This study examined the effect of gamification on visual programming and computational thinking skills among primary school students, aiming to investigate how gamified learning environments enhance cognitive skill development and conceptual integration compared to traditional teaching methods. A quasi-experimental design was employed, involving 346 fifth-grade students from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, who were divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental group utilized gamified tools, such as ClassDojo and Wordwall, while the control group employed traditional teaching methods. Data collection included achievement tests, observational measures, and assessments of computational thinking. The author used Extended Bayesian Information Criterion (EBIC) with the “qgraph” package in R to estimate the network structures. Initial visual programming skills showed no significant differences between groups. However, post-test results revealed substantial improvements in both visual programming and computational thinking for the experimental group. The gamified learning environment effectively enhanced these skills through increased motivation and active engagement. These findings support the use of gamification in primary education to enhance critical 21st-century skills. However, the study’s geographic and grade-level specificity limits generalizability, and long-term skill retention was not assessed. Future research should expand to diverse demographics, incorporate longitudinal designs, and explore integration with emerging technologies (e.g., adaptive learning platforms).
AasebøT. S. (2017). Classroom discussions: Possibilities and limitations for democratic classroom practices. Education Reform Journal, 2(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22596/erj2017.0201.1.16
2.
AlkanA. (2022). Investigating the effect of Classdojo application as an online assignment tool on efl learners’ English performance. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
3.
Al-OthmanA. A.AlmawashF. A. (2020). The impact of teaching programming by using scratch on self-motivation towards learning programming for primary school students in Riyadh. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies [JEPS], 14(1), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.24200/jeps.vol14iss1pp54-70
4.
AngielloR. (2010). Study looks at online learning vs. traditional instruction. The Education Digest, 76(2), 56.
5.
Barahona MoraA. (2020). Gamification for classroom management: An implementation using Classdojo. Sustainability, 12(22), 9371. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229371
6.
BerlandM.WilenskyU. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628–647. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s10956-015-9552-x
7.
BorsboomD.DesernoM. K.RhemtullaM.EpskampS.FriedE. I.McNallyR. J.RobinaughD. J.PeruginiM.DalegeJ.CostantiniG.IsvoranuA. M.WysockiA. C.van BorkuloC. D.van BorkR.WaldorpL. J. (2021). Network analysis of multivariate data in psychological science. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 1(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-021-00055-w
8.
BoschE.SunJ.WangA.MontclareJ. K. (2025). Engaging 6th-grade students in ecosystem education: Exploring roles and relationships in ecology with an interactive gamified module. Journal of Education, 205(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574241310877
9.
ChenC.-M.LiM.-C.ChenT.-C. (2020). A web-based collaborative reading annotation system with gamification mechanisms to improve reading performance. Computers & Education, 144, 103697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103697
10.
ChengY.-P.LaiC.-F.ChenY.-T.WangW.-S.HuangY.-M.WuT.-T. (2023). Enhancing student's computational thinking skills with student-generated questions strategy in a game-based learning platform. Computers & Education, 200, 104794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104794
11.
ChoiW. C.ChoiI. C. (2024). The influence of CodeCombat on computational thinking in Python programming learning at primary school. In Proceedings of the 2024 5th international conference on education development and studies.Prestigious University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, https://doi.org/10.1145/3669947.3669951
12.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
13.
DamaševičiusR.MaskeliūnasR.BlažauskasT. (2023). Serious games and gamification in healthcare: A meta-review. Information, 14(2), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020105
14.
DaskalovR.PashevG.GaftandzhievaS. (2021). Hybrid visual programming language environment for programming training. TEM Journal, 10(2), 981–986. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM102-63
15.
DaubenfeldT.KromeierJ.HeermannS.HildenbrandT.GieslerM.OffergeldC. (2020). Traditional vs. modern: Possibilities and limitations of the new lecture concept in ENT teaching curricula. HNO, 68(4), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-020-00834-z
16.
DavoudiM., et al. (2023). Network Analysis for Predicting Treatment Response in Patients with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijpbs-137119
17.
DavoudiM.AbdelrahmanR. M.FakhrouA.PourshahbazA. (2024). Network analysis of cognitive-behavioral symptom connectivity in OCD subtypes: Evaluating SSRI treatment response and resistance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 49(2), 324–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-024-10529-2
18.
del Olmo-MuñozJ.Bueno-BaqueroA.Cózar-GutiérrezR.González-CaleroJ. A. (2023). Exploring gamification approaches for enhancing computational thinking in young learners. Education Sciences, 13(5), 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13050487
19.
del Olmo-MuñozJ.Cózar-GutiérrezR.González-CaleroJ. A. (2023). Is gamification always productive? A study of the effectiveness of Bebras cards in promoting primary students’ computational thinking skills. Asia Pacific Education Review, 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09905-6
20.
DiGiacomoD. K.GreenhalghS.BarriageS. (2022). How students and principals understand ClassDojo: Emerging insights. TechTrends, 66(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00640-6
21.
FadhliM.BrickB.SetyosariP.UlfaS.KuswandiD. (2020). A meta-analysis of selected studies on the effectiveness of gamification method for children. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 845–854. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13154a
22.
FordJ. L. (2008). Scratch programming for teens. Course Technology Press.
23.
GainforthH. L.WestR.MichieS. (2015). Assessing connections between behavior change theories using network analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 49(5), 754–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-015-9710-7
24.
GkintoniE.VantarakiF.SkoulidiC.AnastassopoulosP.VantarakisA. (2024). Gamified health promotion in schools: The integration of neuropsychological aspects and CBT-A systematic review. Medicina, 60(12), 2085. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina60122085
IsvoranuA.-M.EpskampS.WaldorpL.BorsboomD. (2022). Network psychometrics with R: A guide for behavioral and social scientists. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003111238
27.
JiangB.LiZ. (2021). Effect of Scratch on computational thinking skills of Chinese primary school students. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(4), 505–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00190-z
28.
KnightJ. F.CarleyS.TregunnaB.JarvisS.SmithiesR.de FreitasS.DunwellI.Mackway-JonesK. (2010). Serious gaming technology in major incident triage training: A pragmatic controlled trial. Resuscitation, 81(9), 1175–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.042
29.
KobsiripatW. (2015). Effects of the media to promote the scratch programming capabilities creativity of elementary school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.651
30.
KongS.-C.LaiM. (2022). A proposed computational thinking teacher development framework for K-12 guided by the TPACK model. Journal of Computers in Education, 9(3), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00207-7
31.
KuhailM. A.FarooqS.HammadR.BahjaM. (2021). Characterizing visual programming approaches for end-user developers: A systematic review. IEEE Access, 9, 14181–14202. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3051043
32.
KumariS.GautamH.NityadarshiniN.DasB. K.ChaudhryR. (2021). Online classes versus traditional classes? Comparison during COVID-19. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 10(1), 457. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_317_21
33.
LinardonJ.GreenwoodC. J.AarsmanS.Fuller-TyszkiewiczM. (2024). Investigating change in network structure of eating disorder symptoms after delivery of a smartphone app-based intervention. Psychological Medicine, 54(10), 2698–2706. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291724000813
34.
MaloneyJ.ResnickM.RuskN.SilvermanB.EastmondE. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363
35.
ManczurowskyJ.BadadheM.HassonC. J. (2022). Visual programming for accessible interactive musculoskeletal models.BMC Res Notes, 1756-050015(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05994-5. 35317844.
36.
MarwedelP.SirocicB. (2003). Overcoming the limitations of traditional media for teaching modern processor desing. International Conference on Microelectronic Systems Education, 102–103. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSE.2003.1205274
37.
Masoumian HosseiniM.Masoumian HosseiniT.QayumiK.BaeradehN. (2022). Game-based vs. case-based training for increasing knowledge and behavioral fluency of nurse students regarding crisis and disaster management; a quasi-experimental study. Arch Acad Emerg Med, 10(1), Article e77. https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v10i1.1739
38.
MiliS.RezwanT. M. A. (2006). Strengths and limitations of different teaching modes:: A comparative study. DIU Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 144–157.
NandK.BaghaeiN.CaseyJ.BarmadaB.MehdipourF.LiangH.-N. (2019). Engaging children with educational content via Gamification. Smart Learning Environments, 6(6), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-019-0085-2
41.
NavanA. A.KhaleghiA. (2020). Using gamification to improve the education quality of children with autism. Revista Científica, 37(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.14483/23448350.15431
42.
NgA. K.AtmosukartoI.CheowW. S.AvnitK.YongM. H. (2021). Development and implementation of an online adaptive gamification platform for learning computational thinking. In 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637467
43.
NingrumI. A. F.SantosaM. H. (2023). CLASSDOJO: Gamified classroom management platform to promote language LEARNER’S motivation. In Pedagogy-Driven Technology Integration in English Language Teaching. Indonesia: Nilacakra.
44.
NtourouV., et al. (2021) (In this issue). A Study of the Impact of Arduino and Visual Programming In Self-Efficacy, Motivation, Computational Thinking and 5th Grade Students’ Perceptions on Electricity Full Text (PDF). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, 17(5).
45.
Núñez-NaranjoA. F.Roman-TiriraS. (2024). Classdojo as an educational technology. Management, Tourism and Smart Technologies: ICMTT (Conference proceedings), 1, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74825-7_25
46.
OcañaJ.Morales-UrrutiaE.Pérez-MarínD.PizarroC. (2023). About gamifying an emotional learning companion to teach programming to primary education students. Simulation & Gaming, 54(4), 402–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/10468781231175013
47.
OyshiM. T.SaifuzzamanM.TumpaZ. N. (2018). Gamification in children education: Balloon shooter. In 2018 4th International Conference on Computing Communication and Automation (ICCCA). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCAA.2018.8777534
48.
PapadakisS.KalogiannakisM.ZaranisN.OrfanakisV. (2016). Using Scratch and App Inventor for teaching introductory programming in secondary education. A case study. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(3/4), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2016.10001505
49.
PermatasariA. M.UlfaS.KuswandiD.SoepriyantoY. (2024). Behavioural engagement in visual programming online course gamification. Journal of Educational Technology Studies and Applied Research, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.70125/jetsar.v1i1y2024a2
50.
PratistaG. Y. (2023). Students’ perceptions of using class Dojo in a teaching and learning process. English Education: Journal of English Teaching and Research, 8(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.29407/jetar.v8i1.19257
51.
Richard-DevantoyS.BerlimM. T.GarelN.InjaA.TureckiG. (2024). The impact of antidepressant treatment on the network structure of neurocognition and core emotional depressive symptoms among depressed individuals with a history of suicide attempt: An 8-week clinical study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 361, 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.05.111
52.
RobinsonB. (2021). The ClassDojo app: Training in the art of dividuation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34(7), 598–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1771460
53.
RoseS.HabgoodM. P. J.JayT. (2017). An exploration of the role of visual programming tools in the development of young children’s computational thinking. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(4), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.15.4.2368
54.
RovaiA.PontonM.WightingM.BakerJ. (2007). A Comparative Analysis of Student Motivation in Traditional Classroom and E-Learning Courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 413–432.
55.
Saez LopezJ. M.Cozar GutierrezR. (2017). Computational thinking and visual programming through blocks in the elementary school classroom. Educar, 53(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.841
56.
SistadR. E.LivingstonN. A.CroweM. L.NewbergerN.SpitzerE.BriefD.LitwackS.HelmuthE.RoyM.SolhanM.RosenbloomD.KeaneT. M. (2023). Network analysis of reasons for and against changing alcohol use among veterans engaged in a web-based intervention for hazardous drinking and PTSD symptoms. Addictive Behaviors, 143, 107689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107689
57.
SoepriyantoY.KuswandiD. (2021). Gamification activities for learning visual object-oriented programming (pp. 209–213). Malang, Indonesia: 2021 7th international conference on education and Technology (ICET). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET53279.2021.9575076
58.
StrageA. (2008). Traditional and non-traditional college students’ descriptions of the “ideal” professor and the “ideal” course and perceived strengths and limitations. College Student Journal, 42(1), 225–232.
59.
SuA. Y.HuangC. S.YangS. J.DingT.-J.HsiehY. (2015). Effects of annotations and homework on learning achievement: An empirical study of Scratch programming pedagogy. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 331–343.
60.
SunH.LiW.ShenB. (2017). Learning in physical education: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0067
61.
TeixeiraP. J.CarraçaE. V.MarklandD.SilvaM. N.RyanR. M. (2012). Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(78), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-78
62.
ThreekunprapaA.YasriP. (2020). Unplugged coding using Flowblocks for promoting computational thinking and programming among secondary school students. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13314a
63.
Uca ÖzturkF.ÖzdemirM.ÖzbasiD. (2021). Investigation of project-based learning method in teaching programming in terms of academic achievement, cognitive load and behavior change. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 16(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2020.345.12
64.
van BuurenS.Groothuis-OudshoornK.RobitzschA.VinkG.DooveL.JolaniS. (2015). Package ‘mice’. Computer Software, p. 20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03
65.
VoskoglouM. G.SalemA.-B. M. (2020). Benefits and limitations of the artificial with respect to the traditional learning of mathematics. Mathematics, 8(4), 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8040611
66.
XenosM. (2018). The future of virtual classroom: Using existing features to move beyond traditional classroom limitations. In Interactive mobile communication technologies and learning: Proceedings of the 11th IMCL conference. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75175-7_92
67.
ZhangD.ZhaoJ. L.ZhouL.NunamakerJ. F.Jr. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning?Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1145/986213.986216
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
