Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) is a key 21st-century skill. This paper contributes to CT research by investigating CT predictors among upper secondary students in a longitudinal and natural classroom setting. The hypothesized predictors are grouped into three areas: student characteristics, home environment, and learning opportunities. CT is measured with the Computational Thinking Test (CTt), an established performance test. N = 202 high-school students, at three time points over one school year, act as the sample and latent growth curve modeling as the analysis method. CT self-concept, followed by reasoning skills and gender, show the strongest association with the level of CT. Computer literacy, followed by duration of computer use and formal learning opportunities during the school year, have the strongest association with CT growth. Variables from all three areas seem to be important for predicting either CT level or growth. An explained variance of 70.4% for CT level and 61.2% for CT growth might indicate a good trade-off between the comprehensiveness and parsimony of the conceptual framework. The findings contribute to a better understanding of CT as a construct and have implications for CT instruction, e.g., the role of computer science and motivation in CT learning.

Highlights

  • Computational thinking (CT) is regarded as a key 21st-century skill (Voogt, Fisser, Good, Mishra, & Yadav, 2015; Wing, 2006)

  • To address the four research desiderata, the paper at hand aims at answering the research question: What are the predictors of high-school students’ CT level and CT growth on the individual level? To this end, we develop hypotheses on predictors of the level and growth of CT

  • Our study has provided new insight into predictors of CT because we used a sample of high-school students, an under-researched area

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Computational thinking (CT) is regarded as a key 21st-century skill (Voogt, Fisser, Good, Mishra, & Yadav, 2015; Wing, 2006) It may be a valuable resource for solving problems in a wide range of subjects and workplace settings (Buitrago Florez et al, 2017; Barr, Harrison, & Conery, 2011; Yadav, Good, Voogt, & Fisser, 2018). Several literature reviews have aimed at identifying core facets of CT (Angeli et al, 2016; Hsu, Chang, & Hung, 2018; Shute, Sun, & Asbell-Clarke, 2017). Such core facets could be: abstraction, decomposition, algorithms, and debugging

Objectives
Methods
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.