ReviewJournal of Intelligence2025
From Evidence to Insight: An Umbrella Review of Computational Thinking Research Syntheses.
Review in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study reviews 33 meta-analyses and systematic reviews on Computational Thinking (CT), focusing on research quality, intervention effectiveness, and content. Quality assessment of included studies was conducted using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The meta-analysis achieved an average score of 10.9 (a total of 16 points), while systematic reviews scored an average of 6.1 (a total of 11 points). The 15 meta-analyses showed diverse intervention strategies. Project-based learning, text-based programming, and game-based learning demonstrate more pronounced effects in terms of effect size and practical outcomes. Curricular integration, robotics programming, and unplugged strategies offered additional value in certain contexts. Gender and disciplinary background were stable moderators, while grade level and educational stage had more conditional effects. Intervention duration, sample size, instructional tools, and assessment methods were also significant moderators in several studies. The 18 systematic reviews used a five-layer framework based on ecological systems theory, covering educational context (microsystem), tools and strategies (mesosystem), social support (exosystem), macro-level characteristics (macrosystem), and CT development (chronosystem). Future research should focus on standardizing meta-analyses, unifying effect size indicators, and strengthening longitudinal studies with cognitive network analysis. Additionally, systematic reviews should improve evidence credibility by integrating textual synthesis and data-driven reasoning to reduce redundancy and homogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.