nach oben

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Erschienen in:

27.01.2022 | Original research

Computational Thinking Assessment – Towards More Vivid Interpretations

verfasst von: Josef Guggemos, Sabine Seufert, Marcos Román-González

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 2/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) is an important 21st-century skill. This paper aims at more useful CT assessment. Available evaluation instruments are reviewed; two generally accepted CT evaluation tools are selected for a comprehensive CT assessment: the CTt, a performance test, and the CTS, a self-assessment instrument. The sample comprises 202 high school students from German-speaking Switzerland. Concerning the CTt, Rasch-scalability is demonstrated. Utilizing the approach of the PISA studies, proficiency levels are formed that comprise tasks with specific characteristics that students are systematically able to master. This could help teachers to offer individual support to their students. In terms of the CTS, the original version is refined using confirmatory factor and measurement-invariance analysis. A latent profile analysis yielded four profiles, two of which are of particular interest. One profile comprises students with, on the one hand, moderate to high creative thinking ability, cooperativity, and critical thinking skills and, on the other hand, low algorithmic thinking ability. The second remarkable profile consists of students with particularly low cooperativity. Based on these strength and weakness profiles, teachers could offer support tailored to student needs.

Vorheriger Artikel A Meta-Analysis of Learning and Moderator Variables in Flipped Education

Nächster Artikel Adaptation of Self-Assessment Instrument for Educators’ Digital Competence into Turkish Culture: A Study on Reliability and Validity

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

The German version of the CTt and CTS are available from the authors upon request.

The Rasch model predicts as the probability for a correct answer: exp(proficiency–difficulty) / (1 + exp(proficiency–difficulty)). For instance, a person with a proficiency of 1.5 Logit is expected to solve an item with a difficulty of 1.0 Logit with a probability of 62.2%.

AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565876

Akogul, S., & Erisoglu, M. (2017). An approach for determining the number of clusters in a model-based cluster analysis. Entropy, 19(9), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/e19090452CrossRef

Andersen, E. B. (1973). A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 38(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291180CrossRef

Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ918910

Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In E. Barendsen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 65–72). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069

Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded edition). National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. American Educational Research Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–25. https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/new-frameworks-for-studying-and-assessing-the-development-of-computational-thinking/

Bühner, M. (2011). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion [Introduction to test and questionnaire construction] (3rd ed.). Pearson Studium. https://d-nb.info/1007197234

Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834–860. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317710096CrossRef

Carretero, S., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2017). DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of use. European Union (EU). https://doi.org/10.2760/38842

Chan, S.-W., Looi, C.-K., & Sumintono, B. (2020). Assessing computational thinking abilities among Singapore secondary students: A Rasch model measurement analysis. Journal of Computers in Education, 8, 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00177-2CrossRef

Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001CrossRef

Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888272CrossRef

Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., Lemay, D. J., Saxena, A., & Basnet, R. B. (2017). Algorithmic thinking, cooperativity, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving: Exploring the relationship between computational thinking skills and academic performance. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0090-9CrossRef

Dorn, B., & Tew, A. E. (2015). Empirical validation and application of the computing attitudes survey. Computer Science Education, 25(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1014142CrossRef

Durak, H. Y., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.004CrossRef

Embretson, S. E., & Daniel, R. C. (2008). Understanding and quantifying cognitive complexity level in mathematical problem solving items. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(3), 328–344. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Understanding-and-Quantifying-Cognitive-Complexity-Embretson-Daniel/29a75e2f74f0d5a870a846660c617a2273b73975

Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543594CrossRef

Ericson, B., & McKlin, T. (2012). Effective and sustainable computing summer camps. In L. Smith King, D. R. Musicant, T. Camp, & P. Tymann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE '12 (p. 289). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157223

Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37(6), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(73)90003-6CrossRef

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Taylor and Francis. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-17267-000

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2019). Preparing for life in a digital world: IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 international report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/publications/study-reports/preparing-life-digital-world

Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020). IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018: Technical Report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/icils-2018-technical-report

Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., Molnár, G., Fischer, A., Funke, J., & Csapó, B. (2013). Complex problem solving in educational contexts—Something beyond g: Concept, assessment, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 364–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031856CrossRef

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051CrossRef

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142CrossRef

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2016). Factors influencing computer science learning in middle school. In C. Alphonce, J. Tims, M. Caspersen, & S. Edwards (Eds.), Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 552–557). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844564

Guggemos, J. (2021). On the predictors of computational thinking and its growth at the high-school level. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104060

Guggemos, J., Seufert, S., & Román-González, M. (2019). Measuring computational thinking - Adapting a performance test and a self-assessment instrument for German-speaking countries. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference Cognition and Exploratory Learning in the Digital Age (CELDA) (pp. 183–191). https://doi.org/10.33965/celda2019_201911L023

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203CrossRef

Hallquist, M. N., & Wiley, J. F. (2018). MplusAutomation: An R package for facilitating large-scale latent variable analyses in Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334CrossRef

Harteis, C., Goller, M., & Caruso, C. (2020). Conceptual change in the face of digitalization: Challenges for workplaces and workplace learning. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00001CrossRef

Hartig, J., & Frey, A. (2013). Sind modelle der item-response-theorie (IRT) das „Mittel der Wahl“ für die Modellierung von Kompetenzen? [Benefits and limitations of modeling competencies by means of Item Response Theory (IRT)]. Zeitschrift Für Erziehungswissenschaft, 16(S1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-013-0386-0CrossRef

Hartig, J., Frey, A., Nold, G., & Klieme, E. (2012). An application of explanatory item response modeling for model-based proficiency scaling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 665–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411430707CrossRef

Hofmans, J., Wille, B., & Schreurs, B. (2020). Person-centered methods in vocational research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103398CrossRef

Hooshyar, D., Malva, L., Yang, Y., Pedaste, M., Wang, M., & Lim, H. (2021). An adaptive educational computer game: Effects on students’ knowledge and learning attitude in computational thinking. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106575CrossRef

Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004CrossRef

Ifenthaler, D., Hofhues, S., Egloffstein, M., & Helbig, C. (Eds.). (2021). Digital Transformation of Learning Organizations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55878-9

Ilic, U., Haseski, H. I., & Tugtekin, U. (2018). Publication trends over 10 years of computational thinking research. Contemporary Educational Technology., 9(2), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.414798CrossRef

Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022CrossRef

Israel-Fishelson, R., & Hershkovitz, A. (2022). Studying interrelations of computational thinking and creativity: A scoping review (2011–2020). Computers & Education, 176, 104353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104353CrossRef

ISTE. (2015). Computational thinking: leadership toolkit. https://www.iste.org/computational-thinking

Jiang, B., Zhao, W., Gu, X., & Yin, C. (2021). Understanding the relationship between computational thinking and computational participation: A case study from Scratch online community. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(5), 2399–2421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10021-8CrossRef

Kirschner, P. A., & Stoyanov, S. (2020). Educating youth for nonexistent/not yet existing professions. Educational Policy, 34(3), 477–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802086CrossRef

Köhler, C., & Hartig, J. (2017). Practical significance of item misfit in educational assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(5), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621617692978CrossRef

Kong, S. C., & Wang, Y. Q. (2021). Item response analysis of computational thinking practices: Test characteristics and students’ learning abilities in visual programming contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106836CrossRef

Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005CrossRef

Korkmaz, Ö., & Bai, X. (2019). Adapting computational thinking scale (CTS) for Chinese high school students and their thinking scale skills level. Participatory Educational Research, 6(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.19.2.6.1CrossRef

Li, C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7CrossRef

Kong, S. C. (2019). Components and methods of evaluating computational thinking for fostering creative problem-solvers in senior primary school education. In S. C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 119–141). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_8

Leys, C., Delacre, M., Mora, Y. L., Lakens, D., & Ley, C. (2019). How to classify, detect, and manage univariate and multivariate outliers, with emphasis on pre-registration. International Review of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.289

Lohr, A., Stadler, M., Schultz-Pernice, F., Chernikova, O., Sailer, M., Fischer, F., & Sailer, M. (2021). On powerpointers, clickerers, and digital pros: Investigating the initiation of digital learning activities by teachers in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106715CrossRef

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012CrossRef

Mair, P., & Hatzinger, R. (2007) Extended Rasch modeling The eRm package for the application of IRT models in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(9), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i09

Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: A methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.xCrossRef

McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144CrossRef

Meyer, J. P., & Morin, A. J. (2016). A person-centered approach to commitment research: Theory, research, and methodology. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(4), 584–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2085CrossRef

Morin, A. J. S., & Marsh, H. W. (2015). Disentangling shape from level effects in person-centered analyses: An illustration based on university teachers’ multidimensional profiles of effectiveness. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919825CrossRef

Mühling, A., Ruf, A., & Hubwieser, P. (2015). Design and first results of a psychometric test for measuring basic programming abilities. In A. Mühling, A. Ruf, & P. Hubwieser (Eds.), Design and First Results of a Psychometric Test for Measuring Basic Programming Abilities (pp. 2–10). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818320

OECD. (2015). PISA 2012 Technical Report. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf

OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 Technical Report. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2015-technical-report-final.pdf

Pellegrino, J. W., DiBello, L. V., & Goldman, S. R. (2016). A framework for conceptualizing and evaluating the validity of instructionally relevant assessments. Educational Psychologist, 51(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1145550CrossRef

Penfield, R. D., & Algina, J. (2006). A generalized DIF effect variance estimator for measuring unsigned differential test functioning in mixed format tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.2006.00018.xCrossRef

Polat, E., Hopcan, S., Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2021). A comprehensive assessment of secondary school students’ computational thinking skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1965–1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13092CrossRef

Prenzel, M., Drechsel, B., & Kramer, K. (1998). Lernmotivation im kaufmännischen Unterricht: Die Sicht von Auszubildenden und Lehrkräften [Learning motivation in business education: the perspective of trainees and teachers]. Zeitschrift für Berufs- Und Wirtschaftspädagogik, special issue 14, 169–187

Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L. E., & Bers, M. U. (2021). Learning to code and the acquisition of computational thinking by young children. Computers & Education, 169, 104222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104222CrossRef

Repenning, A. (2006). Collaborative diffusion. Companion to the 21st ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, 574–585. https://doi.org/10.1145/1176617.1176630

Repenning, A. (2017). Moving beyond syntax: Lessons from 20 years of blocks programing in AgentSheets. Journal of Visual Languages and Sentient Systems, 3(1), 68–91. https://doi.org/10.18293/VLSS2017-010CrossRef

Repenning, A. (2018). Scale or fail: Moving beyond self-selected computer science education in Switzerland. Communications of the ACM, 61(5), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3199603CrossRef

Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., Koh, K. H., Nickerson, H., Miller, S. B., Brand, C., Her Many Horses, I., Basawapatna, A., Gluck, F., Grover, R., Gutierrez, K., & Repenning, N. (2015). Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 15(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700517

Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2020). Coding at a crossroads. Communications of the ACM, 63(11), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375546CrossRef

Richter, T., Naumann, J., & Horz, H. (2010). A revised version of the computer literacy inventory (INCOBI-R). Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 24(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000002CrossRef

Robitzsch, A. (2020). Why ordinal variables can (almost) always be treated as continuous variables: Clarifying assumptions of robust continuous and ordinal factor analysis estimation methods. Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.589965CrossRef

Robitzsch, A., Kiefer, T., & Wu, M. (2020). Package 'TAM'. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/TAM/TAM.pdf

Román-González, M. (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidlines and content validation. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4203.4329

Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047CrossRef

Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2019). Combining assessment tools for a comprehensive evaluation of computational thinking interventions. In S. C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 79–98). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_6CrossRef

Rose, S. P., Habgood, M. J., & Jay, T. (2019). Using pirate plunder to develop children's abstraction skills in Scratch. In R. Mandryk, M. Hancock, M. Perry, & A. Cox (Eds.), Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–6). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312871

Rosenberg, J., Beymer, P., Anderson, D., van Lissa, C., & Schmidt, J. (2018). tidyLPA: An R package to easily carry out latent profile analysis (LPA) using open-source or commercial software. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 978. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00978CrossRef

Rosman, T., Mayer, A.-K., & Krampen, G. (2015). Combining self-assessments and achievement tests in information literacy assessment: Empirical results and recommendations for practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 740–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.950554CrossRef

Rosseel, Y. (2012c). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software., 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02CrossRef

Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & Woods, A. L. (2017). The assessment of team performance: observations and needs. In A. A. von Davier, M. Zhu, & P. C. Kyllonen (Eds.), Innovative assessment of collaboration (pp. 21–36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33261-1_2CrossRef

Sarstedt, M., Becker, J.-M., Ringle, C. M., & Schwaiger, M. (2011). Uncovering and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Which model selection criterion provides an appropriate number of segments? Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(1), 34–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03396886CrossRef

Scherer, R., Howard, S. K., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2021). Profiling teachers’ readiness for online teaching and learning in higher education: Who’s ready? Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106675CrossRef

Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Sánchez Viveros, B. (2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 764–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000314CrossRef

Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., & Siddiq, F. (2017). On the quest for validity: Testing the factor structure and measurement invariance of the technology-dimensions in the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) model. Computers & Education, 112, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.012CrossRef

Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In B. Simon, A. Clear, & Q. Cutts (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research (pp. 59–66). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493394.2493403

Seufert, S., Guggemos, J., & Sailer, M. (2021). Technology-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of pre- and in-service teachers: The current situation and emerging trends. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106552CrossRef

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003CrossRef

Stadler, M., Herborn, K., Mustafić, M., & Greiff, S. (2020). The assessment of collaborative problem solving in PISA 2015: An investigation of the validity of the PISA 2015 CPS tasks. Computers & Education, 157, 103964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103964CrossRef

Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798CrossRef

Tondeur, J., Scherer, R., Baran, E., Siddiq, F., Valtonen, T., & Sointu, E. (2019). Teacher educators as gatekeepers: Preparing the next generation of teachers for technology integration in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1189–1209. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12748CrossRef

Ulitzsch, E., von Davier, M., & Pohl, S. (2020). A hierarchical latent response model for inferences about examinee engagement in terms of guessing and item-level non-response. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 73(Suppl 1), 83–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12188CrossRef

van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740CrossRef

van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J., van Dijk, J. A., & de Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010CrossRef

Vanslambrouck, S., Zhu, C., Pynoo, B., Lombaerts, K., Tondeur, J., & Scherer, R. (2019). A latent profile analysis of adult students’ online self-regulation in blended learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.021CrossRef

Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6CrossRef

Werner, L., Denner, J., & Campe, S. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: measuring computational thinking in middle school. 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157200

Weintrop, D., Wise Rutstein, D., Bienkowski, M., & McGee, S. (2021). Assessing computational thinking: An overview of the field. Computer Science Education, 31(2), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1918380CrossRef

Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Psychology Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-22396-000

Willse, J. T. (2011). Mixture rasch models with joint maximum likelihood estimation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410387335CrossRef

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215CrossRef

Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions Series a, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118CrossRef

Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7CrossRef

Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872CrossRef

Zhao, W., & Shute, V. J. (2019). Can playing a video game foster computational thinking skills? Computers & Education, 141, 103633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103633CrossRef

Titel: Computational Thinking Assessment – Towards More Vivid Interpretations
verfasst von: Josef Guggemos
Sabine Seufert
Marcos Román-González
Publikationsdatum: 27.01.2022
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 2/2023
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09587-2

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten

Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen.

Zur Marktübersicht

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2023

Developing a Framework for Mobile Learning Adoption and Sustainable Development

Analysis of digital competence of educators (DigCompEdu) in teacher trainees: the context of Melilla, Spain

Do Future Teachers Believe that Video Games Help Learning?

A Systematic Literature Review on Personalised Learning in the Higher Education Context

Research Trends in Adaptive Online Learning: Systematic Literature Review (2011–2020)

Correction: Digital Competence of Higher Education Students as a Predictor of Academic Success

Premium Partner

Marktübersichten