Creative Learning Unplugged: A Constructionist Approach to Coding Education Using Scratch

Creative Learning Unplugged: A Constructionist Approach to Coding Education Using Scratch

Goh Kok Ming^*1, Dayang Rafidah Syariff M. Fuad², Hyginus Lester Junior Lee³, Yang Roziah Muhamed Yaacob⁴, Tony Ng Wei Kang⁵

^1,2Management Department, Sultan Idris Education University

³Labuan Education Department

⁴Larut Matang and Selama District Education Department

⁵Walnut Education

^*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.903SEDU0032

Received: 05 January 2025; Accepted: 11 January 2025; Published: 12 February 2025

ABSTRACT 

In the contemporary digital age, the integration of coding education is critical for fostering computational thinking, creativity, and collaboration among young learners. Scratch, a visual programming platform, has been widely adopted in various countries, including Finland and Singapore, to enhance students’ digital literacy and problem-solving skills. However, in Malaysia, disparities in digital infrastructure, teacher readiness, and resource availability have limited its widespread implementation, particularly in rural areas. Addressing these challenges, this study aimed to explore an innovative Hybrid Project-Based and Performance-Based Competition (HPPBC) approach to teaching Scratch, blending collaborative, hands-on learning with competitive elements to enhance engagement and learning outcomes. Using a Design-Based Research (DBR) methodology, the study conducted three iterative cycles involving 35 students aged 10–12 years in Malaysia. Qualitative data were collected through interviews, field notes, and analysis of student-created artifacts. The findings revealed a progressive development in students’ confidence, collaboration, and coding skills. Participants showed increased creativity, adaptability, and ownership of their projects, particularly when engaging with surprise themes introduced in the competition. Peer interaction and facilitator support emerged as pivotal factors in fostering critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This study concludes that the HPPBC approach, grounded in constructionism, provides an effective framework for coding education, addressing barriers to inclusivity and engagement. The research highlights the need for differentiated instruction, tailored scaffolding, and the integration of real-world themes to ensure accessibility and relevance. Future research should focus on scaling this approach to diverse educational contexts, incorporating longitudinal studies to assess its long-term impact on computational literacy and its potential integration with emerging technologies.

Keywords: Scratch programming, constructionism in education, coding education, design principles

INTRODUCTION

In this digital age, many individuals spend hours in front of a multitude of screens, our lives are more reliant on technology than ever before. Over time, devices, software, and human components will be more integrated giving rise to greater convergence between the digital and physical worlds [1]. Considering these trends, it is likely that most people are only well-versed in smart technology literacy, which contributes to existing gaps from the digital divide and in learning for social justice [2]. Additionally, the report by the World Economic Forum (2018) states that many students will pursue careers that have yet to be created. Technology and creative thinking will be critical for thriving in uncertain situations, it is assumed. As technology permeates our lives more and more, programming will be a requisite skill in every job in the future, much like reading and writing [3]. In this study, we implemented a Hybrid Project-Based and Performance-Based Competition approach for the coding workshops and live coding competitions. We outlined the framework and activities associated with the RBT Codefest Challenge, highlighting the insights behind this challenge. We also discussed the theories that have guided us in our running of the workshops as well as some future research possibilities.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Globally, educational technology integration reshaped how learners interact with technology, creativity, and problem-solving. Scratch, a visual programming language devised by the MIT Media Lab, is one of the most notable platforms in this movement. Scratch is a block-based coding platform designed for children, which allows learners to create interactive stories, games, and animations without needing to know advanced programming. Its playful and intuitive design has made it a mainstay of many countries’ attempts to bring coding into early education. Countries such as the United States, Finland, and Singapore have adopted Scratch as a tool for developing computational thinking, collaboration, and creativity in classrooms [4]. Scratch, for example, is integrated into early education curricula in Finland, with a focus on exploratory and playful learning experiences that develop foundational programming skills [5]-[6]. In Singapore, Scratch is utilized as a tool to promote problem-solving and design-thinking skills for students and prepare them for a future in technology [7]. These examples show how learning to code enables students to innovate and excel in a progressively digital universe. While Scratch adopts constructionist principles to the educational context that are universally salient, comparative research suggests that localized strategies are needed to address specific socio-cultural and infrastructural barriers [6]. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to identify the localized Scratch implementation strategies for Malaysian primary schools.

In Malaysia, though, the growth of coding education through Scratch is still in bloom. The Ministry of Education and the Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation (MDEC) have both launched initiatives to bring computational thinking and basic programming into schools. However, there are disparities in access to resources, the readiness of teachers, and digital infrastructure, especially in rural areas, which have limited its widespread implementation [8]-[9]. However, in Malaysia, the adoption of a proven technology demonstrates significant gaps.

Restating the original example, although studies suggest Scratch promotes skills such as problem-solving, collaboration, and creativity, across a variety of settings [5]-[6], many Malaysian schools, particularly in rural areas, lack the resources and trained educators needed to conduct it successfully. There should therefore be a strong and urgent requirement to prepare the upcoming generation of educators for these changes and try to bridge this gap. These challenges also point to the need for innovative approaches to maximize the potential of Scratch as an inclusive and playful learning tool in Malaysia. Research shows Scratch helps students to engage with and understand programming concepts, providing a strong basis for developing computational skills [10]-[11].

In the absence of addressing these challenges, Malaysia would gradually lag in equipping students with the skills required in a digitized economy. Without the inclusion of coding education, we risk deepening the digital divide, as students without access to proper coding education will be left behind in the digital world. On the other hand, the advantages of successfully incorporating Scratch programming in Malaysian classrooms will be far-reaching.

Students need to prepare themselves with skills in computational thinking, develop creatively, and enjoy equal access to ICT education [12]. These outcomes are in line with the aim of Malaysia’s Digital Education Blueprint, which encourages the use of technology in addressing issues of human capital development and national inequalities in education. As such, this study aimed to fill in those important gaps by investigating the implementation of Scratch programming through an innovative approach that combined physical workshops and live coding competitions. This study contributed to the existing body of knowledge by offering actionable insights for policymakers, educators, and stakeholders regarding Scratch learning.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Constructivism

Constructionism, introduced by Seymour Papert [13], builds on Piaget’s constructivist theory by emphasizing the creation of tangible, shareable artifacts as central to the learning process. Constructionism posits that individuals learn best when they are actively engaged in constructing knowledge through meaningful and creative activities [13]. This theory underscores the importance of learning by making, where learners interact with tools and concepts to create personally relevant projects, enabling deep cognitive engagement [13].

Scratch programming is a quintessential example of constructionism in practice. Designed as a visual programming language, Scratch enables learners to construct interactive projects such as games, stories, and animations, aligning closely with Papert’s learning philosophy through creation [13]. The block-based interface of Scratch removes syntactic complexity, allowing learners to focus on the logic and design of their projects. By engaging in the iterative process of designing, testing, and refining their work, learners embody the principles of constructionism, as they continuously build and reconstruct their knowledge [14]. A key feature of constructionism is the integration of personal relevance and creativity in the learning process [15]. Scratch empowers learners to express their interests and ideas, fostering intrinsic motivation and engagement. For example, students can create projects that reflect their cultural narratives, personal hobbies, or social issues, making the learning experience more meaningful and impactful [16], [17]. This aligns with Papert’s [13] and Ryan and Deci’s [18] view that learning should be grounded in activities that are both meaningful and enjoyable to the learner.

Moreover, constructionism emphasizes the role of social learning and collaboration, as knowledge is co-constructed through interaction with peers and facilitators [19]. Scratch facilitates this social dimension through its online community, where users share projects, provide feedback, and remix each other’s work. This communal learning environment fosters the exchange of ideas and the development of coding skills in a collaborative context, highlighting the importance of learning as a shared experience [19]. Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of Scratch in fostering computational thinking and problem-solving skills, both of which are central to constructionist learning. For instance, studies show that learners using Scratch develop a deeper understanding of programming concepts, such as loops, variables, and conditionals, while cultivating creativity and critical thinking [20], [7]. Furthermore, the visual and interactive nature of Scratch makes it accessible to diverse learners, including younger students and those with limited exposure to traditional programming, broadening the inclusivity of computational education.

In addition to its pedagogical benefits, Scratch embodies the iterative nature of constructionism [20]. Learners engage in a cycle of design, feedback, and improvement, which mirrors real-world problem-solving processes. Facilitators or peers provide feedback during this cycle, enabling learners to refine their projects and deepen their understanding through revision and experimentation [21]. In summary, constructionism provides a robust theoretical framework for understanding the educational impact of Scratch programming. By emphasizing creativity, personal relevance, collaboration, and iterative learning, constructionism aligns seamlessly with Scratch’s core features. This synergy has made Scratch a transformative tool in modern education, empowering learners to construct knowledge through meaningful, hands-on experiences. These studies drive future research and should continue to explore how Scratch can be further utilized to expand the reach of constructionist principles in diverse educational settings.

Typical Approach of Scratch Education

The typical or traditional approach to teaching Scratch programming presents several challenges that limit its effectiveness in fostering deep and meaningful learning experiences. One significant issue is the emphasis on structured, teacher-led lessons, where students follow predefined steps to complete activities focused on fundamental coding concepts such as loops, variables, and conditionals. While this approach ensures that students grasp the basics of programming, it often prioritizes rote memorization over creativity and exploration [21]. This lack of emphasis on student agency can hinder learners’ ability to experiment, solve problems independently, and develop ownership of their learning process. Moreover, such methods may disengage students by failing to connect coding activities with real-world applications, which are essential for fostering critical and higher-order thinking skills.

Research suggests that the traditional approach is also limited in its ability to support diverse learning styles and interests [22). Predefined activities may not align with students’ individual preferences or prior experiences, potentially reducing their motivation and engagement. This is particularly problematic in classrooms where learners have varying levels of coding proficiency, as rigid lesson structures can fail to accommodate both beginners and advanced students effectively [7]. Additionally, the traditional method’s teacher-centered nature often restricts collaboration and peer interaction, which are crucial for co-constructing knowledge and enhancing problem-solving abilities in social learning contexts [23].

To address these challenges, researchers have emphasized the need for innovative and learner-centered approaches to teaching Scratch programming. One proposed solution is the integration of Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) frameworks, which prioritize creativity, collaboration, and real-world problem-solving. These methods encourage students to design and build projects that reflect their interests and address authentic challenges, thereby fostering deeper engagement and intrinsic motivation. Additionally, researchers advocate for the adoption of constructionist principles in Scratch learning environments, where learners actively construct knowledge through meaningful and iterative creation of digital artifacts [13]. This approach aligns with the visual and creative nature of Scratch, enabling students to explore coding concepts while expressing themselves through projects.

Innovative models also emphasize the importance of scaffolding to provide balanced guidance while allowing students the freedom to experiment and learn from their mistakes. Facilitators can integrate real-time feedback mechanisms, collaborative peer reviews, and gamified elements to enhance engagement and support diverse learning needs [21]. These recommendations highlight the necessity of shifting from rigid, teacher-centered lessons to dynamic, interactive, and inclusive learning environments that empower students to develop critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills through Scratch programming.

METHODOLOGY

Design-Based Research (DBR)

DBR is a methodology that is extensively used in educational contexts, characterized by its systematic yet agile nature (refer to Fig. 1) [24]-[26]. Using design, exploration, enactment, evaluation, and redesign, DBR offers a method for understanding learning processes [27]. DBR is a hybrid method comprising a variety of procedures and methods from design and research methodologies, rather than serving as a replacement for other methodologies [25][38]. DBR aims to influence educational interventions and validate theoretical concepts [38]. Researchers are actively involved in practical environments and consistently cooperate with practitioners, fellow researchers, and participants to oversee the study process [38]. DBR is defined by five essential characteristics: i) It enhances theory and practice, ii) it is anchored in pertinent contexts and takes place in real-world environments, iii) it is interactive, iterative, and adaptable, iv) it utilizes mixed methods to address potential new needs and emerging issues, and v) it is contextual, indicating that the research findings of the design process [25][38].

Fig.1 The research cycles of this study

Source: Adapted from [26]

Our research employed a Design-Based Research (DBR) methodology, inspired by [38], adept at tackling the intricacies of authentic educational environments, such as coding workshops, and is anchored in a solid theoretical framework, specifically constructionism. The DBR technique was especially appropriate for our study as it offered a systematic yet adaptable framework that facilitates ongoing design, execution, evaluation, and iterative refinement over an extended duration. This model enabled us to enhance both academic comprehension and practical implementations in coding instruction concurrently.

Rooted in constructionism, our interventions emphasized learning through creating meaningful artifacts, such as digital games, fostering deep engagement and collaborative learning among participants. The iterative nature of DBR aligned seamlessly with this theoretical foundation, enabling the cyclical process of design, evaluation, and redesign to refine our workshops continuously. This alignment ensured that our interventions were theoretically sound and pedagogically effective.

Reeves’s DBR framework guided the entire research process, comprising four key phases: i) analysis of practical problems, ii) development of solutions grounded in theory, iii) iterative testing and refinement, and iv) reflection to produce design principles and enhance practice [26]. Each phase involved collaboration with researchers, experts, and practitioners, enabling us to iteratively improve the interventions, understand the learning processes, and contribute meaningfully to both theory and practice. During a span of two months, we executed three iterative cycles, methodically assessing and enhancing our coding workshops for youngsters aged 10 to 12 years (refer to Figure 2). The workshops were designed to introduce participants to Scratch programming, encouraging them to collaboratively create interactive digital games.

Fig.2 Three Cycles of Scratch Workshop

Descriptions of Our New Approach to Scratch Learning

In this study, we used the Hybrid Project-Based and Performance-Based Competition (HPPBC) approach to engage and empower the learners. We aimed to offer an innovative alternative to traditional approaches by integrating the strengths of Project-Based Learning (PBL) and Performance-Based Assessment (PBA). This dual approach is particularly well-suited for Scratch programming, which supports creative and project-driven learning. Project-Based Learning (PBL) emphasizes student-driven exploration and collaboration, where learners work on real-world problems to create tangible outcomes. Scratch’s flexibility as a programming platform makes it ideal for PBL, enabling students to design interactive projects while applying computational thinking skills. Performance-Based Assessment (PBA) focuses on evaluating students’ ability to demonstrate their skills through live presentations or problem-solving tasks. The competition format of this HPPBC approach further enhances engagement by encouraging students to independently articulate their ideas and respond to feedback in real-time [28].

We conducted a series of workshops to equip participants with the necessary skills and knowledge. The workshop experiences focused on hands-on creative problem-solving and learning activities. Participants (teachers and students) were briefed and introduced to the workshop objectives and the relevance of the workshop content was explained before the facilitators started the workshop. Participants were divided into different groups with their teachers so that both could receive the learning content and feedback together. Facilitators began with scenarios and real-life problems and stimulated students to think critically and creatively so that what they built would be related and presented in the scratch project. In the workshop sessions, participants were encouraged to build and express themselves through the project with the guidance of teachers or facilitators. Facilitators showed and guided participants the basic mechanics of scratch coding including reward systems, game elements, and making them digital.

The workshops emphasized hands-on, creative problem-solving and learning activities, providing participants with an engaging and collaborative environment to explore coding through Scratch. At the outset, participants, including both teachers and students, were introduced to the workshop objectives and the relevance of the activities within the broader educational context. This initial briefing ensured a clear understanding of the goals and fostered alignment between participants and facilitators. Participants were organized into mixed groups comprising students and their teachers, promoting collaborative learning and enabling simultaneous feedback and knowledge sharing. Facilitators utilized real-life scenarios and problem-based learning approaches to stimulate critical and creative thinking, ensuring that the projects developed during the sessions were meaningful and aligned with practical applications.

Within the sessions, facilitators introduced participants to the fundamental mechanics of Scratch coding, including reward systems, game elements, and techniques for transforming digital games or stories into educational resources. Participants were encouraged to apply these mechanics to design and build their projects, fostering self-expression and deeper engagement with the content. The workshops were designed to balance guided instruction with opportunities for independent creation, allowing participants to experiment and iterate on their ideas. Throughout the process, facilitators and peers provided real-time feedback, enabling participants to refine and enhance their projects collaboratively. This iterative feedback mechanism not only improved the quality of the projects but also cultivated a supportive and interactive learning atmosphere. By the end of the workshops, participants demonstrated increased confidence and creativity, showcasing their projects as a testament to the power of collaborative, project-based learning in coding education.

The structure of our workshops was inspired by the Greet, Make, and Share framework suggested by [29]. However, we expanded this structure to include additional elements: Greet, Discover, Make, Iterate, Share, Celebrate, Reflect, and Connect (see Figure 3). This enhanced framework allows for a more comprehensive and engaging learning experience, fostering creativity, collaboration, and deeper understanding among participants. The expanded structure was based on the justifications that aligned with the Constructivism learning theory as Table 1.

Fig. 3 The Greet, Discover, Make, Iterate, Share, Celebrate, Reflect, and Connect Structure

TABLE 1. Mapping the Elements and Learning Theories

The workshops were designed based on the constructivist perspective, emphasizing that participants constructed new knowledge by building upon their prior knowledge and experiences. This process was further enriched through social learning, where collaborative interactions among participants and facilitators enabled the co-construction of understanding. By engaging in hands-on activities, real-life problem-solving scenarios, and iterative project development, participants actively created and refined their knowledge within a dynamic and interactive learning environment.

In the performance-based competition approach, we incorporated surprise components by unveiling competition themes on the event day, creating a creative twist that necessitated flexibility and ingenuity within a constrained timeframe. Participants collaborated in groups to code their project within two hours and thirty minutes. Participants showcased their final creations, and judges offered commentary on each, emphasizing strengths and areas for enhancement. Participants gained insights from the event, enhancing their coding and presentation abilities. Depending on their performance, each group received a certificate of participation after the competition.

Sampling

All students from different schools in Perak, Malaysia were participants in the three cycles. The initial two cycles were executed in specifically created rooms within the school, while the third cycle took place in the school hall. Following the selection of participants, we communicated with their teachers and parents to obtain the necessary consent from both the minors and their legal guardians for data collection [38]. Their involvement in this study was completely optional, and they could withdraw at any moment without affecting their workshop attendance. The study sample comprised 35 individuals aged 10 to 12 years. Workshops were held on Fridays over a month, during which they engaged in a competition.

DATA COLLECTION

Our investigation was conducted based on the DBR methodology outlined by [26][38]. We performed a comprehensive literature analysis to identify theoretical and practical challenges in constructionism-based coding activities in Stage 1 [38]. Subsequently, in Stage 2, we formulated the intervention’s design grounded in constructionism following consultations with researchers, educators, and experts. The iterative processes were evaluated and improved during Stage 3 [38]. Qualitative data were collected across three cycles through semi-structured interviews, facilitators’ comments, and the artifacts created. All data focused on evaluating the children’s learning experience in our coding seminars and informed the improvement of the design for the next iteration. The fourth stage of DBR entails the formulation of design principles aimed at providing practical solutions in alignment with theoretical aims [38].

DATA ANALYSIS

The DBR process integrates interactive and iterative formative evaluations at each phase, from analysis to the formulation of design concepts, inspired by [38]. The researchers and facilitators maintained continuous collaboration from the initiation of the cycles’ implementation, encompassing the design, execution, and evaluation of each workshop. Their involvement in the project over its course allowed them to gain significant expertise in data processing and interpretation for each cycle. We analyzed the data from the three cycles. Qualitative data were analyzed according to scholar’s recommendations [31][38]. All data were compared and cross-verified for triangulation. The researchers performed a manual qualitative analysis for this work, utilizing both inductive and deductive approaches, as detailed in [31]. Upon the completion of each iteration of the one-month study, the researchers and facilitators convened focus groups to deliberate and reveal the developing concepts derived from the iteration’s outcomes. The codes for our qualitative analysis in this study were derived from the findings of each iteration, which were linked to all ideas [38]. The student’s engagement in the coding exercises was the central emphasis to integrate ideas and formulate themes.

FINDINGS

Findings of the First Cycle

The first cycle focused on introducing students to the fundamentals of Scratch programming through guided workshops and exploratory activities. Interview transcripts revealed that students initially displayed a mix of curiosity and apprehension, particularly regarding their ability to grasp programming concepts. However, as the workshops progressed, students reported increased confidence and engagement, attributing this shift to the hands-on nature of the activities and the facilitators’ support. A recurring theme in the transcripts was the value students placed on being able to create personally meaningful projects, which aligns with the constructionist theory that emphasizes learning through the creation of artifacts. For example, one student noted, “I didn’t think I could make something like a game, but now I want to keep adding to it.” This sentiment underscores the importance of project ownership in fostering intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy [13], [18], [37].

Furthermore, participants highlighted their interactions with facilitators as pivotal in bridging gaps in understanding, demonstrating the role of social learning in knowledge construction [19]. Knowledge is constructed through active engagement and hands-on creation, as posited by constructivist learning theory [13]. This foundational idea emphasizes that students learn best when they actively engage with concepts rather than passively receiving information. During Cycle 1, participants demonstrated enhanced confidence and interest as they explored Scratch programming by building their projects. It shifts the focus from rote learning to experiential learning, allowing students to connect theoretical coding concepts to practical applications [15]-[16]. This hands-on approach lays the groundwork for deeper learning in subsequent cycles.

Findings of the Second Cycle

Building on the foundational skills established in Cycle 1, the second cycle introduced collaborative problem-solving and iterative project development. Interview data indicated that students increasingly valued peer feedback and collaboration as integral to their learning process. One student commented, “When my friend suggested a change to my game, it made me think about how to improve it in a way I wouldn’t have thought of myself.” This highlights the role of peer interaction in fostering reflective thinking and creative problem-solving [19]. The transcripts also revealed that students began to view challenges as opportunities for growth, with another student stating, “It was frustrating at first when my code didn’t work but fixing it with help from my group felt like solving a puzzle.” These insights align with the constructionist emphasis on iterative learning and experimentation [14], [20]. The findings further demonstrated that participants were becoming more adept at applying feedback from facilitators and peers to refine their projects. This iterative process not only improved the quality of their artifacts but also deepened their understanding of Scratch mechanics and computational thinking.

Additionally, the transcripts revealed an emerging sense of community among participants, as students expressed enjoyment in sharing ideas and learning from each other, echoing the constructivists’ emphasis on collaboration as a cornerstone of meaningful learning. Learning is a social process where collaboration with peers and facilitators enhances knowledge construction, as emphasized by Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) [19]. In this cycle, we aimed to build gradual exposure to unexpected challenges by introducing surprise themes as collaborative projects. Participants noted that they brainstormed and worked together to address a surprise theme. Collaboration fosters reflective thinking and diverse perspectives. During this cycle, students valued feedback from peers and facilitators, which helped them refine their projects and deepen their understanding of Scratch mechanics. It highlights the role of social interaction in enhancing creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills. The findings underscore that group dynamics and shared learning experiences enrich individual knowledge and foster a sense of community in learning environments.

Findings of the Third Cycle

The third cycle focused on fostering student autonomy and the integration of advanced Scratch features into their projects. Interview transcripts revealed a marked increase in students’ confidence and creativity, with many participants taking ownership of their learning journey. Students described feeling “proud” of their projects, which often incorporated complex mechanics, such as loops, variables, and custom animations, demonstrating their growing proficiency. One student reflected, “This project feels like mine because I thought of it, built it, and made it work the way I wanted.” This sense of ownership aligns with the constructionist principle of creating personally meaningful artifacts as a pathway to deep learning [13], [18].

The introduction of surprise themes in Cycle 3 was pivotal in challenging students to apply their skills and think creatively under unfamiliar conditions. Interview transcripts revealed that while students initially expressed apprehension about the lack of preparation, the activity fostered critical thinking and adaptability. Many participants found the challenge engaging, with one commenting, “At first, I was nervous because I didn’t know what to expect, but the theme was really interesting, and it made me think of new ideas I hadn’t tried before.” This response underscores the role of surprise themes in promoting novel thinking and innovation. Another student remarked, “It was exciting to see how different everyone’s ideas were even though we had the same theme.” This illustrates how surprise themes encouraged diversity in problem-solving approaches, enhancing the overall learning experience. Facilitators observed that students relied on foundational skills from earlier cycles to interpret the theme and translate it into meaningful projects, demonstrating their ability to synthesize knowledge.

The two-hour time frame introduced a realistic constraint that tested students’ ability to prioritize and manage their time effectively. Transcript data revealed that some students found the time pressure motivating, with one stating, “It felt like a real challenge, like being in a hackathon where every second counts. I had to focus on what was most important for my project.” This sentiment highlights how the time constraint encouraged efficiency and critical decision-making. Another participant shared, “I learned to simplify my ideas because I didn’t have time to add everything. It helped me focus on what mattered most.” This reflection aligns with the iterative learning process emphasized in constructionist theory, where constraints guide learners to identify and prioritize essential elements [20]. Facilitators also noted that students demonstrated resilience and adaptability, with groups collaborating effectively to divide tasks and meet deadlines.

The presentations provided a platform for students to articulate their thought processes, showcase their projects, and receive feedback from peers and facilitators. Transcript excerpts revealed that students valued this opportunity for reflection and communication. One student said, “Explaining my project helped me understand it better. The questions from the audience made me think about things I hadn’t considered.” This comment underscores how presentations enhance metacognition and critical reflection [30]. Another student shared, “It was nerve-wracking at first, but I felt proud when I saw people liked my project and asked questions about how I made it.” This illustrates the importance of public acknowledgment and constructive dialogue in boosting confidence and reinforcing learning outcomes. Facilitators highlighted that the presentations encouraged students to think critically about their design choices and articulate their reasoning, aligning with the goals of performance-based assessment.

The transcripts also highlighted a shift in students’ approach to problem-solving. Many participants noted that they felt more comfortable experimenting with new ideas and learning from mistakes, with one student stating, “I know if I make a mistake, I can fix it or try something different.” This adaptability reflects the iterative mindset encouraged by constructionist learning environments. Additionally, students appreciated the autonomy they were given in designing their projects, as it allowed them to explore their interests and experiment creatively. The findings also revealed that students actively sought and provided feedback to their peers, underscoring the social dimension of learning and the importance of a collaborative environment [23].

Synthesis Across All Cycles

The findings from the three cycles of student engagement in coding activities illustrate a progressive trajectory in students’ confidence, collaboration, and mastery of coding skills, which aligns with existing literature on project-based learning (PjBL) and collaborative educational practices. In the first cycle, students exhibited initial apprehension, which gradually transformed into increased confidence as they engaged in hands-on Scratch programming activities. This experience was pivotal in fostering project ownership, which is known to enhance intrinsic motivation and engagement among learners [32]. The emphasis on creating personally meaningful projects allowed students to actively construct knowledge, a fundamental aspect of PjBL that has been shown to improve creative thinking skills [33].

Building on this foundation, the second cycle introduced collaborative problem-solving and iterative project development. Research indicates that collaborative learning environments significantly enhance student engagement by promoting persistence and effort in the face of challenges. Students began to value peer feedback and teamwork, which not only facilitated reflective thinking but also deepened their understanding of coding mechanics. This aligns with findings that highlight the importance of peer interactions in developing critical thinking and problem-solving abilities [34]. The iterative nature of project development encouraged students to refine their work based on feedback, further solidifying their coding skills and collaborative competencies.

In the third cycle, students demonstrated a remarkable level of autonomy and creativity, integrating advanced Scratch features into their projects. The introduction of surprise themes catalyzed adaptive skill application, fostering critical thinking and innovation. This is consistent with the assertion that project-based learning environments can effectively cultivate computational thinking and creativity by challenging students to apply their skills in novel contexts [32], [35]. The iterative learning process across all cycles underscores the transformative potential of a project-based approach, which has been shown to enhance not only technical skills but also the overall learning experience through increased engagement and collaboration [36]. In summary, the progressive trajectory observed in student engagement, collaboration, and mastery of coding skills across the three cycles reflects the efficacy of project-based learning methodologies in educational settings (See Figure 4). By fostering an environment that emphasizes ownership, collaboration, and iterative development, educators can significantly enhance students’ computational thinking and creativity, preparing them for future challenges in a technology-driven world.

Fig. 4 The Progression of Three Cycles in Scratch Learning

DISCUSSIONS

Design Principles

Our findings were grounded in constructionism, which emphasizes learning through the creation of meaningful artifacts, and social constructivism, which highlights the importance of collaborative and interactive learning environments. Constructionism guided the design, implementation, and analysis of the coding workshops, ensuring that activities were both pedagogically sound and aligned with the objectives of fostering computational thinking, creativity, and collaboration. The study validated and extended these theories by demonstrating their applicability in modern, technology-driven educational contexts. For instance, constructionism was evident in participants’ engagement with Scratch projects, where they iteratively designed and refined games based on their interests and the surprise themes introduced in Cycle 3. Social constructivism was reflected in the collaborative dynamics observed throughout the workshops, where peer feedback and teamwork enhanced the quality of the projects and deepened participants’ understanding of coding concepts [19].

From these findings, several general design principles emerged that can guide future implementations of similar activities (see Figure 3). First, activities should be designed to gradually increase in complexity, moving from basic to advanced tasks to form scaffolding progression in learning coding [19]. This scaffolding allows participants to build foundational skills before tackling more complex challenges, fostering confidence and competence; Second, providing opportunities for students to experiment, receive feedback, and revise their work enhances problem-solving skills and creativity [15]. Iterative processes encourage students to view mistakes as learning opportunities, aligning with constructionist principles [20]; Third, structuring activities to include teamwork and peer feedback promotes social learning and knowledge co-construction. Assigning roles within teams can ensure equitable participation and encourage diverse contributions; Fourth, allowing students to take ownership of their projects by integrating personal interests or surprise themes fosters intrinsic motivation and deeper engagement [18]. This approach encourages creativity and adaptability.

Fig. 5 Design Principles of Scratch Learning Workshop

Fifth, activities should be accessible to participants with varying levels of proficiency. Differentiated instruction and tailored support ensure that all learners, regardless of their prior experience, can engage meaningfully with the content; Sixth, incorporating authentic problems or themes that resonate with participants’ experiences bridges the gap between theoretical concepts and practical applications, making learning more impactful; and extending the duration of activities allows for deeper exploration and more meaningful project development. A multi-day format enables participants to progress through phases of learning, from foundational skills to creative application. These principles provide a framework for designing coding education interventions that are inclusive, engaging, and aligned with 21st-century learning goals. By grounding these principles in Constructivism, the study contributes both theoretical and practical insights, offering a model for scaling similar initiatives in diverse educational contexts.

Challenges

While the extension of Cycle 3 to a two-day format and the introduction of themes enriched the learning experience, several challenges emerged in executing the activities as the study progressed. These challenges revolved around managing the transition to more advanced tasks, ensuring inclusivity among participants, and addressing logistical constraints. One significant challenge was the varying levels of coding proficiency among participants. In Cycles 1 and 2, the activities were designed for beginners, with structured guidance and hands-on support provided by facilitators. However, as Cycle 3 introduced more advanced Scratch features and creative themes, some participants struggled to keep up with the increasing complexity. Facilitators noted that while more confident students thrived in this environment, those with less prior experience required additional support to complete their projects. This disparity highlighted the need for differentiated instruction and tailored scaffolding to ensure all participants could fully engage with the activities [19]. Another challenge was maintaining inclusivity in the collaborative aspects of the workshops. As students worked in teams, differences in participation levels occasionally emerged. For example, more assertive students tended to take the lead, while quieter team members contributed less actively. Facilitators had to intervene tactfully to ensure equitable participation, encouraging all team members to share their ideas and play active roles in the project development process. This challenge underscored the importance of fostering an inclusive environment where every participant feels valued and supported. Logistical constraints also posed challenges, particularly in managing the two-day format of Cycle 3. Coordinating schedules for participants, facilitators, and school venues required meticulous planning. Additionally, the introduction of surprise themes on the second day created time pressures, as students needed to brainstorm, design, and build their projects within a limited timeframe. While this approach successfully fostered critical thinking and adaptability, some students found the time constraints overwhelming, impacting their ability to realize their ideas fully.

Strategies

To address the challenge of varying proficiency levels among participants, it is crucial to implement differentiated instruction strategies. Facilitators can design workshop activities that cater to beginners while providing advanced options for more experienced students. For example, coding challenges can be structured with multiple difficulty levels, allowing participants to choose tasks that match their proficiency. Additionally, pairing students with complementary skill sets in collaborative groups can promote peer learning, where advanced participants can mentor beginners, fostering a supportive learning environment. To ensure inclusivity, facilitators should provide scaffolding, such as step-by-step guides or video tutorials, and allocate additional support for students who require more assistance after the workshop. Logistical constraints, such as time pressures and venue coordination, can be mitigated through flexible planning and scheduling. Breaking workshops into smaller, manageable sessions spread over multiple days can alleviate the time constraint, allowing participants sufficient time to absorb concepts and develop their projects. Advanced preparation, such as pre-assigning tasks and themes, can streamline the workflow during the workshops. To address venue limitations, blended approaches that combine in-person sessions with virtual elements can expand access to participants from diverse geographical areas. By leveraging online platforms for collaborative coding and project sharing, facilitators can ensure continuity in learning, even when physical venues pose limitations. These strategies collectively foster an inclusive and well-organized environment that enhances learning outcomes and minimizes barriers to participation.

LIMITATIONS

Despite the promising findings, this study faced several limitations that should be acknowledged to provide context for interpreting the results and identifying areas for future research. One primary limitation was the relatively small sample size, as the workshops were conducted with a group of 35 participants aged 10–12 from a limited geographical area. While this allowed for in-depth observation and interaction, it limits the generalizability of the findings to broader populations or different age groups. Future studies should consider involving a larger and more diverse participant pool to explore the scalability and adaptability of the proposed approach across various educational contexts. Finally, while this study employed a mixed methods approach to evaluate the program, the reliance on self-reported data, such as interviews and surveys, may introduce biases related to participants’ perceptions and responses [38]. Although the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data helped mitigate this issue, future research could incorporate longitudinal studies and objective measures, such as coding proficiency assessments, to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the program’s long-term impact. By addressing these limitations in future research, the findings of this study can be extended and refined to better understand how hybrid coding education approaches can be effectively scaled and adapted to diverse educational environments. These insights can further contribute to the development of inclusive, creative, and sustainable coding education programs.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the potential of a hybrid project-based and performance-based competition approach to foster computational thinking, creativity, and collaboration among young learners in coding education. Grounded in constructionism theory and guided by the Design-Based Research (DBR) methodology, the iterative workshops demonstrated how hands-on, collaborative, and adaptive learning experiences can empower students to engage deeply with coding concepts. The findings reveal a progressive development in participants’ skills, moving from foundational coding knowledge in the early cycles to advanced problem-solving and creative autonomy in the final cycle. By emphasizing iterative learning, collaborative engagement, and real-world relevance, this approach aligns with the needs of 21st-century education while addressing disparities in access and inclusivity.

The study contributes to the theoretical discourse by validating the application of constructionist and social constructivist principles in technology-driven learning environments. It also provides practical design principles that can guide educators, curriculum developers, and policymakers in creating scalable and sustainable coding education programs. Despite challenges such as resource limitations, time constraints, and varying levels of participant proficiency, the study demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a transformative approach to coding education that bridges theory and practice.

As technology continues to shape the future of education, this research underscores the importance of playful, inclusive, and iterative approaches to preparing students for the demands of a digital world. By equipping young learners with the skills to think critically, solve problems creatively, and collaborate effectively, such initiatives not only advance computational literacy but also contribute to broader educational equity and innovation. Future research should build on these findings to explore the long-term impacts of hybrid approaches, their scalability across diverse educational settings, and their potential integration with emerging technologies. This study represents a step toward reimagining coding education as a powerful tool for fostering lifelong learning and adaptability in an increasingly interconnected world.

REFERENCES

1. Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Baabdullah, A. M., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Giannakis, M., Al-Debei, M. M., Dennehy, D., Metri, B., Buhalis, D., Cheung, C. M., Conboy, K., Doyle, R., Dubey, R., Dutot, V., Felix, R., Goyal, D., Gustafsson, A., Hinsch, C., Jebabli, I., . . . Wamba, S. F. (2022). Metaverse beyond the hype: Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 66, 102542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102542
2. Afzal, A., Khan, S., Daud, S., Ahmad, Z., & Butt, A. (2023). Addressing the Digital Divide: Access and use of technology in education. Journal of Social Sciences Review, 3(2), 883–895. https://doi.org/10.54183/jssr.v3i2.326
3. Nolan, A., Edwards, S., Salamon, A., Straker, L., Grieshaber, S., Skouteris, H., Henderson, M., Highfield, K., & Bartlett, J. (2021). Young children’s agency with digital technologies. Children & Society, 36(4), 541–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12512
4. Mills, K. A., Cope, J., Scholes, L., & Rowe, L. (2024). Coding and Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum: A Review of Educational Outcomes. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241241327
5. Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2020). Computational thinking in programming with scratch in primary schools: a systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 12-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22255
6. Montiel-Cabello, H. and Zermeño, M. (2021). Educational challenges for computational thinking in k–12 education: a systematic literature review of “scratch” as an innovative programming tool. Computers, 10(6), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10060069
7. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189×12463051
8. Hasin, I., & Nasir, M. K. M. (2021). The effectiveness of the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in rural secondary schools in Malaysia. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 8(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2021.81.59.64
9. Ayob, N. H., Aziz, M. A., & Ayob, N. A. (2022). Bridging the digital Divide: Innovation policy and Implementation in Malaysia. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(8). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v12-i8/14554
10. Pršala, J. (2024). The effect of block-based programming activities on the computational thinking skills of pre-service primary school teachers. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.202426267
11. Aminah, N., Sukestiyarno, Y., Cahyono, A., & Maat, S. (2023). Student activities in solving mathematics problems with a computational thinking using scratch. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (Ijere), 12(2), 613. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i2.23308
12. Mouza, C., Pan, Y., Huí, Y., & Pollock, L. (2020). A multiyear investigation of student computational thinking concepts, practices, and perspectives in an after-school computing program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(5), 1029-1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120905605
13. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books.
14. 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. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
15. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 21–32.
16. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
17. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking in interactive media design. Paper presented at annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
18. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
19. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Learning by DesignTM: Iterations of Design Challenges for Better Learning of Science Skills. 9(3), 338–350. https://doi.org/10.11225/jcss.9.338
21. Shin, J., Kim, J., Kim, M. S., & Son, Y. (2021). Effects of cognitive appraisal styles and feedback types on feedback acceptance and motivation for challenge. Educational Psychology, 41(7), 902–921.
22. Winarko, G. C. (2024). Project-Based Learning with Scratch to Improve Students’ Creative Thinking Ability: Systematic Literature Review. Griya Journal of Mathematics Education and Application, 4(2), 190–196. https://doi.org/10.29303/griya.v4i2.440
23. Kafai, Y. B., Burke, Q., & Resnick, M. (2014). Front Matter. In Connected Code: Why Children Need to Learn Programming. The MIT Press.
24. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-Based Research. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189×11428813
25. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504682
26. Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52-66). London: Routledge.
27. Anderson, T. (2005). Design-based research and its application to a call center innovation in distance education. Canadian Journal of Learn-ing and Technology, 31(2), 69–84.
28. Nicol, D., & Kushwah, L. (2023). Shifting feedback agency to students by having them write their own feedback comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(3), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2265080
29. Presicce, C., Jain, R., Rodeghiero, C., Gabaree, L. E., & Rusk, N. (2020). WeScratch: an inclusive, playful and collaborative approach to creative learning online. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(7/8), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-04-2020-0123
30. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.
31. Saldana, J. (2015). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.
32. Maspul, K. A. (2024). Discovering the Underlying Motivations for Empowering Education Through Innovation. Journal of Information System and Education Development, 2(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.62386/jised.v2i1.58
33. Amalia, M. (2024). Application of the pjbl model to chemical materials to improve students’ creative thinking skills and entrepreneurial interests. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Ipa, 10(5), 2572-2580. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v10i5.7132
34. Angelelli, C. V., Muller de Campos Ribeiro, G., Roris Severino, M., Johnstone, E., Borzenkova, G., & Costa Oliveira da Silva, D. (2023). Developing critical thinking skills through gamification. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, Article 101354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101354
35. Voinohovska, V., & Doncheva, J. (2022). Assessing the level of teachers’ computational thinking skills through task-based learning in Scratch. ICERI Proceedings, 1, 1880–1887. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2022.0479
36. Cooney, A., & Darcy, E. (2020). ‘It was fun’: Exploring the pedagogical value of collaborative educational games, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(3), 1-15. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol17/iss3/4
37. Oluk, A., Korkmaz, Ö., & Oluk, H. (2018). Effect of scratch on 5th graders’ algorithm development and computational thinking skills. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (Turcomat). https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.399588
38. Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2019). Exploring children’s learning experience in constructionism-based coding activities through design-based research. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.008