On the Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer Programming: A Critical Look. Technical Report No. 9

Not applicable — a review

Children learning Logo and BASIC in US schools in the early 1980s.

The historical and empirical critique of the Papert and Feurzeig claim that programming develops general higher mental functions. Also published as Pea & Kurland (1984) in New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137-168. It reviews the claims, the contexts, the levels of programming skill actually attained, and the evidence base study by study — which is why it is the right entry point for anyone who thinks computational thinking is a new idea.

Walks the four Feurzeig and Papert claims and finds each unevidenced. The mathematical-rigour claim rests only on non-blind teacher questionnaire ratings. No report demonstrates that programming aids mathematical exploration outside the programming environment. Feurzeig's "meaningful understanding of variable and function" in twelve 7-9 year-olds is asserted without evidence. And on general problem solving, Statz (1973) taught Logo to sixteen 9-11 year-olds for a year and found gains on two of four transfer tasks and none on the Tower of Hanoi or a horse-race problem. Their own transfer study found Logo had no significant effects on planning performance on any measure. They also report that after about 30 hours of Logo, children's grasp of variables, tests and recursion was highly context-specific.

Not applicable — a critique, not an estimate.

Its central empirical claim — no planning transfer from Logo — was itself replicated within the same research programme in Technical Report No. 16.