Integrating Coding and Project-Based Learning to Foster Elementary Students’ Creativity

Leni Agustina Daulay; Rahmah Nurfitriani

doi:10.33394/j-ps.v14i3.19856

Authors

Leni Agustina Daulay Institut Agama Islam Negeri Takengon
Rahmah Nurfitriani Institut Agama Islam Negeri Takengon

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33394/j-ps.v14i3.19856

Keywords:

Creative thinking skills, Coding instruction, Project-based learning, Scratch, Unplugged coding

Abstract

Despite growing interest in coding education for fostering 21st-century skills, empirical evidence from resource-constrained, non-metropolitan settings remains limited, particularly when comparing digital and non-digital approaches. This study investigated the comparative effectiveness of plugged and unplugged coding instruction within a Project-Based Learning (PjBL) framework in enhancing creative thinking skills among fifth-grade students. Using a mixed-methods quasi-experimental design, 98 students from two Integrated Islamic Elementary Schools in Central Aceh were assigned to a plugged coding group (n = 50) using Scratch 3.0 or an unplugged coding group (n = 48) using cardboard-based physical media. Creative thinking was assessed using TTCT-inspired open-ended project design tasks aligned with four Guilford dimensions (fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration), while student perceptions and qualitative learning experiences were examined through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Both groups demonstrated significant pre–post improvement; however, the plugged group achieved a higher N-Gain (0.489 vs. 0.419), both within the moderate category, with a statistically significant but practically moderate between-group difference (p = .001, Cohen's d = 0.65). Qualitative findings indicated that plugged coding supports iterative refinement and multimedia expression, whereas unplugged coding promoted collaboration and flexible thinking through physical co-construction. Perception data showed positive learning experiences in both groups, with perceived creativity support moderately correlated with N-Gain scores in both conditions. These findings suggest that both approaches effectively support creative thinking through distinct pedagogical mechanisms and provide practical guidance for designing inclusive and context-sensitive coding instruction in resource-constrained elementary settings. This study compared the two approaches as separate conditions; hybrid integration was not examined.

References

Arif, M.K. (2024). Enhancing project-based learning in STEM education with integrated technology and coding. Journal of Intelligent Systems and Information Technology, 1(1), 2024. https://jurnalapik.id/index.php/jisit

Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.905247

Bell, T. C., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS unplugged: How is it used, and does it work? Adventures Between Lower Bounds and Higher Altitudes. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:52166808

Bers, M. (2020). Coding as a playground. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022602

Brackmann, C. P., Moreno-León, J., Román-González, M., Casali, A., Robles, G., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. AERA, 1–12.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1965). Handbook of research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Studies, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/3119055

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004445

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Cui, Z., & Ng, O. L. (2021). The interplay between mathematical and computational thinking in primary school students’ mathematical problem-solving within a programming environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(5), 988–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120979930

Dağ, F., Şumuer, E., & Durdu, L. (2023). The effect of an unplugged coding course on primary school students’ improvement in their computational thinking skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(6), 1902–1918. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12850

de Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2022). The coding stages assessment: Development and validation of an instrument for assessing young children’s proficiency in the ScratchJr programming language. Computer Science Education, 32(4), 388–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1956216

Demir, C. G., & Önal, N. (2021). The effect of technology-assisted and project-based learning approaches on students’ attitudes towards mathematics and their academic achievement. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3375–3397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10398-8

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida.

Garcia-Marques, M. E., Pérez-Suay, A., & García-Bayona, I. (2026). Plugged or unplugged? A comparative study of computational thinking development in early childhood. Education Sciences, 16(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16020333

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x

Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004

Kingston, S. (2018). Project based learning and student achievement: What does the research tell us? Buck Institute for Education, 1(1), 1–11. http://bie.org/x9JN

Kirçali, A. Ç., & Özdener, N. (2023). A comparison of plugged and unplugged tools in teaching algorithms at the K-12 level for computational thinking skills. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(4), 1485–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09585-4

Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733

Lin, Y., Liao, H., Weng, S., & Dong, W. (2024). Comparing the effects of plugged-in and unplugged activities on computational thinking development in young children. Education and Information Technologies, 29(8), 9541–9574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12181-x

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Lucas, B., & Spencer, E. (2017). Teaching creative thinking: Developing learners who generate ideas and can think critically. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210362402

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012

Margolis, J., & Nao, K. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end. The MIT Press.

Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Ng, O. L., & Cui, Z. (2021). Examining primary students’ mathematical problem-solving in a programming context: Towards computationally enhanced mathematics education. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 53(4), 847–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01200-7

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

Polat, E., & Yilmaz, R. M. (2022). Unplugged versus plugged-in: Examining basic programming achievement and computational thinking of 6th-grade students. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 9145–9179.

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779

Sawyer, R. K., & Henriksen, D. (2023). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197747537.001.0001

Sri Utami. (2024). A critical appraisal: Elementary school coding education effectiveness with Scratch in alignment with cognitive development, analyzed through Piagetian lens. Journal of Electrical Systems, 20(5s), 1180–1187. https://doi.org/10.52783/jes.2432

Sun, L., Guo, Z., & Zhou, D. (2023). Measuring development of young students’ coding ability through a graphical teaching intervention: Further explanation of the effect of coding experience and coding interest. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2190356

Sun, L., Liu, J., & Liu, Y. (2024). Comparative experiment of the effects of unplugged and plugged-in programming on computational thinking in primary school students: A perspective of multiple influential factors. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 52, Article 101542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101542

Threekunprapa, A., & Yasri, P. (2020). Patterns of computational thinking development while solving unplugged coding activities coupled with the 3S approach for self-directed learning. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(3), 1025–1045. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.9.3.1025

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

Yilmaz, T., & İzmirli, S. (2023). Effect of unplugged and plugged coding activities on secondary school students’ computational thinking skills. Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning, 6(4), 1180–1193. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1375335