Journal on Mathematics Education

Volume 15, No. 2, 2024, pp. 613-638

Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry:

Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives

Rully Charitas Indra Prahmana1,2,* , Satoshi Kusaka3 , Nur Robiah Nofikusumawati Peni1,2 ,
Hiroyuki Endo3 , Ahmad Azhari4 , Kanako Tanikawa3

1Mathematics Education Department, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

2Ethno-RealisticMathematics Education Research Center, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
3Human Education Department, Naruto University of Education, Tokushima, Japan
4Department of Informatics, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

*Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 3 January 2024 | Revised: 25 February 2024 | Accepted: 15 March 2024 | Published Online: 3 April 2024
© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Current research indicates the presence of highly skilled and motivated students with robust computational
thinking backgrounds seeking opportunities to leverage their expertise in driving innovation and success in this
era. These studies also reveal that students' computational thinking skills vary widely depending on educational
resources, curriculum emphasis, and individual aptitude. Nonetheless, there is a growing recognition of the
importance of fostering these skills, with efforts underway to integrate them more comprehensively into education
systems worldwide, including in Indonesia and Japan, as representatives of developing and developed countries.
Therefore, assessing the competency of computational thinking in these two countries would be intriguing. The
descriptive qualitative research method was employed to delineate the computational thinking competencies of
students in Indonesia and Japan. Student worksheets, specifically designed for this purpose, were utilized to
gauge the development of these competencies during the learning process using the Scratch application. The
results revealed that students employed various strategies in solving the given geometry problems. On the other
hand, geometry is one of the mathematics topics that can identify students' computational thinking using this
application. These findings were utilized to categorize students' computational thinking skills in the two countries
and to identify potential obstacles students experienced in their efforts to enhance these skills. Nevertheless,
these constraints offer significant insights into potential areas for future investigation and enhancement.
Subsequent endeavors could prioritize conducting experiments by implementing specific learning approaches or
methods that have demonstrated effectiveness in improving students' computational thinking skills. This study
not only underscores the potential for expanding research on students' computational thinking skills but also
provides an overview of the learning process, learning culture, and students' competence in solving geometry
problems with tiered difficulty levels using their computational thinking skills.
Keywords: Computational Thinking Skills, Geometry, Indonesia and Japan, Primary School, Scratch

How to Cite: Prahmana, R. C. I., Kusaka, S., Peni, N. R. N., Endo, H., Azhari, A., & Tanikawa, K. (2024). Cross-
cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives. Journal
on Mathematics Education, 15(2), 613-638. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp613-638

Prior research underscores the significance of computational thinking skills for students across diverse
domains, enhancing problem-solving, collaboration, and analytical abilities, and can be developed
through specific educational tools and approaches (Yadav et al., 2017; Ardito et al., 2020; Saritepeci,
2020; Molina-Ayuso et al., 2022; Israel-Fishelson & Hershkovitz, 2022; Yunianto et al., 2023). Yadav et

http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp613-638
614 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

al. (2017) advocate for integrating computational thinking as a crucial skill in the twenty-first century,
emphasizing its inclusion in primary and secondary education to augment students' analytical capabilities.
Computational thinking is essential, rooted in problem-solving and logical reasoning and drawing upon
principles from computer science and mathematics (Ardito et al., 2020). These skills are valuable not only
for students interested in pursuing careers in technology but also for all students in various disciplines
(Molina-Ayuso et al., 2022). They prepare students for careers in technology and foster critical thinking,
creativity, and problem-solving abilities that are valuable across multiple fields and throughout life
(Saritepeci, 2020; Israel-Fishelson & Hershkovitz, 2022). Consequently, developing computational
thinking skills is indispensable for all students, irrespective of their future professional endeavors.
Scratch embodies a visual programming paradigm meticulously designed for educational
endeavors, specifically tailored to impart coding concepts to novices and juveniles (Stewart & Baek, 2023;
Yunianto et al., 2023). It eliminates the need for learners to familiarize themselves with traditional
programming languages such as Python and JavaScript. Distinguished for its accessibility, Scratch
stands out as one of the most straightforward visual programming tools, empowering users to create
projects spanning from games to educational materials. Engaging with Scratch allows students to dissect
tasks into discrete components, employ loops for iterative processes, and utilize conditionals for informed
decision-making, enabling educators to assess their aptitude for algorithmic reasoning (Fagerlund et al.,
2020). At the core of Scratch's effectiveness lies its modular organization of code into reusable blocks, a
design philosophy that encourages learners to distill recurring patterns and procedures, thus nurturing
foundational aspects of computational thinking (Zhang & Nouri, 2019). Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2022)
delve into the intricate nature of Scratch projects, often necessitating the resolution of multifaceted
problems, compelling students to decompose overarching issues into more tractable constituents,
thereby offering invaluable insights into their decomposition skills. As students immerse themselves in
creating and debugging Scratch projects, they inevitably encounter coding patterns, learn to discern and
harness them, and cultivate strategies for troubleshooting, thereby persistently overcoming obstacles.
Numerous studies have indicated that the utilization of Scratch applications in educational settings
can markedly enhance and evaluate various dimensions of students' computational thinking skills across
diverse academic levels and disciplines (Piedade & Dorotea, 2022; Molina-Ayuso et al., 2022; Gökçe &
Yenmez, 2023). Piedade and Dorotea (2022) observed that participants in the experimental group who
engaged in Scratch-based activities exhibited higher scores on the Beginners Computational Thinking
Test than their counterparts who did not partake in such activities. Furthermore, Molina-Ayuso et al.
(2022) documented notable enhancements in computational thinking skills among pre-service primary
teachers undergoing mathematics education training through instructional modules featuring Scratch
applications. Given that computational thinking encompasses problem-solving and logical reasoning
abilities intrinsic to programming, activities based on Scratch serve as pragmatic instruments for skill
cultivation (Gökçe & Yenmez, 2023). Conversely, Jiang and Li (2021) advocate for providing primary
school students with more meaningful programming problems and integrating Scratch with subjects like
mathematics and robotic programming to foster interdisciplinary learning and enhance computational
thinking skills. Considering these findings, integrating Scratch applications into mathematics learning
settings holds substantial promise for measuring and assessing students' computational thinking skills,
particularly among primary school students.
Moreover, Scratch promotes creativity and innovation, enabling students to express their ideas
through unique projects requiring creative thinking and computational concepts (Marcelino et al., 2018;
Fagerlund et al., 2020). Evaluating the originality and complexity of their creations provides valuable
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 615

insights into their creative problem-solving skills. Furthermore, Scratch projects often involve
collaboration, encouraging students to work together, share ideas, and communicate effectively within
project teams (Roque et al., 2016). Assessing the quality of students' collaboration and communication
within Scratch project teams offers additional insights into their computational thinking skills. In summary,
Scratch is a versatile platform for developing and accessing various facets of computational thinking,
providing educators with valuable tools to support students' cognitive growth and skill development.
However, it's essential to complement Scratch-based assessments with other evaluation forms to ensure
a holistic understanding of students' skills and competencies.
Assessment via geometry problems can be seamlessly integrated into educational practices,
employing Scratch to gauge students' prowess in computational thinking. Students can effectively use
Scratch to solve geometry problems and enhance their computational thinking skills (Molina-Ayuso et al.,
2023). Scratch facilitates visualization of geometric concepts by creating sprites representing shapes and
properties, allowing students to experiment with various configurations and visually observe geometric
relationships (Rodríguez-Martínez et al., 2020). Students develop algorithmic thinking and problem-
solving abilities by breaking down problems into algorithms and designing scripts to manipulate geometric
elements (Kale et al., 2018). The interactive interface of Scratch fosters real-time feedback, nurturing a
profound comprehension of mathematical concepts intertwined with coding proficiency (Smith et al.,
2022). Therefore, collaboration and sharing features on the Scratch platform promote peer learning and
diverse problem-solving approaches, making it an engaging tool for students to apply computational
thinking to geometry problem-solving tasks.
Issues about computational thinking skills exhibit variations between developing and developed
nations yet share commonalities (Grover & Pea, 2013; Dahlman, 2007; Ausiku & Matthee, 2023).
Developing countries like Indonesia need help accessing technology and the internet due to infrastructure
deficiencies and economic obstacles (Sparrow et al., 2020). In contrast, a digital disparity persists within
developed nations like Japan, disproportionately affecting marginalized demographics (Ono & Zavodny,
2007; Robinson et al., 2015). Both contexts confront hurdles in integrating computational thinking into
educational frameworks owing to outdated curricula, insufficient teacher training, and resource
inadequacies (Ogegbo & Ramnarain, 2022). Globally, computational thinking has pronounced disparities
in specific regions. Awareness and perception regarding the significance of computational skills may be
lacking, exacerbated by language barriers in non-English-speaking areas such as Indonesia and Japan.
Mitigating these challenges necessitates investment in infrastructure, teacher development, curriculum
innovation, and advocacy efforts to underscore the pivotal role of computational thinking for future
proficiency in a digitized society.
Indonesia's educational system is increasingly prioritizing computational thinking skills to equip
students with problem-solving abilities crucial for navigating the demands of the digital era, leveraging
the curriculum's emphasis on problem-solving, mathematics, and creativity alongside initiatives
integrating coding education and technology, all fostering an environment conducive to skill development
and innovation (Global Education Monitoring Report Team - SEAMEO Regional Open Learning Center,
2023). On the other hand, recognizing the growing importance of computational thinking skills in Japan,
where educational emphasis on problem-solving, mathematics, creativity, collaboration, and technology
integration fosters an environment conducive to skill development, particularly evident through initiatives
introducing coding education and leveraging the country's technological advancements in website-based
learning environment to prepare students for success in the modern digital world (Kobayashi &
Hasegawa, 2020; Kobayashi et al., 2022). Therefore, over the past decade, Indonesia and Japan have
616 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

demonstrated a notable commitment to fostering computational thinking skills among students by

developing conducive learning environments and comprehensive supporting tools.
This research constitutes a comprehensive effort to describe and classify one of the crucial skills
students must possess in this era: computational thinking. Our team has developed a learning trajectory
to support student worksheets organized into three sessions to accomplish this objective. The student
worksheets contain activities to assess students' computational thinking skills based on their performance
throughout the learning process. Through integrating learning activities and developed worksheets, this
study presents a holistic approach to identifying and categorizing elementary school students'
comprehension of fundamental geometric concepts and computational thinking skills. The selection of
elementary school students stems from the belief that their capabilities can be maximized if cultivated
from an early age.
Furthermore, the decision to implement the study in two countries, Indonesia and Japan, aims to
investigate computational thinking capabilities across developing and developed nations. Consequently,
the study poses two research questions: to what extent can the designed learning promote the
computational thinking skills of elementary school students in Japan and Indonesia, and to what extent
can the designed learning enhance students' understanding of Geometry based on their computational
thinking skills in the countries as mentioned earlier. These research questions were explored to ascertain
and classify students' computational thinking skills and understanding of basic geometric concepts.
Through exploring these inquiries, we aim to gain insights into the efficacy of the developed learning tools
in analyzing and comprehending the intricate facets of elementary school students' computational
thinking abilities in Indonesia and Japan.
The following section of this article outlines the research methods utilized for data collection and
analysis. Furthermore, the results and discussion section elaborate on the learning phases, which are
divided into three sessions. Each session encompasses various activities, employing the student
worksheet developed alongside geometry problems that were solved through Scratch. Lastly, the study
findings demonstrate a significant improvement in students' computational thinking skills by implementing
innovative student worksheet activities utilizing Scratch. Summaries of these results are presented in the
concluding section.

METHODS
This descriptive qualitative inquiry endeavors to characterize innovative learning methodologies
facilitated by Scratch, aimed at assessing students' computational thinking skills in the context of
geometric problem-solving. The research methodology entails a sequential progression comprising three
distinct phases: preparation, implementation, and analysis. During the preparatory phase, the research
team formulated Scratch-based instructional materials, encompassing students' worksheets,
programming tasks, and assessment tools, all of which were made accessible via an online platform
(https://s.uad.id/Courses). Rigorous validation procedures were implemented, entailing evaluation by
three lecturers from each respective side, two pre-service mathematics instructors, one scholar, and three
subject matter experts, augmented by forum group discussions.
One of the principal advantages inherent in descriptive qualitative research lies in its steadfast
emphasis on context, comprehensively integrating social, cultural, and environmental factors that
influence phenomena under investigation. This perspective proves particularly invaluable in exploratory
research endeavors, where the primary objective is to elucidate variables, formulate hypotheses, and
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 617

establish a foundational comprehension for future inquiries. By prioritizing the observation of real-world
experiences as they naturally unfold, qualitative research unveils the intricate and subtle dynamics
inherent in human behavior and social relationships, aspects often overlooked by quantitative
methodologies (Colorafi & Evans, 2016). The significance of studying phenomena within their authentic
contexts is further underscored by Willis et al. (2016) in their comparative analysis of descriptive
phenomenological and qualitative description research methodologies.
Subsequently, during the implementation phase, a standardized instructional model was adopted
across educational settings in Indonesia and Japan, encompassing three instructional sessions as
outlined in forthcoming intervention lessons sections. Data collection during the implementation stage
involved direct observation, with the student-teacher researcher assuming the instructor role while other
researchers in the project observed the entire class in both countries. Video and voice memos were
utilized to record the lesson implementation to enhance subsequent analysis. These interventions,
employing Scratch as a pedagogical tool, were intricately designed to address the research inquiries
while concurrently developing a computational thinking assessment instrument. A systematic analysis
addressed the research problem formulation after the data collection phase. Examination of test
outcomes yielded insights relevant to the first research question, while detailed classroom observations
and analyses were undertaken to elucidate the impact of Scratch programming on students'
understanding of geometric principles, explicitly addressing the second research question.
Schools’ and Students’ Target
The research was conducted at one of the public primary schools in Ibaraki prefecture, Japan, involving
a total of 99 sixth-grade students. It is known for its commitment to providing quality education to its
students. The school is situated in a suburban area, providing a conducive learning environment with
modern facilities and resources. The student body at this school is diverse, comprising students from
various socio-economic backgrounds and with differing levels of academic abilities.
In terms of the students' characteristics, they are typically between the ages of 11 and 12 years
old, representing a crucial developmental stage in their academic journey. Sixth-graders transition from
primary to secondary education, often requiring increased academic rigor and responsibilities. The
students are known for their diligence, enthusiasm for learning, and respectful demeanor toward teachers
and peers. On the other hand, the research in Indonesia was conducted at one of the private schools in
Yogyakarta, involving 28 fifth-grade students. This school is a reputable educational institution affiliated
with the Muhammadiyah organization, which is well-known for its contributions to education in Indonesia.
Located in a bustling urban area, the school serves a diverse student population from various cultural
and socio-economic backgrounds.
The characteristics of its students are similar to those in Japan, with fifth-grade students typically
aged 10 to 11 years old. They are at a crucial stage in their academic development, preparing for the
transition to higher levels of education. These students are known for their resilience and eagerness to
learn despite facing challenges such as limited resources and socio-economic disparities. Overall, both
schools provide unique learning environments that contribute to their students' academic and socio-
emotional growth. The diverse student populations and dedicated faculty members create dynamic
educational settings conducive to research and innovation in teaching and learning practices.
Intervention Phase of Lessons
The study was designed to cultivate foundational computational thinking abilities over the course of three
618 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

instructional sessions, with the objectives and content outlined in Table 1. The initial lesson concentrated
on acquainting students with the fundamental principles of algorithmic thinking, covering sequential
processing, iteration, and conditional branching, drawing from works by Shute et al. (2017) and Rose
(2019). This introduction was facilitated through an innovative integration of dance and physical
engagement. Subsequently, Scratch was introduced as a platform to apply these concepts tangibly,
exemplified by generating squares through sequential and iterative processes. The second lesson
focused on creating various regular polygons, with students actively determining the precise angles at
each vertex and the requisite number of iterations for each shape, thus enhancing their comprehension.
The third lesson aimed to consolidate the knowledge acquired from preceding sessions, challenging
students with a more intricate task—drawing star shapes—requiring the application of their understanding
in a nuanced context. Additionally, students underwent assessments to gauge the development of their
computational thinking skills, with evaluation aimed at measuring the internalization of computational
thinking principles demonstrated through adept application across diverse and progressively intricate
scenarios.

Table 1. Objectives and Content of the Lessons

Lesson Objectives Content
1 - Understand the basic usage of - Experience sequential processing, iterative
Scratch. processing, and conditional branching, which are
- Draw a square using sequential and key concepts in algorithmic thinking, through
iterative processing. physical activities.
- Draw a square using sequential and iterative
processing.
2 Draw various regular polygons. - Think about a method to draw a triangle using
iterative processing.
- Draw a square, pentagon, and circle.
3 - Draw a star. - Utilize the knowledge acquired so far to devise a
- Using the concepts learned so far, method for drawing a star.
draw the shapes provided (as an - Draw the shapes presented (Levels 1-8).
assessment). - Draw shapes using free imagination.

Assessment and Analysis Method

To formulate the assessment task, several prior studies were consulted for guidance on assessment
methods (Basso et al., 2018; Román-González et al., 2019), educational interventions, and strategies for
teaching and evaluating computational thinking (Rose, 2019; Bender et al., 2023), particularly in the
context of programming with Scratch. The assessment task comprised eight figures ranging from Level
1 to Level 8, which students were required to draw using Scratch programming. The figures
corresponding to each level are illustrated in Figure 1, and a time limit of 20 minutes was allocated for
this activity.
Computational Thinking (CT) comprises four key components: decomposition, pattern recognition,
abstraction, and algorithmic design (Wing, 2006; Kalelioğlu et al., 2016; Yunianto et al., 2023; Purwasih
et al., 2024). Decomposition entails breaking down a complex problem into smaller, more manageable
parts or subproblems. Pattern recognition involves identifying patterns, similarities, or regularities within
the problem or data. Abstraction involves focusing on essential details while filtering out unnecessary
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 619

information. Algorithmic design entails developing step-by-step instructions or procedures to solve

problems. Criteria for evaluating each task were established based on these definitions. Despite tasks
being developed up to Level 8, students only responded up to Level 3.

Figure 1. Task Assessment

Therefore, an evaluation table is provided for up to Level 3 (Table 2). Moreover, the assessment
was carried out for Decomposition, Pattern Recognition, and Abstraction, concentrating on whether these
facets were accomplished as per the established criteria. For example, concerning Level 1, if criterion 'a'
was fulfilled, it was inferred that Decomposition thinking was demonstrated. As for Algorithm Design,
outcomes were classified based on whether sequencing, looping, or both were employed.

Table 2. Evaluation Criteria for Computational Thinking (CT)

Computational Achieved
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Thinking (CT) or Not
Decomposition ✔ a. Draw a square and a. Draw two triangles a. Draw all four figures
a triangle. b. Other ways separately
b. Other ways b. Draw two triangles
separately and squares in
other ways
c. Draw two squares
separately and triangles in
other ways
d. Other ways
🗶 The triangle fit inside a. Using two triangles a. Drawing square 
the square without b. Drawing sides by square  triangle 
overlapping sides with some triangle
b. Drawing triangle 
620 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

patterns triangle  square 

square
c. Drawing triangle 
square  triangle 
square
d. Drawing square 
triangle  square 
triangle
Pattern ✔ a. Drawing a square Draw two triangles Drawing squares and
Recognition and a triangle consecutively triangles consecutively
consecutively
b. The triangle does
not fit inside the
square without
overlapping
🗶 Drawing by other Other ways Drawing by other ways
ways
Abstraction ✔ Drawing a square Draw two triangles Drawing squares and
and a triangle consecutively triangles consecutively
consecutively
🗶 Drawing by other Other ways Drawing by other ways
ways
Algorithm Design ✔ a. Use “Sequence” to a. Use “Sequence” to a. Use “Sequence” to
draw figures draw figures draw figures
b. Use “Loops” to b. Use “Loops” to draw b. Use “Loops” to draw a
draw a triangle a triangle triangle
c. Mixed c. Mixed c. Mixed

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Scratch for Beginners
Overall, the students demonstrated a general understanding of the three core concepts of algorithmic
thinking. Integrating physical activities, visual comprehension using Scratch blocks, and verbal
explanations appeared to be effective strategies. However, it became evident that the terminology posed
challenges for the students. Consequently, efforts were made to simplify the language as much as
possible from the second lesson onwards, employing plain Japanese terms such as "processing in order,"
"repetition," and "condition." This adjustment aimed to enhance clarity and facilitate better comprehension
among the students.
Using Scratch, the sample display on the monitor and the worksheet provided visible references
for the students to create programs mimicking and drawing squares. However, due to the abundance of
blocks available, it proved challenging for students to locate the necessary ones. To address this, a
project was prepared in which the required blocks were pre-arranged separately. The activity was
structured step-by-step, guiding students through the sequential processing and repetition required to
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 621

draw squares. This approach facilitated smooth operation and enhanced learning outcomes. While some
students had prior experience with Scratch, it was their first exposure to the platform for many.
Consequently, the activities generated significant interest among the students, regardless of their prior
familiarity with Scratch.
In the initial session of the Indonesian class, students enthusiastically participated in the structured
lesson plan, which spanned 45 minutes and comprised three distinct activities: introduction (10 minutes),
expansion (30 minutes), and consolidation (5 minutes). To augment algorithmic thinking, the physical
activities introduced in the Japanese class were incorporated into the Indonesian class. Three specific
physical exercises were integrated to aid students in comprehending Scratch, emphasizing the
importance of adhering to a process, persisting until conditions are met, and adjusting strategies based
on varying conditions.
During the expansion phase, teachers elucidated the lesson's objective to students: "to manipulate
blocks to program something with Scratch." Teachers demonstrated the process for students, illustrating
how to draw a square using 'go' and 'turn' blocks, as shown in Figure 2. This step was pivotal in the initial
lesson, fostering computational thinking by delving into the functionalities of sequencing, loops, and
selections within the Scratch activity.

Figure 2. The Teacher Simulated How to Draw a Square using 'Go' and 'Turn' Blocks

In the activities of this initial lesson, students not only attempted to draw using block actions in the
Scratch program but also grasped the intricate relationship between loops utilizing the repeated function
and the number of sides of the shape to be created. This understanding benefitted students as they
tackled other spatial figures in subsequent lessons. In the final minutes of consolidation, students were
encouraged to reflect and summarize their comprehension of sequence, loops, selections, and how to
manipulate blocks within Scratch. This reflective exercise facilitated a deeper internalization of the
lesson's key concepts and encouraged students to articulate their newfound understanding.
Computational Thinking Skills in Solving Geometry Problems
During the triangle drawing activity, students demonstrated the application of knowledge acquired in their
math class. We physically moved the sprite illustration on the blackboard to confirm the procedure for
622 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

drawing triangles as a whole. Notably, when considering the degree of rotation required after drawing a
straight line, many students initially thought "60 degrees" instead of the correct answer, "120 degrees."
Upon further inquiry, students cited concepts such as "sum of the interior angles of a triangle" and "one
angle of a triangle" from their math lessons. This exemplified their utilization of mathematical knowledge
within the programming context. While the sprite's actual rotation of 60 degrees was displayed on the
monitor, students quickly recognized the discrepancy. They found it relatively straightforward to
determine the number of repetitions for the straight line and 120-degree rotation, likely drawing on their
prior experience from creating squares in the previous lesson. Consequently, by amalgamating
mathematical knowledge with programming concepts learned in the initial lesson, students successfully
understood and replicated the triangle drawing program using Scratch.
In the activity of drawing pentagons and circles, students needed help in calculating the required
angles. However, they independently tackled the problem through trial and error, seeking peer assistance
when needed. After some time, we provided the angles which enabled most students to complete the
program successfully. Those who had already formed pentagons and circles drew polygons with six or
more sides, referring to the suggested angles, as presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Students' Worksheet Instruction

During the reflection presentation, one student remarked, "I noticed that as the number of corners
increased, the figure gradually got closer to the circle." This trend observed in the Indonesian classroom
aligns with the experiences in Japan. In the second lesson in Indonesia, teachers review the previous
lesson and reiterate to students the three essential functions of sequence, loops, and selections. During
the expansion phase, the lesson's objective is introduced: by the end of the class, students should be
capable of drawing various figures such as triangles, squares, pentagons, and circles using Scratch.
To facilitate the investigation, students are presented with figures in their worksheets and tasked
with determining the number of sides in each figure, the degrees in each corner, and the repeated actions
involved. While Indonesian students find the first shape, the 'rectangle,' relatively straightforward due to
prior practice, they encounter challenges with triangles and subsequent shapes. Teachers guide students
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 623

in comprehending the total degrees in each shape, addressing considerations such as turn degrees that
may lead to confusion. Students employ a trial-and-error strategy, experimenting with various angles
within the Scratch program. Some students, like Shaina, grasp the concept of supplementary angles and
successfully construct shapes like triangles, rectangles, pentagons, hexagons, polygons, and circles, as
illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Shaina's Work in Different Shapes

Understanding the values of exterior angles of regular polygons is imperative for students'
mathematical comprehension. To achieve this, students employed three primary methods. Firstly, they
used a protractor to measure the exterior angles of regular polygons inscribed on paper, presented in
Figure 5.

Figure 5. Finding the Value of Exterior Angles Using a Protractor

624 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

Secondly, students calculated the exterior angles of regular polygons in their notebooks before coding,
as referred to in Figure 6. Lastly, students engaged in an iterative process of experimentation, employing
trial and error to refine their understanding of exterior angles through practical application.

Figure 6. Finding the Value of Exterior Angles by Calculation Beforehand

Subsequent figures showcase students' approaches to creating circles, highlighting instances of

manipulating repeated actions or adding additional Scratch program blocks (forever blocks) to achieve
the desired result, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Some Students Work using Different Ways

This activity serves as a catalyst for fostering students' cognitive processes in shape construction,
placing particular emphasis on three pivotal factors essential to the Scratch program: side, angle, and
action. By comprehending the degrees present in each corner and accurately inputting the corresponding
angles, students gain the ability to create their own works in subsequent lessons. Furthermore, while
computing exterior angles of regular polygons may not immediately verify their correctness, utilizing
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 625

Scratch to draw shapes offers instantaneous confirmation. The fact that nearly all students successfully
drew up to a regular hexagon indicates that using Scratch effectively enhances their understanding of
geometry.
Exploring Students’ Computational Thinking Skills through Geometry Problems
In the final lesson, we reviewed the sequential processing and repetition program with a task involving
drawing a star. As the activity revolved around presenting angles, students could develop a program
swiftly using familiar techniques.
Each student uniquely approached the problem in the level-specific tasks, employing one of three
primary methods: trial and error, pre-calculation, and mathematical tools. Trial and error involve predicting
approximate angles and movements and then testing the program iteratively. While this method is time-
consuming and requires patience, inadvertently applying shapes from other levels is risky. Pre-
calculation, conversely, entails pre-planning calculations and angle movements on a worksheet,
facilitating the organization of thoughts before programming. This approach minimizes the likelihood of
significant errors due to the necessary preparation involved. Finally, the mathematical tools method
involves utilizing tools such as a protractor or ruler to analyze shapes on the worksheet before
programming. This method, prevalent in Japanese education, ensures students can access the
necessary mathematical exploration tools.
During the 20-minute activity session, the completion rates of tasks varied among Japanese
students across different difficulty levels: 48 out of 99 students completed Level 1 tasks, 42 completed
Level 2 tasks, and 16 completed Level 3 tasks, with each number denoting the portion of students out of
the total of 99 who completed the task. The lesson conductor and the homeroom teacher providing
support observed sustained engagement among most students throughout the activity. Notably, many
students, including those typically less inclined towards mathematics and those enrolled in special needs
classes, demonstrated focused concentration on their tasks. This heightened engagement was attributed
to the efficacy of the ICT equipment and the Scratch platform itself. Furthermore, during the final 10
minutes of the session, students were encouraged to express their creativity by drawing their own shapes,
further enhancing their involvement in the activity.

Figure 8. Teachers Explain How to Draw a Star

626 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

On the other hand, the concluding session in the Indonesian class serves as the apex of the
course, centering on the acquisition of the skill of drawing a star under the guidance of instructors, as
shown in Figure 8. Subsequently, students are allocated time to review and refine their learned figures.
Following this, they engage in challenging tasks involving the creation of various shapes, with eight levels
of complexity delineated as challenges, as illustrated in Figure 1. Each level necessitates the application
of distinct computational thinking for successful completion. The teacher evaluates students'
computational thinking skills and achievements, as presented in Table 2. Furthermore, students
undertake the endeavor of devising original shapes, showcasing their unique ideas and algorithmic
thought processes in Level 9 of the assigned task.
During the introductory phase, teachers elucidate to students the objective of the day's lesson: to
acquire the technique of drawing a star and evaluate their algorithmic thinking skills by the lesson's
conclusion. Additionally, students are reminded of the concepts covered in previous lessons to provide
context for the current material. Before progressing to the expansion phase, students participate in a
review and practice session under the teacher's guidance. This session focuses on drawing various
figures and angles, employing blocks, and adhering to programming naming conventions.
Teachers guide students in drawing a star using both sequential and loop-based methods,
illustrating the efficiency of loops compared to the traditional sequential approach. Students are prompted
to contemplate the number of lines required to form the star and the corresponding number of blocks
necessary for its creation, as shown in Figure 9. Emphasizing the star's angle, set at 144 degrees, the
teacher aims to deepen students' understanding of geometric concepts. The primary goals of this activity
encompass two aspects: firstly, to draw the star (“Bintang” in the Indonesian language) using both
sequential and loop methods, and secondly, to incorporate turn left and turn right blocks, laying the
groundwork for upcoming challenges.

Figure 9. Student’s Work in Making Stars

The provided figure exemplifies the outcomes of students' endeavors in generating star patterns
through sequential and loop techniques, employing turn-right blocks. Notably, students discern that
fashioning a star necessitates five lines, correlating with the 144-degree angles previously elucidated by
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 627

the teacher. In constructing the elongated rendition of the star via the sequential method, students adeptly
replicate the process by duplicating the red (signifying drawing a line) and blue (denoting a turn right)
blocks five times. Furthermore, drawing from their prior experiences, students recognize the efficiency of
employing loops and inputting '5' in the repetitive function, significantly expediting the creation of star
shapes.
Five minutes before transitioning into the expansion phase, teachers delineate the guidelines for
tackling the challenging task outlined in their worksheets, which include:
- A time constraint of 20 minutes was allocated for levels 1 through 8.
- Mandatory naming of programming blocks upon completion.
- Prohibition against breaking completed blocks; students should duplicate blocks if necessary.
- Prohibition against seeking answers from peers.

Within the allotted 20-minute timeframe covering levels 1 through 8 of the challenging tasks, as shown in
Figure 1, most students successfully advanced up to level 3. Two predominant approaches emerged
among the various strategies employed in their construction processes: trial and error and design
simulation. Students employing the trial-and-error strategy explore the program by iteratively adjusting
angle inputs, turning left/right blocks, and other parameters. Conversely, students utilizing the design
simulation approach first sketch the requested shape in their notebooks, calculate the angles, and then
replicate the process in the program. Many students emphasize a combination of sequences and loops
when designing the requested shapes.
Level 1 tasks students with creating a triangle and a square, as shown in Figure 10. They are
assigned to draw the specified figures and label the programming blocks as 'Level 1,' utilizing sequences,
loops, or devising their own method for constructing the shape.

Figure 10. Level 1 - Composition of Triangle and Square

Out of the 28 Indonesian students, 19 demonstrated proficiency in drawing using various

approaches. Among them, fifteen students met the evaluation criteria for computational thinking
presented in Table 2, encompassing decomposition (DC), pattern recognition (PT), abstraction (AB), and
algorithmic design (AD). Conversely, four students solely met the algorithmic design (AD) criteria. Sample
examples showcasing students reaching all phases within computational thinking skills involve creating
shapes of squares and triangles that either do not overlap (see Figure 11) or overlap with each other (see
Figure 12).
628 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

Figure 11. Student's Work in Level 1 - With Category Shapes Not Overlapping in DC

In contrast, in Japan, concerning Level 1, 48 out of 99 students have fulfilled the four criteria of
computational thinking. Interestingly, regarding algorithmic design, only five individuals constructed using
sequences, while the remaining 41 utilized loops and two students used mixed methods (both sequence
and loop). Figures 11 and 12 highlight discrepancies in strategy usage: the student depicted in Figure 11
utilizes loops to outline the rectangle and subsequently employs sequences to delineate the triangle,
ensuring there is no overlap between the two shapes. Conversely, the student in Figure 12 utilizes loops
for both shapes. They input '6' into the repeated blocks to construct the rectangle, facilitating the accurate
initiation of the triangle drawing process.

Figure 12. Student's Work in Level 1 - With Category Shapes Overlapping in DC

Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 629

Both students successfully fulfill the decomposition and pattern recognition criteria while drawing
two distinct shapes. Despite differences in abstraction, the student depicted in Figure 11 adeptly avoids
overlap and can draw the two shapes consecutively, meeting criterion a. This student also demonstrates
algorithmic design (criterion c) by employing a combination of loops and sequences.
Conversely, the abstraction ability of the student in Figure 12, who creates a rectangle by
overlapping before directly drawing a triangle, aligns with criterion b. Additionally, this student meets
criterion b in algorithmic design, utilizing only loops to craft the requested shape in level 1.

Figure 13. Level 2- Change the Direction of Two Triangles

In Level 2, students are tasked with altering the orientation of two triangles, as shown in Figure 13,
requiring them to draw them in opposite orientations using sequences, loops, or a combination of
strategies. Among the 28 Indonesian students, eight successfully met the level criteria. Among them, four
students achieved all the criteria of Computational Thinking (CT), while another four met only one of the
CT criteria, specifically algorithmic design (AD).

Figure 14. Student's Work in Level 2 - With Category Side by Side, Overlapping, and Mix
630 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

Conversely, 42 out of 99 students in Japan achieved all the computational thinking goals. Sample
examples illustrating students reaching all phases of computational thinking skills (DC, PT, AB, AD)
include creating shapes of two triangles, whether overlapping or not, drawing side by side or using two
triangles, and employing mixed algorithmic design.

Figure 15. Student's Work in Level 2 - With Category Two Triangles, Overlapping, and Loop

Figures 14 and 15 exemplify the fulfillment of decomposition (DC) criteria and the variations in
composing two triangles in different orientations. Figure 14 showcases the arrangement of two triangles
side by side, demonstrating pattern recognition (PT) criteria “b,” while Figure 15 depicts the utilization of
two triangles fulfilling PT criteria “a.” In Figure 14, the student employs a mixed algorithmic design (AD),
incorporating loops and sequences (criteria c) to construct the two triangles. Conversely, in Figure 15,
the student initially draws a triangle upside down and then completes the shape by drawing the second
triangle using loops only (criteria b). Both students adopt distinct approaches to abstraction (AB): the
student in Figure 14 requires an additional line to continue drawing the next triangle shape (criteria b),
while the student in Figure 15 draws two triangles consecutively (criteria a).
Level 3 tasks students with duplicating the given shape using sequences, loops, or their unique
methods (refer to Figure 16).

Figure 16. Level 3 - Double Shape

Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 631

Out of the 28 Indonesian students, only four successfully met all criteria in Computational Thinking (CT).
Three students fulfilled criteria 'a' in decomposition (DC) by drawing all four figures (two triangles and two
squares) separately, while one student used an alternative method, meeting criteria 'd' of DC. In pattern
recognition (PT), one student fulfilled criteria 'a' by drawing square → square → triangle → triangle,
another met criteria 'c' with triangle → square → triangle → square, and two students met criteria 'd' by
drawing square → triangle → square → triangle. Moreover, all four students consecutively adhered to
the 'a' criterion in abstraction (AB) by drawing squares and triangles. In algorithm design (AD), one
student met criteria 'b' by using 'loops' to draw a triangle, and three students met criteria 'c' by
incorporating a mix of sequences and loops.
In Japan, 16 out of 99 students achieved all the goals of computational thinking. Concerning
algorithmic design, 15 students used sequences, while only one utilized a loop. Regarding PT, only six
students divided the shapes into triangles and squares, whereas the other ten did not confine themselves
to geometric shapes and notably mixed in straight lines in their drawings. The accompanying figures
showcase samples of students' work that encompass all phases of computational thinking skills (DC, PT,
AB, AD), as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 17. Students Work in Level 3

In summary, both students exemplify similar criteria in various aspects of computational thinking:
'a' in decomposition (DC), 'd' in pattern recognition (PT), 'a' in abstraction (AB), and 'c' in algorithm design
(AD). However, notable differences emerge upon inspecting the students' programs, as shown in Figure
17. The program of the left student appears relatively lengthy (11 blocks), and the input for the triangle
shape in the repeated block is not 3 but 2. The left student diligently aims to minimize overlap among all
four shapes by adjusting the direction by turning degrees before drawing the next shape. Conversely, the
program of the right student is shorter (9 blocks), yet it results in multiple lines overlapping, as presented
in Figure 17.
Overall, we did the analysis presented in Table 3, which provides a comprehensive comparison of
computational thinking skills among students in Japan and Indonesia, highlighting their abilities at
different proficiency levels. The study focuses on four key components of computational thinking:
Decomposition (DC), Pattern Recognition (PT), Abstraction (AB), and Algorithmic Design (AD). These
632 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

components are crucial in understanding how students approach and solve complex problems using
computational methods.

Table 3. Computational Thinking Skills Students in Indonesian and Japan

Computational Thinking Skills
Students
No Group (Scratch Programming)
Characteristics
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1 Japan Grade 6 Primary 98.44 % 75 % 79.69 %
2 Indonesia Grade 5 Primary 69.74 % 59 % 93.75 %

The data is meticulously segmented into three levels, each representing varying degrees of
proficiency in essential skills, allowing for a nuanced understanding of students' capabilities at different
stages of their learning journey (Ogegbo & Ramnarain, 2022). Furthermore, this segmented data outlines
the percentage of students achieving each level in both countries, offering detailed and comparative
insights into the computational thinking abilities of students in these regions. In Japan, over 70% of
students have achieved each level, whereas in Indonesia, while Level 2 remains at around 60%, Level 3
indicates a value of over 95%. These results suggest that the classes designed in this study effectively
fostered computational thinking. Such a comparison is crucial for assessing the effectiveness of the
educational approaches adopted in Japan and Indonesia, providing a clear picture of how students in
these countries are being prepared to navigate a world increasingly dominated by technology and digital
solutions (Ausiku & Matthee, 2023).
To address the research question regarding the extent to which the designed learning promotes
the computational thinking skills of elementary school students in Japan and Indonesia, the results of
lesson observations from day one to three indicate significant progress. Students achieved all the
indicators of computational thinking as outlined in the lesson plans developed for the study. Their ability
to draw geometric figures using Scratch evidenced their enhanced computational thinking and
understanding of polygons. Throughout the course, students comprehended the concept of algorithmic
thinking, mastered basic operations in Scratch, and successfully drew polygons. The effectiveness of
understanding algorithmic thinking can be attributed to three key factors: physical activity, visual
comprehension, and experiential learning using Scratch. Particularly noteworthy is the role of hands-on,
interactive learning experiences in deepening students' comprehension and engagement with
computational concepts, consistent with prior research findings (Aminah et al., 2023; Piedade & Dorotea,
2022; Rafiepour & Farsani, 2021; Jiang & Li, 2021; Yunianto et al., 2023).
Furthermore, the second research question regarding the extent to which the designed learning
enhances students' understanding of geometry based on their computational thinking skills is evident in
the student's work throughout the program, particularly in lesson three, where they completed the
assessment in Figure 1. A notable aspect of our intervention was using Scratch programming to facilitate
geometry learning. Students in both countries exhibited improved abilities to create geometric shapes
through programming, utilizing their mathematical knowledge alongside newly acquired computational
thinking skills. This dual focus reinforces the idea that computational thinking can act as a bridge between
abstract mathematical concepts and their practical applications (Rodríguez-Martínez et al., 2020;
Iskrenovic-Momcilovic, 2020; Molina-Ayuso et al., 2023; Yunianto et al., 2023). Furthermore, the
challenges encountered by students, such as difficulty selecting the appropriate Scratch blocks and
calculating angles for shapes, underscore the importance of guided practice and scaffolded learning
experiences in developing proficiency in computational thinking (Fagerlund et al., 2020; Cui & Ng, 2021).
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 633

The accommodation of language and instructional resources to conform to the indigenous context,
as manifested through the shift towards simplified Japanese terminology, underscores the profound
impact of cultural and linguistic variables on the educational process. Conversely, spatial orientation and
visualization serve as pivotal components in shaping students' spatial ability, thereby enhancing their
efficacy in mastering mathematical concepts, notably in the domain of geometry (Hendroanto et al.,
2018). This adjustment likely contributed to improved student outcomes by reducing cognitive load and
enhancing the accessibility of instructions (Bagea, 2023). These findings emphasize the importance of
culturally responsive teaching practices in global educational endeavors, particularly in subjects with
universal relevance, such as mathematics and computer science. The disparities in performance
observed among students in Japan and Indonesia across the three levels of computational thinking
skills—Decomposition, Pattern Recognition, Abstraction, and Algorithmic Design—suggest that age, prior
exposure to technology, and educational contexts may influence learning outcomes. For instance, the
higher proficiency levels demonstrated by Japanese students could be attributed to their earlier and more
frequent exposure to digital tools and programming concepts, as proposed by Ogegbo and Ramnarain
(2022). Conversely, the notable improvement observed in Indonesian students, particularly at Level 3,
may reflect a more significant growth potential stemming from less prior exposure, aligning with findings
from Yadav (2017) regarding the impact of introducing computational thinking in less technologically
saturated education systems.
Furthermore, as emphasized in previous studies, the significance of integrating Scratch (Sáez-
López et al., 2016; Marcelino et al., 2018) and GeoGebra (Yunianto et al., 2023) into school education is
apparent to foster students' computational thinking skills in mathematics lessons. Thus far, there has
been limited practice in conducting identical classes in Indonesia and Japan and assessing the efficacy
of these classes and developmental tools. However, the suggestion made by this research that it may be
feasible to enhance the computational thinking skills of students in both countries represents a notable
advancement. A forthcoming challenge lies in conducting research on classroom practices in nations
beyond Indonesia and Japan. By accumulating teaching practices across a broader spectrum of
countries, including developed and developing nations and those where English is not the primary
language, we can cultivate human resources poised to shape the future of international society and glean
valuable insights into teaching methodologies for their educators. Additionally, while this practice targets
elementary school children, conducting lessons for junior high and high school students could offer
insights into the characteristics and developmental trajectory of students' computational thinking, their
comprehension of polygons, and the learning outcomes associated with Scratch.

CONCLUSION
This study investigated the efficacy of educational practices that foster students’ computational thinking
skills and comprehension in solving geometry problems from the perspectives of Indonesia and Japan’s
primary school students. Three key elements were identified as effective in promoting these cognitive
abilities by analyzing three classroom sessions. Firstly, aiding children in understanding the concepts
inherent in computational thinking was crucial. This was achieved through hands-on activities, visual
comparisons of coding blocks, and practical exercises using Scratch programming, which facilitated
comprehension of abstract notions like sequential processing and conditional branching. Secondly,
integrating mathematical knowledge into the lessons proved beneficial. By applying principles of
mathematics, such as those related to polygons, to programming tasks, children gained a deeper
634 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

understanding of mathematical concepts through their application in different contexts. Lastly,

incorporating diverse problem-solving approaches was found to be essential. Activities involving level-
based drawing tasks allowed for the utilization of various programming methods, with students
demonstrating different problem-solving strategies, including trial and error, pre-calculation, and the use
of mathematical tools. Notably, even children facing difficulties in mathematics showed heightened
engagement, possibly due to the autonomy afforded by Scratch programming, enabling them to select
problem-solving approaches that suited their learning styles. This freedom of choice likely stimulated
algorithmic thinking and contributed to the overall effectiveness of the activities in promoting
computational thinking skills.
The students in this study not only learned valuable problem-solving skills but also gained broader
life lessons, realizing the versatility of problem-solving approaches and language. However, it's important
to note that the study was conducted in a single public and private school in both Indonesia and Japan,
limiting the generalizability of the findings. Moving forward, a key challenge lies in exploring the
adaptability of the classroom practices observed in this study to diverse educational settings. Our future
endeavors will focus on accumulating practical research and empirical evidence to further refine and
expand upon effective instructional strategies to enhance computational thinking skills through Scratch
programming. Recognizing computational thinking as a vital skill for navigating complex challenges, our
aim is to cultivate students who are adept at adapting to evolving societal demands. Thus, the continuous
development and dissemination of practical research remain crucial for advancing educational practices
and fostering the next generation of agile problem-solvers.

Acknowledgments
The researchers wish to express their sincere gratitude for the invaluable collaborative efforts that
occurred between two prominent academic institutions during this study. Special recognition is extended
to Universitas Ahmad Dahlan in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and Naruto University of Education in Tokushima,
Japan. These esteemed institutions generously provided essential resources, including conducive
research environments, expert guidance, and state-of-the-art facilities, which were crucial in facilitating
the successful execution of this research endeavor. Additionally, gratitude is extended to one of the public
primary schools in Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan, and one of the private schools in Yogyakarta, Indonesia,
for granting permission to conduct this research. Finally, special thanks are due to Prof. Ishizaka Hiroki,
Taiyu Shigematsu, Isaias González, Tota Endo, Toshio Minamino, Eka Kevin Alghiffari, Sri Rahayu Alam,
and Tutik Shahidayanti for their support in this research activity.
Declarations
Author Contribution : RCIP: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing - Original
Draft, and Writing - Review & Editing.
SK: Conceptualization, Methodology, and Writing - Original Draft.
NRNP: Investigation, Project Administration, and Writing - Review &
Editing.
HE: Investigation, Data Curation, and Resources.
AZ: Investigation, Formal Analysis, and Methodology.
KT: Data Curation, Investigation, and Resources.
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 635

Funding Statement : This research was funded by the Institute of Research and Community
Service, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, through the International Research
Collaboration Scheme with Fundamental Research Type (Grant
Number: 24/RIA/LPPM-UAD/VI/2023) and Naruto University of
Education Research Collaboration.
Conflict of Interest : The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional Information : Additional information is available for this paper.

REFERENCES
Aminah, N., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., Cahyono, A. N., & Maat, S. M. (2023). Student activities in solving
mathematics problems with a computational thinking using Scratch. International Journal of
Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 12(2), 613-621.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i2.23308
Ardito, G., Czerkawski, B., & Scollins, L. (2020). Learning computational thinking together: Effects of
gender differences in collaborative middle school robotics program. TechTrends, 64, 373-387.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00461-8
Ausiku, M. M., & Matthee, M. C. (2023). A framework for teaching computational thinking in primary
schools: A Namibian case study. The African Journal of Information Systems, 15(3), 2.
https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2309&context=ajis
Bagea, I. (2023). Cultural influences in language learning in a global context. Indo-MathEdu Intellectuals
Journal, 4(2), 630–645. https://doi.org/10.54373/imeij.v4i2.248
Basso, D., Fronza, I., Colombi, A., & Pahl, C. (2018). Improving assessment of computational thinking
through a comprehensive framework. Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International
Conference on Computing Education Research, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1145/3279720.3279735
Bender, J., Zhao, B., Dziena, A., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Integrating Parsons puzzles within Scratch enables
efficient computational thinking learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced
Learning, 18, 022. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2023.18022
Colorafi, K., & Evans, B. (2016). Qualitative descriptive methods in health science research. HERD:
Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9, 16-25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715614171
Cui, Z., & Ng, O. (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, 988-1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120979930
Dahlman, C. (2007). Technology, globalization, and international competitiveness: Challenges for
developing countries. Industrial development for the 21st century: Sustainable development
perspectives (pp. 29-83). Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/full_report.pdf#page=37
Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2020). Assessing 4th grade students’
computational thinking through scratch programming projects. Informatics in Education, 19(4),
611-640. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.27
636 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

Global Education Monitoring Report Team - SEAMEO Regional Open Learning Center. (2023).
Technology in education: A case study on Indonesia. UNESCO
https://doi.org/10.54676/WJMY7427
Gökçe, S., & Yenmez, A. A. (2023). Ingenuity of scratch programming on reflective thinking towards
problem solving and computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 28(5), 5493-
5517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11385-x
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
Hendroanto, A., van Galen, F., Van Eerde, D., Prahmana, R. C. I., Setyawan, F., & Istiandaru, A. (2018).
Photography activities for developing students’ spatial orientation and spatial visualization. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series, 943(1), 012029. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/943/1/012029
Iskrenovic-Momcilovic, O. (2020). Improving geometry teaching with Scratch. International Electronic
Journal of Mathematics Education, 15(2), em0582. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/7807
Israel-Fishelson, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2022). Studying interrelations of computational thinking and
creativity: A scoping review (2011–2020). Computers & Education, 176, 104353.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353
Jiang, B., & Li, Z. (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
Kale, U., Akcaoglu, M., Cullen, T., Goh, D., Devine, L., Calvert, N., & Grise, K. (2018). Computational
what? Relating computational thinking to teaching. TechTrends, 62, 574-584.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0290-9
Kalelioğlu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a
systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583-596.
https://www.bjmc.lu.lv/fileadmin/user_upload/lu_portal/projekti/bjmc/Contents/4_3_15_Kalelioglu.
pdf
Kobayashi, Y., & Hasegawa, S. (2020). A proposal for the learning environment to evaluate a
computational thinking for elementary school in Japan from operation point of view. IEICE
Technical Report, 120(167), 13-18.
Kobayashi, Y., Ota, K., & Hasegawa, S. (2022). Development of learning environment to evaluate
computational thinking for elementary school students from operation perspective. Transactions of
Japanese Society for Information and Systems in Education, 39(2), 210-223.
https://doi.org/10.14926/jsise.39.210
Marcelino, M. J., Pessoa, T., Vieira, C., Salvador, T., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Learning computational
thinking and scratch at distance. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 470-477.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.025
Molina-Ayuso, Á., Adamuz-Povedano, N., Bracho-López, R., & Torralbo-Rodríguez, M. (2023).
Computational thinking with Scratch: A tool to work on geometry in the fifth grade of primary
education. Sustainability, 16(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010110
Cross-cultural insights on computational thinking in geometry: Indonesian and Japanese students’ perspectives 637

Molina-Ayuso, Á., Adamuz-Povedano, N., Bracho-López, R., & Torralbo-Rodríguez, M. (2022).

Introduction to computational thinking with Scratch for teacher training for Spanish primary school
teachers in mathematics. Education Sciences, 12(12), 899.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120899
Ogegbo, A. A., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of and concerns about integrating
computational thinking into science teaching after a professional development activity. African
Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 26(3), 181-191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2022.2133739
Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2007). Digital inequality: A five country comparison using microdata. Social
Science Research, 36(3), 1135-1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.09.001
Piedade, J., & Dorotea, N. (2022). Effects of Scratch-based activities on 4th-grade students’
computational thinking skills. Informatics in Education, 22(3), 499–523.
https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2023.19
Purwasih, R., Turmudi, & Dahlan, J. A. (2024). How do you solve number pattern problems through
mathematical semiotics analysis and computational thinking?. Journal on Mathematics Education,
15(2), 403-430. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i2.pp403-430
Rafiepour, A., & Farsani, D. (2021). Cultural historical analysis of Iranian school mathematics curriculum:
The role of computational thinking. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(3), 411-426.
http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.3.14296.411-426
Robinson, L., Cotten, S. R., Ono, H., Quan-Haase, A., Mesch, G., Chen, W., ... & Stern, M. J. (2015).
Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569-582.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
Rodríguez-Martínez, J. A., González-Calero, J. A., & Sáez-López, J. M. (2020). Computational thinking
and mathematics using Scratch: An experiment with sixth-grade students. Interactive Learning
Environments, 28(3), 316-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1612448
Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2019). Combining assessment tools for a
comprehensive evaluation of computational thinking interventions. Computational Thinking
Education, 79-98. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7
Roque, R., Rusk, N., & Resnick, M. (2016). Supporting diverse and creative collaboration in the Scratch
online community. In Cress, U., Moskaliuk, J., Jeong, H. (Eds.) Mass Collaboration and Education.
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 16 (pp. 241–256). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13536-6_12
Rose, S. (2019). Developing children’s computational thinking using programming games. Doctoral
Thesis. Sheffield Hallam University. https://doi.org/10.7190/shu-thesis-00257
Sáez-López, J., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages
integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using "Scratch" in
five schools. Computer & Education, 97, 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003
Saritepeci, M. (2020). Developing computational thinking skills of high school students: Design-based
learning activities and programming tasks. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 35-54.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00480-2
638 Prahmana, Kusaka, Peni, Endo, Azhari, & Tanikawa

Shute, V., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational
Research Review, 22, 142-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2017.09.003
Smith, S. M., Novak, E., Schenker, J., & Kuo, C. L. (2022). Effects of computer-based (Scratch) and
robotic (Cozmo) coding instruction on seventh grade students’ computational thinking, competency
beliefs, and engagement. In Kim, JH., Singh, M., Khan, J., Tiwary, U.S., Sur, M., Singh, D. (Eds.)
Intelligent Human Computer Interaction. IHCI 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13184
(pp. 325–336). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98404-5_31
Sparrow, R., Dartanto, T., & Hartwig, R. (2020). Indonesia under the new normal: Challenges and the
way ahead. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 56(3), 269-299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2020.1854079
Stewart, W., & Baek, K. (2023). Analyzing computational thinking studies in Scratch programming: A
review of elementary education literature. International Journal of Computer Science Education in
Schools, 6(1), 35-58. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v6i1.156
Willis, D., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., Knafl, K., & Cohen, M. (2016). Distinguishing features and similarities
between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. Western Journal of
Nursing Research, 38, 1185-1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916645499
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yadav, A., Good, J., Voogt, J., & Fisser, P. (2017). Computational thinking as an emerging competence
domain. In Mulder, M. (Ed.) Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education. Technical
and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, vol 23 (pp. 1051–1067).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_49
Yunianto, W., Bautista, G., Prahmana, R. C. I., & Lavicza, Z. (2023). GeoGebra applet to learn
programming and debugging in mathematics lessons. Proceedings of 2023 International
Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE59826.2023.10423707
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in
K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
Zhao, L., Liu, X., Wang, C., & Su, Y. S. (2022). Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary
school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers &
Education, 181, 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445