Enhancing Computational Thinking through FluidSIM: Preparing Future Vocational Teachers for Quality Education
Abstract
Computational thinking ability is an essential 21st-century competency that prospective vocational teachers need to develop to support technology-based learning. However, its development is still dominated by programming-based approaches, while the use of engineering simulation software remains limited. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of FluidSIM in improving the computational thinking ability of prospective Electrical Engineering teachers. A quasi-experimental method with a one-group pretest-posttest design was employed, involving 21 students from the Electrical Engineering Education Study Program. The research instrument was a computational thinking test measuring four dimensions: decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithmic thinking. The results of the paired-sample t-test showed a significant improvement in students’ computational thinking ability after FluidSIM-based learning was implemented. Furthermore, the N-Gain analysis produced an average score of 0.734, which falls into the high category. The highest improvement occurred in decomposition, with an N-Gain value of 0.750, followed by algorithmic thinking at 0.736, pattern recognition at 0.721, and abstraction at 0.714. These findings indicate that FluidSIM is effective not only in supporting students’ understanding of engineering concepts but also in developing essential computational thinking skills. The simulation environment enables students to decompose engineering problems, recognize patterns, construct abstract representations, and formulate systematic solution procedures through interactive learning activities. Therefore, FluidSIM-based learning can serve as an alternative technology-supported approach for strengthening computational thinking in vocational teacher education. This study contributes empirical evidence for integrating engineering simulation into teacher preparation and supports Sustainable Development Goal 4 by promoting quality education through meaningful technology integration in learning
Keywords
References
D. Kaya, A. Ö. Ya?ar, ?. Çetin, and T. Kutluca, “The relationship between the 21st-century skills and computational thinking skills of prospective mathematics and science teachers,” Journal of Pedagogical Research, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 73–95, 2025, doi: 10.33902/JPR.202531498.
R. Tariq, B. M. Aponte Babines, J. Ramirez, I. Alvarez-Icaza, and F. Naseer, “Computational thinking in STEM education: current state-of-the-art and future research directions,” 2024, Frontiers Media SA. doi: 10.3389/fcomp.2024.1480404.
N. V. Morze, O. V. Barna, and M. A. Boiko, “The importance of computational thinking training for primary school teachers,” Educational Dimension, vol. 6, pp. 22–39, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.31812/educdim.4466.
N. U. S. Rajapakse Mohottige, A. H. Bjerke, and R. Andersen, “Teacher education as stakeholder: teacher educator perspectives on the integration of computational thinking into mathematics and science courses,” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2024, doi: 10.1080/13540602.2024.2313635.
W. Dong, Y. Li, L. Sun, and Y. Liu, “Developing pre-service teachers’ computational thinking: a systematic literature review,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 191–227, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1007/S10798-023-09811-3/TABLES/8.
S. Köpsén, “How vocational teachers describe their vocational teacher identity,” Journal of Vocational Education & Training, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 194–211, 2014, doi: 10.1080/13636820.2014.894554.
F. J. Agbo, S. S. Oyelere, J. Suhonen, and M. Tukiainen, “Design, development, and evaluation of a virtual reality game-based application to support computational thinking,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 505–537, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1007/S11423-022-10161-5/TABLES/7.
D. van der Linde-Koomen, H. Jonker, and J. Voogt, “Computational Thinking in Pre-vocational Education: A Focus on Coding Unplugged,” Teaching Coding in K-12 Schools: Research and Application, pp. 331–341, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-21970-2_22.
T. T. Wu, A. Asmara, Y. M. Huang, and I. Permata Hapsari, “Identification of Problem-Solving Techniques in Computational Thinking Studies: Systematic Literature Review,” Sage Open, vol. 14, no. 2, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1177/21582440241249897.
A. Hamidi, “Advancing computational thinking education: Insights from systems thinking applications,” Human Systems Management, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 157–172, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3233/HSM-240024.
A. A. P. Cattaneo, C. Antonietti, and M. Rauseo, “How digitalised are vocational teachers? Assessing digital competence in vocational education and looking at its underlying factors,” Comput. Educ., vol. 176, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104358.
Z. Qi, Y. Fu, Y. Qian, L. Shi, D. Sun, and C. Looi, “Block-based versus Text-based Programming: A Comparison of Learners’ Programming Behaviors, and Computational Thinking Skills toward Programming,” Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 18–22, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1007/S11423-023-10328-8/METRICS.
T. Ha?laman, F. K. Mumcu, and N. A. Uslu, “Fostering computational thinking through digital storytelling: a distinctive approach to promoting computational thinking skills of pre-service teachers,” Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordr)., vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 18121–18147, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1007/S10639-024-12583-5/TABLES/6.
M. A. Hazrat, N. M. S. Hassan, A. A. Chowdhury, M. G. Rasul, and B. A. Taylor, “Developing a Skilled Workforce for Future Industry Demand: The Potential of Digital Twin-Based Teaching and Learning Practices in Engineering Education,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 23, p. 16433, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.3390/su152316433.
C. Kefalis, C. Skordoulis, and A. Drigas, “Digital Simulations in STEM Education: Insights from Recent Empirical Studies, a Systematic Review,” Encyclopedia 2025, Vol. 5, Page 10, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 10, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/ENCYCLOPEDIA5010010.
A. Negahban, “Simulation in engineering education: The transition from physical experimentation to digital immersive simulated environments,” Simulation, vol. 100, no. 7, pp. 695–708, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1177/00375497241229757;JOURNAL:JOURNAL:SIMB;WEBSITE:WEBSITE:SAGE;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.
S. Campbell et al., “Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples,” Journal of Research in Nursing, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 652–661, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1177/1744987120927206.
B. Patria and L. Laili, “Writing group program reduces academic procrastination: a quasi-experimental study,” BMC Psychol., vol. 9, no. 1, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1186/s40359-021-00665-9.
L. El-Hamamsy, M. Zapata-Cáceres, E. M. Barroso, F. Mondada, J. D. Zufferey, and B. Bruno, “The Competent Computational Thinking Test: Development and Validation of an Unplugged Computational Thinking Test for Upper Primary School,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 1818–1866, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1177/07356331221081753.
A. Ukkonen, K. Pajchel, and L. Mifsud, “Teachers’ understanding of assessing computational thinking,” Computer Science Education, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1080/08993408.2024.2365566.
A. T. Jebb, V. Ng, and L. Tay, “A Review of Key Likert Scale Development Advances: 1995–2019,” May 04, 2021, Frontiers Media S.A. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637547.
J. Mumu, B. Tanujaya, R. Charitas, and I. Prahmana, “Likert Scale in Social Sciences Research: Problems and Difficulties,” FWU Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 89–101, 2022, doi: 10.51709/19951272/Winter2022/7.
A. A. Aziz, I. N. Hafawati Adam, J. Jasmis, S. J. Elias, and S. Mansor, “N-Gain and System Usability Scale Analysis on Game Based Learning for Adult Learners,” in 2021 6th IEEE International Conference on Recent Advances and Innovations in Engineering (ICRAIE), IEEE, Dec. 2021, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICRAIE52900.2021.9704013.
N. Ilyana Ismarau Tajuddin et al., “Content Validity Assessment Using Aiken’s V: Knowledge Integration Model for Blockchain in Higher Learning Institutions.” [Online]. Available: www.ijacsa.thesai.org
Y. F. Putri, K. Kadir, and A. Dimyati, “Analysis of Content Validity on Mathematical Computational Thinking Skill Test for Junior High School Student Using Aiken Method,” Hipotenusa : Journal of Mathematical Society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 108–119, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.18326/hipotenusa.v4i2.7465.
N. Kania et al., “Constructing and providing content validity evidence through the Aiken’s V index based on the experts’ judgments of the instrument to measure mathematical problem-solving skills,” REID (Research and Evaluation in Education), vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 64–79, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.21831/REID.V10I1.71032.
S. C. Izah, L. Sylva, and M. Hait, “Cronbach’s Alpha: A Cornerstone in Ensuring Reliability and Validity in Environmental Health Assessment,” ES Energy and Environment, vol. 23, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.30919/ESEE1057.
Muh. A. AM and F. A. Setiawati, “Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Career Commitment Instrument through Classical Test Theory and the Graded Response Model,” Journal of Education Research and Evaluation, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 455–468, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.23887/JERE.V7I3.59619.
C. S. Zygmont, “Managing the Assumption of Normality within the General Linear Model with Small Samples: Guidelines for Researchers Regarding If, When and How.,” Quant. Method. Psychol., vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 302–332, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.20982/tqmp.19.4.p302.
A. Kamath, S. Poojari, and K. Varsha, “Assessing the robustness of normality tests under varying skewness and kurtosis: a practical checklist for public health researchers,” BMC Medical Research Methodology 2025 25:1, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 206-, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1186/S12874-025-02641-Y.
F. Da?, E. ?umuer, and L. Durdu, “The effect of an unplugged coding course on primary school students’ improvement in their computational thinking skills,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1902–1918, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1111/JCAL.12850;WGROUP:STRING:PUBLICATION.
V. P. Coletta and J. J. Steinert, “Why normalized gain should continue to be used in analyzing preinstruction and postinstruction scores on concept inventories,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 16, no. 1, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010108.
E. Christman, P. Miller, and J. Stewart, “Beyond normalized gain: Improved comparison of physics educational outcomes,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010123.
R. Isnaini, C. Wawan Budiyanto, and I. Widiastuti, “Opportunities For Using Robotics In Learning To Support Students’ Computational Thinking Ability In Developing Countries,” Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Vocational Education (JoMEVE), vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 29–36, 2020, doi: 10.20961/jomeve.v3i1.45971.
G. O. de A. Oliveira et al., “Teacher Training And Computational Thinking: Strategies For The Implementation Of Technologies In Education,” LUMEN ET VIRTUS, vol. 15, no. 40, pp. 4376–4385, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.56238/levv15n40-020.
A. Apriliani, N. Kania, and N. Umar, “Developing Teaching Materials to Enhance Critical Thinking Skills through Group Investigation in Composite Functions,” International Journal of Applied Learning and Research in Algebra, vol. 2, pp. 19–34, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.56855/algebra.v2i1.1347.
X. Weng, H. Ye, Y. Dai, and O. L. Ng, “Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Computational Thinking in Educational Contexts: A Systematic Review of Instructional Design and Student Learning Outcomes,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1640–1670, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1177/07356331241248686.
C. W. Budiyanto, K. Fenyvesi, Y. I. Maharani, R. A. Yuana, P. K. Nashiroh, and R. Latifah, “Investigating Computational Thinking in K-12 Visual Programming Activities on Code.org: A Brennan-Resnick Framework Approach,” Elinvo (Electronics, Informatics, and Vocational Education), vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 54–62, 2025, doi: 10.21831/elinvo.v8i2.
E. Hrušková, M. Matúšová, and Š. Václav, “Design of Construction and Controlling of Automation Technics in Order to Improve Skills of Students,” Multidisciplinary Aspects of Production Engineering, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 120–131, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.2478/mape-2021-0011.
I. Ostrowski, J. Mo?aryn, J. Wang, and D. Cukier, “Lesson Learned from Semester of Online Teaching of Automation Using Simulators,” IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1016, no. 1, p. 012005, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1016/1/012005.
Ü. Çakiro?lu and ?. Çevik, “A framework for measuring abstraction as a sub-skill of computational thinking in block-based programming environments,” Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordr)., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 9455–9484, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-11019-2.
P. Peng, Y. Sun, L. Tang, and H. Yang, “Teaching reform plan for hydraulic and pneumatic transmission courses based on experimental platform,” 2024, pp. 479–485. doi: 10.2991/978-2-38476-253-8_57.
M. Sukardjo, U. Khasanah, S. T. Rahmat, Khaerudin, and B. Setiawan, “Virtual Laboratory Design for Learning Electro-Pneumatic Practices in Vocational High Schools,” European Journal of Educational Research, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 719–737, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.12.2.719.
W. Chen, H. Wang, and L. Zheng, “Research on the Teaching Method Reform of Automobile Related Courses: Take the Vehicle Hydraulic System as an Example,” Proceedings - 2021 7th Annual International Conference on Network and Information Systems for Computers, ICNISC 2021, pp. 94–98, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ICNISC54316.2021.00026.
M. Grizioti, “Computational thinking beyond coding: exploring student computational practices while playing and modifying a socio-scientific simulation game with integrated computational tools,” Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 2251–2278, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.1007/S11423-025-10477-Y/TABLES/5.
S. Pacheco-Portuguez, A. Gonzalez-Torres, L. Sancho-Chavarria, I. Trejos-Zelaya, and J. Monge-Fallas, “Pattern recognition in programming to support the evaluation of Computational Thinking,” EDUNINE 2025 - 9th IEEE Engineering Education World Conference: Education in the Age of Generative AI: Embracing Digital Transformation - Proceedings, 2025, doi: 10.1109/EDUNINE62377.2025.10981362.
L. C. Juera, “Digitalizing skills development using simulation-based mobile (SiM) learning application,” Journal of Computers in Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 29–50, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s40692-022-00246-8.
N. Pellas, “Assessing Computational Thinking, Motivation, and Grit of Undergraduate Students Using Educational Robots,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 620–644, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1177/07356331231210946.
H. Y. Lee, T. T. Wu, C. J. Lin, W. S. Wang, and Y. M. Huang, “Integrating Computational Thinking Into Scaffolding Learning: An Innovative Approach to Enhance Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Hands-On Learning,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 431–467, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1177/07356331231211916.
Y. Zhang, X. Sun, and J. Yu, “Transformative Technologies in the Evaluation of a Vocational Education System,” Journal of Web Engineering, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 275–298, 2024, doi: 10.13052/JWE1540-9589.2324.
H. Ghafori, “Simulation and Redesign of Tractor Front End Loader Hydraulic System Using Fluidsim Software,” Journal of Modeling in Engineering, vol. 23, no. 82, pp. 237–251, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.22075/JME.2025.35759.2747.
F. Geng and S. Chu, “Design and Simulation of an Intelligent Control System for Belt Transmission Device,” 2024 4th International Symposium on Computer Technology and Information Science, ISCTIS 2024, pp. 265–269, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ISCTIS63324.2024.10698938.
P. J. Denning and M. Tedre, “Computational Thinking: A Disciplinary Perspective,” Informatics in Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 361–390, 2021, doi: 10.15388/infedu.2021.21.
R. Ardiansyah, S. Joyoatmojo, Gunarhadi, I. R. W. Atmojo, I. W. Subandi, and R. K. Rahmadian, “Optimizing Science Concept Learning: The Challenge of Computational Thinking Skills Integration,” Educational Process: International Journal, vol. 16, pp. 1–21, 2025, doi: 10.22521/edupij.2025.16.206.
A. AYTEK?N and M. S. TOPÇU, “Improving 6th Grade Students’ Creative Problem Solving Skills Through Plugged and Unplugged Computational Thinking Approaches,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 867–891, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1007/S10956-024-10130-Y/TABLES/10.
O. Levin, R. Frei-Landau, and C. Goldberg, “No pain, no gain: Simulation-based learning in teacher education: The mediating role of simulation hindrances,” PLoS One, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–13, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317255.
B. Olawale and S. Matshikiza, “Blended Learning as a Tool for Enhancing the Self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service Teachers in a Teacher Education Program: A Systematic Review,” in Proceedings ofthe University ofFort Hare Teaching and Learning Conference (UFHTL 2023), 2023. doi: 10.2991/978-94-6463-439-6_.
T. C. Hsu and M. S. Chen, “Effects of students using different learning approaches for learning computational thinking and AI applications,” Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordr)., vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 7549–7571, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1007/S10639-024-13116-W/FIGURES/10.
M. A. Küçükayd?n, H. Çite, and H. Ulum, “Modelling the relationships between STEM learning attitude, computational thinking, and 21st century skills in primary school,” Educ. Inf. Technol. (Dordr)., vol. 29, no. 13, pp. 16641–16659, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1007/S10639-024-12492-7/TABLES/2.
P. Kohn, “Simulations and Role-Plays: Enhancing Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Skills,” in Elevating Leadership, Emerald Publishing Limited, 2024, pp. 41–57. doi: 10.1108/978-1-83549-564-320241004.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52088/ijesty.v6i1.1617
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 Nurulita Imansari, Muhammad Nurtanto, Rina Febriana, Agung Panji Sasmito, Dani Irawan, Eko Supraptono
The works in the IJESTY Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC BY 4.0).