Given that you draw comparative insights across diverse age groups, development tools, task complexities, and affective constructs, it is concerning that the review provides no assessment of internal validity, sampling rigor, or risk of bias in the selected literature. Such an omission limits the interpretability of key claims, especially those concerning developmental differences in CT skill acquisition and the effectiveness of various instructional strategies.
Notably, studies utilizing affective metrics (e.g., attitude, engagement, self-efficacy) are discussed as part of a growing trend, yet the reliability and validity of these measurements are not examined. It remains unclear whether standardized instruments were used or whether construct validity was verified, an essential detail when interpreting emotional and motivational findings across cultural and educational contexts.
I would therefore like to pose the following questions to the authors:
Did you consider applying a quality appraisal framework (such as MMAT, CASP, or an education-specific rubric) to classify the methodological rigor of the included studies? If so, why was it omitted from the review process, and if not, how can readers distinguish between high- and low-confidence findings in your synthesis?
How did you address variation in the measurement tools used across studies, particularly for affective constructs such as “attitude” or “self-efficacy”? Were studies using validated psychometric instruments prioritized in your interpretation, or were all affective measures treated equally regardless of their methodological robustness?
In your analysis of development tools (Table 3), you note that Visual-Based Languages (VBL) like Scratch dominate across all age groups, including adult learners. However, the pedagogical transition from VBL to Text-Based Languages (TBL) or more advanced environments (e.g., Unity3D, Python) is a critical challenge in CT education.
Could you elaborate on the specific scaffolding strategies or transitional frameworks identified in the reviewed studies that effectively support learners in moving from block-based programming (e.g., Scratch) to text-based or more complex game development environments? Furthermore, did any studies explicitly address the cognitive load or learning barriers associated with this transition, and how were these mitigated within the integrated CT-DT game design process?