Developing Computational Thinking in Primary School Students Through a Smart Farming Context Using the Engineering Design Process
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to: (1) develop learning activities using the Engineering Design Process (EDP) within a smart farming context to enhance the computational thinking (CT) skills of primary school students, and (2) compare the students’ CT skills before and after participating in these activities. The participants were 39 fifth-grade students from a large inclusive primary school in Thailand, selected through purposive sampling. The research employed a pre-experimental design. Research instruments included four EDP-based smart farming lesson plans totaling 12 hours of instruction, a CT concept test, and a performance-based CT rubric. The results indicated that the integration of the six-step EDP, ranging from identifying authentic agricultural problems to iteratively debugging automated sensor prototypes, significantly improved students’ CT skills. Quantitative analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in overall CT skill scores, with the post-test mean (M = 19.46, SD = 2.35) being significantly higher than the pre-test mean (M = 11.64, SD = 2.98) at p < .001. Significant improvements were observed across all specific computational components, with the largest improvement occurring in conditional logic. Furthermore, qualitative data from the performance-based rubric and final smart farming projects confirmed that students effectively applied the four pillars of CT: decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithm design to solve real-world agricultural challenges. This study concludes that anchoring computational tasks in authentic, tangible contexts like smart farming successfully bridges the gap between abstract coding and meaningful physical outcomes.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
License to Publish (LTP)
Upon acceptance of a manuscript, authors will be asked to complete a License to Publish (LTP) Agreement. Authors retain the copyright of their work and grant the International Journal of Science Education and Teaching (IJSET) a non-exclusive license to publish, distribute, and archive the article. All published articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
[!IMPORTANT]
The information provided here is for reference purposes only. Please do not complete or submit this form during the initial submission stage. If your paper is accepted, the editorial office will provide you with specific instructions on how to finalize and submit the formal agreement.
Download the License to Publish (LTP).
References
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K–12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Chalmers, C. (2018). Robotics and computational thinking in primary school. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.06.005
El-Hamamsy, L., Zapata-Cáceres, M., Martín-Barroso, E., Mondada, F., Dehler Zufferey, J., & Bruno, B. (2022). The competent computational thinking test: Development and validation of an unplugged computational thinking test for upper primary school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(7), 1818–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221081753
Galanti, T. M., & Holincheck, N. M. (2024). Integrating computational thinking in elementary STEM using the engineering design process. School Science and Mathematics, 124(4), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12638
García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.005
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
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
Isnaini, R., Budiyanto, C., & Widiastuti, I. (2019). Robotics-based learning to support computational thinking skills in early childhood. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2194(1), 020044. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139776
Jatuponthianchai, R., Samahito, C., & Butkatanyoo, O. (2022). The effects of computational thinking learning experiences provision on problem solving ability for early childhood students. Journal of Educational Innovation and Research, 6(2), 366–380.
Kareemee, S. (2017). Using the engineering design process to foster creativity and problem-solving skills (Part 1). IPST Magazine, 46(209), 23–27.
Lin, S.Y., Chien, S.Y., Hsiao, C.L., Hsia, C.H., & Chao, K.M. (2020). Enhancing computational thinking capability of preschool children by game-based smart toys. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 44, Article 101011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2020.101011
Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105
Montiel, H., & Gomez-Zermeño, M. G. (2021). Educational challenges for computational thinking in K–12 education: A systematic literature review of “Scratch” as an innovative programming tool. Computers, 10(6), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10060069
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K–12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Paraskevopoulou-Kollia, E. A., Michalakopoulos, C. A., Zygouris, N. C., & Bagos, P. G. (2025). Computational thinking in primary and pre-school children: A systematic review of the literature. Education Sciences, 15(8), 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15080985
Phutwatthana, N. (2018). Engineering design and biomimicry in STEM education. STOU Education Journal, 11(2), 31–42. https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/edjour_stou/article/view/162004
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
Samad, N. A., Osman, K., & Nayan, N. A. (2023). Computational thinking through the engineering design process in chemistry education. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 9(4), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijem.9.4.771
Sonay, S., & Kiray, C. (2022). Engineering design process-based computational thinking abilities among brilliant and talented students. International Journal of Advanced Science and Computer Applications, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.47679/ijasca.v1i2.14
Su, J., & Yang, W. (2023). A systematic review of integrating computational thinking in early childhood education. Computers and Education Open, 4, Article 100122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100122
Sutisnawati, A., Rahmawati, Y., Sumantri, M. S., & Lestari, I. (2025). A review of integration of Engineering Design Process (EDP) learning model through STEM approach in elementary schools. EduBasic Journal: Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar, 7(1), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.17509/ebj.v7i1.82001
Thipphayasaeng, P., Piriyasurawong, P., & Phanichsiti, S. (2024). Digital twins-based cognitive apprenticeship model in smart agriculture. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 18(12), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v18i12.46847
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
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K–12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
