skip to main content
10.1145/3287324.3287405acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Many Abilities Can We Measure in Computational Thinking?: A Study on Bebras Challenge

Published: 22 February 2019 Publication History

Abstract

While several approaches have been proposed to assess computational thinking (CT) abilities, it is still unclear how many and which these abilities are. Despite the undisputed importance of assessment, the fact is that there is not enough evidence on which abilities are merely theoretical and which can be empirically observed in the context of CT. This paper is part of a larger investigation in which we try to answer a simple question: can CT abilities be quantitatively defined and measured? In this particular study, we try to answer a simple question: How many CT abilities can be empirically observed using factor analysis? We approach this question, using a dataset containing answers of 1564 students from Lithuania in the Bebras Challenge from 2015. Firstly, we used confirmatory factor analysis to verify a theory that claims that five CT abilities are assessed by the contest. Our analysis shows the theory is not statistically supported. Secondly, we used principal component analysis as an exploratory analysis to try to derive an appropriate number of factors from the data. Surprisingly, the analysis suggests there are only two main recognizable factors. Finally, we briefly discuss these factors and hypothesize that the first is called evaluation ability, which would include abstraction, generalization, and decomposition, while factor 2 is algorithmic thinking and logical reasoning.

References

[1]
Computer Science Teachers Association et almbox. 2018. Operational definition of computational thinking. http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf .
[2]
Valerie Barr and Chris Stephenson. 2011. Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, Vol. 2, 1 (2011), 48--54.
[3]
Daphne Blokhuis, Peter Millican, Chris Roffey, Eljakim Schrijvers, and Sue Sentance. 2015. UK Bebras Computational Thinking Challenge. http://www.bebras.uk/uploads/2/1/8/6/21861082/ukbebras2015-answers_1.pdf
[4]
Stefania Bocconi, Augusto Chioccariello, Giuliana Dettori, Anusca Ferrari, Katja Engelhardt, et almbox. 2016. Developing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education-Implications for policy and practice . Technical Report. Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
[5]
Kay-Dennis Boom, Matt Bower, Amaël Arguel, Jens Siemon, and Antonia Scholkmann. 2018. Relationship between computational thinking and a measure of intelligence as a general problem-solving ability. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, 206--211.
[6]
Timothy A Brown. 2014. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research .Guilford Publications.
[7]
A Csizmadia, P Curzon, M Dorling, S Humphreys, T Ng, C Selby, and J Woollard. 2015. Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. Google Scholar (2015). http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/8550/original.pdf
[8]
Valentina Dagien.e, Simona Feiferyt.e, Egl.e Jasut.e, Alvida Lozdien.e, Bronius Skupas, Elena Sutkut.e, and Gabriel.e Stupurien.e. 2015. Informatika: Bebras 2015. http://bebras.lt/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Uzdaviniu-2015-m.-knygele.pdf
[9]
Valentina Dagien.e and Gerald Futschek. 2008. Bebras international contest on informatics and computer literacy: Criteria for good tasks. In International Conference on Informatics in Secondary Schools-Evolution and Perspectives. Springer, 19--30.
[10]
Valentina Dagien.e, Sue Sentance, and Gabriel.e Stupurien.e. 2017a. Developing a two-dimensional categorization system for educational tasks in informatics. Informatica, Vol. 28, 1 (2017), 23--44.
[11]
Valentina Dagien.e, Gabriel.e Stupurien.e, and Lina Vinikien.e. 2017b. Implementation of Dynamic Tasks on Informatics and Computational Thinking. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, Vol. 5, 3 (2017), 306.
[12]
Ana Liz Souto O de Araujo, Wilkerson L Andrade, and Dalton D Serey Guerrero. 2016. A systematic mapping study on assessing computational thinking abilities. In Frontiers in education conference (FIE), 2016 IEEE. IEEE, 1--9.
[13]
Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Computational thinking in K--12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, Vol. 42, 1 (2013), 38--43.
[14]
Joseph F Hair, William C Black, Barry J Babin, Rolph E Anderson, Ronald L Tatham, et almbox. 1998. Multivariate data analysis . Vol. 5. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[15]
Julie Pallant. 2013. SPSS survival manual .McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
[16]
T. Palts, M. Pedaste, V. Vene, and L. Vinikien?. 2017. Tasks for Assessing Skills of Computational Thinking. In ICERI2017 Proceedings (10th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation). IATED, 2750--2759.
[17]
R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
[18]
William Revelle. 2017. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research . Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych R package version 1.7.8.
[19]
Marcos Román-González, Juan-Carlos Pérez-González, and Carmen Jiménez-Fernández. 2017. Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 72 (2017), 678--691.
[20]
Yves Rosseel. 2012. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, Vol. 48, 2 (2012), 1--36. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
[21]
Cynthia Selby and John Woollard. 2013. Computational thinking: the developing definition. (2013). https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/
[22]
Joke Voogt, Petra Fisser, Jon Good, Punya Mishra, and Aman Yadav. 2015. Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 20, 4 (2015), 715--728.
[23]
Jeannette M Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM, Vol. 49, 3 (2006), 33--35.
[24]
Jeannette M Wing. 2008. Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, Vol. 366, 1881 (2008), 3717--3725.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Perceptions of Indonesian and Thai science lecturers on e-BIMO in science teacher education programsInternational Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES10.21833/ijaas.2025.02.00512:2(44-51)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • (2024)Computational thinking in university students: The role of fluid intelligence and visuospatial abilityPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.030941219:8(e0309412)Online publication date: 30-Aug-2024
  • (2024)How can Unplugged Approach Facilitate Novice Students’ Understanding of Computational Thinking? An Exploratory study from a Nigerian UniversityThinking Skills and Creativity10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101458(101458)Online publication date: Jan-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. How Many Abilities Can We Measure in Computational Thinking?: A Study on Bebras Challenge

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SIGCSE '19: Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
      February 2019
      1364 pages
      ISBN:9781450358903
      DOI:10.1145/3287324
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 22 February 2019

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. assessment
      2. bebras challenge
      3. computational thinking

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Conference

      SIGCSE '19
      Sponsor:

      Acceptance Rates

      SIGCSE '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 169 of 526 submissions, 32%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,787 of 5,146 submissions, 35%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)94
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
      Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2025)Perceptions of Indonesian and Thai science lecturers on e-BIMO in science teacher education programsInternational Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES10.21833/ijaas.2025.02.00512:2(44-51)Online publication date: Feb-2025
      • (2024)Computational thinking in university students: The role of fluid intelligence and visuospatial abilityPLOS ONE10.1371/journal.pone.030941219:8(e0309412)Online publication date: 30-Aug-2024
      • (2024)How can Unplugged Approach Facilitate Novice Students’ Understanding of Computational Thinking? An Exploratory study from a Nigerian UniversityThinking Skills and Creativity10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101458(101458)Online publication date: Jan-2024
      • (2024)A computational thinking course for all preservice K-12 teachers: implementing the four pedagogies for developing computational thinking (4P4CT) frameworkEducational technology research and development10.1007/s11423-024-10406-5Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
      • (2024)Enhancing middle school students’ computational thinking competency through game-based learningEducational technology research and development10.1007/s11423-024-10400-x72:6(3391-3419)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024
      • (2024)Correlation analysis between sub-element of technological thinking disposition and computational thinking of gifted students in South KoreaInternational Journal of Technology and Design Education10.1007/s10798-024-09888-434:5(1835-1857)Online publication date: 18-Apr-2024
      • (2024)The effect of integrating computational thinking (CT) components into science teaching on 6th grade students’ learning of the circulatory system concepts and CT skillsEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-12103-x29:7(8079-8110)Online publication date: 1-May-2024
      • (2024)Research trends in K-5 computational thinking education: a bibliometric analysis and ideas to move forwardEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-11974-429:3(3589-3614)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
      • (2024)Effect of New Computing Curriculum: Results from Incoming High School FreshmenInformatics in Schools. Innovative Approaches to Computer Science Teaching and Learning10.1007/978-3-031-73474-8_2(18-29)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
      • (2023)Computational Thinking Self-Efficacy Perception for Progressive Learning in MalaysiaComparative Research on Diversity in Virtual Learning10.4018/978-1-6684-3595-3.ch001(1-19)Online publication date: 27-Jan-2023
      • Show More Cited By

      View Options

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Figures

      Tables

      Media

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media