Dr. Scratch automatically scores computational thinking (CT) in Scratch. While promising, these metrics are seldom evaluated in classroom realities. To compensate, we engaged six STEM teachers and 395 middle school students in qualitative classroom research using Dr. Scratch CT4ALL to support game-based learning (GBL). Through observations, field notes, interviews, and quantitative insights, we show how teachers personalize CT rubrics for GBL and how students score with these rubrics, while also documenting their experiences with automated CT metrics. We find that Dr. Scratch’s feedback often goes unheeded, confirming apprehensions from prior work. When CT is a secondary learning goal, students focus on code issues rather than CT points, questioning the usefulness of Dr. Scratch in supporting students’ motivation to learn about CT in GBL. Based on these results, we discuss the need for human-centered design of CT metrics, offering lessons learned and perspectives to improve CT metrics for classroom use.

Game design is increasingly used in modern education to foster Computational Thinking (CT). Yet, it is unclear how and if the game genre of student-designed games impact CT and programming. We explore how game genre impacts CT development and programming routines in Scratch games designed by 8th-grade students using a metrics-based approach (i.e., Dr. Scratch). Our findings show that designing particular games (e.g., action, storytelling) impact CT and programming development. We observe, for instance, that CT skills develop and consolidate fast, after which students can focus on aspects more specific to game design. Based on the results, we suggest that researchers and educators in constructionist learning consider the impact of game genre when designing game-based curricula for the learning of programming and CT.

Game design is emerging in contemporary education, especially in constructionist curricula for student-centered and discovery learning. While previous work focused on assessing how complementary skills (e.g., computational thinking) develop through game design, few have attempted to assess the very games designed by students. Here, we show preliminary results on using the Triadic Game Design (TGD) model to assess the elements that may constitute a ”balanced” student-designed game in the context of constructionist learning. Our results show that TGD is viable to carry out such assessment. We conclude by discussing the limitations of our approach and propose directions for future work.

Computational thinking (CT) is key to digital literacy and helps develop problem-solving skills, which are fundamental in modern school. As game design shows potential for teaching CT, metrics like Dr. Scratch emerge that help scholars systematically assess the CT of student-designed games, particularly with Scratch. Compared to other CT metrics, Dr. Scratch scores the CT of Scratch projects automatically and can be used to describe CT development. However, previous research using Dr. Scratch summatively assessed CT, but did not look at CT development. We use Dr. Scratch to assess the CT development of Scratch games designed by 8th-grade students in STEM curricula. We show how CT proficiency in student-designed games develops differently in each CT dimension, where parallelism, synchronization, and logic develop proficiently, while developing abstraction seems hard. We discuss insights into game-based CT development for STEM, and suggest improvements for metric-based CT assessment.