Computational Thinking and Gender Equality: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Ronald Paucar-Curasma
,
Liszeth Paola Cerna-Ruiz
,
Claudia Acra-Despradel
,
Klinge Orlando Villalba-Condori
,
Luis Alberto Massa-Palacios
,
Andrés Olivera-Chura
,
Isabel Esteban-Robladillo

Researchers evaluated the computational thinking skills according to gender of a group of male and female students of industrial engineering and systems engineering from universities located in the Andean region of Peru; the five key skills were evaluated: abstraction, decomposition, generalization, algorithmic design, and evaluation. To strengthen computational thinking, activities related to agriculture, livestock, the environment, safety, and education were proposed, which are of interest to the community where the students live.

  • computational thinking
  • gender
  • STEM activities

1. Introduction

Various organizations, such as UNESCO, BID, etc., state that the practice of STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) contributed to the development and progress of different sectors, such as education, health, livestock, the environment, agriculture, renewable energy, etc. [1]. The practice of STEM disciplines in education is also key to teaching different skills and abilities to students at an early age, not only for the local context but also for the world, either in the labor or academic fields. In this way, it generates or instills the desire to pursue careers in the different STEM disciplines that are in high demand today and in the future [2]. However, one of the problems that exists worldwide and mostly in Latin American countries is the low participation of women in STEM disciplines; only 13% of graduates in ICT and 18% in engineering are women, due to different reasons. factors such as prejudices and stereotypes that limit pursuing careers in engineering, science, etc. [3]. In a study carried out by the Inter-American Development Bank, he points out that in the world, only 10% of women choose to study a career in STEM areas, while in Peru, only 29% of those who are inclined towards a career in science and technology are women due to gender barriers [4].
Regarding the choice of scientific and technological careers of PRONABEC scholarship holders [5] in Peru until the 2015-II semester, they have found that 88% of graduates register studies in the area of engineering and technology, of which 73% are male and 27% are female. The growing number of female graduates has produced greater participation in careers related to the areas of: Art and Architecture (78%), Economics and related (57%), Basic Sciences (57%), and Agriculture and related (56%); while, in the Huancavelica region, through Scholarships, 18 young people have been able to pursue higher education 2655 young people between 2012 and 2015. Fifty-five percent of the scholarships awarded went to men, while the remaining 45% went to women. Likewise, 69% of the scholarships were given for studies in careers linked to engineering and technology and 25% in business careers, among others; most of the engineering and technology careers were assigned to males; it is also added, that the level of achievement in mathematics is located in the last 3 levels and in reading comprehension in the penultimate place of the total of regions [6].
Added to this, countries worldwide share the same characteristics with respect to the gender gap that exists in the choice of technical and scientific careers by women. This fact implies that women do not feel that they participate in the solution of problems within their context, and this is more marked in rural areas since there are no greater opportunities for women. However, at the same time, various studies show that there are worldwide efforts to improve education and seek equality in different sectors [7]. In this regard, various authors point out that it is necessary to instill and generate interest from an early age to reduce or eliminate stereotypes; thus, also train classroom teachers with innovative pedagogical methods to encourage girls to pursue careers related to mathematics, engineering, physics, etc.; also, update study plans that are appropriate to gender and that contribute to the orientation and change of preconceived ideas by girls. Therefore, another of the factors considered relevant in this research is the gender variable and to what extent it influences the choice of university degrees related to STEM disciplines by young Peruvians.
In the academic field, to instill more women in the choice of STEM disciplines, computational thinking has been used as an educational strategy in the classroom through activities that are related to STEM disciplines, such as the use of technological resources (microcontrollers, sensors, actuators, etc.) in combination with problem solving methods [8][9]; in addition, STEM disciplines and computational thinking share common characteristics by proposing activities that involve tasks, such as algorithm development, coding, use of technological resources, and teamwork [10]; all these activities must be in the curriculum together with the pedagogical approaches and assessment instruments [11][12][13][14].

2. Benefits of Computational Thinking

Today, the importance and use of technology in various sectors (health, livestock, education, agriculture, etc.) is evident, as is the training of more people in STEM activities. As Oppenheimer [15] points out, “the risk of doing nothing will be enormous and will condemn the region to permanent backwardness because, in the coming years, there will be an extraordinary acceleration of scientific and technological advances that will further separate advanced countries from developing countries”. Therefore, today researchers need educated citizens who participate and contribute to technology-based innovation, including literacy and digital transformation using computer and mathematical skills [16]. From the experience of developed countries, such as Europe, it is necessary to generate computational thinking and problem-solving skills and abilities in students of all ages using computer tools and unplugged in the classroom [17]. Academic research has revealed that the activities carried out to strengthen computational thinking contributed to the understanding of the problem, planning, coding, and feedback that improved the daily activities of each student. As you know, nowadays the skills of algorithmic design, coding, programming, and problem solving acquire pre-eminence and are constantly changing according to the rapid advance of science and technology. In this context, computational thinking helps or contributes to a significant improvement in the generation of student competencies to be part of future jobs and be active citizens in proposing solutions for the benefit of society [18]. According to Puhlmann [19], the benefits that computational thinking brings are diverse and depend largely on what skills and competencies will be strengthened in students. In most of the studies reviewed, the competencies are related to employment, understanding of the functioning of the digital world, application in different areas, digital education, productivity, strengthening of computer programming, development of computer algorithms, gender equality, and work. team up; additionally, computational thinking is considered a tool for strengthening skills for the PISA exam in early-age students.

3. Computational Thinking in Higher Education

According to the literature reviewed, computational thinking originated with the development of skills in regular elementary school students; however, today there are successful interventions in university education, basically in the first years of college. Good practices suggest starting the strengthening of computational thinking in first-cycle students in ICT or computer science courses; moreover, applying computational thinking in courses that are not related to computer science [20][21]. In this way, by creating a referential framework for computational thinking that teachers could use to apply in their different courses, most authors agree in pointing out that “one has to go beyond training students to solve problems using a programming language” but should focus on awakening and strengthening their skills and motivations, which are considered fundamental aspects for the improvement of student performance. Terreni [22] states that computational thinking is characterized by a set of ordered skills that increase the cognitive capacity of students compared to computer programming. Moreover, he emphasizes that computational thinking is made up of various processes that lead to solving a problem, starting with understanding and problem statement, followed by the identification of alternatives to possible solutions, argumentation, use of technological resources, execution of activities and performance tests, and feedback. These processes can be applied in different disciplines according to the proposed curriculum.
Regarding the use of computer tools, there are several tools; the most common are: programming languages and environments or IDE, the Python language that is normally used in the first years of computer science or engineering careers in general; with this type of languages, students are inserted into the world of programming, interacting with computational concepts, developing applications to their needs; moreover, there are experiences of gamification before programming; thus, also, the teaching of algorithms, programming structures and programming variables through Ligthbot, mBlock and educational robots, where they focus on the fundamentals of programming and development of competences proper of computational thinking [23][24][25]. Since computational thinking is considered a cognitive process in problem solving, it involves the following skills: thinking algorithmically, thinking in decomposition, recognizing patterns, abstracting and presenting in a simplified way, and evaluating for decision-making [26][27][28]. Figure 1 shows the five key skills of computational thinking.
Figure 1. Key computational thinking skills.

4. STEM Activities and Gender

STEM disciplines are usually classified into two major parts: “applied” sciences (computer science, engineering, and engineering technologies) and “pure” sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, environmental sciences, mathematics, and statistics); therefore, people must follow these disciplines to be considered STEM people; in addition, the countries that have more STEM professionals are the ones that lead the world market and are considered first world countries [29].
Various organizations worldwide have the purpose of increasing the participation of more women in STEM disciplines; in this way, they mitigate the gender gap. In order to reduce the gender gap, they depend on many factors, not only the cultural and socioeconomic context but also factors such as self-efficacy, self-perception, and the educational experiences received from the school stage or regular basic education [30]. Six factors are indicated as a result of research carried out by various authors that cause the underrepresentation of women in STEM disciplines; these factors are: “(1) cognitive ability”, “(2) relative cognitive strengths”, “(3) professional preferences”, “(4) lifestyle and values”, “(5) field-specific ability beliefs”, and “(6) stereotypes and biases related to gender”. Factors 1 and 2 are related to mathematical and verbal reasoning, while factors 3, 4, and 5 are related to motivation that has an impact on personal and group interests, positive mentalities, positive goals, and positive personal values; finally, factor 6 is related to the sociocultural aspects that mainly affect the cognitive and motivational parts [31][32][33][34].
In most of the women who became interested in STEM careers, it was from personal experiences; for example, participating in extracurricular activities, seeking family support, contacting and interacting with stakeholders, and seeking appropriate information; meanwhile, those students who chose a STEM career based on self-efficacy performance from their personal experience of success in the classroom; finally, already being in the race, there are external factors that are related, such as infrastructure, technology, teachers, etc., that contribute to the validation of their objectives or otherwise lead to failure, such as student desertion. Ortiz-Martínez [35] proposes developing activities to maintain students’ interest in STEM careers; thus, continuously monitor until you achieve your goals, mainly in the first year of your professional career. In order to have concrete results, she recommends carrying out activities in a controlled context where feedback can be given and actions can be taken instantly. Regarding men, research indicates that for them there is greater dissemination to inculcate them in STEM careers; moreover, there are more funds or financing for technological activities than their female counterparts [32][36].
According to the scientific literature, there are eight effective pedagogical methods or techniques for girls to awaken their inclinations toward STEM careers: involvement and empowerment; diversification of culture; immersion in other languages; guidance; practice and iteration; synthesis; collaboration and communication; and reflection. These principles are made effective through practices or activities that use technological resources to solve problems that motivate girls to solve real-world problems that are of direct interest because they are related to the needs of their context, such as protection. and community service [37]; developing these experiences from an early age in girls are of vital importance to instill in STEM disciplines, as professional women scientists point out, indicating that 66% of women generated interests in science and technology before starting secondary education [38][39].

5. Computational Thinking and Gender

In the educational field, the most common factor to deal with is gender, which is related to the performance and attitudes of girls and boys; they even differ in common reading and writing activities. Regarding the development of computational thinking skills through the proposal of educational robotics activities in school education according to gender, it is scarce [40]. In the fields of computing or electronics, social stereotypes also negatively affect girls’ motivation [41].
In the studies carried out on the development of computational thinking skills, they state that gender took on greater importance in the field of regular basic education [42]; moreover, it is stated that computational thinking seems to have a moderate gender bias, since the activities are mostly more oriented to children [43]; moreover, it is evident that the proposals of activities or projects are preferred by children because they are of an implementation or construction and programming nature that is reflected in the computational thinking score than that of women; this shows us that there are gender differences due to the type of project proposal; therefore, the type of activity or project presumably influences the increase in the gender gap between boys and girls [44].
In the activities developed to strengthen computational thinking, there are representative differences in the use of strategies and approaches for boys and girls that are appropriate to them; the results indicate that the gender gap in the computational thinking competence is almost non-existent, because the proposal of the pedagogical techniques used in the process of teaching computational thinking skills inspired boys and girls to continue exploring; regarding the instructional design, they state that it must be adapted to the nature of the boy and girl; for example, the planning and implementation of prototypes and coding, since girls and boys have different strategies in the development of their activities; in this way, personalized tasks are provided according to gender in the execution of computational thinking activities [42][45][46]; additionally, tools such as educational interactive games, block-based programming, educational robotics, etc. are added. Together with an adequate strategy based on gender, significant improvements are achieved in the mitigation of the gender gap [47][48]. Another important aspect to consider is collaboration and teamwork between genders, where forming teams made up of both sexes benefited both men and women from teamwork when solving problems of the proposed activities, participating equally [49]. These demonstrated experiences are the basis for proposing innovative pedagogies in the development of computational thinking with a gender approach appropriate for the age at the school stage and the first years of higher education [50].
It is evident that in the scientific literature there are many initiatives in the concept, technological tools, evaluation instruments, and skills in relation to computational thinking, to a lesser extent with respect to gender in the achievement of computational thinking skills; however, this topic has been gaining more interest, especially in regular basic education, where it is desired to inculcate with educational activities or strategies so that more women bet on areas related to technology in the profession they wish to follow; in this scenario, computational thinking plays an important role in mitigating the gender gap.

6. Evaluation of Computational Thinking

To date, there are various instruments for the evaluation of computational thinking, both in the field of regular basic education and higher education; these instruments differ mainly in the complexity that is related to the ages of the students.
In the field of regular basic education, there is the proposal of Román-Gonzalez [51] that proposes the Computational Thinking Test (TPC) made up of 28 questions with programming characteristics based on blocks; Zhong [52] proposes the three-dimensional integrated assessment framework based on the work of Brennan [53], which contains six types of tasks based on three dimensions: directionality (forward task and reverse task), openness (open task, semi-open task, and open task). closed) and process (self-report or reflection report); with this type of task, computational concepts, computational practices, and computational perspectives are evaluated; Sáez-López’s [54] proposal is based on the evaluation of block-based programming syntaxes and also on the dimensions of computational concepts and computational practices; moreover, computational thinking skills have been evaluated using the Dr. Scratch software [55][56][57]. This tool evaluates programming logic, data structure, abstraction, modularity, parallelism, etc., basically the content of the program developed in the Scratch environment.
In the field of higher education, various researchers used the Román-González Computational Thinking Test (CTt) [51], an instrument validated in criteria and convergence by international experts [58][59]. It was used in basic education by regular students with ages ranging from 10 to 16 years in the European educational context [19]; it has also been used in research in the university environment, focused on university students who are starting their careers [25][60][61].
In a recent investigation, Román-González [62] points out that the construct of computational thinking has reached a state of maturity, concluding that to date, computational thinking is a type of cognition with a high level of abstraction that serves both to solve problems and to create and express ideas, and that for this purpose, it can rely on both traditional computer programming and model building. of “machine learning”; regarding the computational thinking assessment instruments, he points out that there are instruments for the different educational stages, the most representative being the “Beginners Computational Thinking Test” (5–10 years) [63], the “Computational Thinking Test” (10–16 years) [58], and the “Algorithmic Thinking Test for Adults” (>16 years) [64]. This last proposal, due to the age range, could be used in the university environment; however, only the test of algorithmic thinking would be evaluated.
In recent years, in the university environment, various instruments have emerged to assess computational thinking in university students, which involves the assessment of computational thinking skills and attitudes [65][66][67]. In this proposal, the skills of “abstraction, decomposition, generalization, algorithmic thinking, and evaluation” were evaluated, as were the attitudes of “problem solving, teamwork, communication, and spiritual intelligence.”

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su151612335

References

  1. UNESCO. Descifrar el Código: La Educación de las Niñas y las Mujeres en Ciencias, Tecnología, Ingeniería y Matemáticas (STEM); UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019.
  2. Burbaitė, R.; Drąsutė, V.; Štuikys, V. Integración of Computational Thinking Skills in STEM-Driven Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 17–20 April 2018; pp. 1824–1832.
  3. Contreras, K. Mujeres STEM; Documentos de trabajo, nº especial (2ª época); Fundación Carolina: Madrid, Spain, 2023; Volume 2023.
  4. UNICEF Perú. 200 Adolescentes Mujeres de Lima Norte Reciben Laptops para Convertirse en Programadoras Web. 2021. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/peru/comunicados-prensa/200-adolescentes-mujeres-lima-norte-laptops-programadora-web-stem-ciencia-tecnologia-tic (accessed on 16 May 2022).
  5. Programa Nacional de Becas y Crédito Educativo. Memoria Institucional 2012–2015 Programa Nacional de Becas y Crédito Educativo Ministerio de Educación, Lima. 2016. Available online: https://cdn.www.gob.pe/ (accessed on 16 May 2020).
  6. Ministerio de Educación. Resultados de la Evaluación Censal de Estudiantes—ECE 2018; Ministerio de Educación: Lima, Peru, 2018.
  7. Torres-Torres, Y.-D.; Roman-Gonzalez, M.; Perez-Gonzalez, J.-C. Unplugged Teaching Activities to Promote Computational Thinking Skills in Primary and Adults from a Gender Perspective. Rev. Iberoam. Tecnol. Aprendiz. 2020, 15, 225–232.
  8. Juškevičienė, A.; Stupurienė, G.; Jevsikova, T. Computational thinking development through physical computing activities in STEAM education. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2021, 29, 175–190.
  9. Paucar-Curasma, R.; Villalba-Condori, K.O.; Mamani-Calcina, J.; Rondon, D.; Berrios-Espezúa, M.G.; Acra-Despradel, C. Use of Technological Resources for the Development of Computational Thinking Following the Steps of Solving Problems in Engineering Students Recently Entering College. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 279.
  10. Dong, Y.; Catete, V.; Jocius, R.; Lytle, N.; Barnes, T.; Albert, J.; Joshi, D.; Robinson, R.; Andrews, A. Prada: A practical model for integrating computational thinking in K-12 education. In Proceedings of the SIGCSE 2019—50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 27 February–2 March 2019; pp. 906–912.
  11. Trilles, S.; Granell, C. Advancing preuniversity students’ computational thinking skills through an educational project based on tangible elements and virtual block-based programming. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2020, 28, 1490–1502.
  12. Abichandani, P.; Sivakumar, V.; Lobo, D.; Iaboni, C.; Shekhar, P. Internet-of-Things Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Assessment for STEM Education: A Review of Literature. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 38351–38369.
  13. Beng, J.T.; Dewi, F.I.R.; Amanto, A.F.; Fiscarina, C.; Chandra, D.; Lusiana, F.; Wangi, V.H.; Tiatri, S. STEM Learning Model Design Using IoT for Primary School Students. In Proceedings of the 3rd Tarumanagara International Conference on the Applications of Social Sciences and Humanities (TICASH 2021), Online, 25 August 2021; Volume 655, pp. 1117–1122.
  14. Gul, S.; Asif, M.; Ahmad, S.; Yasir, M.; Majid, M.; Malik, M.S.A.; Arshad, S. A Survey on role of Internet of Things in education. IJCSNS Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur. 2017, 17, 159–165.
  15. Oppenheimer, A. ¡Crear o Morir!: La Esperanza de Latinoamerica y las Cinco Claves de la Innovaction, 1st ed.; Penguin Random House: Santiago, Chile, 2014.
  16. Yadav, A.; Hong, H.; Stephenson, C. Computational Thinking for All: Pedagogical Approaches to Embedding 21st Century Problem Solving in K-12 Classrooms. TechTrends 2016, 60, 565–568.
  17. Bocconi, S.; Chioccariello, A.; Dettori, G.; Ferrari, A.; Engelhardt, K.; Kampylis, P.; Punie, Y. Developing Computational Thinking: Approaches and Orientations in K-12 Education; Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE): Waynesville, NC, USA, 2016.
  18. Vegas, E.; Fowler, B. What Do We Know about the Expansion of K-12 Computer Science Education? Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/research/what-do-we-know-about-the-expansion-of-k-12-computer-science-education/?fbclid=IwAR2uLNpVqVNbMXySZSbhTKa3JxRW1XTNOp64H3oXNiRhDdA0X855FJ0son4 (accessed on 7 November 2021).
  19. Puhlmann, C. Desenvolvimento do Pensamento Computacional Através de Atividades Desplugadas na Educação Básica. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2017.
  20. Rojas, A. Escenarios de Aprendizaje Personalizados a Partir de la Evaluación del Pensamiento Computacional para el Aprendizaje de Competencias de Programación Mediante un Entorno b-Learning y Gamificación. 2019. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=255914 (accessed on 11 May 2022).
  21. Marais, C.; Bradshaw, K. Problem-solving ability of first year CS students: A case study and intervention. In Proceedings of the 44th Conference of the Southern African Computers Lecturers’ Association, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1–3 July 2015; pp. 154–160.
  22. Terreni, L. Enseñanza del pensamiento computacional en la educación superior mediada por tecnología. Docentes Conectados 2021, 4, 19–26.
  23. Bolívar, M.I.S. Lenguajes y Entornos de Programación para Fortalecer El Desarrollo de Competencias Concernientes al Pensamiento Computacional. Hamut’Ay 2020, 7, 86.
  24. Laura-Ochoa, L. Teaching the introduction to programming using playful tools . In Proceedings of the LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education and Technology, Lima, Peru, 18–20 July 2018; pp. 19–21.
  25. Urquizo, G.; Vidal, E.; Castro, E. Incorporación de Pensamiento Computacional en Ingenierías como soporte a la competencia de Desarrollo de Problemas: Jugando con Lightbot. Rev. Ibérica Sist. Tecnol. Informação, E42 2021, 2, 199–208.
  26. Bordignon, F.R.A.; Iglesias, A.A. Introducción al Pensamiento Computacional; Universidad Pedagógica Nacional y Educar S. E.: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2018.
  27. Rojas-López, A.; García-Peñalvo, F.J. Increase of confidence for the solution of problems in pre-university students through computational thinking, 2018. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 24–26 October 2018; pp. 31–35.
  28. Selby, C.C. Relationships: Computational thinking, Pedagogy of programming, and bloom’s taxonomy. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, London, UK, 9–11 November 2015; pp. 80–87.
  29. Deming, D.J.; Noray, K.L. STEM Careers and Technological Change; NBER Working Paper Series; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, September 2018; Volume 25065.
  30. Cadaret, M.C.; Hartung, P.J.; Subich, L.M.; Weigold, I.K. Stereotype threat as a barrier to women entering engineering careers. J. Vocat. Behav. 2017, 99, 40–51.
  31. Wang, M.-T.; Degol, J.L. Gender Gap in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): Current Knowledge, Implications for Practice, Policy, and Future Directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2017, 29, 119–140.
  32. Meyer, M.; Cimpian, A.; Leslie, S.-J. Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 235.
  33. Huang, J.; Gates, A.J.; Sinatra, R.; Barabási, A.-L. Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2020, 117, 4609–4616.
  34. Eccles, J.S.; Wang, M.-T. What motivates females and males to pursue careers in mathematics and science? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2016, 40, 100–106.
  35. Ortiz-Martínez, G.; Vázquez-Villegas, P.; Ruiz-Cantisani, M.I.; Delgado-Fabián, M.; Conejo-Márquez, D.A.; Membrillo-Hernández, J. Analysis of the retention of women in higher education STEM programs. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 101.
  36. Witteman, H.O.; Hendricks, M.; Straus, S.; Tannenbaum, C. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet 2019, 393, 531–540.
  37. Casey, E.; Jocz, J.; Peterson, K.A.; Pfeif, D.; Soden, C. Motivating youth to learn STEM through a gender inclusive digital forensic science program. Smart Learn. Environ. 2023, 10, 2.
  38. Master, A.; Cheryan, S.; Moscatelli, A.; Meltzoff, A.N. Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-grade girls. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2017, 160, 92–106.
  39. Makarova, E.; Aeschlimann, B.; Herzog, W. The Gender Gap in STEM Fields: The Impact of the Gender Stereotype of Math and Science on Secondary Students’ Career Aspirations. Front. Educ. 2019, 4, 60.
  40. Demİr-Kaymak, Z.; Duman, İ.; Randler, C.; Horzum, M.B. The Effect of Gender, Grade, Time and Chronotype on Computational Thinking: Longitudinal Study. Inform. Educ. 2022, 21, 465–478.
  41. Master, A.; Meltzoff, A.N.; Cheryan, S. Gender stereotypes about interests start early and cause gender disparities in computer science and engineering. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021, 118, e2100030118.
  42. Angeli, C.; Valanides, N. Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 105, 105954.
  43. Román-González, M.; Pérez-González, J.-C.; Moreno-León, J.; Robles, G. Extending the nomological network of computational thinking with non-cognitive factors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 80, 441–459.
  44. Niousha, R.; Saito, D.; Washizaki, H.; Fukazawa, Y. Gender Characteristics and Computational Thinking in Scratch. In Proceedings of the SIGCSE 2023—54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Toronto, ON, Canada, 15–18 March 2023; Volume 2, p. 1344.
  45. Papavlasopoulou, S.; Sharma, K.; Giannakos, M.N. Giannakos, Coding activities for children: Coupling eye-tracking with qualitative data to investigate gender differences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 105, 105939.
  46. Anistyasari, Y.; Nurlaela, L.; Sumbawati, M.S. Analysis of computational thinking skill predictors on information technology education students. In International Conference on Education, Science and Technology; Redwhite Press: West Sumatra, Indonesia, 2019; Volume 2, pp. 109–114.
  47. Hsu, T.-C.; Chang, C.; Wong, L.-H.; Aw, G.P. Learning Performance of Different Genders’ Computational Thinking. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16514.
  48. GArdito, G.; Czerkawski, B.; Scollins, L. Learning Computational Thinking Together: Effects of Gender Differences in Collaborative Middle School Robotics Program. TechTrends 2020, 64, 373–387.
  49. Buffum, P.S.; Frankosky, M.; Boyer, K.E.; Wiebe, E.N.; Mott, B.W.; Lester, J.C. Collaboration and gender equity in game-based learning for middle school computer science. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2016, 18, 18–28.
  50. Jiang, S.; Wong, G.K.W. Exploring age and gender differences of computational thinkers in primary school: A developmental perspective. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2022, 38, 60–75.
  51. Román-Gonzalez, M. Test de Pensamiento Computacional: Principios de Diseño, Validación de Contenido y Análisis de Ítems, n.o September. 2015, pp. 1–19. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288341872%0ATest (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  52. Zhong, B.; Wang, Q.; Chen, J.; Li, Y. An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2016, 53, 562–590.
  53. Brennan, K.; Resnick, M. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13–17 April 2012; pp. 1–25.
  54. Sáez-López, J.-M.; Román-González, M.; Vázquez-Cano, E. Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “scratch” in five schools. Comput. Educ. 2016, 97, 129–141.
  55. Moreno-León, J.; Robles, G. Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate Scratch projects. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, London, UK, 9–11 November 2015; pp. 132–133.
  56. Gutierrez, F.J.; Simmonds, J.; Hitschfeld, N.; Casanova, C.; Sotomayor, C.; Peña-Araya, V. Assessing software development skills among K-6 learners in a project-based workshop with scratch. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training, Gothenburg, Sweden, 27 May 2018–3 June 2018; pp. 98–107.
  57. Von Wangenheim, C.G.; Alves, N.C.; Rodrigues, P.E.; Hauck, J.C. Teaching Computing in a Multidisciplinary Way in Social Studies Classes in School – A Case Study. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Educ. Sch. 2017, 1, 3.
  58. Román-González, M.; Pérez-González, J.-C.; Jiménez-Fernández, C. Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 72, 678–691.
  59. Román-González, M.; Pérez-González, J.-C.; Moreno-León, J.; Robles, G. Can computational talent be detected? Predictive validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 2018, 18, 47–58.
  60. Viale, P.; Deco, C. Introduciendo conocimientos sobre el Pensamiento Computacional en los primeros años de las carreras de ciencia, tecnología, ingeniería y matemáticas. Energeia 2019, 16, 73–78.
  61. Villalba-Condori, K.O.; Cuba-Sayco, S.E.C.; Chávez, E.P.G.; Deco, C.; Bender, C. Approaches of learning and computational thinking in students that get into the computer sciences career. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 24–26 October 2018; pp. 36–40.
  62. Román-González, M. Pensamiento computacional: Un constructo que llega a la madurez. Blog Aula Magna 2.0 2022, 1–12. Available online: https://cuedespyd.hypotheses.org/11109 (accessed on 11 May 2022).
  63. Zapata-Caceres, M.; Martin-Barroso, E.; Roman-Gonzalez, M. Computational thinking test for beginners: Design and content validation. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Porto, Portugal, 27–30 April 2020; pp. 1905–1914.
  64. Martínez, M.L.; Lévêque, O.; Benítez, I.; Hardebolle, C.; Zufferey, J.D. Assessing Computational Thinking: Development and Validation of the Algorithmic Thinking Test for Adults. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2022, 60, 1436–1463.
  65. Sondakh, D.E.; Osman, K.; Zainudin, S. Holistic assessment of computational thinking for undergraduate: Reliability and convergent validity. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 28–31 October 2019; pp. 241–245.
  66. Sondakh, D.E.; Osman, K.; Zainudin, S. A Pilot Study of an Instrument to Assess Undergraduates’ Computational thinking Proficiency. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2020, 11, 263–273.
  67. Sondakh, S.D.E.; Pungus, S.R.; Putra, E.Y. Indonesian Undergraduate Students’ Perception of Their Computational Thinking Ability. CogITo Smart J. 2022, 8, 68–80.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback