Abstract:

Τhis study investigates how gender relates to the development of Computational Thinking (CT) in Educational Robotics (ER) activities implemented through Peer Tutoring (PT) in primary education. ER, a constructionist “learning-by-making” environment, is well suited to foster CT skills. PT leverages collaboration and support from more “experienced” peers to enhance learning outcomes.

Prior research notes the underrepresentation of women and girls in technology-related fields and reports mixed evidence regarding gender differences in CT. Existing findings appear context-dependent—varying across regions, age groups, and instructional settings—suggesting that gender patterns in CT are shaped by social, cultural, and educational factors. Moreover, while ER and PT have been studied extensively as separate approaches, their integrated use—and particularly the role of gender within ER–PT contexts—remains underexplored.

The study addressed two research questions:
(a) how CT performance differs by students’ gender within an ER–PT context, and
(b) how students’ CT performance differs depending on the gender of the tutor.

Participants were 78 students in Grades 3–5 (ages 9–11) from a European public school (girls = 43, boys = 35). Fifth-grade students served as tutors, while third- and fourth-grade students served as tutees. The intervention was based on LEGO Education SPIKE Prime and visual programming and consisted of six lessons of increasing difficulty supported by worksheets targeting discrete CT dimensions. CT was assessed via pre- and post-tests, and data were analyzed in SPSS.

Results showed a statistically significant improvement in CT from pretest to post-test for both genders. For boys, the pretest score (M = 60.83) was significantly lower than the post-test score (M = 70.86), t(34) = 4.54, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.77. For girls, the pretest score (M = 73.42) was also significantly lower than the post-test score (M = 81.72), t(42) = 6.61, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.01. Independent-samples tests showed that girls outperformed boys at both time points; however, when initial performance was statistically controlled (ANCOVA with pretest as a covariate), there was no significant effect of gender on post-test outcomes, F(1, 75) = 0.07, p = .79, suggesting that the observed post-test difference mainly reflects pre-existing performance levels rather than a different rate of improvement attributable to the intervention.

Regarding the second research question, no statistically significant differences were found in tutees’ CT scores depending on whether they were supported by a male or a female tutor, either at pretest, t(38) = 0.57, p = .57, Cohen’s d = 0.20 (boy tutor: n = 11, M = 63.82; girl tutor: n = 29, M = 60.07), or at post-test, t(38) = −0.17, p = .87, Cohen’s d = −0.06 (boy tutor: M = 69.73; girl tutor: M = 70.90).

Overall, the findings indicate that the integrated ER–PT approach supports CT development in a gender-inclusive manner. Although girls scored higher than boys at both pretest and post-test, boys and girls showed similar learning gains, and gender did not predict post-test performance once baseline differences were controlled. Tutor gender had no effect on tutees’ CT outcomes, suggesting that both male and female tutors can provide equally effective peer instruction when the tutoring process is well structured and scaffolded.

Keywords:

Computational Thinking, Educational Robotics, Peer Tutoring, Primary Education.