A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Recent Computational Thinking Assessments

Computational thinking (CT) is regarded as an essential twenty-first century competency and it is already embedded in K-12 curricula across the globe. However, research on assessing CT has lagged, with few assessments being implemented and validated. Moreover, there is a lack of systematic grouping...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of science education and technology 2019-12, Vol.28 (6), p.651-676
Hauptverfasser: Cutumisu, Maria, Adams, Cathy, Lu, Chang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 676
container_issue 6
container_start_page 651
container_title Journal of science education and technology
container_volume 28
creator Cutumisu, Maria
Adams, Cathy
Lu, Chang
description Computational thinking (CT) is regarded as an essential twenty-first century competency and it is already embedded in K-12 curricula across the globe. However, research on assessing CT has lagged, with few assessments being implemented and validated. Moreover, there is a lack of systematic grouping of CT assessments. This scoping review examines 39 empirical studies published within the last five years, coded by the specific competencies outlined in existing CT frameworks, to identify and classify the key features of existing CT assessments. Results show that most studies target K-12 settings, focus on interventions that promote CT concepts and practices, adopt a quasi-experimental design, use selected-response items as the dominant testing form, and mainly assess algorithmic thinking, abstraction, problem decomposition, logical thinking, and data. Finally, few CT assessments have been validated in educational settings. Implications include identifying gaps in the CT assessment literature, deepening our understanding of the nature of CT, focusing on the validation of CT assessments, and guiding researchers and practitioners in choosing developmentally appropriate CT assessments. Cognitive and educational implications for future research inquiry include the development of new assessment tools that comprehensively assess CT and its relation to learning.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2322327648</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A714981009</galeid><ericid>EJ1236554</ericid><jstor_id>48699342</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A714981009</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-a66a4a04f2f07a1637e7892db1b338c11df2d33a5a4d3c2350a96732dd52ed353</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkN1KJDEQhRtRUEdfQFho8Lo1SeWnczkMs-6KIDh6HWI6PZPZ6U6b9Cj79luzvbi3koIUdc5XFKcorii5oYSo20yJFrIiVFdEK60rOCrOqFBQ0Rr0MfZEoES5OC3Oc94SQnStyVmxmpcrF4fQr8sn_x78RxnbctkNIQVndzjL3ia3KWOPvfP9WC5iN-xHO4bYo-F5E_pfB3qes8-5Q0e-KE5au8v-8t8_K16-L58XP6qHx7ufi_lD5bisx8pKabklvGUtUZZKUF7VmjWv9BWgdpQ2LWsArLC8AcdAEKulAtY0gvkGBMyK62nvkOLb3ufRbOM-4VXZMGBYSvIaXTeTa2133oS-jWOyDl_ju-Bi79uA87miXNeYpUaATYBLMefkWzOk0Nn021BiDmmbKW2DaZu_aRtA6NsEeQzuE1jeUwZSCI46THpGrV_79P_Wr2zd5jGmz7W8lloDZ_AH2UuUeQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2322327648</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Recent Computational Thinking Assessments</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Education Source (EBSCOhost)</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Cutumisu, Maria ; Adams, Cathy ; Lu, Chang</creator><creatorcontrib>Cutumisu, Maria ; Adams, Cathy ; Lu, Chang</creatorcontrib><description>Computational thinking (CT) is regarded as an essential twenty-first century competency and it is already embedded in K-12 curricula across the globe. However, research on assessing CT has lagged, with few assessments being implemented and validated. Moreover, there is a lack of systematic grouping of CT assessments. This scoping review examines 39 empirical studies published within the last five years, coded by the specific competencies outlined in existing CT frameworks, to identify and classify the key features of existing CT assessments. Results show that most studies target K-12 settings, focus on interventions that promote CT concepts and practices, adopt a quasi-experimental design, use selected-response items as the dominant testing form, and mainly assess algorithmic thinking, abstraction, problem decomposition, logical thinking, and data. Finally, few CT assessments have been validated in educational settings. Implications include identifying gaps in the CT assessment literature, deepening our understanding of the nature of CT, focusing on the validation of CT assessments, and guiding researchers and practitioners in choosing developmentally appropriate CT assessments. Cognitive and educational implications for future research inquiry include the development of new assessment tools that comprehensively assess CT and its relation to learning.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1059-0145</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1839</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>21st Century Skills ; Abstract Reasoning ; Assessments ; Cognitive ability ; Computation ; Computer applications ; Curricula ; Design of experiments ; Developmentally Appropriate Practices ; Education ; Educational Research ; Educational Technology ; Elementary Secondary Education ; Experimental design ; Learning strategies ; Logical Thinking ; Problem Solving ; Quasiexperimental Design ; Research Design ; Science Education ; Student Evaluation ; Test Format ; Test Items ; Thinking Skills</subject><ispartof>Journal of science education and technology, 2019-12, Vol.28 (6), p.651-676</ispartof><rights>Springer Nature B.V. 2019</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Springer</rights><rights>Journal of Science Education and Technology is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-a66a4a04f2f07a1637e7892db1b338c11df2d33a5a4d3c2350a96732dd52ed353</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-a66a4a04f2f07a1637e7892db1b338c11df2d33a5a4d3c2350a96732dd52ed353</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2475-9647</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48699342$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48699342$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27903,27904,41467,42536,51298,57996,58229</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1236554$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cutumisu, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Cathy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Chang</creatorcontrib><title>A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Recent Computational Thinking Assessments</title><title>Journal of science education and technology</title><addtitle>J Sci Educ Technol</addtitle><description>Computational thinking (CT) is regarded as an essential twenty-first century competency and it is already embedded in K-12 curricula across the globe. However, research on assessing CT has lagged, with few assessments being implemented and validated. Moreover, there is a lack of systematic grouping of CT assessments. This scoping review examines 39 empirical studies published within the last five years, coded by the specific competencies outlined in existing CT frameworks, to identify and classify the key features of existing CT assessments. Results show that most studies target K-12 settings, focus on interventions that promote CT concepts and practices, adopt a quasi-experimental design, use selected-response items as the dominant testing form, and mainly assess algorithmic thinking, abstraction, problem decomposition, logical thinking, and data. Finally, few CT assessments have been validated in educational settings. Implications include identifying gaps in the CT assessment literature, deepening our understanding of the nature of CT, focusing on the validation of CT assessments, and guiding researchers and practitioners in choosing developmentally appropriate CT assessments. Cognitive and educational implications for future research inquiry include the development of new assessment tools that comprehensively assess CT and its relation to learning.</description><subject>21st Century Skills</subject><subject>Abstract Reasoning</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Computation</subject><subject>Computer applications</subject><subject>Curricula</subject><subject>Design of experiments</subject><subject>Developmentally Appropriate Practices</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Research</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Elementary Secondary Education</subject><subject>Experimental design</subject><subject>Learning strategies</subject><subject>Logical Thinking</subject><subject>Problem Solving</subject><subject>Quasiexperimental Design</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Science Education</subject><subject>Student Evaluation</subject><subject>Test Format</subject><subject>Test Items</subject><subject>Thinking Skills</subject><issn>1059-0145</issn><issn>1573-1839</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkN1KJDEQhRtRUEdfQFho8Lo1SeWnczkMs-6KIDh6HWI6PZPZ6U6b9Cj79luzvbi3koIUdc5XFKcorii5oYSo20yJFrIiVFdEK60rOCrOqFBQ0Rr0MfZEoES5OC3Oc94SQnStyVmxmpcrF4fQr8sn_x78RxnbctkNIQVndzjL3ia3KWOPvfP9WC5iN-xHO4bYo-F5E_pfB3qes8-5Q0e-KE5au8v-8t8_K16-L58XP6qHx7ufi_lD5bisx8pKabklvGUtUZZKUF7VmjWv9BWgdpQ2LWsArLC8AcdAEKulAtY0gvkGBMyK62nvkOLb3ufRbOM-4VXZMGBYSvIaXTeTa2133oS-jWOyDl_ju-Bi79uA87miXNeYpUaATYBLMefkWzOk0Nn021BiDmmbKW2DaZu_aRtA6NsEeQzuE1jeUwZSCI46THpGrV_79P_Wr2zd5jGmz7W8lloDZ_AH2UuUeQ</recordid><startdate>20191201</startdate><enddate>20191201</enddate><creator>Cutumisu, Maria</creator><creator>Adams, Cathy</creator><creator>Lu, Chang</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-9647</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191201</creationdate><title>A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Recent Computational Thinking Assessments</title><author>Cutumisu, Maria ; Adams, Cathy ; Lu, Chang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-a66a4a04f2f07a1637e7892db1b338c11df2d33a5a4d3c2350a96732dd52ed353</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>21st Century Skills</topic><topic>Abstract Reasoning</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Computation</topic><topic>Computer applications</topic><topic>Curricula</topic><topic>Design of experiments</topic><topic>Developmentally Appropriate Practices</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Research</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Elementary Secondary Education</topic><topic>Experimental design</topic><topic>Learning strategies</topic><topic>Logical Thinking</topic><topic>Problem Solving</topic><topic>Quasiexperimental Design</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Science Education</topic><topic>Student Evaluation</topic><topic>Test Format</topic><topic>Test Items</topic><topic>Thinking Skills</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cutumisu, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adams, Cathy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lu, Chang</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database‎ (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Materials science collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><jtitle>Journal of science education and technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cutumisu, Maria</au><au>Adams, Cathy</au><au>Lu, Chang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1236554</ericid><atitle>A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Recent Computational Thinking Assessments</atitle><jtitle>Journal of science education and technology</jtitle><stitle>J Sci Educ Technol</stitle><date>2019-12-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>651</spage><epage>676</epage><pages>651-676</pages><issn>1059-0145</issn><eissn>1573-1839</eissn><abstract>Computational thinking (CT) is regarded as an essential twenty-first century competency and it is already embedded in K-12 curricula across the globe. However, research on assessing CT has lagged, with few assessments being implemented and validated. Moreover, there is a lack of systematic grouping of CT assessments. This scoping review examines 39 empirical studies published within the last five years, coded by the specific competencies outlined in existing CT frameworks, to identify and classify the key features of existing CT assessments. Results show that most studies target K-12 settings, focus on interventions that promote CT concepts and practices, adopt a quasi-experimental design, use selected-response items as the dominant testing form, and mainly assess algorithmic thinking, abstraction, problem decomposition, logical thinking, and data. Finally, few CT assessments have been validated in educational settings. Implications include identifying gaps in the CT assessment literature, deepening our understanding of the nature of CT, focusing on the validation of CT assessments, and guiding researchers and practitioners in choosing developmentally appropriate CT assessments. Cognitive and educational implications for future research inquiry include the development of new assessment tools that comprehensively assess CT and its relation to learning.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3</doi><tpages>26</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-9647</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1059-0145
ispartof Journal of science education and technology, 2019-12, Vol.28 (6), p.651-676
issn 1059-0145
1573-1839
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2322327648
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Education Source (EBSCOhost); Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects 21st Century Skills
Abstract Reasoning
Assessments
Cognitive ability
Computation
Computer applications
Curricula
Design of experiments
Developmentally Appropriate Practices
Education
Educational Research
Educational Technology
Elementary Secondary Education
Experimental design
Learning strategies
Logical Thinking
Problem Solving
Quasiexperimental Design
Research Design
Science Education
Student Evaluation
Test Format
Test Items
Thinking Skills
title A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Recent Computational Thinking Assessments
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T18%3A49%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Scoping%20Review%20of%20Empirical%20Research%20on%20Recent%20Computational%20Thinking%20Assessments&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20science%20education%20and%20technology&rft.au=Cutumisu,%20Maria&rft.date=2019-12-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=651&rft.epage=676&rft.pages=651-676&rft.issn=1059-0145&rft.eissn=1573-1839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA714981009%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2322327648&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A714981009&rft_ericid=EJ1236554&rft_jstor_id=48699342&rfr_iscdi=true