support online interaction
(Brennan, 2016; Burke, 2012; Franetovic, 2016; Kafai et al., 2010; Literat &
Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018).

Barriers to Student and Teacher Learning Progress in Coding and

Computational Thinking
Cognitive-based coding difficulties, for both teachers and students, was an
even more challenging obstacle than the deficiency-type constraint reviewed
above (“Teacher and Student Lack of Skills, Knowledge, Experience, and
Creativity”).
The most cited learning struggle (15.8%) related to the complexity of coding
tasks (Bargagna et al., 2019) or complex programming activities, which involved

598
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
concepts beyond the understanding of young novice programmers. These were
tasks such as incorporating global variables to earn points in a computer game
(Denner et al., 2012), and difficulty processing instructions, which contributed to
the participants’ less proficient take-up of more complex coding and computa-
tional thinking (Bargagna et al., 2019; Frydenberg, 2015).
The next most cited learning ability constraint centered on students’ inability
to transfer skills (or concepts) from one context to another. For example, problem
solving is often domain-specific, making it difficult for students to transfer such
learning across contexts (Barak & Zadok, 2009; Falloon, 2016). Several individu-
ally identified constraints related to the differing amount of perceived student
support, for example, student struggles due to teachers’ use of computational
thinking pedagogy, or specific types of learning support for students needing sig-
nificant help (Frydenberg, 2015, p. 260; Snodgrass et al., 2016).
Some research studies found that a poor enactment of discovery learning led to
chaotic procedures, such as in the case where students using Logo coded ran-
domly and impulsively (Ratcliff & Anderson, 2011). One study found that free-
dom of choice can paralyze some students with learning disabilities and,
conversely, too much assistance deters students from experiencing failure and
taking troubleshooting risks (Hughes & Morrison, 2018). Other constraints were
students’ infrequent use of sophisticated programming (Fields et al., 2015),
unequal participation in group work (Kafai & Vasudevan, 2015), reduced motiva-
tion (Hughes & Morrison, 2018), and unfinished games (Khalili et al., 2011).
Students became unmotivated when they could not see their own coding and
computational thinking progress or if learning progress was slow (Tonbuloğlu &
Tonbuloğlu, 2019). Teachers also had trouble incorporating design concepts into
their own game designs, producing low-quality products that failed to meet the
minimum assessment criteria (Theodosiou & Karasavvidis, 2015). Cognitive-
based difficulties—such as student inability to understand and integrate complex
coding tasks—together with issues of teacher support were key issues impacting
students’ coding and computational thinking development (Denner et al., 2012;
Falloon, 2016; Frydenberg, 2015; Hughes & Morrison, 2018; Ratcliff &
Anderson, 2011).

General Learning Environment Problems Arising in Coding Lessons

Problems that can arise in teaching or learning environments resulting in low
student engagement and off-task behavior occurred in similar proportions to
cognitive-based difficulties (see previous subsection). For example, negative
behaviors observed in coding classrooms included low student engagement
(Franetovic, 2016) and student distraction (Egbert et al., 2021). Overcrowded
classes were occasionally problematic vis-à-vis scheduling activities and team-
work (e.g., Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019). Further concerns related to aspects
of the classroom or workshop environment itself. For example, in one study, the
sterile computer room situated away from the public library space limited the
youths from negotiating the disruptions they needed to make their video games.
This was additional to the youths’ recognition that their video games’ sounds
were incompatible with the library’s requisite silence (Parry et al., 2020).
Another study, which explored best practices among young adolescent learners

599
Mills et al.
using e-textiles, highlighted that a “stricter” teaching style is problematic. The
researchers found that rigid approaches constrained the students’ motivation
and engagement by imposing purpose—such as having to create a particular
project—instead of offering a broader range of projects (Hughes & Morrison,
2018). They recommended that once students have understood the theoretical
concepts of makerspace tools, they should choose their own end product to gen-
erate internal motivation.
Issues related to underuse or overuse of learning materials and resources to
teach coding were also identified. In one study, well-written instructional materi-
als were available, but failed to enable middle school students to understand or
incorporate coding concepts, such as variables, into their computer games (Denner
et al., 2012). In some cases, programming documentation, mobile app templates,
and standardized methods of presenting information were lacking (Denner et al.,
2012; Ward et al., 2014), while other learning materials were excessively detailed
(Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019). In contrast to sole reliance on coding materials
(Rich et al., 2021), well-designed professional development programs heightened
teacher coding confidence, with consequent successful teacher support for stu-
dents coding their projects.
Overall, problems observed in coding lessons or workshops—similar to
those arising in other curriculum areas—included learning challenges, class
size and ambience, timing of lessons, teaching styles and student motivation,
and underreliance or overreliance on instructional materials (Bers et al.,
2019; Denner et al., 2012; Egbert et al., 2021; Franetovic, 2016; Hughes &
Morrison, 2018; Rich et al., 2021; Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019; Ward
et al., 2014).

Time Constraints
Finally, time-related constraints presented a barrier to teaching and devel-
oping effective coding skills, notably in school and university programs. One
third pointed to limited or inadequate availability of time in the curriculum.
For example, a 10-week program for fifth graders to examine the effect of
unplugged coding activities found that the allocated time was insufficient for
students to implement their activities and their problem-solving skills did not
improve (Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019). Time was problematic in Grade
2 classrooms, where coding lessons took place using Ozobot and Ozoblockly,
which required a long time to set up and organize materials to teach coding
(Egbert et al., 2021). Time constraints impacted opportunities to demonstrate
content-area knowledge, such as fifth graders designing computer games to
understand nutrition, who had insufficient time to incorporate all functions in
their pregame design (Baytak & Land, 2010). A study on the effect of con-
tinuous professional development (5 day-long sessions over 1 year) on cod-
ing in elementary schools found that more structured time was required to
teach coding effectively (Rich et al., 2021). With time constraints docu-
mented in 35% of the studies, a greater amount of time needs to be built into
professional development for teaching coding and computational thinking
across the curriculum.

600
Figure 1. Six conceptual frameworks for coding and computational thinking.

Conceptual Frameworks Used to Support Coding in Education and Gaps in

Knowledge
In this section, we examine the major conceptual frameworks used to support
inquiry into coding in various educational contexts. We draw inferences about
which frameworks have been marginalized and identify emerging concepts that
may point to future trends. Each conceptual framework was independently
grouped by broader categories that were based on their theoretical, conceptual,
and methodological links. For example, notions of “constructivism” and “social
constructivism” were situated within the broader category of sociocultural frame-
works. A similar process was used when overlapping concepts were implied by,
for example, referencing theories by Papert (1990), Kafai (2018), or Piaget and
Cook (1954) in relation to constructivist and sociocultural approaches; and Wing
(2006), Brennan (2016), or Resnick (2012) in relation to computational thinking.
Overall, our approach yielded six conceptual frameworks that we used to organize
our inquiry into the relevant literature: concepts relating to computational think-
ing, sociocultural theory, student-centered approaches, design thinking, digital
literacies, and social inclusion (see Figure 1, noting that hexagon size is represen-
tative of the proportion of articles).

Applying a Computational Thinking Lens to Understanding Coding

Of the 49 articles in our review, 26 (54.2%) drew upon computational
thinking approaches to guide their research inquiry. Researchers such as
Brennan (2016), Resnick (2012), Kafai (2018), Papert and Harel (1991), and
Wing (2006) were frequently cited for having influenced the studies that
applied a computational thinking approach to understanding coding. Brennan
and Resnick’s (2012) framework, for example, featured prominently among
these studies, characterizing computational thinking as comprising “computa-
tional concepts—the concepts designers employ as they program, computa-
tional practices—the practices designers develop as they program, and
computational perspectives—the perspectives designers form about the world
around them and about themselves” (p. 3).

601
Mills et al.
Among the most salient claims of those who used a computational thinking
lens pertained to students’ domain-specific knowledge and skills. While some-
what dependent on the type of coding environment used during learning (e.g.,
Scratch, Game Maker, LEGO Mindstorms), these benefits nevertheless shared
similarities across studies. These included capabilities affecting the students’ abil-
ity to code with structure, timing and sequencing, feedback loops, conditional
logic, parallelisms, testing and debugging, and reusing and remixing (see Kafai &
Vasudevan, 2015; Pinto-Llorente et al., 2018).
A stronger set of claims informed the proposition that employing a computa-
tional thinking approach can contribute broader benefits to higher-order thinking
constructs, such as systems thinking, problem solving, critical and creative think-
ing, self-regulated learning, and applied algorithmic thinking—where students
learn to break problems down into smaller solvable elements (e.g., Falloon, 2016;
Israel et al., 2015; Khalili et al., 2011; Pinto-Llorente et al., 2018). These domain-
general benefits and thinking skills strengthen motivation, satisfaction, and self-
efficacy among students and teachers (Rich et al., 2021).
An explanation as to why adopting a computational thinking framework is so
appealing is because it can cultivate skills that are transferable to future careers in
computing (Denner et al., 2012). Others contend that computational thinking
helps students master “universal academic actions” and complex cognitive pro-
cesses (e.g., imagination, speech, memory), and form interdisciplinary links
between fields such as mathematics, science, and the humanities (Ospennikova
et al., 2015, pp. 24–25). However, Barak and Zadok (2009) dispute claims about
generalizability, arguing that knowledge about coding is best advanced within the
bounds of current and meaningful learning rather than for the purposes of distant
topics or future careers.

Applying a Sociocultural Lens to Coding and Computational Thinking

Notions of computational thinking were often situated alongside conceptual
frameworks arising from sociocultural theory, such as constructivist and social
constructivist approaches. Of the 49 articles in our review, 20 were identified as
having drawn upon sociocultural theory to guide their research inquiry (40.8%).
Mercer and Howe (2012) argue that sociocultural theory enables us to see that
“knowledge is not just an individual possession, but also the creation and shared
property of members of communities who use ‘cultural tools’ (including spoken
and written language), relationships, and institutions (such as schools) for that
purpose” (p. 12).
Research that applied a sociocultural lens cited inspiration from authors of
the early to mid-20th century, such as Papert (1990), Vygotsky (1978), and
Piaget (see Piaget and Cook, 1954), as well as 21st-century theorists, such as
Kafai (2018) and Resnick (2012). The sociocultural lens may overcome some
of the individualistic connotations of coding by empowering researchers to
examine knowledge as socially constructed, where students learn coding as
one learns a new language—through dynamic interactions with self, others,
technology, and culture. This approach integrates the role of others in learning
as pillars of the learning experience, particularly through guided participation

602
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
(e.g., “scaffolding”), participatory appropriation, and apprenticeship by a more
knowledgeable other (Rogoff, 2008).
Within the sociocultural-oriented studies, it was not just “making games” that
exemplified a sociocultural framework, but also in “making games for and with
other students” (Denner et al., 2012, p. 241). It is thus unsurprising that the socio-
cultural theories, including constructivist and social-constructivist perspectives,
have been closely aligned with what is known as the “maker movement” (Bass
et al., 2016; Hughes & Morrison, 2018; Sheridan et al., 2014; Tofel-Grehl et al.,
2021). This approach seeks to expand the curiosity of learners by guiding them
through a “tinkering” process as a means for making (e.g., robots, video games,
computers), leading to “rich opportunities to reimagine what is taught and what is
possible” (Tofel-Grehl et al., 2021, pp. 120, 127). Individual identity within a
sociocultural coding framework is not considered apart from the group identity,
but a vital component of it. Students are encouraged to pursue learning of personal
interests within a supportive community, directing their skills for academic and
career purposes (Ito et al., 2013). A sociocultural lens does not necessarily exclude
traditional approaches, such as explicit teaching and direct instruction (Barak &
Zadok, 2009).

Applying a Student-Centered Lens to Understanding Coding and Computational

Thinking
A potential limitation of the sociocultural lens is that it may not cater to situa-
tions where learning is led by and for students, taking into account their individual
differences, learning needs, strengths, and weaknesses. Such approaches to cod-
ing, sometimes referred to as “student-centered approaches,” were influential in
24.5% of articles (12 out of 49), and included themes such as student-centered
design, flexible learning, participatory learning, student voice, learner agency,
adaptive learning, and self-directed learning. According to McCombs (2001),
student-centered approaches are characterized by four key features: including stu-
dents in key decisions about their learning, valuing students’ unique perspectives,
respecting individual differences (e.g., in abilities, backgrounds, experiences),
and situating students as cocreators of their own teaching and learning experi-
ences (see p. 186).
Unlike sociocultural theories that can sometimes emphasize top-down knowl-
edge gradients from expert to learner (e.g., apprenticeship, mentoring), student-
centered approaches emphasize active participation, power sharing, flexibly
adapting to learner needs, promoting autonomy, making content personally rele-
vant, and using formative assessment to address learning needs and academic goals
(see Bremner et al., 2022). Parry et al. (2020), for example, applied a student-cen-
tered approach to coding known as a “third space” in which the production of
video games is used not just as a space to develop coding skills but to promote
agency and voice among students, develop critical and creative thinking in person-
ally meaningful contexts, disrupt conventional narratives, and challenge hegemo-
nies. They draw on the notion of the third space as contested, negotiated, and
inherently political (McDougall & Potter, 2019). Others have found student-cen-
tered approaches to coding and computational thinking provide insights into pro-
moting equity among students with disabilities in STEM fields (Lindsay &
Hounsell, 2017) and for the teaching of complex content (Tofel-Grehl et al., 2021).
603
Mills et al.
Student-centered approaches are not without criticism. For example, Bremner
et al. (2022) explored student-centered approaches revealing a paucity of evi-
dence of their effectiveness on objective learning outcomes, few longitudinal
studies to demonstrate efficacy over time, and an overreliance on computer-medi-
ated supports that widen the gap between the technology “haves” and “have nots.”
Critics have also accused student-centered approaches of promoting active stu-
dents and passive teachers, prioritizing individual experience over linguistically
mediated cultural knowledge, and conflating educational outcomes with develop-
mental processes (see Mascolo, 2009, p. 7). A tension between student- and
teacher-centered approaches may arise when students have limited prior knowl-
edge of programming (Denner et al., 2012). In such instances, teachers may ben-
efit from momentarily adopting teacher-centered techniques. These shortcomings
may explain why the authors in our reviewed studies favorably cited sociocultural
(41.7%) over student-centered (24.5%) approaches.

Applying a Design Thinking Lens to Coding and Computational Thinking

It is difficult to consider the student-centered paradigm separate from the
design elements of the learning task and environment. This highlights the impor-
tance of “design thinking,” which can be characterized by “an analytic and cre-
ative process that engages a person in opportunities to experiment, create and
prototype models, gather feedback, and redesign” (Razzouk & Shute, 2012, p.
330). In our synthesis, we identified 22.44% of articles (11 out of 49) that
employed this framework in coding classrooms. It was often closely coupled with
the notion of “authentic learning” that emphasizes cultural relevance, authentic
learning pedagogy, real-world relevance, lifelong learning, and aims to foster
interest-driven participation among students.
Design thinking may also be associated with themes of instructional design,
studio design, architecture, aesthetics, arts design, games-based design, and scaf-
folding. A “studio model” of pedagogy, for example, offers a design-thinking
approach that is based on (a) complex, authentic, real-world projects character-
ized by “ill-defined problems”; (b) guided problem solving with creative con-
straints that foster “early failure and later success”; and (c) externalization and
reflection—whereby learning artefacts are produced and elicit discussion (see
Fields et al., 2015, pp. 615–616). Gaeta et al. (2019) have suggested that design-
driven approaches may retain a distinct pedagogical purpose by adopting applica-
tions (e.g., Pocket Code) that are codesigned by teachers and students to better
reflect specific learning and teaching needs.

Applying a Digital Literacies Lens to Coding and Computational Thinking

Digital literacies are vital for students to navigate an information-rich digital
media environment. For this reason, digital literacies extend beyond mere techni-
cal skills (e.g., typing, web searching), enabling students to engage in multiple
modes of learning; develop their digital identities; make meaning of the world;
build digital records of past experience; and improve confidence, self-efficacy,
and motivation—all within and beyond the context of the digital environments
where such practices take place (Littlejohn et al., 2012). The notion of digital lit-
eracies in the context of our review is therefore situated within a broader context

604
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
of “collaboratively accomplished social practices that are achieved through
human and non-human elements” (see Mills, 2016, p. 124).
A digital literacies lens was emphasized in 8 of the 49 articles (16.3%).
Everyday digital literacies, digital media literacies, new literacies, multimodal
texts, digital storytelling, production pedagogies, and coding as a new literacy,
were commonly used terms—alongside the notion of digital literacies—though
each with nuanced distinctions. A recurrent theme was that digital literacies are
both “meaningful and generative of meaning” for the learner (Littlejohn et al.,
2012, p. 551). Ascenzi-Moreno et al. (2020) applied this in a coding study that not
only engaged and honored students’ cultural and linguistic diversity but enabled
them to “participate in and create new ways of engaging in literacy” (p. 51).
Others argue that a digital literacies lens can empower culturally diverse students
to critique media affordances and have space to experiment and play (Bers et al.,
2019; Price & Price-Mohr, 2018).

Applying a Socially Inclusive Lens to Coding and Computational Thinking

We identified socially inclusive approaches in 20.4% of articles (10 out of 49)
where programs targeted traditionally marginalized groups such as students with
disabilities, those enrolled in special education and gifted programs, Indigenous
and ethnically diverse students, as well as those from lower-socioeconomic back-
grounds. For example, a case analysis by Snodgrass et al. (2016) applied a
Universal Design for Learning framework to improve computational thinking
among students with disabilities using Scratch and [Link]. Others have aimed
their efforts at examining ways of differentiating teaching and learning to better
support coding and computational thinking among Indigenous, gifted, talented,
and creative students (Hagge, 2017; Hughes & Morrison, 2018; Tzou et al., 2019),
although such efforts are not without challenges. For example, teachers expressed
concerns about the considerable time, effort, and expertise needed to develop and
maintain bespoke pedagogies that maximize inclusion of diverse learners (see
Snodgrass et al., 2016).
Discussion
The development of new coding and computational thinking curricula and
pedagogies to solve cross-disciplinary problems are needed to augment students’
education in preparation for impending digital disruption to the future workforce.
Extending well beyond computing and writing code, computational thinking
involves essential multidisciplinary skillsets that are essential to future careers in
a digital knowledge economy at the intersection of advanced human cognition
and computing. This systematic review has brought together a substantial body of
original studies demonstrating that computer coding is no longer conceived and
taught as a niche technical skill of computer scientists, but as transverse and criti-
cal computational thinking skills—complex and powerful ways of reasoning and
solving problems through mathematics and writing (Papert, 1990, p. 7). The
requirement for such ways of thinking to be taught in schooling and postsecond-
ary education is heightened as educators prepare students for digital participation
and future workforces, where digital divides lead to an intensification of eco-
nomic inequities amid a technological revolution.

605
Mills et al.
In the majority of studies within the meta-synthesis, the gender of partici-
pants was described, but gender differences in coding experiences were not a
specific topic of interrogation. Of those studies within the meta-synthesis that
reported the gender composition of their cohorts, there were fewer female par-
ticipants overall (male = 76.1%; female = 23.9%), and binary classifications of
gender predominate. This is relevant given concerns about girls’ lower levels of
engagement in computing in the past (Singh et al., 2007). Gender has been a key
variable in several quantitative studies investigating, for example, skills evalu-
ation and opinion data (e.g., Atmatzidou & Demetriadis, 2016; Choi 2018).
However, qualitative research has the potential for broader and deeper interro-
gation of gendered experiences of coding and computational thinking when
taught across the curriculum.
RQ1—Designing Successful Coding and Computational Thinking Environments
A salient feature of successful coding and computational thinking environ-
ments was the need to build and mobilize relationships of support in communities
of practice through the sustained and distributed expertise of peers as capable
novices in online, offline, informal, and formal learning contexts. This distribu-
tion includes shared tasks, ideas, skills, knowledge, and thinking strategies within
and beyond education to include community, industry, and interdisciplinary learn-
ing contexts where students are encouraged to ask questions, receive help, and
assist others (Bass et al., 2016; Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2018; Fessakis et al.,
2013; Gestwicki & McNely, 2012; Israel et al., 2015; Kafai et al., 2010; Ward
et al., 2014). The role of communities of practice has not always been visible in
previous studies and reviews that focus primarily on activities, tools, or platforms
for skills training and performance (Li et al., 2020).
Student-driven learning in contexts where traditional instruction and hierarchi-
cal power were reorganized, but not absent, provided greater opportunities for
students to demonstrate responsibility and autonomy (Calabrese Barton & Tan,
2018; Grubbs, 2013; Israel et al., 2015; Kafai et al., 2010; Sheridan et al., 2014),
while also requiring timely explicit instruction across all age groups, particularly
for high-level programming and efficient coding (Barak & Zadok 2009; Bargagna
et al., 2019; Denner et al., 2012; Franetovic, 2016). These contexts in which stu-
dents’ ownership, choice, and agency were prioritized, were characterized by
other vital characteristics, such as adequate teacher expertise (Khanlari, 2016),
teacher questioning skills (Israel et al., 2015), sufficient time for coding (Calabrese
Barton & Tan, 2018; Fessakis et al., 2013), strategic time management, technical
support, tools for making, and well-organized materials and resources (Egbert
et al., 2021; Grubbs, 2013; Ward et al., 2014).
RQ2—Evidence of Educational Outcomes for Coding and Computational
Thinking
The educational outcomes for students engaged in coding integrated across the
curriculum encompassed four key areas: (a) computational thinking, problem
solving, creativity, and critical thinking; (b) disciplinary knowledge through cod-
ing; (c) student agency, self-direction, motivation, and active engagement; and (d)
social and collaborative skills and taking diverse perspectives. The findings on

606
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
student outcomes point to the efficacy of integrating coding to advance computa-
tional thinking and problem solving for students across a range of ages, starting in
early childhood classrooms with 3- to 5-year-olds (Bass et al., 2016; Bers et al.,
2019; Egbert et al., 2021; Falloon, 2016; Fessakis et al., 2013). Many of the stud-
ies positioned computational thinking, problem solving, creativity, and critical
thinking within the frame of the STEM curriculum, pointing to a gap identified by
others (e.g., Kite et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020), in research related to broader appli-
cation across the curriculum. Coding to solve problems across a range of fields
beyond STEM requires interdisciplinary understanding—to create simulated
learning environments, explain difficult concepts, and navigate virtual and real
worlds.
Research on developing coding and computational thinking across disciplines
beyond STEM is emerging with a focus on architecture, civic education, econom-
ics, English, e-textiles, history, humanities, media, music, and social studies (e.g.,
An, 2016; Gestwicki & McNely, 2012; Literat & Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018; Ratcliff
& Anderson, 2011; Sáez-López et al., 2016). Coding experiences created oppor-
tunities to advance participatory cultures, promote interest-driven, build dynamic
spaces for communities (Fields et al., 2015; Hughes & Morrison, 2018), and
advance students’ interpersonal skills and communication (Hagge, 2017). While
teaching “perspective taking” can be challenging for teachers, students can learn
this skill when processing constructive and peer feedback through testing itera-
tions of designs (An, 2016; Bass et al., 2016).
RQ3—Managing Common Constraints for Teaching Coding and Computational
Thinking
A range of pedagogical constraints frequently arise in coding and computa-
tional thinking learning contexts. Lack of teacher confidence negatively impacts
teachers’ capacity to help advance students’ coding and computational thinking
(Denner et al., 2012; DeVane et al., 2016; Egbert et al., 2021; Rich et al., 2021;
Snodgrass et al., 2016). General technological and specific coding software dif-
ficulties can impede the development of student coding abilities, and the range
and efficiency of coding techniques applied by students (Baytak & Land, 2010;
Egbert et al., 2021; Frydenberg, 2015; Gaeta et al., 2019; Kafai et al., 2010, 2014).
Student engagement in online coding communities, such as Scratch, highlights
the need for moderation and scaffolding of expectations and interactions, particu-
larly for younger students (Brennan, 2016; Burke, 2012; Franetovic, 2016; Kafai
et al., 2010).
Cognitive-based difficulties associated with students’ inability to complete
complex coding tasks, combined with whether teachers offer insufficient or too
much support, impacts students’ coding proficiency, engagement, and motivation
(Bargagna et al., 2019; Denner et al., 2012; Falloon, 2016; Hughes & Morrison,
2018; Ratcliff & Anderson, 2011). Other constraints resonate with findings by
Ogegbo and Ramnarain (2022) who illustrate how a paucity of professional learn-
ing time and resource constraints can be challenging. Current findings further
highlighted timing of lessons, strict teaching styles, difficult peer relationships,
and lack or excessive reliance on programming materials (Bers et al., 2019;
Denner et al., 2012; Egbert et al., 2021; Franetovic, 2016; Hughes & Morrison,

607
Mills et al.
2018; Rich et al., 2021; Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019; Ward et al., 2014).
Limited time in the curriculum was cited as a limitation for enabling students to
develop higher-order thinking and coding-related skills, such as problem solving,
or for fully realizing intentions for coded projects (Baytak & Land, 2010; Egbert
et al., 2021; Israel et al., 2015; Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019).
RQ4—Gaps in Conceptual Frameworks for Coding and Computational
Thinking
The field of coding and computational thinking remains dynamic and con-
tested. Sociocultural and computational thinking approaches were represented in
over half of the articles, with conceptual frameworks often poorly delineated.
Studies often claimed to adopt a specific conceptual paradigm, but seldom
reflected its principles consistently in their study design, methodology, and inter-
pretation of data, while there is a lack of common theoretical frameworks for
conceptualizing computational thinking (Kite et al., 2021; Li et al., 2020).
Only one study examined coding in an exclusively online context; all other
studies were conducted either partly or entirely in face-to-face contexts, making
the theorizing of online coding studies a relatively neglected area of research
(Aragon et al., 2009). This is important, given the concerted effort by major edu-
cational institutes toward cultivating digital literacies in online communities (see
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2021). The
global COVID-19 pandemic of the 2020s temporarily restricted the face-to-face
teaching of coding and computational thinking, highlighting the need for online
pedagogies.
Future Directions
A key recommendation for the future teaching of problem solving and compu-
tational thinking skills is to introduce these early in a students’ learning trajectory
(Bers et al., 2019; Buitrago Flórez et al., 2017; Fessakis et al., 2013), given the
time needed for the cumulative development of debugging skills and higher-level
computational thinking. Short interventions beginning late in students’ schooling
do not position them for long-term success (Bass et al., 2016). Additionally, prob-
lem-solving skills in coding are effectively taught when students are encouraged
to build perseverance with debugging challenges, while cross-disciplinary
approaches can support the development of high-level thinking skills using inte-
grated curricula with real-world applications (Falloon, 2016).
Student engagement in online communities comes with recommendations for
age-appropriate useability, moderation, structures, and social support to manage
and cultivate positive interactions (Brennan, 2016; Burke, 2012; Fields et al.,
2015; Hagge, 2017; Kafai et al., 2010, 2012; Literat & Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018;
Vasudevan et al., 2015). This is because supportive online coding communities,
including those external to the classroom, are increasingly used to broaden stu-
dents’ access to networked support, remix code, act on useful feedback, and
receive recognition for their contributions as members of larger communities of
practice.
A key point in relation to learning outcomes across the curriculum (RQ2)
is to further realize the benefits of teaching coding beyond STEM related

608
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
studies—though there were exciting examples of approaches beginning to
take up this challenge. Further integration of coding across the curriculum
more broadly may require systematic professional development for teachers,
and more ready access to technology resources and support. Future research
for advancing coding research in education will need longer-term interven-
tions and longitudinal studies that apply the teaching of coding across varied
subject areas with cumulative skills development and sufficient time in the
curriculum (Egbert et al., 2021; Gaeta et al., 2019; Khanlari, 2016; Rich et al.,
2021; Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019).
To overcome barriers to teaching coding beyond the STEM curriculum (RQ3),
cross-curriculum design needs to prioritize the integration of deep academic con-
tent through programming, rather than shallow applications of existing content
area knowledge (An, 2016). Projects should allow students sufficient time to read
and research new content-area knowledge to apply to their game designs in ways
that are not limited by their technical proficiencies.
There is still a paucity of well-conceptualized studies that provide concrete
practices for K–12 educators to explicitly link coding and computational thinking
to core content of subject areas (Hickmott et al., 2018). Strategies to strengthen
the quality and duration of both pre-service and in-service K–12 teacher training
in coding and computational thinking should be a key priority to harness students’
cultural capital of computational thinking—the values, skills, and dispositions
that provide the cultural building material for mature problem-solving and digital
skills. Additionally, educational organizations need to remove barriers to develop-
ing student and teacher coding proficiency by investing in sufficient technology
resources and technical support personnel, including more extensive professional
development and in-class support for teachers of coding and computational think-
ing, particularly for those who are not primarily trained in technology or STEM.
Future directions for research of coding and computational thinking in educa-
tion should address the rapidly developing impact of AI. Developers now use AI
code generators to rapidly create functional code, allowing more time for creative
thinking and problem solving, while coding remains essential to program, fine-
tune, and implement algorithms and models. New research of AI-based coding is
needed to teach students to understand how AI works, including providing stu-
dents with opportunities with programs like Scratch to use, create, and modify the
partial coding of algorithms to explore and critique the behavior, biases, and eth-
ics of machine learning algorithms and the underlying “computational thinking”
embedded in AI processes (Estevez et al., 2019).
Conclusion
The unprecedented growth of the teaching of coding and computational
thinking—both in schools and in out-of-school contexts—and the urgent need
for the development of computational ways of thinking is not the exclusive
concern of the technology teacher but the concern of all in education. The
evidence consistently points to the teaching of coding and computational
thinking as skills that should be taught alongside reading, writing, and arith-
metic (Wing, 2006, p. 33)—a view that is supported by countries that value

609
Mills et al.
computational thinking in the core curriculum, such as the United States, UK,
Finland, Australia, and New Zealand (Uzunboylu et al., 2017).
This meta-synthesis has demonstrated that teaching new ways of thinking
through computational practices needs to begin early in a child's education (Bass
et al., 2016; Buitrago Flórez et al., 2017), and continue into postsecondary (Bers
et al., 2019; Fessakis et al., 2013). The recent global pandemic has heightened the
need for universal access to digital technologies and skill sets to prepare students
for participation in a world economy that is now heavily reliant on problem solv-
ing with digital technologies.
The 49 studies that met the criteria for inclusion were systematically analyzed
to identify the essential features of learning environments found to support the
development of students’ coding and computational thinking most successfully,
including when taught across the curriculum. The findings point to future direc-
tions whereby schools need to mobilize relationships of support for learning to
code within communities of practice through distributed expertise and help-seek-
ing behavior in both online and offline learning contexts. Expert-novice interac-
tion should occur at strategic points, such as peer playtesting games and providing
constructive feedback, or to model, remix, or refine shared code (e.g., Baytak &
Land, 2010; Sáez-López et al., 2016; Tzou et al., 2019). As AI transforms coding,
human-centric critical thinking through distributed expertise will be vital to solve
key questions in the future with human values and ethics to guide machines.
Beginning the teaching of coding and computational thinking from early
childhood, student-driven learning in contexts to build students’ perseverance
with coding is the predominant approach. However, learning environments
must be structured optimally to provide teacher or expert instruction or guid-
ance for higher-level coding (Barak & Zadok, 2009). Teacher support is neces-
sary to manage time limitations and prevent student frustration, particularly
with longer-term projects (e.g., Denner et al., 2012; Egbert et al., 2021).
Connecting to online communities does not guarantee positive experiences for
all but, when utilized, must be managed in a guided and reflective way appropri-
ate to students’ confidence to share their work and to act on constructive feed-
back (Literat & Kligler-Vilenchik, 2018).
Recent studies have researched the teaching of code beyond the context of
STEM classrooms—although science, technology, and mathematics are still the
dominant contexts—demonstrating the potential to use coding as a springboard
for teaching a wide range of valuable cross-curricular learning outcomes. While
prioritizing the successful teaching of coding and computational thinking as aims
in themselves, programs have targeted and measured students’ significant
improvement in problem solving, critical thinking, student agency, self-direction,
motivation, active engagement, creativity, writing, self-reflexivity, perspective
taking, and social and collaborative skills (e.g., Bass et al., 2016; Fields et al.,
2015; Hagge, 2017; Hughes & Morrison, 2018). Further integration of coding
across the curriculum beyond STEM requires the systematic professional devel-
opment of teachers and pre-service teachers that extends beyond one semester,
with more ready access to technology hardware and software, technical personnel
or partnerships, and knowledge of how to connect coding with subject matter
(Khanlari, 2016).

610
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
Importantly, mandated curricula and assessment in many countries are not
keeping up with the changes in technology, creating a misalignment between the
rich learning in coding and computational thinking programs that is currently not
measured in mandated assessments, creating a barrier for teachers to include
robotics and game design in non-STEM subjects (Khanlari, 2016). In terms of
advancing coding research in education, longer-term interventions and longitudi-
nal studies are needed that apply the teaching of coding across varied subject
areas (Egbert et al., 2021; Rich et al. 2021; Tonbuloğlu & Tonbuloğlu, 2019). As
society embraces Industry 5.0, calling for highly skilled people with problem-
solving expertise, this domain will undoubtedly continue to be an asset to our
economic future.
Supporting the view among educators, economists, governments, and nations
that computer programming and computational thinking are complex, definitive,
and transversal skills that children should learn in school, this review provides
evidence that coding can be successfully taught to consolidate knowledge and
skills across the curriculum, from mathematics to history, architecture to civic
education, and from English and to the arts, while highlighting specific challenges
that need to be overcome in these endeavors (e.g., An, 2016; Literat & Kligler-
Vilenchik, 2018; Sáez-López et al., 2016). The teaching of computational think-
ing extends beyond computing and writing code and is now essential for full
participation in a democratic digital society amidst an AI-based technological
revolution of the Second Machine Age (Mills, 2023), where complex skills are
required to solve intellectually engaging, authentic, real-world problems that are
not bounded by disciplinary borders.

Funding Information
This research was supported in part by the Australian Research Council’s Discovery
Projects funding scheme (DP190100228 and FT180100009). The views expressed herein
are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.

ORCID iDs
Kathy A. Mills [Link]
Jen Cope [Link]
Laura Scholes [Link]
Luke Rowe [Link]

References
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate articles included in the meta-synthesis.
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., &
Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-anal-
ysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314. [Link]
0034654314551063
Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of qual-
ity systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90, 6–23. [Link]
org/10.3102/0034654319854352

611
Mills et al.
*An, Y. (2016). A case study of educational computer game design by middle school
students. Education Technology Research and Development, 64, 555–571. https://
[Link]/10.1007/s11423-016-9428-7
*Aragon, C. R., Poon, S. S., Monroy-Hernández, A., & Aragon, D. (2009, October). A
tale of two online communities: Fostering collaboration and creativity in scientists
and children. In Proceedings of the Creativity and Cognition Conference (pp. 9–18).
ACM Press. [Link]
*Ascenzi-Moreno, L., Güílamo, A., & Vogel, S. E. (2020). Integrating coding and
language arts: A view into sixth graders’ multimodal and multilingual learning.
Voices From the Middle, 27(4), 47–52. [Link]
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking
skills through educational robotics: Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–
670. [Link]
*Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science,
technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 19(3), 289–307. [Link]
*Bargagna, S., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., Dario, P., Dell’Omo, M., Di Lieto, M.
C., Inguaggiato, E., Martinelli, A., Peci, C., & Sgandurra, G. (2019). Educational
robotics in Down Syndrome: A feasibility study. Technology, Knowledge and
Learning, 24(2), 315–323. [Link]
*Bass, K. M., Hu Dahl, I., & Panahandeh, S. (2016). Designing the game: How a
project-based media production program approaches STEAM career readiness for
underrepresented young adults. Journal of Science Education and Technology,
25(6), 1009–1024. [Link]
*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. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2010.03.853
*Bers, M. U., González-González, C., & Armas–Torres, M. B. (2019). Coding as a play-
ground: Promoting positive learning experiences in childhood classrooms. Computers
& Education, 138, 130–145. [Link]
Bremner, N., Sakata, N., & Cameron, L. (2022). The outcomes of learner-centred ped-
agogy: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Development, 94,
102649. [Link]
*Brennan, K. (2016). Audience in the service of learning: How kids negotiate attention
in an online community of interactive media designers. Learning, Media and
Technology, 41(2), 193–212. [Link]
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April 13–17). New frameworks for studying and
assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Vol. 1, p. 25),
Vancouver.
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C.
(1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon, Distributed cogni-
tions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp.188–228). CUP.
Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G.
(2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking
through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860. [Link]
org/10.3102/0034654317710096
*Burke, Q. (2012). The markings of a new pencil: Introducing programming-as-writ-
ing in the middle school classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(2),
121–135.

612
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
*Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2018). A longitudinal study of equity-oriented
STEM-rich making among youth from historically marginalized communities.
American Educational Research Journal, 55(4), 761–800. [Link]
3102/0002831218758668
Choi, K. S. (2015). A comparative analysis of different gender pair combinations in
pair programming. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(8), 825–837.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research syn-
thesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
Deloitte Access Economics. (2017). Australia’s digital pulse policy: Priorities to fuel
Australia’s digital workforce boom. Australian Computer Society.
*Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school
girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts?
Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249. [Link]
2011.08.006
*DeVane, B., Steward, C., & Tran, K. M. (2016). Balancing expression and structure
in game design: Developing computational participation using studio-based design
pedagogy. Educational Technology, 56(3), 42–47. [Link]
44430492
*Egbert, J., Shahrokni, S. A., Abobaker, R., & Borysenko, N. (2021). “It’s a chance to
make mistakes”: Processes and outcomes of coding in 2nd grade classrooms.
Computers & Education, 168, 104173 [Link]
104173
Estevez, J., Garate, G., & Graña, M. (2019). Gentle introduction to artificial intelli-
gence for high-school students using scratch. IEEE Access, 7, 179027–179036.
*Falloon, G. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic
coding tasks using Scratch Jnr. on the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
32(6), 576–593. [Link]
*Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old
kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study.
Computers & Education, 63, 87–97. [Link]
Feurzeig, W., Papert, S. A., & Lawler, B. (2011). Programming-languages as a concep-
tual framework for teaching mathematics. Interactive Learning Environments,
19(5), 487–501. [Link]
*Fields, D., Vasudevan, V., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). The programmers’ collective:
Fostering participatory culture by making music videos in a high school Scratch
coding workshop. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 613–633. [Link]
org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1065892
*Franetovic, M. (2016). Future game developers within a virtual world: Learner arche-
types and team leader attributes. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,
25(4), 343–361. [Link]
*Frydenberg, M. (2015). Achieving digital literacy through game development: An
authentic learning experience. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12(4),
256–269. [Link]
*Gaeta, E., Beltrán-Jaunsaras, M. E., Cea, G., Spieler, B., Burton, A., García-Betances,
R. I., Cabrera-Umpiérrez, M. F., Brown, D., Boulton, H., & Arredondo Waldmeyer,
M. T. (2019). Evaluation of the Create@School game-based learning–teaching
approach. Sensors, 19(15), 3251. [Link]
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
Computers in Entertainment, 1(1), 20–20. [Link]

613
Mills et al.
*Gestwicki, P., & McNely, B. (2012, October). A case study of a five-step design think-
ing process in educational museum game design. In Proceedings of Meaningful Play
2012 Conference. Michigan State University. [Link]
ceedings2012/mp2012_submission_37.pdf
Grimes, S. M., & Fields, D. A. (2015). Children’s media making, but not sharing: The
potential and limitations of child-specific DIY media websites. Media International
Australia, 154(1), 112–122. [Link]
*Grubbs, M. (2013). Robotics intrigue middle school students and build STEM skills.
Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(6), 12–16.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading
Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. [Link]
*Hagge, J. (2017). Scratching beyond the surface of literacy: Programming for early
adolescent gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 40(3), 154–162. [Link]
org/10.1177/1076217517707233
Hickmott, D., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., & Homes, K. (2018). A scoping review of studies
on computational thinking in K–12 mathematics classrooms. Digital Experiences in
Mathematics Education, 4(1), 48–69. [Link]
*Hughes, J., & Morrison, L. (2018). The use of e-textiles in Ontario education.
Canadian Journal of Education, 41(1), 356–384. [Link]
php/cje-rce/article/download/3237/2495/0
*Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting
all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analy-
sis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279. [Link]
2014.11.022
Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J.,
Sefton-Green, J., & Watkins, S. C. (2013) Connected learning: An agenda for
research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. [Link]
[Link]/id/eprint/48114
Kafai, Y. B. (2018). Constructionist visions: Hard fun with serious games. International
Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 19–21. [Link]
ijcci.2018.04.002
*Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D., & Burke, W. Q. (2010). Entering the clubhouse: Case studies
of young programmers joining the online Scratch communities. Journal of
Organizational and End User Computing, 22(2), 21–35. [Link]
joeuc.2010101906
*Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., Roque, R., Burke, W. Q., & Monroy-Hernandez, A. (2012).
Collaborative agency in youth online and offline creative production in Scratch.
Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(2), 63–87. [Link]
[Link]/cgi/[Link]?article=1175&context=itls_facpub
*Kafai, Y., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (2014). A crafts-ori-
ented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts,
practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing
Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1–20. [Link]
*Kafai, Y. B., & Vasudevan, V. (2015, June). Hi-Lo tech games: Crafting, coding, and
collaboration of augmented board games by high school youth. In Proceedings of the
14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 130–139).
[Link]
*Khalili, N., Sheridan, K., Williams, A., Clark, K., & Stegman, M. (2011). Students
designing video games about immunology: Insights for science learning. Computers
in the Schools, 28(3), 228–240. [Link]

614
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
*Khanlari, A. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and the challenges of inte-
grating educational robots into primary/elementary curricula. European Journal of
Engineering Education, 41(3), 320–330. [Link]
56106
Kite, V., Park, S., & Wiebe, E. (2021). The code-centric nature of computational
thinking education: A review of trends and issues in computational thinking educa-
tion research. Sage Open, 11(2), 21582440211016418. [Link]
21582440211016418
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D.,
& Duschl, R. A. (2020). On computational thinking and STEM education. Journal
for STEM Education Research, 3, 147–166. [Link]
00044-w
*Lindsay, S., & Hounsell, K. G. (2017). Adapting a robotics program to enhance par-
ticipation and interest in STEM among children with disabilities: A pilot study.
Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 12(7), 694–704. [Link]
/10.1080/17483107.2016.1229047
*Literat, I., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2018). Youth online political expression in non-
political spaces: Implications for civic education. Learning, Media, and Technology,
43(4), 400–417. [Link]
Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012). Learning at the digital frontier: A
review of digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 28(6), 547–556. [Link]
Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2017). Computational thinking in education: Where
does it fit? A systematic literary review. Cornell University. [Link]
arXiv.1703.07659
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational
thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human
Behavior, 41, 51–61. [Link]
Martin, C. (2017). Expressing youth voice through video games and coding, Knowledge
Quest, 45(4), 50–57.
Mascolo, M. F. (2009). Beyond student-centered and teacher-centered pedagogy:
Teaching and learning as guided participation. Pedagogy and the Human Sciences,
1(1), 3–27.
McCombs, B. L. (2001). What do we know about learners and learning? The learner-
centered framework: Bringing the educational system into balance. Educational
Horizons, 79(4), 182–193. [Link]
McDougall, J., & Potter, J. (2019). Digital media learning in the third space. Media
Practice and Education, 20(1), 1–11. [Link]
511362
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and
learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and
Social Interaction, 1(1), 12–21. [Link]
Mills, K. A. (2016). Literacy theories for the digital age: Social, critical, multimodal,
spatial, material and sensory lenses. Multilingual Matters.
Mills, K. A. (2023). Critical literacy and social media for L1 language learners in
the second machine age. Danish Journal of Knowledge About Literacy (Viden
om Literacy), 34, 48–55. [Link]
[Link]

615
Mills et al.
Ogegbo, A. A., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of and concerns
about integrating computational thinking into science teaching after a profes-
sional development activity. African Journal of Research in Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 26(3), 1–11. [Link]
295.2022.2133739
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2021). OECD digital edu-
cation outlook 2021: Pushing the frontiers with artificial intelligence, blockchain
and robots. OECD Publishing. [Link]
*Ospennikova, E., Ershov, M., & Iljin, I. (2015). Educational robotics as an innovative
educational technology. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 18–26.
[Link]
Papert, S. (1990). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the
future. Cambridge Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.
*Parry, R., Howard, F., & Penfold, L. (2020). Negotiated, contested and political: the
disruptive third spaces of youth media production. Learning, Media, and Technology,
45(4), 409–421. [Link]
Piaget, J., & Cook, M. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.
*Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Casillas-Martín, S., Cabezas-González, M., & García-Peñalvo,
F. J. (2018). Building, coding, and programming 3D models via a visual program-
ming environment. Quality & Quantity, 52(6), 2455–2468. [Link]
s11135-017-0509-4
Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic
review. Computers & Education, 128, 365–376. [Link]
compedu.2018.10.005
*Price, C. B., & Price-Mohr, R. M. (2018). Stories children write while coding: a cross-
disciplinary approach for the primary classroom. Cambridge Journal of Education,
48(6), 735–747. [Link]
*Ratcliff, C. C., & Anderson, S. E. (2011). Reviving the turtle: Exploring the use of
Logo with students with mild disabilities. Computers in the Schools, 28(3), 241–
255. [Link]
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important?
Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. [Link]
0034654312457429
Resnick, M. (2012). Reviving Papert’s dream. Educational Technology, 52(4) 42–46.
[Link]
*Rich, P. J., Mason, S. L., & O’Leary, J. (2021). Measuring the effect of continuous
professional development on elementary teachers’ self-efficacy to teach coding and
computational thinking. Computers & Education, 168, 104–196. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2021.104196
Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory
appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy, & J.
Soler (Eds.), Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Sage
Publications.
*Sacristán, A. I., & Pretelín-Ricárdez, A. (2017). Gaining modelling and mathemati-
cal experience by constructing virtual sensory systems in maze-video games.
Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA,
36(3), 151–166. [Link]

616
 Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum
*Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual pro-
gramming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two-
year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97,
129–141. [Link]
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed
research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools. 13(1), 1–29.
Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., Bhavnani, S., & Nail-Chiwetalu, B. (2006). Use of infor-
mation-seeking strategies for developing systematic reviews and engaging in evi-
dence-based practice: The application of traditional and comprehensive pearl
growing. A review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders,
41(5), 567–582. [Link]
*Sheridan, K., Halverson, E., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T.
(2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces.
Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531. [Link]
4.brr34733723j648u
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational
thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. [Link]
edurev.2017.09.003
Shuval, K., Harker, K., Roudsari, B., Groce, N., Mills, B., Siddiqi, Z., & Shachak, A.
(2011). Is qualitative research second class science? A quantitative longitudinal
examination of qualitative research in medical journals. PLoS one, 6(2), e16937.
[Link]
Singh, K., Allen, K. R., Scheckler, R., & Darlington, L. (2007). Women in computer-
related majors: A critical synthesis of research and theory from 1994 to 2005. Review
of Educational Research, 77(4), 500–533. [Link]
*Snodgrass, M. R., Israel, M., & Reese, G. C. (2016). Instructional supports for stu-
dents with disabilities in K-5 computing: Findings from a cross-case analysis.
Computers & Education, 100, 1–17. [Link]
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effec-
tiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of
research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507. [Link]
org/10.3102/0034654317751919
*Theodosiou, S., & Karasavvidis, I. (2015). Serious games design: A mapping of the
problems novice game designers experience in designing games. Journal of e-Learn-
ing and Knowledge Society, 11(3), 133–148. [Link]
Thompson, R., Tanimoto, S., Lyman, R. D., Geselowitz, K., Begay, K. K., Nielsen, K.,
Nagy, W., Abbott, R., Raskind, M., & Berninger, V. (2018). Effective instruction for
persisting dyslexia in upper grades. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3),
1043–1068. [Link]
*Tofel-Grehl, C., Ball, D., & Searle, K. (2021). Making progress: Engaging maker
education in science classrooms to develop a novel instructional metaphor for teach-
ing electric potential. Journal of Educational Research, 114(2), 119–129. [Link]
org/10.1080/00220671.2020.1838410
*Tonbuloğlu, B., & Tonbuloğlu, I. (2019). The effect of unplugged coding activities on
computational thinking skills of middle school students. Informatics in Education,
18(2), 403–426. [Link]
*Tzou, C., Meixi Suárez, E., Bell, P., LaBonte, D., Starks, E., & Bang, M. (2019).
Storywork in STEM-Art: Making, materiality and robotics within everyday acts of
Indigenous presence and resurgence. Cognition and Instruction, 37(3), 306–326.
[Link]

617
Mills et al.
Uzunboylu, H., Kinik, E., & Kanbul, S. (2017). An analysis of countries which have
integrated coding into their curricula and the content analysis of academic studies
on coding training in Turkey. TEM Journal, 6(4), 783–791. [Link]
TEM64-18
*Vasudevan, V., Kafai, Y., & Yang, L. (2015, June). Make, wear, play: Remix
designs of wearable controllers for scratch games by middle school youth. In
Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and
Children (pp. 339–342). [Link]
Vee, A. (2017). Coding literacy: How computer programming is changing writing.
MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.
Harvard University Press.
*Ward, D., Hahn, J., & Mestre, L. (2014). Adventure code camp: library mobile design
in the backcountry. Information Technology and Libraries, 33(3), 45–52. [Link]
org/10.6017/ital.v33i3.5480
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3),
33–35. [Link]
Wolfe, B. L., & Haveman, R. H. (2002, June). Social and non-market benefits from
education in an advanced economy. In Conference Series-Federal Reserve Bank of
Boston, 47, 97–131. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

Authors
KATHY A. MILLS is a research professor at the Institute for Learning Science and
Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University, Banyo Campus, QLD 4014; kathy.
mills@[Link]. She is a current future fellow of the Australian Research Council
with four funded projects, including coding animated narratives and using extended
reality technologies for multimodal design. Her research, including “A Review of the
Digital Turn in the New Literacy Studies” (RER), addresses multimodal and digital
literacies in education from diverse theoretical perspectives.
JEN COPE is a research manager at the Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher
Education, Australian Catholic University. She manages an Australian Research
Council–funded project that develops pedagogies for students to code animated narra-
tives, integrating multimodal authoring and computational thinking.
LAURA SCHOLES is a researcher and assistant professor at the Institute for Learning
Science and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University. She recently com-
pleted an Australian Research Council study investigating literacy pedagogies for pri-
mary classrooms. Her mixed methods research addresses key questions about student
learning supported by technologies as educators embrace the digital age.
LUKE ROWE is a lecturer and researcher at the National School of Education, Australian
Catholic University. Luke specializes in quantitative research methods and applies
these skills to a diverse range of educational topics including meta-analyses, evidence-
based teaching, the science of learning, digital literacies, and coding and computational
thinking.

618