International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE)

Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025, pp. 3917~3927

ISSN: 2252-8822, DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v14i5.33091  3917

Enhancing computational thinking in elementary students

through STEM and Mojobot

Parinya Ruangtip1, Thitichai Ruckbumrung1, Wichien Rueboon2

1
Department of Educational Innovation and Technology, Faculty of Education, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand
2
Smart Logistics and Supply Chain Management Program, International College, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The study aims to explore the effects of using Mojobot, an interactive coding
robot, within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
Received Oct 10, 2024 education to enhance computational thinking (CT) skills among elementary
Revised May 14, 2025 school students. This research explores how educational robotics enhance
Accepted Jun 12, 2025 algorithmic thinking, logical reasoning, and problem decomposition in
young learners, addressing future workforce demands for digital literacy and
problem-solving. Utilizing a quasi-experimental design with pre-test and
Keywords: post-test measured. The design involved a between-subject experimental
group of seventy-four elementary students who were randomly assigned to
Computational thinking an experiment (n=37) and a control group (n=37), the latter only receiving
Educational robotics traditional STEM instruction without robotics. Students were given a
Elementary education pre-test and post-test to measure their algorithmic thinking, logical
Inquiry-based learning reasoning, and problem decomposition skills. Data were investigated using
Mojobot paired-samples t-tests and a 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
STEM education Outcomes revealed that both groups significantly improved CT skills, but
the experimental group (M=28.56) improved significantly more than the
control group (M=20.09) with a very large effect size (ES), respectively. The
study found that a novel teaching method using Mojobot in STEM education
enhances elementary students’ CT skills and supports 21st century skill
development through robotics.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Wichien Rueboon
Smart Logistics and Supply Chain Management Program, International College, Burapha University
Chonburi, Thailand
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
With technology advancing rapidly in Thailand and the country moving to a knowledge-based
economy, education policy has also changed significantly–particularly in regions like the Eastern Economic
Corridor (EEC). The EEC, which is the nucleus of advanced industries and technological innovation, is a key
economic driver for the country. The Thai government has markedly shifted towards nurturing the skill sets
of early learners to meet the demands of a technology-centric workforce [1]. Increasing focus on cultivating
computational thinking (CT) skills in the EEC is attributed to workforce scarcity in the region, which
prevents them from satisfying skill demand by technology-intensive industries [2]. As per the recent studies,
the EEC and other regions need problem-solvers, those with algorithmic thinking skills, to maintain a
growing tech workforce in the tech sector [3]. Considering the scenario CT is identified frequently as one of
the major competencies to address 21st-century workforce needs and foster innovation in tech-heavy sectors.
The demand for these jobs have the high salary and if author can leverage the CT skills in those high-paying

Journal homepage: http://ijere.iaescore.com

3918  ISSN: 2252-8822

jobs, author can create wealth not only for yourself but also help Thailand’s technology professionals pursue
the expanded EEC era where they need good solutions that address hard problems using new ways.
CT refers to a way of thinking and problem solving that applies across disciplines: the kind of
thinking involved in defining problems; decomposing them into manageable subproblems; designing an
algorithmic solution; developing this solution by writing computer programs or building robotic systems
using one language, tool, or platform [4]. CT as a problem-solving approach has been recognized and
emphasized in education. It is important to incorporate CT into early educational settings to help
elementary-aged students develop thinking about analysis and deduction. For example, the studies conducted
systematic review of programming activities and unplugged exercises to improve teaching CT in primary
schools [5], [6]. This review identified serious problems concerning the definition and measurability of CT
skills, which must be solved if we want to progress in this field. A journal article emphasized the significance
of enlightening CT expertise from an early age [6]. Another study explored the potential for CT to improve
learning in K-12 education and concluded that CT has significant benefits for enhancing critical thinking and
higher-order problem-solving skills among students [7]. The advent of technology being a great driving force
in the future of several plurality sector jobs, CT skills have been identified as crucial to success in the
workforce [8].
This process incorporates vital simulated, logical, and systematic skills, which are important for our
daily life and the trendy demands of 21st century workforce [5], [6]. The advent of technology being a great
driving force in the future of several plurality sector jobs, CT skills have been identified as crucial to success
in the workforce [7]. In areas such as the EEC, industries appeal for creative minds with CT skills to help
them meet operational challenges through technology in robotics and AI and software development [8], [9].
Studies have demonstrated that high-quality early CT beginning as early as pre-kindergarten can result in
substantial learning gains. An 8-week curriculum on robotics provides an example that can demonstrate how
CT content at the lower elementary school level could stimulate some necessary skills and perceptions in
children; hence, the basis for future learning related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education [10]. Among these ways for making abstract concepts tangible, robotics and in particular
its usage in teaching is remarkable as it provides students with an opportunity to get a practical and tactile
feel of how their computational ideas materialize into real world applications [11].
This research was focused on the investigation of Mojobot, a programmable robotic tool to improve
the CT skills of primary school students in the EEC region [8]. The study of Mojobot in education was
targeted at identifying how Mojobot may support the development of algebraic thinking and problem-solving
skills amongst children and to learn from this regarding potential ways that such tools can be embodied
within education systems, preparing students for future technology-driven careers [12]. This emphasizes the
role of CT skills that are more essential in regions such as the EEC in Thailand in alignment with the
National Higher Education Plan for Workforce Production and Development, 2021–2027, there is an
emphasis on developing personnel with essential skills for a knowledge-based economy to meet the demands
of modern industries [13]. The study explored the long-term impact of early exposure to CT on students’
preparedness for future employment in the technology sector. This is especially critical due to the rising
demand for CT skills around the EEC, an area essential to Thailand’s growth both practically and
economically [11].
The study explores the role of Mojobot in early primary education, focusing on CT, STEM
education, and robotics. While previous research highlights robotics’ potential to enhance CT skills like
algorithmic thinking and problem decomposition, most lack attention to regional or economic needs.
Targeting Thailand’s EEC, a key hub for tech-driven growth, this study takes a localized approach. By
integrating Mojobot into STEM education, it addresses the EEC’s workforce challenges and strategic goals.
This research bridges early education with industry needs, offering a model for similar contexts globally. The
study is guided by the following research question: How is the use of Mojobot impacting elementary
students’ development of CT in the EEC region? The research question of this study is: to what extent will
students who use minimally designed robots as part of their programming experience significantly improve
their CT ability better than students who do not interact with the robot? This research will inspire the
development of the evidence base needed for integrating CT in early childhood education and likely support
the growth of the technology workforce long-term in Thailand.

2. METHOD
2.1. Research framework
The flow chart that follows provides a framework for research in which central an issue in STEM
education is identified: how does Mojobot influence the development of students’ CT skills. The stages of the
framework include designing the intervention (with the help of Mojobot), pre-test and post-test data

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3917-3927
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3919

collection, and impact evaluation. The final phase consists of the evaluation which is designed to investigate
whether the Mojobot intervention significantly enhanced students CT skills. This framework demonstrates
how a strategic game perspective can identify key decisions students in the experimental group undertake
whilst partaking in problem-solving tasks that affect their learning outcomes [14], [15]. These students follow
rational behaviors like players in a game maximizing their payoff, and Nash equilibrium is the point at which
the group cannot better another CT strategy while keeping away from alteration of intervention strategies.
This is through the strategic decision-making and interaction outcomes typical of game theory in which
students adapt constantly given feedback from peers, the system, and instructors to maximize their learning,
as shown Figure 1.

There are six steps to STEM education

activities through the engineering design
process.
1. Determine the problem There are generally four principal
2. Research by gather information components of students computational
3. Create solution thinking skills.
4. Operation chosen 1. Decomposition
5. Test and evaluate works
2. Pattern recognition
6. Solve by presenting the solution
3. Definition
4. Design algorithms

Game theory
Reasonable decision making

Figure 1. Research framework

2.2. Research design

This study examined the effects of Mojobot and elementary school STEM education on CT skills
through a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest control group design. Random assignment of students to
classrooms was not feasible, for practical reasons within the school setting, as presented Table 1 [16]. There
was no equitable random assignment of individual participants to the experimental condition (STEM
intervention with Mojobot) or control condition (standard STEM instruction). CT skills (logical reasoning,
algorithmic thinking, problem decomposition, and pattern recognition) were assessable by pre-test and post-
test assessments in both groups to monitor the changes over intervention period.

Table 1. Research design

Phase Experimental group Control group
Pre-test (O₁) CT test CT test
Intervention (X) STEM activities + Mojobot Standard STEM instruction
Post-test (O₂) CT test CT test

The participants were 74 fourth-grade students (37 girls and 37 boys) from Wat Nong Ketunoi
School, Bang Lamung District, Chonburi Province, Thailand. Participants were randomly assigned to the
experimental group (n=37) or robotic Mojobot condition intervention, or to an active control group (n=37)
receiving standard STEM instruction without robotics. The sample size was determined using G*Power
3.1.9.2 for Windows, ensuring at least 90% statistical power, an alpha level of 0.05, and an effect size (ES) of
0.80, which is considered appropriate for this type of quasi-experimental design. Based on these parameters,
the calculation showed that a minimum of 35 participants per group were required (a total of 70 participants)
to detect meaningful effects [17]. To account for potential data loss or attrition, an additional 20% was added
to the sample size, resulting in 37 participants per group (a total of 74 participants). This approach ensures
that the sample size is adequate for detecting significant differences between groups and maintaining
statistical power throughout the study. Studies suggest that a sample size of 30 participants per group is
typically adequate for detecting medium to large ES in educational research, making this sample size
sufficient for our purposes.

Enhancing computational thinking in elementary students through STEM and Mojobot (Parinya Ruangtip)
3920  ISSN: 2252-8822

However, while G*Power provides a fast and reliable way to determine an appropriate sample size,
its use does have limitations. The process involves several critical steps: i) selecting the correct statistical test
for the planned analysis; ii) choosing the suitable method of analysis; and iii) accurately inputting parameters
such as alpha level, power, and ES, with the latter typically drawn from prior literature. Misestimation of any
of these parameters can lead to underpowered or overpowered studies. Moreover, although G*Power helps
ensure statistical validity, it cannot compensate for issues such as sampling bias, external validity concerns,
or unforeseen attrition during the study. Researchers must be cautious to interpret the calculated sample size
within the broader context of study design and research goals [17], [18].

2.3. Research procedure

2.3.1. Pre-test
Both the experimental and control group will complete a CT pre-test. The pre-test for experimental
and control groups was administered using a CT skills test, which was conducted individually. The test
included open-ended questions based on five simulated real-life scenarios. Each scenario had four questions
covering four aspects which were problem decomposition, pattern recognition, abstract thinking, and
algorithm development. One by one, the teacher revealed each situation and question pair, and the students
had to respond to each question with a short-answer explanation. Each question was assessed based on a
rubric and scored individually from 0–3 points. The maximum score a candidate could achieve in the test was
60 points.

2.3.2. Intervention
The experimental group will receive STEM education intervention with Mojobot for a period of four
weeks. The intervention duration of four weeks was chosen based on previous studies that demonstrated the
effectiveness of short-term robotics interventions in improving CT skills. The participants promised to
provide authors with adequate instruction in the appropriate fields but forbade authors from doing any
resistance work between 6 AM and 8 AM, as this would then be counted as an overload error for both
factors.

2.3.3. Post-test
Both the experimental and control groups completed a CT post-test. The post-test was implemented
individually for both experimental and control groups, with a similar construction to the pre-test, namely the
same CT skills test. The teacher read the scenarios to individual students, who answered the questions, listing
all their own opinions. The teacher put the score for every question on the scoring sheet.

2.3.4. Data analysis

Independent and paired t-tests will be employed to compare the pre-test vs post-test scores of CT
skills among groups and within each group. In addition, ES will be computed.

2.4. Measurements
In group trials, a validated pre-test and post-test were used to assess CT skills in both experimental
and control groups. The pre-test was given before the intervention, while the post-test followed the STEM
program with Mojobot for the experimental group and regular teaching methods for the control group. This
approach enabled the evaluation of changes in CT skills over time. The measurement indicators used in the
test instrument for evaluating CT included key areas such as algorithmic thinking, logical reasoning, problem
decomposition, and pattern recognition. These dimensions were carefully selected to comprehensively assess
students’ ability to analyze problems, devise solutions, and apply systematic approaches, aligning with the
core competencies of CT.

2.4.1. Research tools

The Mojobot was programs to fit into the six-step engineering design process during STEM and
computer science education in schools where students are learning professional competences such as problem
identification, information gathering, solution knowledge-based creation (project planning), implementation
plan formulation (problem solving and reporting creative work planning), testing and evaluation, presenting
the solution or artifact. This is in line with the principles of hands-on, inquiry-based learning in both Papert’s
constructionism and Malaguzzi’s Reggio Emilia approach [19]. It enabled group work in a cooperative
workspace, where students worked collaboratively on problem solving and coding assignments. Indeed, this
is consistent with the shared learning outcomes articulated by previous studies [10], [20], who highlighted
how robots can support the development of team-based interaction and communications skills in children.
The Mojobot also developed a physical experiential learning environment in which students used joysticks

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3917-3927
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3921

and other interactive tools to move blocks and perform tasks. The grounded in the active learning theory that
underpins evolving practices of teaching and learning, the engaging with physical materials during more
complex problem-solving, as in CT [21], [22]. Combining haptic feedback with creativity in exploration
scenarios (i.e. Mojobot) attracts engagement, especially among younger users [23], capturing the playfulness
of more tangible devices for coding.

2.4.2. Statistical analysis

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare the pre-test and post-test scores on
students’ CT skills, assessing the impact of the Mojobot intervention between the experimental and control
groups. Initially, both groups completed a pre-test to assess their baseline CT skills. Following this, the
experimental group participated in STEM activities using Mojobot, while the control group followed
standard STEM instruction without robotics. After the intervention, both groups took a post-test to measure
changes in CT skills. Data analysis involved averaging pre-test and post-test scores by group, with paired
t-tests used to assess within-group improvements. A 2-way ANOVA was then conducted to control any
differences in pre-test scores and to compare post-test outcomes between the experimental and control
groups. If the post-test scores of the experimental group were significantly higher (p<0.05), it indicated that
the Mojobot intervention had a positive effect on improving CT skills [24].

2.4.3. Validity and reliability

The design of this study, a high degree of consideration regarding the validity and reliability of the
CT test were provided. The pre-test and post-test were based on established instruments, including the CT
test by Govind and Bers [25], which has stronger construct validity than most other measures of central
aspects of CT (logical reasoning, algorithmic thinking, and problem decomposition). A pilot study was
conducted to modify the test and assess the appropriateness of items for clarity in their target age group, as
well as ensuring that items were contextually appropriate. The instrument reliability was evaluated by
calculating Cronbach’s alpha (α=0.87), which showed good internal consistency and reliability of the test
items. A reliability coefficient of 0.7 and above is considered acceptable in educational research [26].
Moreover, experts in the areas of CT and STEM education validated the test to verify that it measured what it
was intended to measure. These steps ensured that the instrument was both reliable and valid for assessing
changes in CT skills over the course of the intervention.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Results
The sample consisted of 74 students, with each group comprising an equal number of participants
(n=37). The experimental group received the Mojobot-integrated STEM program, while the control group
experienced traditional STEM instruction without robotics. To evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention,
both groups completed a pre-test and a post-test measuring their CT skills. As shown in Figure 2, students
exposed to Mojobot-enhanced STEM activities outperformed their peers in the control group in terms of CT
skill development. The mean CT score for the experimental group increased from 20.49 (SD=5.12) in the
pre-test to 49.05 (SD=5.59) in the post-test, indicating a substantial improvement. In contrast, the control
group showed a smaller gain, with scores increasing from 21.32 (SD=5.45) to 41.30 (SD=6.5). Although both
groups demonstrated improvement, the greater gain observed in the experimental group highlights the
effectiveness of Mojobot-facilitated learning in enhancing CT skills beyond what was achieved through
conventional instruction. Moreover, the relatively consistent standard deviations suggest that the performance
of the experimental group was stable, further supporting the conclusion that robotics-based learning is an
effective approach for promoting CT in elementary students.
The comparison results of CT scores between the experimental and control groups are presented in
Table 2. A significant enhancement in CT skills was observed for the experimental group, whose mean
pre-test score was 20.49 (SD=5.12) and mean post-test score was 49.05 (SD=5.59), resulting in a mean
difference of 28.56. This increase was statistically significant (t=32.45, p<0.001) with a very large ES
(ES=5.33), according to Cohen’s guidelines on practical significance [26]. In contrast, the control group also
showed improvement, though to a lesser extent. Their mean pre-test score was 21.32 (SD=5.45), increasing
to a mean post-test score of 41.41 (SD=6.5), with a mean difference of 20.09. This increase was also
statistically significant (t=20.5, p<0.001), but the ES (ES=3.38) was notably smaller than that of the
experimental group. These findings indicate that the integration of Mojobot into STEM instruction
significantly enhanced students’ CT skills compared to traditional methods. The greater gains in the
experimental group suggest that robotics-based learning effectively promoted higher-order thinking. The
hands-on, inquiry-driven coding activities supported by Mojobot substantially improved CT performance,
with the experimental group showing a marked average gain of 28.56, compared to a more moderate increase
Enhancing computational thinking in elementary students through STEM and Mojobot (Parinya Ruangtip)
3922  ISSN: 2252-8822

of 20.09 in the control group. Both results were statistically significant, underscoring the added value of
technology-enhanced STEM education.

Figure 2. Pre-test and post-test comparison of CT mean and standard deviation experimental group and
control group

Table 2. Pre-test and post-test comparison of CT scores between experimental and control groups
Group Test Mean (M) SD Mean difference t p-value ES
Experiment (n=37) Pre-test 20.49 5.12 - - -
Post-test 49.05 5.59 28.56** 32.45 <0.001 5.33
Control (n=37) Pre-test 21.32 5.45 - - -
Post-test 41.41 6.5 20.09** 20.5 <0.001 3.38
**p<0.01

An independent samples t-test was conducted to examine differences in post-test CT scores between
the experimental and control groups, as shown in Table 3. The experimental group (n=37), which received
the Mojobot-integrated STEM program, achieved a mean post-test score of 49.05 (SD=5.59). In comparison,
the control group (n=37), which received traditional STEM instruction, had a mean post-test score of 41.41
(SD=6.5). The statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the two groups (t(72)=5.426,
p<0.001). Additionally, a secondary comparison showed that the mean sub-score of 17.73 (SD=3.65) for the
experimental group was significantly higher than the control group’s average of 12.15 (SD=4.64). The ES,
calculated as Cohen’s d equal 1.26, reflects an extremely large effect, highlighting the substantial impact of
the Mojobot intervention on enhancing students’ CT skills [27]. Therefore, the large ES suggests that the CT
skills of students in the Mojobot-infused STEM activities improved significantly better compared to those of
control group students.

Table 3. Between-group post-test comparison of CT scores

CT scores
Group n
Mean (M) SD t df p-value ES
Experimental 37 49.05 5.59 5.426** 72 <0.001 1.26
Control 37 41.41 6.5
**p<0.01

3.2. Discussion
The research shows that the integration of robotics in STEM education had a positive impact on
elementary students’ CT skills. After receiving hands-on, inquiry-based STEM training infused with Mojobot
that was based on constructivism [28], the experimental group achieved higher CT post-test scores. They are
constructivist pedagogy, learning by making, where the learners actually participate in building their mental
models through problem-solving and design explorations. This is consistent with constructivist and social

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3917-3927
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3923

constructionism theory, which asserts meaningful learning if students are stimulated by concrete objects and
concise experience. Research has shown that designing interactive learning tools, such as Mojobot, which
combines playful interaction with guided education, supports a more engaging and cognitive development
experience for children [21], [29].
The findings corroborate with the results of previous studies, suggesting that robotic-enhanced
STEM curricula improve student problem solving and algorithmic reasoning [30], [31]. In accordance with
the findings of Bers [32], who argued that robotics in PBL significantly augments team-based learning and,
in turn, weakens barriers to problem-based learning, our research supports that Mojobot is a practical
platform for young learners to build upon CT skills through hands-on practice in collaboration [30]. The
students in this study learned through an active learning process with the assistance of concrete objects,
enabling interaction through physical activities rather than passive digital content. This aligns with findings
by Gerosa et al. [33], who observed that tangible interaction with robotics promotes task engagement and
supports the development of problem-solving skills in young learners. These interactive activities proved
beneficial in transitioning students from passive screen interaction to active, substantive engagement, which
is fundamental to the growth of CT [33]–[36]. Additionally, researchers confirm that STEM activities
positively impact the development of academic achievement in CT, indicating that participation in STEM
activities can truly transform the learning outcomes of primary school students in Thailand [21], [37]. When
comparing the educational context related to STEM attitudes and CT skills with other ASEAN countries, it
was found that STEM has a positive and significant effect on CT skills, as these skills align closely with
broader STEM curriculum goals by fostering problem-solving abilities, critical thinking, and logical
reasoning. CT enables students to approach challenges systematically, develop innovative solutions, and
apply interdisciplinary knowledge, thereby strengthening their preparedness for STEM-related careers and
contributing to the development of 21st-century competencies essential in a technology-driven world [38].
Moreover, the notable increase in post-scores of the experimental group implies that Mojobot is
tailored to suit young learners and provides an entry point for novice-level exploratory learning of CT
concepts. In addition, the game-like interface and haptic feedback of this study motivate students to master
learning competencies, as games can be both fun and effective. In particular, haptic feedback enabled
students to physically interact with the tasks that they were solving, providing a tactile learning opportunity
that has been shown to improve retention and problem-solving abilities when applied in STEM fields
[22], [39]. Those results are consistent with the research supporting an interactive approach in making
something abstract more concrete for younger audiences and easing that transition to a more formal learning
space. Indeed, according to previous studies [40], hands-on interactive technologies are a way of connecting
play-based learning with the more academic content domain because tactile and visual interaction with
physical components influence cognitive skills for developing STEM concepts [28], [41].
Although statistically significant, the control group yielded a lower ES, suggesting that standard
STEM instruction is not as effective at promoting CT when compared to the Mojobot intervention. This
supports previous work proposing that more traditional instructional methods, while beneficial, fail to
harness the full potential of interactive learning resources for CT skill enhancement [42]. While the Mojobot
intervention had also promoted higher-order thinking skills, it was even more effective in promoting student
engagement and motivation-essential prerequisites for effective learning. Hence, this serves as a practical
application of the study, whereby it demonstrates how practical STEM programs embedded with technology,
such as the one involving Mojobot, can impact CT and problem-solving among young learners who are early
on in their stages of learning these concepts [43].
Theoretically, this research adds to the burgeoning science of robot-education literature with a
specific emphasis on STEM for elementary students. It expands constructionism and active learning theories
by showing how Mojobot fosters CT while enhancing STEM mastery. Through hands-on activities, Mojobot
connects abstract STEM concepts to tangible applications, promoting problem-solving, algorithmic thinking,
and a deeper understanding of STEM content. The ability for students to engage in all aspects of play, while
coupled with more constructivist-style learning structures, creates a unique bridge that both opens up avenues
for higher-level thinking and problem-solving. The design of this study was quasi-experimental and adds
value to the validity of the findings as it controlled for pre-existing differences in students CT skills and
provided a strong experimental comparison between groups [25]. That strong effect in the treatment group
combined with the large ES (Cohen’s d equal 1.36, which is larger than many educational interventions)
provides more demonstrable This article provides evidence for how integrating robotics into early STEM
education can create significant new and long-lasting pathways for students through their work roles and
skills, either technology-related or not, due to the complex nature of computing skills, problem-solving skills,
and numeracy skills, which, for the most part, directly influence students’ lifelong learning paths. Such
outcomes prepare students to more readily adapt to future workforce needs and strengthen innovation in tech-
intensive sectors.

Enhancing computational thinking in elementary students through STEM and Mojobot (Parinya Ruangtip)
3924  ISSN: 2252-8822

4. CONCLUSION
This study proves that using a new way to teach robotics with Mojobot in STEM subjects improves
elementary students’ CT skills over time by encouraging them to think about solving problems, using logic,
and following instructions through hands-on, question-based learning. The implementation of a
STEAM-integrated robotics curriculum not only strengthens fundamental programming concepts but also
promotes engagement, collaboration, and creativity-key 21st century skills essential for academic and career
success in technology-driven fields. The findings demonstrate that students exposed to structured robotics-
based learning significantly outperform their peers in CT, with noticeable improvements in motivation and
conceptual understanding. By providing a transformative educational framework, this study highlights the
potential of robotics to reshape traditional learning environments and drive innovation in STEM education.
The development of CT skills was achieved through the use of Mojobot, an embedded system-based
educational tool integrated within STEM learning. This approach led to a statistically significant
improvement in CT skills among elementary students, underscoring its value as a novel method for early skill
formation.
Future research should investigate the suitability of Mojobot-based interventions for students across
various age groups and educational environments. They should also look at how they affect broader STEM
skills like scientific reasoning and design engineering, and they should do longitudinal studies to see if
teaching CT early on leads to long-term benefits in school and the workplace. Comparative studies with other
robotics platforms could help improve the best ways to incorporate robotics into the curriculum. This would
make sure that robotics stays a dynamic and ever-changing tool for teaching creativity, digital literacy, and
problem-solving to the next generation of students.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We extend our sincere gratitude to the Dean of the Research and Cognitive Science College,
Burapha University, for providing the financial support necessary for the successful completion of this
project. We also deeply appreciate the principal, teachers, and students of Wat Nong Ketunoi School, Bang
Lamung District, Chonburi Province, for their kind cooperation and enthusiastic participation in the research
activities, which significantly contributed to the success of this study.

FUNDING INFORMATION
This research on the development of computational thinking skills in elementary students through
STEM education activities integrated with Mojobot was generously funded by the Research and Cognitive
Science College, Burapha University, through the Institutional Revenue Budget Grant for the fiscal year 2022
under Contract Number 005/2022.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT

This journal uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author
contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration.

Name of Author C M So Va Fo I R D O E Vi Su P Fu
Parinya Ruangtip ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Thitichai ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Ruckbumrung
Wichien Rueboon ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

C : Conceptualization I : Investigation Vi : Visualization

M : Methodology R : Resources Su : Supervision
So : Software D : Data Curation P : Project administration
Va : Validation O : Writing - Original Draft Fu : Funding acquisition
Fo : Formal analysis E : Writing - Review & Editing

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have influenced the work reported in this study. Additionally, there are no conflicts of interest
related to funding, affiliations, or institutional involvement that may have biased the research outcomes.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3917-3927
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3925

The findings and conclusions presented in this paper are solely the result of independent academic inquiry
and do not reflect any external influence or commercial interest.

INFORMED CONSENT
This study was conducted in accordance with ethical research guidelines, ensuring the protection of
participants’ privacy and rights. Prior to participation, informed consent was obtained from all individuals
involved in the study, including written permission from the students’ parents or legal guardians. Participants
were fully informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential benefits, and their right to withdraw at
any time without any consequences. All collected data were anonymized and used solely for research
purposes.

ETHICAL APPROVAL
This study was conducted in compliance with all relevant national regulations and institutional
policies, following the tenets of the Helsinki Declaration for research involving human subjects. The research
protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Burapha University,
Thailand, ensuring adherence to ethical standards for conducting studies involving human participants. The
approval was granted under Ethics Approval Number [HU100/2565]. All participants and their guardians
provided informed consent before participation, and strict confidentiality measures were implemented to
protect their privacy and rights.

DATA AVAILABILITY
The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [WR],
upon reasonable request. Due to privacy and ethical considerations, the dataset containing participant
information is not publicly available. However, derived data supporting the key conclusions of this research
are included within the article and its supplementary materials.

REFERENCES
[1] J. Laphet, T. Gooncokkord, D. Sanvises, and W. Klinsreesuk, “Integrated Transportation Solutions for Tourism and Public Safety
in Thailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor: An Experiential Perspective,” International Journal of Sustainable Development and
Planning, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1753–1765, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.18280/ijsdp.200436.
[2] F. M Esteve-Mon, J. Adell-Segura, M. Á. L. Nebot, G. V. Novella, and J. P. Aparicio, “The Development of Computational
Thinking in Student Teachers through an Intervention with Educational Robotics,” Journal of Information Technology Education:
Innovations in Practice, vol. 18, pp. 139–152, 2019, doi: 10.28945/4442.
[3] D. Butler et al., “Aligning Digital Educational Policies with the New Realities of Schooling,” Technology, Knowledge and
Learning, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1831–1849, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10758-024-09776-9.
[4] P. Chen, D. Yang, A. H. S. Metwally, J. Lavonen, and X. Wang, “Fostering computational thinking through unplugged activities:
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis,” International Journal of STEM Education, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 47, 2023,
doi: 10.1186/s40594-023-00434-7.
[5] V. Kukul and R. Çakır, “Exploring the Development of Primary School Students’ Computational Thinking and 21st Century
Skills Through Scaffolding: Voices from the Stakeholders,” International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 36–57, 2020, doi: 10.21585/ijcses.v4i1.84.
[6] S. Grover and R. Pea, “Computational Thinking in K-12: A Review of the State of the Field,” Educational Researcher, vol. 42,
no. 1, pp. 38–43, 2013, doi: 10.3102/0013189X12463051.
[7] Y. Li et al., “Computational Thinking Is More about Thinking than Computing,” Journal for STEM Education Research, vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s41979-020-00030-2.
[8] A. Haleem, M. Javaid, M. A. Qadri, and R. Suman, “Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review,”
Sustainable Operations and Computers, vol. 3, pp. 275–285, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004.
[9] P. Peykani, M. Namazi, and E. Mohammadi, “Bridging the knowledge gap between technology and business: An innovation
strategy perspective,” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 4, p. e0266843, 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266843.
[10] M. U. Bers, C. González-González, and M. B. Armas-Torres, “Coding as a playground: Promoting positive learning experiences
in childhood classrooms,” Computers and Education, vol. 138, pp. 130–145, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.013.
[11] M. K. Budiarto and Roemintoyo, “Optimizing the utilization of computer-based technology through interactive multimedia
development for entrepreneurship learning,” World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, vol. 14, no. 1,
pp. 147–163, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.18844/wjet.v14i1.6711.
[12] Y. H. Ching and Y. C. Hsu, “Educational Robotics for Developing Computational Thinking in Young Learners: A Systematic
Review,” TechTrends, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 423–434, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11528-023-00841-1.
[13] V. Pongsin, N. Lawthong, G. W. Fry, L. Ransom, S. Kim, and N. N. T. My, “Thailand as a new international higher education
hub: Major challenges and opportunities, a policy analysis,” Research in Comparative and International Education, vol. 18, no. 2,
pp. 249–276, 2023, doi: 10.1177/17454999231163401.
[14] H. Muniz, E. Accinelli, and E. Hernández, “An Evolutionary Game Theoretical Approach to the Teaching-Learning Techniques
in the Post-Pandemic Era,” OALib, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–22, 2023, doi: 10.4236/oalib.1109783.
[15] D. Fudenberg and J. Tirole, Game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991.

Enhancing computational thinking in elementary students through STEM and Mojobot (Parinya Ruangtip)
3926  ISSN: 2252-8822

[16] W. A. Edmonds and T. D. Kennedy, An Applied Guide to Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2017, doi: 10.4135/9781071802779.
[17] F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A. Buchner, and A.-G. Lang, “Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and
regression analyses,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1149–1160, 2009, doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
[18] F. Faul, E. Erdfelder, A.-G. Lang, and A. Buchner, “G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social,
behavioral, and biomedical sciences,” Behavior Research Methods, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 175–191, 2007, doi: 10.3758/BF03193146.
[19] E. Mangina, G. Psyrra, L. Screpanti, and D. Scaradozzi, “Robotics in the Context of Primary and Preschool Education: A Scoping
Review,” IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, vol. 17, pp. 342–363, 2024, doi: 10.1109/TLT.2023.3266631.
[20] M. U. Bers, “The Seymour test: Powerful ideas in early childhood education,” International Journal of Child-Computer
Interaction, vol. 14, pp. 10–14, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2017.06.004.
[21] S. Dasgupta, “Active Learning Theory,” in Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining, C. Sammut and G. I. Webb,
Eds., Boston, MA: Springer, 2017, pp. 14–19, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-7687-1_7.
[22] S. Atmatzidou, S. Demetriadis, and P. Nika, “How Does the Degree of Guidance Support Students’ Metacognitive and Problem
Solving Skills in Educational Robotics?” Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 70–85, 2018,
doi: 10.1007/s10956-017-9709-x.
[23] S. Kianzad, G. Chen, and K. E. MacLean, “PAL: A Framework for Physically Assisted Learning Through Design and Exploration
with a Haptic Robot Buddy,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 700465, 2021, doi: 10.3389/frobt.2021.700465.
[24] A. M. M. Ahmed and F. M. A. Hamarai, “Using Analysis of Variance in the Academic Achievement to Compare Three Learning
Patterns for University Students,” Creative Education, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 2104–2118, 2022, doi: 10.4236/ce.2022.136131.
[25] M. Govind and M. Bers, “Assessing Robotics Skills in Early Childhood: Development and Testing of a Tool for Evaluating
Children’s Projects,” Journal of Research in STEM Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 47–68, 2021, doi: 10.51355/jstem.2021.102.
[26] R. R. P. Ria and D. Susilowati, “Validity and Reliability Diagnostic Test Computational Thinking Based on Local Wisdom,”
Jurnal Kependidikan: Jurnal Hasil Penelitian dan Kajian Kepustakaan di Bidang Pendidikan, Pengajaran dan Pembelajaran,
vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1142–1149, 2023, doi: 10.33394/jk.v9i4.8991.
[27] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., New York: Routledge, 2013,
doi: 10.4324/9780203771587.
[28] C.-S. Lai, “Using Inquiry-Based Strategies for Enhancing Students’ STEM Education Learning,” Journal of Education in Science,
Environment and Health, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 110–117, 2018, doi: 10.21891/jeseh.389740.
[29] C. Kynigos, “Constructionism: Theory of Learning or Theory of Design?” in Selected Regular Lectures from the 12th
International Congress on Mathematical Education, S. J. Cho, Ed., Cham: Springer, 2015, pp. 417–438,
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_24.
[30] A. Eguchi and L. Uribe, “Robotics to promote STEM learning: Educational robotics unit for 4th grade science,” in 2017 IEEE
Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC), 2017, pp. 186–194, doi: 10.1109/ISECon.2017.7910240.
[31] J. Su and W. Yang, “A systematic review of integrating computational thinking in early childhood education,” Computers and
Education Open, vol. 4, p. 100122, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100122.
[32] M. U. Bers, Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom, 2nd ed.
New York: Routledge, 2020, doi: 10.4324/9781003022602.
[33] A. Gerosa, V. Koleszar, G. Tejera, L. Gómez-Sena, and A. Carboni, “Educational Robotics Intervention to Foster Computational
Thinking in Preschoolers: Effects of Children’s Task Engagement,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, p. 904761, 2022,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.904761.
[34] C. Angeli and N. Valanides, “Developing Young Children’s Computational Thinking with Educational Robotics: An Interaction
Effect Between Gender and Scaffolding Strategy,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 105, p. 105954, 2022,
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018.
[35] E. Bakala, A. Gerosa, J. P. Hourcade, and G. Tejera, “Preschool children, robots, and computational thinking: A systematic
review,” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, vol. 29, p. 100337, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100337.
[36] W. Huang and C.-K. Looi, “A critical review of literature on “unplugged” pedagogies in K-12 computer science and
computational thinking education,” Computer Science Education, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 83–111, 2021,
doi: 10.1080/08993408.2020.1789411.
[37] P. Prajuabwan and W. Worapun, “The Use of STEM-Based Learning Activities to Promote Computational Thinking of Grade 5
Students,” Journal of Education and Learning, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 118–127, 2023, doi: 10.5539/jel.v12n4p118.
[38] C. C. Ponitz, S. E. Rimm-Kaufman, K. J. Grimm, and T. W. Curby, “Kindergarten classroom quality, behavioral engagement, and
reading achievement,” School Psychology Review, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 102–120, 2009, doi: 10.1080/02796015.2009.12087852.
[39] W. H. Stewart, Y. Baek, G. Kwid, and K. Taylor, “Exploring Factors That Influence Computational Thinking Skills in
Elementary Students’ Collaborative Robotics,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1208–1239, 2021,
doi: 10.1177/0735633121992479.
[40] K. W. Nam, H. J. Kim, and S. Lee, “Connecting Plans to Action: The Effects of a Card-Coded Robotics Curriculum and
Activities on Korean Kindergartners,” Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 387–397, 2019,
doi: 10.1007/s40299-019-00438-4.
[41] S. Papadakis, “Can Preschoolers Learn Computational Thinking and Coding Skills with ScratchJr? A Systematic Literature
Review,” International Journal of Educational Reform, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 28–61, 2022, doi: 10.1177/1056787922107607.
[42] K. Sharma, S. Papavlasopoulou, and M. Giannakos, “Coding games and robots to enhance computational thinking: How
collaboration and engagement moderate children’s attitudes?” International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, vol. 21,
pp. 65–76, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.004.
[43] A. Saxena, C. K. Lo, K. F. Hew, and G. K. W. Wong, “Designing Unplugged and Plugged Activities to Cultivate Computational
Thinking: An Exploratory Study in Early Childhood Education,” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 55–66, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40299-019-00478-w.

Int J Eval & Res Educ, Vol. 14, No. 5, October 2025: 3917-3927
Int J Eval & Res Educ ISSN: 2252-8822  3927

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Parinya Ruangtip is an assistant professor, Ph.D., and a lecturer of Department

of Innovation and Educational Technology, Burapha University, Thailand. His research
focuses on educational technology, machine learning, embedded robots in education, and
educational research. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Thitichai Ruckbumrung is an assistant professor, Ph.D., and a lecturer,

Department of Innovation and Educational Technology, Burapha University, Thailand. His
research focuses on educational technology, machine learning, embedded robots in education,
online training model, and blended learning. He can be contacted at email:
[email protected].

Wichien Rueboon is a Ph.D. (Research and Statistics in Cognitive Science). He is

affiliated with College of Research Methodology and Cognitive Science Program and a lecture
of Smart Logistics and Supply Chain Management Program, International Collegege, Burapha
University, Thailand. His research focuses on logistics and supply chain education, cognitive
science, scientific literacy, business economics, innovative technology, logistics and supply
chain entrepreneur dynamic capability, growth mindset development, and literacy. He can be
contacted at email: [email protected] and [email protected].

Enhancing computational thinking in elementary students through STEM and Mojobot (Parinya Ruangtip)