Pedagogical Research

• Blokhuis, D., Csizmadia, A., Millican, P., Roffey, C., Schijvers, E. & Sentence, S. (2017). UK Bebras computational thinking challenge. UK Bebras. http://www.bebras.uk/answer-booklets.html
• Blokhuis, D., Millican, P., Roffey, C., Schrijvers, E. & Sentance, S. (2016). UK Bebras computational thinking challenge. UK Bebras. http://www.bebras.uk/answer-booklets.html
• Blokhuis, D., Millican, P., Roffey, C., Schrijvers, E., & Sentance, S. (2015). UK Bebras computational thinking challenge 2015. UK Bebras. http://www.bebras.uk/answer-booklets.html
• Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE), 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069
• Chiazzese, G., Arrigo, M., Chifari, A., Lonati, V., & Tosto, C. (2019). Educational robotics in primary school: Measuring the development of computational thinking skills with the bebras tasks. In Informatics (Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 43). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6040043
• Chongo, S., Osman, K., & Nayan, N. A. (2021). Impact of the Plugged-in and Unplugged Chemistry Computational Thinking Modules on Achievement in Chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(4), Article em1953. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10789
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539
• Contreras, S. (2024). Teaching natural sciences in primary school. Descriptive analysis of the macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic levels of representation in the new curriculum. In ICERI2024 Proceedings (pp. 10292-10295). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2024.2628
• Curzon, P. (2013). Unplugged computational thinking for fun. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2013.847618
• Del Olmo-Muñoz, J., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early primary education. Computers & Education, 150, Article 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103832
• Dorsah, P. (2026). The use of cronbach’s alpha reliability in educational research: A systematic review. European Journal of Contemporary Education and E-Learning, 4(2), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejceel.2026.4(2).04
• Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
• Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
• Kim, Y. H., Kim, B. H., Kim, J., Jung, B., & Bae, S. (2024). Item difficulty index, discrimination index, and reliability of the 26 health professions licensing examinations in 2023, Korea: A psychometric study. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 21. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2024.21.40
• Liu, Z., Gearty, Z., Richard, E., Orrill, C. H., Kayumova, S., & Balasubramanian, R. (2024). Bringing computational thinking into classrooms: A systematic review on supporting teachers in integrating computational thinking into K-12 classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), Article 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00510-6
• Looi, C. K., How, M. L., Longkai, W., Seow, P., & Liu, L. (2018). Analysis of linkages between unplugged activities and computational thinking development. Computer Science Education, 28(3), 255-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1533297
• Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
• Marar, S., Hamza, M. A., Ayyash, M., & Abu-Shaheen, A. (2023). Development and validation of an instrument to assess the knowledge and perceptions of predatory journals. Heliyon, 9(11), Article e22270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22270
• Masuwai, A., Zulkifli, H., & Hamzah, M. I. (2024). Evaluation of content validity and face validity of secondary school Islamic education teacher self-assessment instrument. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2308410. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2308410
• McArdle, G. (1998). Conducting needs analysis: Tools for human performance analysis. Crisp Publications.
• Menon, U., Gopalakrishnan, S., N. Unni, Cs., Ramachandran, R., Poornima, B., Sasidharan, A., Ashika, M., & Radhakrishnan, N. (2021). Pilot of a questionnaire study regarding perception of undergraduate medical students towards online classes: Process and perspectives. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2141_20.
• Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons.
• Ning, T. Q., & Chongo, S. (2023). The role of hands-on approach in overcoming students’ misconceptions about matter: A case study. International Jonal of Advanced Multidisciplinart Research and Studies, 3, 186-190.
• Özmen, H. (2011). Effect of animation enhanced conceptual change texts on 6th grade students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and transformation during phase changes. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1114-1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.004
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
• Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Learning natural selection through computational thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 983-1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21545
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Research in Nursing & Health, 29(5), 489-497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
• Renvall, G., & Kurtén, B. (2024). Talking Chemistry in Small Groups: Challenges with Macroscopic, Submicroscopic and Symbolic Representations Among Students Aged 14-15 Years. FMSERA Journal, 6(2), 58-76.
• Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research. Routledge.
• Rohaeti, E., & Huda, N. (2025). Assessing Computational Thinking Skills of Science and Mathematics Upper-Secondary School Students. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(4), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/17248
• Sáez-López, J. M., 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. Computers & Education, 97, 129-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003
• Santaengracia, J. J., Palop, B., & Rodríguez-Muñiz, L. J. (2026). Computational thinking in K-6 education: a scoping review of instructional practices. Journal of Computers in Education, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-025-00380-z
• Sari, U., Tomuk, H., & Şentürk, M. L. (2026). Inquiry Science Teaching Integrated with Unplugged Computational Thinking in Middle School: Development of Inquiry and Computational Thinking Skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-18.
• Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K–12 science education. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-0
• Shute, V. J., 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
• Spatioti, A. G., Kazanidis, I., & Pange, J. (2022). A comparative study of the ADDIE instructional design model in distance education. Information, 13(9), Article 402. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13090402
• Sungur, S., & Ozkan, G. (2026). Coding science: The role of block-based programming activities in enhancing computational thinking and science achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-026-10317-5
• Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in K–12 education: A conceptual model based on a systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 162, Article 104083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104083
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Wang, F., & Sahid, S. (2024). Content validation and content validity index calculation for entrepreneurial behavior instruments among vocational college students in China. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 7(9), 2024187-2024187. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2024187
• Waterman, K. P., Goldsmith, L., & Pasquale, M. (2020). Integrating computational thinking into elementary science curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09808-5
• Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Block-based vs text-based programming. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3089799
• Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
• World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report 2018. World Economic Forum.
• Wu, T. T., Asmara, A., Huang, Y. M., & Permata Hapsari, I. (2024). Identification of problem-solving techniques in computational thinking studies: Systematic literature review. Sage Open, 14(2), Article 21582440241249897. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244024124989

APA

Lapawi, N., Osman, K., & Husnin, H. (2026). Development and validation of the Sc-CTM module: Integrating unplugged and plugged-in computational thinking in science education. Pedagogical Research, 11(4), em0287. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18775

Vancouver

Lapawi N, Osman K, Husnin H. Development and validation of the Sc-CTM module: Integrating unplugged and plugged-in computational thinking in science education. PEDAGOGICAL RES. 2026;11(4):em0287. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18775

AMA

Lapawi N, Osman K, Husnin H. Development and validation of the Sc-CTM module: Integrating unplugged and plugged-in computational thinking in science education. PEDAGOGICAL RES. 2026;11(4), em0287. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18775

Chicago

Lapawi, Noraini, Kamisah Osman, and Hazrati Husnin. "Development and validation of the Sc-CTM module: Integrating unplugged and plugged-in computational thinking in science education". Pedagogical Research 2026 11 no. 4 (2026): em0287. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18775

Harvard

Lapawi, N., Osman, K., and Husnin, H. (2026). Development and validation of the Sc-CTM module: Integrating unplugged and plugged-in computational thinking in science education. Pedagogical Research, 11(4), em0287. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18775

MLA

Lapawi, Noraini et al. "Development and validation of the Sc-CTM module: Integrating unplugged and plugged-in computational thinking in science education". Pedagogical Research, vol. 11, no. 4, 2026, em0287. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/18775