International Journal of Education and Management Engineering (IJEME)
IJEME Vol. 15, No. 5, 8 Oct. 2025
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 991KB)
Assessing Algorithmic Literacy through Scratch Programming: A Comparative Study in Japanese and Indonesian STEM Education
PDF (991KB), PP.1-12
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Hiroyuki Endo
1,*
Satoshi Kusaka
1
Rully Charitas Indra Prahmana
2,3
Nur Robiah Nofikusumawati Peni
2,3
Index Terms
Algorithmic Literacy, Indonesia, Japan, Rubric Assessment, Scratch, STEM Education
Abstract
Despite the growing integration of programming education within STEM curricula worldwide, there remains a significant gap in the availability of comprehensive and empirically validated assessment tools, particularly those capable of evaluating students’ broader computational thinking competencies. Addressing this gap, this study introduces a novel rubric grounded in the framework of algorithmic literacy—defined by Kalaš (2011) as a set of skills that enable individuals to manage behavior and attain goals within dynamic, interactive environments. The rubric, comprising four key dimensions—Subject Knowledge, Programming Design, Programming Techniques, and the Learning Process—was developed to assess students’ algorithmic literacy in the context of Scratch-based STEM learning activities. The study was guided by two primary research questions: ⑴ To what extent can the developed rubric effectively assess students' algorithmic literacy in Scratch-based STEM education? and ⑵ What similarities and differences exist between Japanese and Indonesian students in their programming outcomes, and what contextual factors contribute to these patterns? A total of 228 students—132 from Japan and 96 from Indonesia—participated in three intervention lessons focused on programming regular polygons using Scratch. Evaluation of their work revealed high proficiency in Programming Techniques, particularly in utilizing sequential commands and loops, while students exhibited difficulties in integrating complex mathematical concepts and multi-shape design tasks. Comparative analysis highlighted the influence of curriculum structure, access to technological resources, and pedagogical approaches on student performance across the two contexts. The findings contribute a validated and practical tool for assessing algorithmic literacy, offering critical insights to inform the design of culturally responsive and pedagogically effective programming education initiatives.
Cite This Paper
Hiroyuki Endo, Satoshi Kusaka, Rully Charitas Indra Prahmana, Nur Robiah Nofikusumawati Peni, "Assessing Algorithmic Literacy through Scratch Programming: A Comparative Study in Japanese and Indonesian STEM Education", International Journal of Education and Management Engineering (IJEME), Vol.15, No.5, pp. 1-12, 2025. DOI:10.5815/ijeme.2025.05.01
Reference
[1]Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). General provisions. Course of Study for Elementary Schools. 2017.
[2]Google, TEMASEK, BAIB&COMPANY. e-conomy SEA 2019. Google TEMASEK BAIB&COMPANY. 2019.
[3]Hilyana F. Shoufika, et al. STEM-based Digital Assessment Application for Elementary School Teacher Education Students, Department of Primary Education Teacher, Universitas Muria Kudus, Gondang Manis Bae Kudus. BIO Web of Conferences 117, 01026 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/202411701026. ICoLiST 2023. Central Java, Indonesia. 2024.
[4]Hardika Dwi Hermawan, et al. Implementation of ICT in Education in Indonesia during 2004-2017. Information and Technology Studies Faculty of Education The University of Hong Kong HKSAR, P.R.China . 2018 International Symposium on Educational Technology. DOI 10.1109/ISET.2018.00032. 2018
[5]William H. STEWART and Kwanoo BAEK. Analyzing Computational Thinking Studies in Scratch Programming: A Review of Elementary Education Literature, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Korea. University of Southern California, USA. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, March 2023, Vol. 6, No. 1 ISSN 2513-8359. DOI: 10.21585/ijcses.v6i1.156. 2023
[6]Janne FAGERLUND et al. Assessing 4th Grade Students’ Computational Thinking through Scratch Programming Projects. Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Informatics in Education, 2020, Vol. 19, No. 4, 611–640 © 2020 Vilnius University, ETH Zürich. DOI: 10.15388/infedu.2020.27
[7]Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Ability to develop through programming education. Guidance of programming education in elementary school. [3], 11－12. 2020.
[8]Wing, J. Computational Thinking, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/Computational_Thinking.pdf, ACCESS.2023.08.23.2007.
[9]Mandoye. N. Teaching basic problem decomposition and algorithm design skills, Tuskegee University. https://serc.carleton.edu/teaching_computation/workshop_2019/essays/231291.html, ACCESS.2023.06.03. 2019.
[10]Adem Doğani, Algorithmic Thinking in Primary Education, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University. International Journal of Progressive Education, 2020, Vol.16. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.18, 2020.
[11]Ota et al. Quantitative Analysis for Acquisition of Children’s Programming Skills: Scratch Programming of Grade 4–6. Information Processing Society of Japan. Education and Computer. Vol.5 No.3 35–43. 2019.
[12]Ono Eri & Susono Hirotoshi. How to evaluate students’ Scratch projects in Japan, JSSE Research Report. Vol. 31. No. 8. 2017.
[13]William, H. Analyzing Computational Thinking studies in scratch programming : A review of elementary education literature. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, March 2023, Vol. 6, No. 1. 2023.
[14]Miyamoto, K. & Kawano, S. Practice and verification of the computer programming class with scratch in an elementary school, Journal of the Japan Society of Technology Education. Vol. 60. No. 1. 19－28. 2018．
[15]Matsui Touru, YokoyamaTakamitsu, Saitou Youko, Imai Sena. A trial of programming education. Faculty of Cultural Creation, Gifu Women's University. 2019.
[16]Kalaš, I., 2011. Spoznávame potenciál digitálních technológií v predprimárnom vzdelávaní. Ústav informácií a prognóz školství, Bratislava.
[17]Bando Tesuya, et al, Proposal for Evaluating the Programming Thinking Process in Lower Elementary School Grades. The Japan Society of technology Education. Vol.63(1), pp.111－119, 2021.
[18]Cabinet Office. Science and Technology Policy. Council for Science, Technology and Innovation, Cabinet Office. 2019. https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html, ACCESS.2023.06.22.
[19]Dainihontosho. Interesting mathematics web. Dainihontosho. https://www.dainippon-tosho.co.jp/web/sansu/065scratch/index.html, 2019, ACCESS.2023.05.24.
[20]Linda. L. Hello Ruby. (Tori. Y, Trans.). Shoeisha. 2016.
[21]Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). The model of the programming education in primary school, 2016.
[22]Okahana Kazuki, et al. Computational approach in elementary school mathematics aiming meta-cognition of analog geometry, Japan Society of Digital Textbook. ISSN 2432-6127 Vol.7, 2018.
[23]Saito Kazuhisa. Regular polygon, The point of new mathematics teaching, Toyokan Publisher. 1993.
[24]Soma Kazuhiko. et al. Interesting mathematics Grade 6, Dainihontosho. 2020.
[25]Tatiana Havlásková. et al. Applications that help develop algorithmic thinking, University of Ostrava, Fráni Šrámka 3, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 17th International Conference e-Society. 2019.