1
Kiel University, Faculty of Engineering, Kiel, Germany
2
Akdeniz University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Antalya, Turkiye
Abstract
Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) stated by the United Nations include a call for Gender Equality, emphasizing the challenges women face in male-dominated fields such as computer science (CS). Introducing programming at an early age can help girls perceive computer science as enjoyable and accessible. This study presents an example of interdisciplinary collaboration and provides empirical evidence on the positive impact of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) integration in robotics programming for female students. The purpose of this study was to examine how interdisciplinary STEAM-based robotics programming activities influence secondary school female students’ programming self-efficacy and computational thinking (CT) self-efficacy. The research employed a single-group pretest–posttest experimental design with 60 seventh-grade female students from a public school in Türkiye. Over six weeks, students participated in a robotics programming course using mBlock, supported by STEAM-themed tasks across science, technology, mathematics, and design curricula. Data were collected using two validated instruments: the Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSES) and the Computational Thinking Skills Self-Efficacy Scale (CTSSES). Paired samples t-tests revealed statistically significant improvements in both programming and computational thinking self-efficacy scores after the intervention (p < 0.05). These findings support the effectiveness of interdisciplinary, STEAM-based pedagogies in enhancing female students’ engagement and confidence in computing. The study highlights the importance of inclusive educational strategies in narrowing the gender gap in computer science education.
Altin, R., & Yasan Ak, N. (2025). Girls in robotics programming: STEAM integration in computer science course . International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 16(62), 2307–2326. https://doi.org/10.70736/ijoess.2006
📄Aldağ, H., & Tekdal, M. (2015). Bilgisayar kullanımı ve programlama öğretiminde cinsiyet farklılıkları. Proceeding of 1. Uluslararası Çukurova Kadın Çalışmaları Kongresi, 236-243.
📄Altin, R., Landoni, M., & Vimarlund, V. (2025). Breaking Boundaries in Classrooms: Fostering Gender Inclusion in K-12 STEM. ERCIM News, (142).
📄Altin, R., Tokel, T., & Delialioglu, O. (2021). The effects of mathematics on programming skills and its retention: an experimental study. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 40(3), 183-199.
📄Beyer, S., Rynes, K., Perrault, J., Hay, K., & Haller, S. (2003). Gender differences in computer science students. SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 49–53. [Crossref]
📄Blaney, J. M. (2021). Developing computing and technology leaders: How undergraduate women make meaning of their leadership experiences. Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 14(2), 204–227. [Crossref]
📄Burbaitė, R., Drąsutė, V., & Štuikys, V. (2018). Integration of computational thinking skills in STEM-driven computer science education. In 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). IEEE. [Crossref]
📄Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 924–976. [Crossref]
📄Cheng, I. L., Chew, S. W., & Chen, N. S. (2017). Kaleidoscopic course: The concept, design, and implementation of the flipped classroom. In Authentic learning through advances in technologies (pp. 171-187). Singapore: Springer Singapore. [Crossref]
📄Cheng, L., Wang, X., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2023). The effects of computational thinking integration in STEM on students’ learning performance in K-12 education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(2), 416-443. [Crossref]
📄Christensen, I. M., Marcher, M. H., Grabarczyk, P., Graversen, T., & Brabrand, C. (2021). Computing educational activities involving people rather than things appeal more to women (Recruitment perspective). In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER 2021) (pp. 127–144). Association for Computing Machinery. [Crossref]
📄Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 98-101. [Crossref]
📄Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
📄Dagdilelis, V., Satratzemi, M., & Evangelidis, G. (2004). Introducing secondary education students to algorithms and programming. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 159–173. [Crossref]
📄Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. [Crossref]
📄Dolgopolovas, V., & Dagiene, V. (2024). Competency‐based TPACK approaches to computational thinking and integrated STEM: A conceptual exploration. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 32(6), e22788. [Crossref]
📄Erete, S., Rankin, Y. A., & Thomas, J. O. (2020). I can’t breathe: Reflections from Black women in CSCW and HCI. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(CSCW3), Article 234. [Crossref]
📄Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., Morrison, B., Parker, M., Moldavan, M., & Surasani, L. (2015). An eBook for teachers learning CS principles. ACM Inroads, 6(4), 84-86. [Crossref]
📄Gal-Ezer, J., & Harel, D. (1998). What (else) should CS educators know? Communications of the ACM, 41(9), 77–84. [Crossref]
📄Gomoll, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Šabanović, S., & Francisco, M. (2016). Dragons, ladybugs, and softballs: Girls’ STEM engagement with human-centered robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 915–915. [Crossref]
📄Goode, J. (2008). Increasing diversity in K–12 computer science: Strategies from the field. SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 362–366. [Crossref]
📄Gorbacheva, E., Beekhuyzen, J., vom Brocke, J., & Becker, J. (2019). Directions for research on gender imbalance in the IT profession. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(1), 43–67. [Crossref]
📄Gökoğlu, S., Kozak, R. A., Yazlı, R., Meral, Z., & Meydan, Y. (2025). Türkiye’de programlama eğitimi: Üniversite öğrencileri perspektifinden bir değerlendirme. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (64), 2050-2068. [Crossref]
📄Graßl, I., Geldreich, K., & Fraser, G. (2021, October). Data-driven analysis of gender differences and similarities in scratch programs. In Proceedings of the 16th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 1–10). ACM. [Crossref]
📄Gribbons, B., & Herman, J. (1996). True and quasi-experimental designs. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 5(14). [Crossref]
📄Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31(2), 59–70. [Crossref]
📄Gunbatar, M. S., & Karalar, H. (2018). Gender differences in middle school students’ attitudes and self-efficacy perceptions towards mBlock programming. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 925–933. [Crossref]
📄Gutica, M. (2021). Fostering high school girls’ interest and attainment in computer science. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1 (ITiCSE 2021). Association for Computing Machinery. [Crossref]
📄Gülbahar, Y., Kert, S. B., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2019). The self-efficacy perception scale for computational thinking skill: Validity and reliability study. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 10(1), 1–29. [Crossref]
📄Hadinugrahaningsih, T., Rahmawati, Y., & Ridwan, A. (2017, August). Developing 21st century skills in chemistry classrooms: Opportunities and challenges of STEAM integration. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1868(1), 030008. [Crossref]
📄Happe, L., Buhnova, B., Koziolek, A., & Wagner, I. (2020). Effective measures to foster girls’ interest in secondary computer science education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2811–2829. [Crossref]
📄Hsieh, H.-L., & Lin, Y.-T. (2020). Teaching programming to science majors by modelling. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (p. 1367). Association for Computing Machinery. [Crossref]
📄Hubbard, A. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge in computing education: A review of the research literature. Computer Science Education, 28(2), 117-135. [Crossref]
📄Koppelman, H. (2008). Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Educational Cases in Computer Science: An Exploration. In Proceedings of the 2008 InSITE Conference. [Crossref]
📄Kukul, V., Gökçearslan, Ş., & Günbatar, M. S. (2017). Computer programming self-efficacy scale (CPSES) for secondary school students: Development, validation and reliability. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 7(1), 158–179. [Crossref]
📄Kulkarni, A., Yoon, I., Pennings, P. S., Okada, K., & Domingo, C. (2018, July). Promoting diversity in computing. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 236-241). [Crossref]
📄Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., … et al. (2020). On computational thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(2), 147–166. [Crossref]
📄Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2017). Computational thinking in education: Where does it fit? A systematic literary review. arXiv preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07659
📄Marcher, M. H., Christensen, I. M., Grabarczyk, P., Graversen, T., & Brabrand, C. (2021, August). Computing educational activities involving people rather than things appeal more to women (cs1 appeal perspective). In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on international computing education research (pp. 145-156). [Crossref]
📄Maričić, M., & Lavicza, Z. (2024). Enhancing student engagement through emerging technology integration in STEAM learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 29(17), 23361–23389. [Crossref]
📄Marín-Marín, J. A., Moreno-Guerrero, A. J., Dúo-Terrón, P., & López-Belmonte, J. (2021). STEAM in education: A bibliometric analysis of performance and co-words in Web of Science. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 41. [Crossref]
📄Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 92–106. [Crossref]
📄Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76–78. [Crossref]
📄Mishra, P., Phillips, M., Baran, E., Koehler, M., Harris, J., & Williams, M. (2024, March). Part 1: The past, present, and most importantly the future of TPACK. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2443–2448). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/224319/
📄Pedrosa de Souza, D., & Sivini Ferreira, H. (2025). Potentials of the Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) education for gender inclusion in science: A systematic literature review. Revista Electrónica de Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 24(1), 186-207. https://reec.webs.uvigo.es/volumenes/volumen24/REEC_24_01_10_ex2271_1173.pdf
📄Pisarov, J., & Mester, G. (2019). Programming the mBot robot in school. In Proceedings of the International Conference and Workshop Mechatronics in Practice and Education, MechEdu (pp. 45–48).
📄Plaza, P., Castro, M., Merino, J., Restivo, T., Peixoto, A., Gonzalez, C., … et al. (2020, September). Educational robotics for all: Gender, diversity, and inclusion in STEAM. In 2020 IEEE Learning With MOOCs (LWMOOCs) (pp. 19–24). IEEE. [Crossref]
📄Psycharis, S. (2018). STEAM in education: A literature review on the role of computational thinking, engineering epistemology and computational science. Computational STEAM pedagogy (CSP). Scientific Culture, 4(2), 51-72. [Crossref]
📄Psycharis, S. (2019). Computational thinking, engineering epistemology and STEM epistemology: A primary approach to computational pedagogy. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing (Vol. 689, pp. 689–698). Springer. [Crossref]
📄Psycharis, S., Kalovrektis, K., Xenakis, A., Paliokas, I., Patrinopoulos, M., Georgiakakis, P., ... et al. (2021). The impact of physical computing and computational pedagogy on girl’s self-efficacy and computational thinking practice. In 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). [Crossref]
📄Sánchez-Jiménez, M., Fernández-Arias, P., Vergara, D., Antón-Sancho, Á., & Orosa, J. A. (2024). Teachers’ perception of the gender gap in STEAM subjects in pre-university stages. Education Sciences, 14(8), 829. [Crossref]
📄Saygıner, Ş., & Tüzün, H. (2017). İlköğretim düzeyinde programlama eğitimi: Yurt dışı ve yurt içi perspektifinden bir bakış. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, 1-5.
📄Schulte, C., Sentance, S., Sparmann, S., Altin, R., Friebroon-Yesharim, M., Landman, M., ... & Wu, Z. (2025). What we talk about when we talk about K-12 computing education. In 2024 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 226-257).
📄Shulman, L. S. (2000). Teacher development: Roles of domain expertise and pedagogical knowledge. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 129–135. [Crossref]
📄Standl, B. (2024, March). Strategies and Insights from Implementing a Teaching Learning Lab to Foster Computational Thinking Skills. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 389-392). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/223961
📄Stephenson, C., & Dovi, R. (2013). More than gender: Taking a systemic approach to improving K–12 computer science education. Computer, 46(3), 42–46. [Crossref]
📄Swanson, H., Anton, G., Bain, C., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2019). Introducing and assessing computational thinking in the secondary science classroom. In Y. Q. Jin, B. A. Repenning, & S. K. Cheung (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 99–117). Springer. [Crossref]
📄Tan, B., Jin, H.-Y., & Cutumisu, M. (2023). The applications of machine learning in computational thinking assessments: A scoping review. Computer Science Education. [Crossref]
📄Taub, R., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). The contribution of computer science to learning computational physics. In M. Mavrikis, B. K. Smith, & G. A. Papadourakis (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7780, pp. 127–137). Springer. [Crossref]
📄Taylor, S., & Lowe, P. (2021). STEAM integration. Teachers and Curriculum, 21, 45–53. [Crossref]
📄Tomar, G., & Garg, V. (2020). Making steam accessible for inclusive classroom. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System, 12(4), 94-101.
📄Wang, C., Shen, J., & Chao, J. (2022). Integrating computational thinking in STEM education: A literature review. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(8), 1949-1972. [Crossref]
📄Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y. J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., … et al. (2016). Computer science in K–12 school curricula of the 21st century: Why, what and when?. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 445–468. [Crossref]
📄Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., … et al. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. [Crossref]
📄Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. [Crossref]
📄Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. [Crossref]
📄Yadav, A., & Berges, M. (2019). Computer science pedagogical content knowledge: Characterizing teacher performance. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(3), Article 29. [Crossref]
📄Yılmaz Fındık, L. (2025). Gender equality in Türkiye: A critical analysis and action plan for schools. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 9(4). [Crossref]
,
Nehir Yasan Ak
2
