NowComment
2-Pane Combined
Comments:
Full Summaries Sorted

Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review

Author: Janne Fagerlund, Päivi Häkkinen, Mikko Vesisenaho, Jouni Viiri

Fagerlund, Janne, et al. “Computational Thinking in Programming with Scratch in Primary Schools: A Systematic Review.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 8 May 2020, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cae.22255.


0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments


Abstract

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 1 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Computer programming is being introduced in educational curricula, even at the primary school level. One goal of this implementation is to teach computational thinking (CT), which is potentially applicable in various computational problem-solving situations. However, the educational objective of CT in primary schools is somewhat unclear: curricula in various countries define learning objectives for topics, such as computer science, computing, programming or digital literacy but not for CT specifically. Additionally, there has been confusion in concretely and comprehensively defining and operationalising what to teach, learn and assess about CT in primary education even with popular programming akin to Scratch. In response to the growing demands of CT, by conducting a literature review on studies utilising Scratch in K–9, this study investigates what kind of CT has been assessed in Scratch at the primary education level. As a theoretical background for the review, we define a tangible educational objective for introducing CT comprehensively in primary education and concretise the fundamental skills and areas of understanding involved in CT as its “core educational principles”. The results of the review summarise Scratch programming contents that students can manipulate and activities in which they can engage that foster CT. Moreover, methods for formatively assessing CT via students’ Scratch projects and programming processes are explored. The results underpin that the summarised “CT-fostering” programming contents and activities in Scratch are vast and multidimensional. The next steps for this study are to refine pedagogically meaningful ways to assess CT in students’ Scratch projects and programming processes.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 9 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 2, Sentence 10 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

1 INTRODUCTION

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 3 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 3, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The ubiquity of computing and computer science (CS) has expanded rapidly in modern society [1]. Meanwhile, countries such as Finland, England and Estonia have incorporated computer programming as a compulsory topic in primary education (K–9) [27, 39]. Programming with Scratch, a graphical, block-based programming language, is especially popular in this age group, thus providing a potentially impactful context for educational research. However, several scholars regard programming education not as an end in itself but essential—though nonexclusive—for fostering computational thinking (CT) (i.e., supporting the cognitive tasks involved in it) [23]. CT is an umbrella term that embodies an intellectual foundation necessary to understand the computational world and employ multidimensional problem-solving skills within and across disciplines [56, 61].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 4 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 4, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 4, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 4, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 4, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 4, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Despite its popularity, there has been some shortcomings and uncertainty surrounding CT in terms of, for instance, teacher training needs concerning the aims and intents of CT education. In fact, curricula in different countries pose various educational objectives for such topics as CS, computing, programming or digital literacy but not for CT specifically [27]. Relatedly, there have been shortcomings in concretising what to teach, learn and assess regarding CT in schools, although previous literature portrays particular concepts and practices (e.g., “Algorithms”, “Problem decomposition”) that can shape students’ skills and understanding in CT and contribute to its educational objective [8, 34]. However, CT potentially learnt while programming with tools as Scratch has been typically perceived as, for instance, the code constructs that students use in their projects, which can be asserted to represent mere programming competence instead of the predictably higher level CT. When using such tools as Scratch, various programming contents that students manipulate and programming activities in which they engage can foster the skills and areas of understanding involved with CT in different ways. Previous literature has not systematically and thoroughly investigated how the practical programmatic affordances in Scratch can represent and foster the manifold skills and areas of understanding associated with CT as described in its core concepts and practices.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 5 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 5, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 5, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 5, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 5, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 5, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 5, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The aims of this study are to contextualise CT comprehensively in the Scratch programming environment for teaching and learning in primary school classrooms and explore the assessment of CT through Scratch in this context. In practice, a literature review for studies involving assessments in Scratch in K–9 is conducted. As a theoretical background, we define a tangible educational objective for CT in the context of programming in primary education based on previous literature. Moreover, as a springboard for investigating the skills and areas of understanding included in CT in Scratch, we concretise CT’s core educational principles (CEPs)—fundamental computational facts, conceptual ideas, and techniques that students can learn—from CT concepts and practices presented in earlier research. The goals of the review are to gather Scratch programming contents and activities, use the CEPs as a lens to view them specifically as “CT-fostering” contents and activities, and explore ways in which they could be formatively assessed in classroom settings.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 6 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 6, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 6, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 6, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 6, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 6, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

2 COMPUTATIONAL THINKING THROUGH PROGRAMMING IN PRIMARY EDUCATION

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 7 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 7, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

2.1 An educational objective

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 8 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 8, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Wing [61, 62] originally defined CT as “the thought processes involved in formulating problems and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that can effectively be carried out by an information-processing agent”. Michaelson [43] underlined that CT is a way of understanding problems whereas CS provides concepts for CT in search of a praxis. Aho [1] revisited Wing’s original definition and emphasised that solutions pertinent to CT are namely algorithmic. However, CT still has no solid core definition [24]. It has been viewed as a competence [58], a thought process [1, 62], a set of skills [61] and a problem-solving process [54]. However, the consensus is that it draws on disciplinary concepts and models central to CS and utilises the power of computing [56].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 9 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 9, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 9, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 9, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 9, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 9, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 9, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The purpose of primary education is to learn about the world and to prepare for subsequent studies and working life. Although CT’s transferability across problem-solving contexts has been questioned [14], Wing [61] posited that CT as a collection of transversal skills and knowledge is necessary for everyone. Lonka et al [33] underlined that students, regardless of their future profession, should learn to identify the central principles and practices of programming and understand how they influence everyday life.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 10 0
profile_photo
Jul 29
mirseda K mirseda K (Jul 29 2021 6:58AM) : Learning about the world through Scratch more

I totally agree that besides what profession you will do in the future, Scratch and computational thinking helps everyone to connect with the world ad giving answers to problems. Using Scratch for me was a game-changer, I was able to introduce to my students and instead wasting their time playing in computer they use Scratch to improve their skills how to create a project or how to invent a game that requires some skills.

profile_photo
Feb 7
Alissa H Alissa H (Feb 07 2024 3:52AM) : Programming is a key element of the modern technological world, but can sometimes be challenging. Services such as https://www.programmingassignment.net/services/matlab-assignment-he help students overcome these difficulties and develop their programming. [Edited]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 10, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

To include CT’s such essential characteristics and purposes [33, 53, 56, 61] tangibly in primary education, we define the following educational objective for it: students learn to understand what computing can/cannot do, understand how computers do the things that they do and apply computational tools, models and ideas to solve problems in various contexts. According to recent reviews of curricula in various countries, such educational ideas are relevant in schools via CS education, programming or embedded within different subjects, but not for CT specifically [27, 39]. By exploring computing, students should also gain certain attitudes and perspectives, such as understanding computational ethics [33]. However, this study limits its scope by focusing on CT’s key concepts and practices, which have been often highlighted in previous literature to characterise fundamental areas of understanding in computing and skills in computational problem-solving.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 11 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 11, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 11, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 11, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 11, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Definitions for the key concepts and practices in CT have varied throughout previous literature. For instance, in the context of Scratch, Brennan and Resnick [9] presented a concrete CT framework that comprised concepts (e.g., loop, variable), practices (e.g., debugging, iteration) and perspectives (e.g., expressing, questioning). Although meaningful for CT, such context-specific frameworks may be unsuitable for framing CT across programming contexts and promoting deeper learning. [24] Therefore, based on prior research framing CT concepts and practices in a broader fashion, we concretise the fundamental skills and areas of understanding involved in CT as its core educational principles (CEPs) as a background.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 12 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 12, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

2.2 Core educational principles

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 13 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 13, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Several studies have framed CT’s key concepts and practices more generally in programming, computing or CS in various ways. CT is an elusive term that continues finding clear borders, and it involves areas that could be interpreted to be more in its “central” or “peripheral zones”. Concise views of CT can be rather programming-centric and omit potentially essential areas in the general-level CT. In turn, generous views may overlap with other competence areas, such as math. By framing our view of CT based on several previous works, we strive to adopt a relatively generous rather than a concise view. The motivation is that the more generous views have been adopted less often, and they can expand our understanding of the potentially meaningful borders of CT assessment through Scratch in K–9 and be feasibly reduced to the extent, as needed.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 14 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 14, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Settle and Perkovic [51] developed a conceptual framework to implement CT across the curriculum in undergraduate education. In 2009, the International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association [3] devised an operational definition for CT concepts and capabilities to promote their incorporation in K–12 classrooms. In the aftermath of computing having been introduced in British schools in 2014, Czismadia et al [13] developed a framework for guiding teachers in teaching CT-related concepts, approaches and techniques in computing classrooms. Relatedly, Angeli et al [2] designed a K–6 CT curriculum comprising CT skills and implications for teacher knowledge. To demystify CT’s ill-structured nature, Shute et al [53] reviewed CT literature and showed examples of its definitions, interventions and assessments in K–12. Similarly, Hsu et al [28] reviewed prior literature and discussed how CT could be taught and learned in K–12. To further illuminate CT’s application in different contexts, Grover and Pea [24] elaborated what concepts and practices CT encompasses.To concretise the skills and areas of understanding associated with CT concepts and practices in these works as atomic elements to enable their systematic contextualisation in Scratch, the definitions of the concepts and practices can be summarised to include CT’s CEPs for teaching and learning at the primary school level.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 15 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 15, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Abstraction. A range of digital devices can be computers that run programmes [13, 24]. Programming languages, algorithms and data are abstractions of real-world phenomena [13, 24, 28]. Solving complex problems becomes easier by reducing unnecessary detail and by focusing on parts that matter (via, e.g., using data structures and an appropriate notation) [2, 13, 24, 28].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 16 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 16, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 16, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 16, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 16, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Algorithms. Programmers solve problems with sets of instructions starting from an initial state, going through a sequence of intermediate states and reaching a final goal state [2, 3, 13, 24, 28, 51, 53]. Sequencing, selection and repetition are the basic building blocks of algorithms [2, 3, 13, 24]. Recursive solutions solve simpler versions of the same problem [3, 13, 24].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 17 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 17, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 17, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 17, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 17, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Automation. Automated computation can solve problems [13, 24, 28]. Programmers design programmes with computer code for computers to execute [13, 24, 51]. Computers can use a range of input and output devices [13].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 18 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 18, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 18, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 18, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 18, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Collaboration. Programmers divide tasks and alternate in roles [24]. Programmers build on one another’s projects [2, 24]. Programmers distribute solutions to others [24].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 19 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 19, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 19, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 19, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 19, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Coordination and Parallelism. Computers can execute divided sets of instructions in parallel [3, 13, 28, 53]. The timing of computation at participating processes requires control [51].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 20 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 20, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 20, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 20, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Creativity. Programmers employ alternate approaches to solving problems and “out-of-the-box thinking” [24]. Creating projects is a form of creative expression [24].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 21 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 21, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 21, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 21, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Data. Programmers find and collect data from various sources and multilayered datasets that are related to each other [3, 28, 53]. Programmes work with various data types (e.g., text, numbers) [3, 13, 28]. Programmes store, move and perform calculations on data [2, 3, 13, 51]. Programmes store data in various data structures (e.g., variable, table, list, graph) [2, 3, 13].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 22 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 22, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 22, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 22, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 22, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 22, Sentence 5 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Efficiency. Algorithms have no redundant or unnecessary steps [13, 53]. Designed solutions are easy for people to use [13]. Designed solutions work effectively and promote positive user experience [13, 24]. Designed solutions function correctly under all circumstances [13, 24].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 23 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 23, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 23, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 23, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 23, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 23, Sentence 5 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Iteration. Programmers refine solutions through design, testing and debugging until the ideal result is achieved [24, 53].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 24 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 24, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 24, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Logic. Programmers analyse situations and check facts to make and verify predictions, make decisions and reach conclusions [2, 13, 24]. Formulated instructions comprise conditional logic, Boolean logic, arithmetic operations and other logical frameworks [2, 13, 24, 28].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 25 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 25, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 25, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 25, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Modelling and design. Programmers design human-readable representations and models of an algorithmic design, which could later be programmed [13, 24, 28, 53]. Programmers organise the structure, appearance and functionality of a system well [13, 51]. Visual models, simulations and animations represent how a system operates [2, 3, 13, 28].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 26 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 26, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 26, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 26, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 26, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Patterns and Generalisation. Data and information structures comprise repeating patterns based on similarities and differences in them [2, 13, 24, 28, 53]. Repeating patterns form general-level solutions that apply to a class of similar problems [3, 13, 24, 28, 53]. General-level ideas and solutions solve problems in new situations and domains [13, 24, 28, 53].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 27 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 27, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 27, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 27, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 27, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Problem decomposition. Large problems and artefacts decompose into smaller and simpler parts that can be solved separately [2, 13, 24, 28, 53]. Large systems are composed of smaller meaningful parts [2, 24]. Programmes comprise objects, the main programme and functions [3].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 28 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 28, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 28, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 28, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 28, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Testing and debugging. Programmers evaluate and verify solutions for appropriateness according to their desired result, goal or set criteria [2, 13, 24, 28]. Programmers evaluate solutions for functional accuracy and detect flaws using methods involving observation of artefacts in use and comparing similar artefacts [2, 13, 24, 28, 53]. Programmers trace code, design and run test plans and test cases and apply heuristics to isolate errors and fix them [2, 13, 24, 28, 53]. Programmers make fair and honest judgements in complex situations that are not free of values and constraints [13].
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 29 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 29, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 29, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 29, Sentence 3 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 29, Sentence 4 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 29, Sentence 5 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

In practice, various programming tasks can foster skills and understanding in the ways of thinking and doing involved in CT as described in the CEPs. In Scratch, students manipulate programmatic contents, that is, the objects and logic structures that establish computational processes in their projects, and engage in certain programming activities while designing said contents [9]. Hence, it is meaningful to examine how various Scratch programming contents and activities contextualise the CEPs in practice.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 30 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 30, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 30, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 30, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

2.3 Assessment in scratch

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 31 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 31, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Scratch is a free web-based programming tool that allows the creation of media projects, such as games, interactive stories and animations, connected to young peoples’ personal interests and experiences. Projects are designed by combining graphical blocks to produce behaviours for digital characters (“sprites”). Block-based languages typically have a “low floor”: students cannot make syntactic mistakes because only co-applicable blocks combine into algorithmic sets of instructions (“scripts”) [9, 38].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 32 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 32, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 32, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 32, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Despite the affordances of graphical tools, programming is cognitively complex, and rich conceptual mental models may not emerge spontaneously [4, 40]. An “in time” pedagogy in which new knowledge is presented whenever necessary through various project-based activities is a popular approach; however, it requires the careful formulation of authentic problems and selection of projects (i.e., ways to introduce CT appropriately via programming contents and activities) [20, 34]. Moreover, learning can be supported with a formative assessment that determines “where the learner is going”, “where the learner is right now” and “how to get there”. In practice, instructors should clarify the intentions and criteria for success, elicit evidence of students’ understanding and provide appropriate feedback that moves learning forward [6]. Programming is a potentially fruitful platform for enabling these processes because it demonstrates students’ CT and provides a potential accommodation for timely and targeted learning support [23, 34].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 33 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 33, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 33, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 33, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 33, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 33, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Several previous empirical studies have shown in part how specific programming contents and activities in Scratch could be assessed. However, the contents and activities have been scarcely contextualised in CT. To examine how CT could be thoroughly introduced and respectively assessed in Scratch in K–9 (primary education), this study reviews prior literature focused on assessing Scratch contents and activities in K–9 and aligns them to CT concepts and practices according to the summarised CEPs (see Section 2.2). The purpose is to derive elementary CT-fostering learning contents and activities and to explore appropriate methods for their formative assessment in primary schools. Hence, the research questions are:

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 34 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 34, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

What Scratch programming contents and activities have been assessed in K–9?

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 35 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 35, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

How have Scratch programming contents and activities been assessed?

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 36 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 36, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

How do different Scratch programming contents and activities contextualise CT concepts and practices via the CEPs?

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 37 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 37, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

3 METHODS

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 38 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 38, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

3.1 Search procedures

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 39 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 39, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

To begin answering the research questions, literature searches were performed for peer-reviewed studies focusing on the assessment of Scratch programming contents and activities in K–9 (Figure 1). First, searches were conducted with the terms “computational thinking” and “Scratch” in the ScienceDirect, ERIC, SCOPUS and ACM databases. Publications were sought as far back as 2007 when Scratch was released [9]. The searches resulted in 432 studies (98 in ScienceDirect, 27 in ERIC, 217 in SCOPUS and 90 in ACM) on November 27th, 2019. Duplicate and inaccessible publications were excluded from this collection.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 40 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 40, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 40, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 40, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 40, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 40, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

image
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 41 (Image 1) 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Whole Image 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.

Figure 1 Open in figure viewerPowerPointLiterature search protocol
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 42 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 42, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The abstracts of the remaining studies were screened, and both empirical and nonempirical studies were included if they addressed assessment in Scratch (or highly similar programming languages) in K–9. Publications conceptualising generic assessment frameworks were included if Scratch and primary education were mentioned as potential application domains. Studies set in other or unclear educational levels were excluded to maintain a focus on primary schools. Studies written in other languages than English were excluded.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 43 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 43, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 43, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 43, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 43, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The remaining 50 studies was not presumed to cover all potentially relevant work. Further searches were conducted similarly with the terms “computational thinking” and “Scratch” on Google Scholar, which provided a running list of publications in decreasing order of relevance. These publications were accessed individually until the search results concluded to no longer provide relevant studies. Simultaneously, the reference lists of all included studies were examined for discovering other potentially relevant publications.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 44 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 44, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 44, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 44, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 44, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Altogether 81 obtained studies were then screened for the assessment instruments that they employed. Studies analysing students’ Scratch project contents or their programming activities in Scratch were included. Studies analysing the learning of other subject domain contents or addressing other theoretical areas such as motivation, attitudes and misconceptions were excluded. Assessment instruments that were defined in insufficient detail or were adapted in an unaltered form from prior studies were excluded since they provided no additional information for the RQs. For example, we found that several articles employed the assessment instrument called “Dr. Scratch” (see results). To attain information regarding what Scratch programming contents and activities have been assessed in K–9 and how said contents and activities have been assessed altogether, we only included the paper that originally introduced said contents and activities, granted that the work was attainable. Finally, 30 publications were selected for review.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 45 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 45, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 45, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 45, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 45, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 45, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 45, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 45, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

3.2 Analysis of studies

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 46 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 46, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The Scratch programming contents and activities assessed in the studies were described based on their type (RQ1) and the employed assessment method and taxonomy or rubric (RQ2). Simultaneously, by employing content analysis, the contents and activities were aligned to CT concepts and practices according to the CT’s CEPs (see Section 2.2) that they contextualised (RQ3) (indicated in results by CT concepts and practices highlighted in parentheses). The analysis was carried out by the first author.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 47 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 47, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 47, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 47, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Due to the complexity of CT, however, there is an immense level of detail to which the contextualisation in RQ3 could potentially reach. For instance, reducing unnecessary detail (Abstraction) can involve various broader programming tasks and detailed subtasks. However, Voogt et al [58] stated that it is important to discover “what matters” for CT. Therefore, as our first step, we settled on merely describing what the assessed contents and activities that contextualised CT were instead of attempting to further analyse how they could foster CT in different ways.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 48 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 48, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 48, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 48, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 48, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The analysis resulted in rubrics to Scratch contents and activities that foster skills and understanding in CT concepts and practices. The discovered assessment methods were examined according to how they potentially enabled formative assessment processes as presented by Black and Wiliam [6].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 49 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 49, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 49, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Potential limitations in reviews especially concern the definition of the RQs, search procedure, selection of articles, bias in the source material and its quality and the ways of presenting the results [26]. Therefore, we wish to make the following remarks concerning the repeatability, objectivity and transparency herein. By describing the procedure comprehensively and in detail, we aimed to reveal any bias (e.g., concerning the use of appropriate search strings in representative databases) [12, 26]. Additionally, we strived to describe the inferences made and the logic behind them clearly and give equal weight to all reviewed work, though spotlighting evidence that stands out in the process and potentially suggests subjectivity in the source material [26]. Furthermore, we aimed to reinforce consistency in the analysis by iteratively evaluating the contents of the articles, ensuring that we interpreted them the same way at different times [35]. By externally checking the research process and debriefing the results among the authors, we aimed to verify further that the meanings and interpretations resonated among different researchers [12].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 50 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 50, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 50, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 50, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 50, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 50, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 50, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

4 FINDINGS

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 51 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 51, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

4.1 Scratch contents and activities and their assessment

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 52 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 52, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Prior studies utilising Scratch in K–9 involved the assessment of various programming contents and activities with diverse assessment methods and taxonomies or rubrics (RQ1, RQ2) (Table 1). Four distinct programming substance categories were found and were named as “code constructs”, “coding patterns”, “programming activities” and “other programming contents”. Altogether, 20 studies assessed code constructs as the logic structures (e.g., sequence of blocks, “repeat” [44]) that programmers use to establish algorithmic sets of instructions in Scratch projects. Ten studies assessed coding patterns, combinations of code constructs that act as larger programmatic units for specific semantical purposes (e.g., “Animate Motion” [50]). Eleven studies examined students’ programming activities (e.g., “script analysis” [30]), whereas six studies examined other programming contents (e.g., “project genres” [19]). Only six studies considered the direct assessment of CT, and the remaining studies assessed the contents or activities with or without presenting CT as a motivational theme.Table 1. A summary of studies involving the assessment of Scratch programming contents and activities in K–9

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 53 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 53, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 53, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 53, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 53, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 53, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 53, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 53, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 54 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 54, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 55 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 55, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 56 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 56, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 57 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 57, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 58 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 58, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 59 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 59, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
# Authors Assessment in Scratch
Contents/activities Method Taxonomy/rubric
1
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 60 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 60, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Benton et al [5]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 61 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 61, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns (CT)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 62 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 62, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Self-evaluation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 63 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 63, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Difficulty rating
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 64 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 64, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
2
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 65 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 65, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Blau et al [7]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 66 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 66, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Other programming contents
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 67 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 67, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 68 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 68, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 69 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 69, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
3
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 70 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 70, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Brennan and Resnick [9]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 71 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 71, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs + programming activities (CT)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 72 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 72, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 73 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 73, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 74 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 74, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Performance evaluation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 75 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 75, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Skill description
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 76 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 76, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Interview
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 77 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 77, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
4
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 78 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 78, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Burke [10]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 79 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 79, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 80 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 80, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 81 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 81, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 82 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 82, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 83 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 83, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Observation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 84 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 84, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Description, data-driven
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 85 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 85, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Interview
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 86 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 86, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
5
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 87 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 87, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Chang et al [11]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 88 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 88, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs (CT)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 89 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 89, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 90 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 90, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 91 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 91, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
6
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 92 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 92, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Ericson and McKlin [15]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 93 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 93, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 94 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 94, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Test
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 95 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 95, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Correct answer
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 96 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 96, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 97 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 97, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Correct drawing
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 98 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 98, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
7
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 99 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 99, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Franklin et al [16]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 100 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 100, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 101 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 101, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Observation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 102 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 102, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Correctness level
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 103 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 103, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 104 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 104, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Test
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 105 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 105, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Correct answer
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 106 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 106, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 107 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 107, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Observation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 108 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 108, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Behaviour type
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 109 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 109, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
8
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 110 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 110, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Franklin et al [17]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 111 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 111, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 112 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 112, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 113 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 113, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Content completion (percentage)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 114 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 114, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 115 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 115, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
9
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 116 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 116, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Funke et al [19]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 117 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 117, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 118 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 118, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 119 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 119, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Progression level
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 120 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 120, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 121 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 121, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 122 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 122, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Other programming contents
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 123 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 123, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
10
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 124 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 124, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Funke and Geldreich [18]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 125 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 125, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 126 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 126, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Log data analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 127 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 127, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Description
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 128 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 128, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
11
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 129 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 129, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Grover and Basu [21]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 130 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 130, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 131 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 131, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Test
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 132 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 132, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Correct response
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 133 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 133, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 134 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 134, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Think-aloud
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 135 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 135, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
12
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 136 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 136, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Gutierrez et al [25]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 137 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 137, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Other programming contents
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 138 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 138, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 139 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 139, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 140 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 140, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
13
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 141 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 141, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Israel et al [29]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 142 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 142, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 143 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 143, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Observation + discourse analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 144 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 144, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Behaviour type
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 145 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 145, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
14
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 146 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 146, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Ke [30]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 147 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 147, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 148 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 148, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 149 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 149, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 150 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 150, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 151 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 151, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Observation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 152 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 152, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Behaviour type
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 153 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 153, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
15
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 154 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 154, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Lewis [31]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 155 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 155, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 156 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 156, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Test
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 157 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 157, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Correct answer
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 158 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 158, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Self-evaluation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 159 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 159, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Likert
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 160 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 160, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
16
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 161 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 161, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Lewis and Shah [32]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 162 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 162, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 163 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 163, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Discourse analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 164 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 164, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Behaviour type
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 165 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 165, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Hypotheses, data-driven
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 166 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 166, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
17
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 167 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 167, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Mako Hill et al [36]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 168 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 168, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 169 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 169, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 170 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 170, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 171 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 171, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Other programming contents
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 172 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 172, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
18
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 173 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 173, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Maloney et al [37]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 174 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 174, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 175 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 175, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 176 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 176, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence/frequency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 177 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 177, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
19
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 178 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 178, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Meerbaum-Salant et al [41]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 179 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 179, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 180 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 180, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Observation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 181 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 181, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Behaviour type
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 182 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 182, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
20
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 183 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 183, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Meerbaum-Salant et al [42]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 184 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 184, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 185 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 185, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Test
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 186 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 186, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Correct response
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 187 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 187, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 188 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 188, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
21
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 189 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 189, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Moreno-León et al [44]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 190 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 190, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs (CT)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 191 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 191, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 192 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 192, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 193 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 193, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
22
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 194 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 194, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Ota et al [46]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 195 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 195, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 196 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 196, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 197 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 197, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 198 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 198, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 199 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 199, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
23
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 200 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 200, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Sáez-López et al [55]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 201 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 201, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 202 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 202, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Test
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 203 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 203, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
N/A
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 204 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 204, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities + other programming contents
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 205 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 205, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Self-evaluation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 206 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 206, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Performance level
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 207 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 207, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Observation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 208 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 208, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
24
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 209 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 209, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Seiter [49]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 210 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 210, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 211 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 211, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 212 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 212, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 213 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 213, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
25
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 214 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 214, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Seiter and Foreman [50]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 215 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 215, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs + coding patterns (CT)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 216 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 216, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 217 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 217, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 218 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 218, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
26
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 219 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 219, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Shah et al [52]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 220 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 220, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 221 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 221, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Discourse analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 222 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 222, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Behaviour type
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 223 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 223, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
27
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 224 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 224, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Tsan et al [57]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 225 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 225, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Programming activities
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 226 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 226, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Discourse analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 227 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 227, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Behaviour type
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 228 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 228, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Observation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 229 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 229, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
28
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 230 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 230, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Wangenheim et al [59]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 231 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 231, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs (CT)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 232 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 232, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 233 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 233, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 234 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 234, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
29
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 235 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 235, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Wilson et al [60]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 236 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 236, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 237 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 237, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Artefact analysis
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 238 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 238, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Presence
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 239 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 239, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Other programming contents
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 240 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 240, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
30
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 241 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 241, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Zur-Bargury et al [63]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 242 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 242, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Code constructs
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 243 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 243, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Test
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 244 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 244, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Correct response
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 245 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 245, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Structured with the aforementioned four substance categories, the following subsections describe the nature of the discovered contents and activities and their assessment methods more completely and elaborate their relationships with the CEPs (RQ3).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 246 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 246, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

4.2 CT’s CEPs in Scratch

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 247 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 247, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

4.2.1 Code constructs

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 248 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 248, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Three studies assessing code constructs examined CT specifically. “Dr. Scratch”, a web-based automatic analysis tool, assessed the use of blocks in Scratch projects (Table 2) [44]. Relatedly, Wangenheim et al [59] used “CodeMaster”, a similar yet more extensive rubric for projects made in the Snap! programming environment. In terms of CEPs contextualised in Scratch by these tools, for instance, “if” blocks and logic operations contextualise conditional logic and Boolean logic (Logic), and the rubrics to “flow control” contextualise the basic building blocks of algorithms (Algorithms). Moreover, the rubrics to “data representation” contextualise working with different data types, performing operations on data and using various data structures (Data) in addition to abstracting real-world phenomena as data (Abstraction). Moreover, the “ANTLR” tool presented by Chang et al [11] expanded the rubrics of Dr. Scratch to include recursion (Algorithms).Table 2. Evidence for CT as examined by Dr. Scratch [26]

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 249 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 249, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 249, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 249, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 249, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 249, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 249, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 249, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 250 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 250, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 251 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 251, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 252 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 252, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 253 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 253, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 254 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 254, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Competence level
CT concept Basic Developing Proficient
Abstraction and Problem decomposition
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 255 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 255, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
More than one script and more than one sprite
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 256 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 256, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Make-a-blocks
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 257 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 257, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Cloning
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 258 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 258, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Parallelism
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 259 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 259, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Two scripts start on “green flag”
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 260 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 260, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Two scripts start on when key is pressed/when sprite is clicked on the same sprite
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 261 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 261, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Two scripts start on “when I receive message”, “create clone”, “when %s is >%s” or “when backdrop change to” blocks
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 262 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 262, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Logical thinking
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 263 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 263, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“If” block
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 264 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 264, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“If-else” block
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 265 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 265, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Logic operations
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 266 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 266, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Synchronisation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 267 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 267, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“Wait” block
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 268 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 268, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“Broadcast”, “when I receive message”, “stop all”, “stop program” or “stop programs sprite” blocks
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 269 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 269, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“Wait until”, “when backdrop change to” or “broadcast and wait” blocks
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 270 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 270, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Flow control
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 271 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 271, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Sequence of blocks
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 272 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 272, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“Repeat” or “forever” blocks
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 273 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 273, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“Repeat until” block
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 274 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 274, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
User interactivity
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 275 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 275, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“Green flag” block
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 276 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 276, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“Key pressed”, “sprite clicked”, “ask and wait” or mouse blocks
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 277 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 277, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
“When %s is >%s”, video or audio blocks
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 278 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 278, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Data representation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 279 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 279, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Modifiers of sprite properties
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 280 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 280, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Operations on variables
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 281 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 281, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Operations on lists
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 282 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 282, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Two other automated tools, “Ninja Code Village” (NCV) presented by Ota et al [46] and “Scrape” by used by Ke [30], examine similar code constructs to Dr. Scratch without aligning them to CT. However, similar to Dr. Scratch’s rubrics in “Abstraction and Problem decomposition”, NCV’s rubrics for the “procedure” code construct contextualise different kinds of functions and procedures that act as separate instruction sets to solve specific problems (Algorithms). Moreover, Scrape and Dr. Scratch examined external device usage via various input/output devices (e.g., keyboard, mouse) (Automation).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 283 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 283, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 283, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 283, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Regarding other assessment methods, Lewis [31] asked students to describe the output of example scripts comprising certain code constructs and evaluate how hard it was to learn them. Meerbaum-Salant et al [42] conducted summative tests with a revised Bloom/SOLO taxonomy on students’ understanding in parallel execution within and across different sprites, which was underlined to often require the synchronisation of different scripts. Relatedly, several other studies [10, 19, 37, 60] manually examined students’ projects for the “synchronisation” code construct, which was juxtaposed with the “coordination” or “communication” code constructs. The implementation of synchronisation, coordination and communication contextualises controlling the timing of computation in participating processes (Coordination and Parallelism). In Scratch, coordination and synchronisation of parallel processes can occur with timing (e.g., the “wait” block), state-sync (e.g., the “wait until” block) or event-sync (e.g., the “when I receive” block) and by blocking or stopping further script execution [44, 50]. Moreover, Franklin et al [16, 17] manually assessed the use of the “initialisation” code construct, that is, setting initial state values (Algorithms) for sprite properties such as location or size.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 284 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 284, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 284, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 284, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 284, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 284, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 284, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

4.2.2 Coding patterns

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 285 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 285, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Seiter and Foreman [50] developed the “Progression for Early Computational Thinking” (PECT) model to manually examine CT through project-wide design pattern variables: “Animate Looks”, “Animate Motion”, “Conversate”, “Collide”, “Maintain Score” and “User Interaction”. The design pattern variables are assessed with rubrics to specific code construct combinations, whereas students’ understanding in CT is indicated by the presence of specific level variables in a Scratch project. In addition to the relationships between CT and programming contents disclosed directly in PECT (see Seiter and Foreman [50] for detailed rubrics), in Scratch, coding patterns and code constructs themselves contextualise repeating patterns and generalisable computational solutions (Patterns and Generalisation). The implementation of coding patterns and code constructs also contextualises breaking complex projects into smaller, manageable parts that establish the larger system. Coding patterns could also be considered as the functions of different objects (i.e., sprites) (both Problem decomposition). Moreover, each coding pattern can be interpreted as a separate solution to a problem (Algorithms), which, in turn, is an abstraction of a real-world phenomenon (Abstraction).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 286 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 286, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 286, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 286, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 286, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 286, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 286, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Benton et al [5] asked students to rate the difficulty of different kinds of algorithms, which resembled PECT’s “Animate Motion” coding pattern. Franklin et al [17] examined the “Breaking down actions” coding pattern, which resembled a combination of PECT’s “Collision” and “Animate Motion”. However, unlike in PECT, this coding pattern required parametric precision (e.g., an exact number in a “move” block), which can be essential in ensuring that designed solutions achieve the desired results (Efficiency). Similarly, test questions employed by Meerbaum-Salant et al [42] and Grover and Basu [21] concerning coding patterns, which resembled PECT’s “Animate Motion” and “Maintain Score”, necessitated distinguishing between separate overlapping coding patterns (see example in Figure 2). These solutions spotlighted the option of examining individually instantiated rather than project-wide coding patterns in students’ projects.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 287 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 287, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 287, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 287, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 287, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 287, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

image
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 288 (Image 2) 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Whole Image 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.

Figure 2 Open in figure viewerPowerPointQuestions that necessitate distinguishing two independent motion parameters: facing direction and location (supplementary materials by Meerbaum-Salant et al 2013)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 289 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 289, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Ericson and McKlin [15] asked students to draw the outputs of scripts comprising a coding pattern, which resembled PECT’s “Animate Motion” with the “pen” code construct. In Scratch, pen is used to draw visual lines as sprites move and, therefore, visualise algorithms (Modelling and design), although several other programmed features (e.g., conversations, animations) also manifest visually or vocally in Scratch. The authors also introduced a coding pattern for reading keyboard inputs and storing them in the “answer” variable (Automation) in addition to using conditional structures and Boolean expressions to evaluate the value stored in the variable (Logic).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 290 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 290, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 290, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 290, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Franklin et al [16] adopted a mixed methods approach with the “Hairball” plugin and a qualitative coding scheme to additionally examine the “Complex Animation” coding pattern, which resembled PECT’s “Animate Motion” and “Animate Looks” with a “loop” code construct. Similarly, Seiter [49] used a three-level SOLO taxonomy to assess a “Synchronising costume with motion” coding pattern, which resembled the parallel execution of the same two coding patterns. Additionally, the “Multi-sprite conversation” coding pattern encompassed a synchronised dialogue-animation. The synchronisation of coding patterns themselves also contextualises controlling the timing of participating processes (Coordination and Parallelism).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 291 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 291, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 291, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 291, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 291, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

4.2.3 Other programming contents

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 292 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 292, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Blau et al [7] and Mako Hill et al [36] examined the amount of scripts and sprites in students’ projects. Similarly with Dr. Scratch, Moreno-León et al [44] examined “more than one script and one sprite” aligned to Abstraction, which encompasses solving complex problems, and Problem decomposition, which encompasses decomposing a complex system into manageable parts. Relatedly, Gutierrez et al [25] examined “documentation” (i.e., code comments) in projects whereas Wilson et al [60] and Funke et al [19] examined the “custom naming of sprites”, “meaningful naming of variables” and “no extraneous blocks”, all of which can make complex artefacts more understandable and manageable (Abstraction) and organise their structure and appearance (Modelling and design). Additionally, these studies examined the “functionality of projects”, which contributes to ensuring that a project is correct with respect to the desired goals (Efficiency). A “clearly defined goal” and “instructions” as also examined by these studies are key features in projects that are easy to use and trigger appropriate user experiences (Efficiency). Then again, “customised sprites”, “customised stages”, “originality of a project” and the “ability to communicate and express through artefacts”, as examined by Sáez-López et al [55], can promote creative expression (Creativity).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 293 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 293, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 293, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 293, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 293, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 293, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 293, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Lastly, Blau et al [7] examined how many projects students had created and remixed while Funke et al [19] categorised projects’ genres. Gutierrez et al [25] examined the extent to which students had made only superficial changes with respect to sample projects. Designing and remixing a number of projects contributes to creating different kinds of computerised solutions that each have a specific purpose (Automation).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 294 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 294, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 294, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 294, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

4.2.4 Programming activities

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 295 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 295, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

None of the 11 studies that examined programming activities focused directly on CT apart from Brennan and Resnick [9], who described four practices – “being incremental and iterative”, “testing and debugging”, “reusing and remixing” and “abstracting and modularising” – which largely aligned with the broader CT concepts and practices as examined in the current work. They also proposed two methods for examining said practices: interviews and design scenarios. Similar to Brennan and Resnick’s “reusing and remixing”, Blau et al [7] examined students’ social participation (e.g., friends, comments and favourited projects), whereas Mako Hill et al [36] examined students’ credit-giving habits. These activities relate to building on other programmers’ work and distributing one’s own work (Collaboration).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 296 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 296, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 296, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 296, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 296, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Focusing on project design phases, Burke [10] categorised students’ programming processes into “brainstorming and outlining” and “drafting, feedback and revising”. Ke [30] categorised students’ game development acts more elaborately (e.g., “Off-task”, “Script analysis”, “Test play”). Funke and Geldreich [18] conceptualised a visualisation technique to describe script design processes. Meerbaum-Salant et al [41] identified two programming habits: bottom-up programming (bricolage) and extremely fine-grained programming. These activities demonstrate different ways to plan (Modelling and design) and refine solutions (Iteration) and evaluate them, detect flaws, isolate errors and fix bugs (Testing and debugging).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 297 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 297, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 297, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 297, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 297, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 297, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Focusing on human-to-human interactions, Franklin et al [16] recorded the help levels students required when programming. Israel et al [29] developed the C-COI instrument for coding students’ behaviours as steps in collaborative problem-solving processes. Shah et al [52] and Lewis and Shah [32] examined students’ equity, quality of collaboration, task focus and speech during programming. Sáez-López et al [55] questioned and observed students’ sharing and playing with their programmes, active participation and clear communication. Tsan et al [57] analysed students’ collaborative dialogue. Such manifold aspects of interaction affect task division and role alternating (Collaboration).

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 298 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 298, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 298, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 298, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 298, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 298, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 298, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

5 DISCUSSION

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 299 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 299, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

5.1 Typifying elementary CT in Scratch

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 300 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 300, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

By conducting a literature review, we explored the assessments of programming contents and activities in Scratch and aligned them to CT concepts and practices according to CT’s CEPs (in Section 2.2), which were derived from previous contemporary literature as a background to enable the systematic contextualisation of CT in Scratch. The view of CT adopted in this study is relatively broad, and it can encompass areas that can be positioned in a more “central” or “peripheral zones” of CT and get included or excluded as needed. In the following sections, we provide summaries that include the reviewed CT-fostering Scratch programming contents and activities. As encouraged by prior studies [23, 34], we also discuss the formative assessment of the contents and activities in students’ authentic programming projects and processes rather than, for instance, ranking or certifying students’ competence or regarding them with tests to highlight potentially meaningful ways to support learning.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 301 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 301, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 301, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 301, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 301, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

The summaries should not be regarded as complete since CT is a developing body of broad and complex ideas. Hence, we also discuss which CEPs were not straightforwardly contextualised in Scratch. Additionally, as CT is a collection of holistic skills and understanding in computational problem-solving [56, 61], the contents and activities could be interpreted to contextualise different areas in CT in various ways. Therefore, we recap and capsulise the results mainly as Scratch contents and activities contextualising the CT concepts and practices more generally rather than the single CEPs. Moreover, the contents and activities should not be viewed as isolated gimmicks but as components that conjoin meaningfully while, for instance, designing games, creating storytelling projects or animating while processing learning contents in other curricular areas [20, 45]. Scratch can promote self-expression, interest and fun in learning programming in settings that are built on such pedagogical underpinnings as constructionism and co-creation [9, 47]. Meaningful learning thereby includes authentic problems and meaningful selections of projects. In terms of CT in such settings, it is important to focus especially on how students are thinking as they are programming [34].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 302, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

5.1.1 Contents in Scratch projects

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 303 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 303, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Students’ CT can be evaluated based on the code constructs (e.g., “loop”, “variable”), coding patterns (e.g., “change location”) and other programming contents (e.g., sprite naming) (Table 3) they have implemented in different kinds of Scratch projects. The PECT model presented by Seiter and Foreman [50] proposed a comparatively comprehensive rubric for coding patterns and code constructs. However, parametric precision highlighted the importance of examining individually instantiated patterns rather than project-wide coding patterns: for instance, each property (e.g., size, position) of each sprite has an independent state, which necessitates paying attention to, for instance, initialising them separately (e.g., “change location for Sprite1”) [16, 17]. The presence, frequency, correct implementation or completion rate of particular contents as evaluated in several prior studies can demonstrate students’ CT. Although particular studies [5, 19, 42] additionally proposed progression levels or difficulty ratings for particular contents, fully congruent and thus conclusive learning progressions for CT in Scratch were not explicit in the reviewed studies. Therefore, applying a learning taxonomy (e.g., Bloom/SOLO [42]) systematically to the contents gathered herein would require further investigation.Table 3. CT-fostering programming contents in Scratch projects

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 304 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 304, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 304, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 304, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 304, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 304, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 304, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 304, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 305 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 305, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 306 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 306, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
CT concept/practice Scratch contents (and source studies, see Table 1)
Abstraction
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 307 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 307, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Sprite properties, variables and lists (abstractions of properties) [1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30]Coding patterns, make-a-blocks and cloning (abstractions of behaviours) [1, 59, 11, 14, 2022, 24, 25, 28, 30]Continuous events (repeat until), discrete events (wait until) and initialisation (abstractions of states) [1, 7, 8, 11, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30]Complex projects with several scripts and sprites [3, 5, 9, 21, 28]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 308 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 308, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Algorithms
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 309 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 309, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns, make-a-blocks and cloning (coding separate procedures as specific functionalities) [1, 69, 11, 14, 20, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30]Initialisation [1, 7, 8, 20, 24, 25]Sequencing, looping and selection in coding patterns (algorithm control) [1, 36, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 2025, 2830]Self-calling (recursive) make-a-blocks [5, 22]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 310 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 310, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Automation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 311 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 311, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Green flag, key press, sprite click, keyboard input, mouse, sensing, video and audio events (I/O device use) [37, 9, 14, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 2830]Animations, games, art, stories and simulations (project genres) [3, 9]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 312 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 312, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Collaboration
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 313 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 313, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Publishing projects [2]Remixing and credit-giving [3, 17]Commenting, requesting friends, favouriting, “love-its” [2, 3]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 314 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 314, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coordination and Parallelism
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 315 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 315, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Synchronised parallel code constructs and coding patterns within a sprite and across sprites [35, 9, 12, 18, 2025, 28, 29]Coordinated parallel code constructs and coding patterns with timing, states, events, blocking (ask and wait) and stopping script execution [39, 18, 2022, 24, 25, 28, 29]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 316 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 316, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Creativity
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 317 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 317, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Customised sprites and stages [9, 12, 23]Modifying a remixed project [3, 12, 29]Expressing personal interest areas [3, 23]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 318 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 318, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Data
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 319 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 319, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Sprite properties, Scratch variables, custom variables, lists and cloud variables (storing and manipulating data in data types) [1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 2830]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 320 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 320, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Efficiency
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 321 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 321, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Precise data manipulation [1, 6, 8, 15, 20, 24, 30]Defined project goal [29]Use instructions [9, 29]Functionality [9, 29]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 322 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 322, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Logic
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 323 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 323, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
If, if-else, nested conditionals [3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 2022, 2830]And, or, not (Boolean logic) [35, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21, 28, 29]Arithmetic operations [3, 9, 15, 18, 29, 30]Absolute and relational operations [1, 3]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 324 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 324, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Modelling and design
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 325 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 325, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Looks and motion animation, pen drawing and sounds (algorithm animation) [1, 39, 11, 14, 15, 22, 24, 28, 30]No extraneous blocks [9, 12, 29]Meaningful names for sprites and variables [9, 11, 12, 29, 30]Code comments [12]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 326 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 326, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Patterns and Generalisation
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 327 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 327, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Reinstantiated code constructs [4, 7, 9, 25]Reinstantiated coding patterns [7, 11, 20, 30]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 328 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 328, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Problem decomposition
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 329 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 329, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
Coding patterns and code constructs (decomposition) [1, 311, 1416, 18, 2025, 2830]Separately scripted behaviours or actions (modularisation) [3, 25]
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 330 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 330, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

  • Note: The concepts and practices may not be entirely mutually exclusive in terms of the contents.
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 331 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 331, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

5.1.2 Activities in Scratch

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 332 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 332, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

CT-fostering Scratch programming activities may leave traceable evidence in projects as static contents but may be more thoroughly identified in students’ programming processes. For example, Standl [54] framed CT as a problem-solving process that includes phases, such as describing the problem, abstracting the problem, decomposing the problem, designing the algorithm and testing the solution. The CT-fostering activities in Scratch described in the reviewed studies can be similarly summarised as a model of a CT problem-solving process (Figure 3). As demonstrated by several studies, students’ CT-fostering activities can be evaluated by means of observation, interviewing or self-evaluation next to a desired skill description or performance level.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 333 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 333, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 333, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 333, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 333, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

image
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 334 (Image 3) 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Whole Image 0
No whole image conversations. Start one.

Figure 3 Open in figure viewerPowerPointCT-fostering activities in Scratch (and source studies, see Table 1)
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 335 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 335, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

In particular, project planning can include, for instance, algorithmic flowcharts, pseudo-code, drawings and lists (Modelling and design) [10]. Decomposition of planned or programmed solutions into smaller, manageable parts (Problem decomposition) could be examined with a rubric to coding patterns and code constructs, such as with the one presented by Seiter and Foreman [50]. The actual code-writing can resemble “bricolage” or decomposition into logically coherent units, and it can comprise repeating cycles of designing, analysing scripts and testing play (Iteration, Testing and debugging) [30, 41]. However, due to lack of empirical demonstration, it is somewhat unclear what kinds of activities in Scratch lead to effective and fair evaluation and verification of programmed solutions (testing and debugging) and removing redundant and unnecessary steps in scripts (Efficiency). Meanwhile, solutions can be shared and remixed (Collaboration) to gain feedback and new ideas [9]. Additionally, during programming, students may recognise how previously designed coding patterns or code constructs could be reused (Patterns and Generalisation), although it remains somewhat unclear how such events occur in practice. Furthermore, task division and role alternating (Collaboration), which may be influenced by factors concerning equity, task focus, talk, active participation and clear communication, are present during all activities [32].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 336 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 336, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 336, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 336, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 336, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 336, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 336, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 336, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

5.2 Formative assessment of CT in Scratch

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 337 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 337, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

In this study, we lean on the following notion on formative assessment: its processes involve (1) clarifying learning intentions and criteria for success, (2) eliciting evidence of students’ current understanding and (3) providing feedback to move learning forward [6].

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 338 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 338, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

In CT, holistic assessment should recognise the diversity of problem-solving situations and align contextualised, task-specific assessment rubrics to the focal areas of CT (1) [22, 45]. Educators could utilise concrete and contextualised CT-fostering Scratch project functionality rubrics (e.g., coding patterns and their underlying code constructs) or performance descriptions as indirect CT learning intentions and criteria.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 339 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 339, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 339, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Since programming is a demonstration of CT [23], the contents that students can implement in Scratch projects as summarised in Table 1 can be elicited as evidence of their CT (2). However, programming projects are not direct measurements of thinking, and there has been justified questioning concerning students’ learning of computational concepts while working with such tools as Scratch [47]. However, signs of validity in assessing CT in the context of programming have begun appearing [48]. The examination of code constructs within semantically meaningful coding patterns could further improve the validity of the assessment [50]. Comprehensive rubrics for such contents could be adopted in future empirical research assessing students’ CT in a wide-ranging and systematic manner attempting to, for instance, examine the issue of validity further, gain rich empirical insight, or weigh the usefulness of such rubrics in classroom practice.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 340 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 340, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 340, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 340, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 340, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 340, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

It is crucial to complement the assessment by examining programming processes. [22] Prior studies examined students’ programming activities via, for instance, observation, discourse analysis and interviewing (see Table 1). In schools, complicated research-designated tools are time-consuming. Additionally, prior studies assessed only certain CEPs and not CT comprehensively. Hence, an extensive and a pedagogically meaningful programming process assessment tool or rubric would also require further development. In future research, project content implementation could be examined alongside both peer-to-peer [29, 32, 52, 57] and student-project [18, 30] interactions. In-depth empirical examinations of interactions resulting in different kinds of contents could surface diverse desirable and undesirable programming activities. Such in-depth investigations could also focus on discussing pedagogically meaningful assessment instruments for schools.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 341, Sentence 8 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Lastly, the instantiation of CT-fostering contents could be supported in real time by providing targeted timely feedback for specific code segments in the students’ projects (3) [34]. Although the feedback can be generated by teachers or peers, existing automated assessment tools (e.g., Dr. Scratch [44], NCV [46], Scrape [30]) that cover some areas of CT could be revisited to better satisfy this need.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 342 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 342, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 342, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

5.3 Fostering CT beyond the rubrics

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 343 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 343, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Some CEPs were not straightforwardly contextualised in Scratch. First, removing redundant or unnecessary steps in algorithms (Efficiency) was not assessed beyond examining unscripted blocks as shown by Wilson et al [60]. Similarly, project functionality in general may not alone ensure positive user experience or functionality under all circumstances (Efficiency). Second, finding and collecting data from various sources and multilayered datasets (Data) may be problematic to effectuate in Scratch because it is primarily a media design tool and not a general-purpose programming language [38]. However, the domain of simulation-genre projects and the use of a range of I/O devices could potentially provide opportunities for data collection [9, 13]. Thirdly, it is essential for students to understand that computers, operating systems, applications and programming languages are high-level abstractions of computations occurring in circuits and wires, how various digital devices could be used as a computer and identify real-world applications of CT (Abstraction and Automation). These CEPs could be meaningfully explored and assessed in the contexts of other programming tools and environments that can promote engaging learning activities for novice programmers (e.g., Lego Mindstorms [20], the App Inventor [47]) throughout compulsory education.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 344 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 344, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 344, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 344, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 344, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 344, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 344, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 344, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Then again, some CEPs were not contextualised in an in-depth manner. For instance, designing projects with several scripts and sprites as examined by Funke et al [19] contextualises managing complexity (Abstraction), but this task is likely very multilayered [24]. Similarly, the CEPs in Patterns and Generalisation and Problem decomposition [24] likely involve intricate cognitive tasks when instantiating code constructs and coding patterns as examined by, for instance, Seiter and Foreman [50] and Grover and Basu [21]. Moreover, alternate approaches to solving problems and “out-of-the-box thinking” (Creativity) are vague ideas that may only hold meaning in practical educational contexts. Then again, making fair and honest judgements in complex situations that are not free of values and constraints (Testing and debugging) and analysing situations and checking facts to make and verify predictions, making decisions and reaching conclusions (Logic) are very broad ideas that could relate to nearly all aspects of computational problem-solving. Furthermore, as the CEPs and the programming contents contextualising them emerged from previous works in this nascent research area, there can be relevant CT beyond what is currently known.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 345 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 345, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 345, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 345, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 345, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 345, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 345, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

6 CONCLUSIONS

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 346 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 346, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Building on our current understanding of the key skills and areas of understanding associated with CT—often represented as its core concepts and practices and atomised here concretely as CT’s CEPs—this study placed a particular focus on CT in the context of Scratch in K–9 (primary education). We summarised “CT-fostering” Scratch programming contents and activities from 30 studies into operational rubrics for teaching, learning and assessment at the primary school level. The results are applicable in educational practice, but the rubrics can be developed in future investigations. That said, the rubrics should not be regarded as complete or all-inclusive as CT is a developing research topic. However, by shedding light into its CEPs fostered via Scratch we also managed to raise some important areas that would benefit from further investigations. Some dimensions in CT could be meaningfully examined through quantitative metrics (e.g., code construct segments), whereas others may be more qualitative in nature (e.g., creative expression). The next aspiration could be applying a learning progression taxonomy to the contents and activities systematically.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 347 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 347, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 347, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 347, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 347, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 347, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 347, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 347, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Moreover, methods of formative assessment for contents and activities were explored. With this study as a springboard, our next steps are to refine pedagogically meaningful ways to assess CT in students’ Scratch projects and programming processes. Validated assessment frameworks could potentially be extended into automated, formative learning-support systems that students can benefit from when programming.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 348 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 348, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 348, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 348, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

What still gravely requires attention in CT is the quality of understanding that students develop while programming. Additionally, as CT is an interdisciplinary collection of skills and knowledge, it can develop through various tasks in different kinds of problem-solving contexts. To unify theories in CT education, the contents and activities in other programming environments (e.g., robotics, digital game-play) and nonprogramming domains should be reviewed in a similar fashion. Operational methods of assessing CT similarly in different contexts could be used to tackle the notorious transfer problem.

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 349 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 349, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 349, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 349, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 349, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

Biographies

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 350 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 350, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Janne Fagerlund is a doctoral student at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, Finland, whose doctoral dissertation focuses on computational thinking through Scratch programming in primary school context. He also operates as the regional coordinator in the Innokas Network (http://innokas.fi/en) in which he develops and trains teachers in ways to teach and learn 21st century skills with technology.
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 351 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 351, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 351, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Päivi Häkkinen is a Professor of educational technology at the Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä. Her research focuses on technology-enhanced learning, computer-supported collaborative learning, and the progression of twenty-first-century skills (i.e., skills for problem solving and collaboration).
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 352 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 352, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 352, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Mikko Vesisenaho is a senior researcher at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä, with background in education, contextual design, and computer science education. His ambition is for innovative reforms for learning with technology.
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 353 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 353, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 353, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
  • Jouni Viiri is a Professor of science and mathematics education at the Department of Teacher Education, University of Jyväskylä. His research focuses on physics education, in particular, the use of models and representations in physics education, argumentation, and communication between teachers and students.
  • New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 354 0
    No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 354, Sentence 1 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
    New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
    Paragraph 354, Sentence 2 0
    No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

References

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 355 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 355, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

1 A. Aho, Computation and computational thinking. Ubiquity. 2011, Article No. 1.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 356 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 356, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 356, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 356, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 356, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

2 C. Angeli, J. Voogt, A. Fluck, M. Webb, M. Cox, J. Malyn-Smith and J. Zagami, A K–6 Computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge, Edu. Technol. Soc. 19 (2016), no. 3, 47– 57.Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 357 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 357, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 357, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 357, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 357, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 357, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

3 V. Barr and C. Stephenson, Bringing computational thinking to K–12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads 2 (2011), no. 1, 48– 54.Crossref Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 358 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 358, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 358, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 358, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

4 M. Ben-Ari, Constructivism in computer science education, The 29th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, ACM, New York, NY, 1998, pp. 257– 261.Crossref Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 359 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 359, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

5 L. Benton, I. Kalas, P. Saunders, C. Hoyles and R. Noss, Beyond jam sandwiches and cups of tea: An exploration of primary pupils’ algorithm-evaluation strategies, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 34 (2017), 590– 601.Wiley Online Library Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 360 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 360, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 360, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 360, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 360, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 360, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

6 D. Black and D. Wiliam, Developing the theory of formative assessment, Edu. Assessment, Evaluation Accountability 21 (2009), no. 1, 5– 31.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 361 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 361, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 361, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 361, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

7 I. Blau, O. Zuckerman, and A. Monroy-Hernández, Children’s participation in a media content creation community: Israeli learners in a Scratch programming environment, Learning in the technological era ( Y. Eshet-Alkalai, A. Caspi, S. Eden, N. Geri and Y. Yair, eds.), Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel, 2009, pp. 65– 72.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 362 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 362, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 362, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

8 S. Bocconi, A Chioccariello and J. Earp, The Nordic approach to introducing computational thinking and programming in compulsory education. Report prepared for the Nordic@BETT2018 Steering Group. https://doi.org/10.17471/54007Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 363 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 363, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 363, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

9 K. Brennan and M. Resnick, New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the meeting of AERA 2012, Vancouver, BC. 2012.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 364 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 364, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 364, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 364, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

10 Q. Burke, The markings of a new pencil: Introducing programming-as-writing in the middle school classroom, J. Media Literacy Edu. 4 (2012), no. 2, 121– 135.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 365 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 365, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 365, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 365, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 365, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

11 Z. Chang, Y. Sun, T.Y. Wu and M. Guizani, Scratch Analysis Tool (SAT): A Modern Scratch Project Analysis Tool based on ANTLR to Assess Computational Thinking Skills. 2018 14th International Wireless Communications & Mobile Computing Conference. 2018; pp. 950–955.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 366 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 366, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 366, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 366, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

12 J. W. Creswell, Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches, 3rd ed., SAGE publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2012.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 367 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 367, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

13 A. Czismadia, P. Curzon, M. Dorling, S. Humphreys, T. Ng, C. Selby and J. Woollard, Computational thinking. A guide for teachers. 2015. available at https://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/6695/original.pdfGoogle Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 368 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 368, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 368, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 368, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

14 P. Denning, Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking, Commun. ACM 60 (2017), no. 6, 33– 39.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 369 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 369, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 369, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 369, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

15 B. Ericson and T. McKlin, Effective and sustainable computing summer camps. The 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. New York, NY: ACM. 2012; pp. 289–394.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 370 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 370, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 370, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 370, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 370, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

16 D. Franklin, P. Conrad, B. Boe, K. Nilsen, C. Hill, M. Len, . . . R. Waite, Assessment of computer science learning in a Scratch-based outreach program. The 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. New York, NY: ACM. 2013; pp. 371–376.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 371 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 371, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 371, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 371, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 371, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 371, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 371, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 371, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

17 D. Franklin, G. Skifstad, R. Rolock, I. Mehrotra, V. Ding, A. Hansen, . . . D. Harlow, Using upper-elementary student performance to understand conceptual sequencing in a blocks-based curriculum. The 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. New York, NY: ACM. 2017; pp. 231–236.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 372 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 372, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 372, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 372, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 372, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 372, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 372, Sentence 6 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 372, Sentence 7 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

18 A. Funke and K. Geldreich, Measurement and visualization of programming processes of primary school students in Scratch, The 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education, ACM, New York, NY, 2017, pp. 101– 102.Crossref Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 373 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 373, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

19 A. Funke, K. Geldreich, and P. Hubwieser, Analysis of Scratch projects of an introductory programming course for primary school students. Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Athens, Greece. 2017.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 374 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 374, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 374, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 374, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

20 B. Garneli, M. Giannakos and K. Chorianopoulos, Computing education in K–12 schools. A review of the literature. Paper presented at the 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Tallinn, Estonia. 2015.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 375 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 375, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 375, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 375, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 375, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

21 S. Grover and S. Basu, Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and boolean logic. The 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. York, NY: ACM. 2017;267–272.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 376 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 376, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 376, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 376, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 376, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

22 S. Grover, M. Bienkowski, S. Basu, M. Eagle, N. Diana and J. Stamper, A framework for hypothesis-driven approaches to support data-driven learning analytics in measuring computational thinking in block-based programming. The Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference. New York, NY: ACM. 2017, pp. 530–531.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 377 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 377, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 377, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 377, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 377, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

23 S. Grover and R. Pea, Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field, Educational Researcher 42 (2013), no. 1, 38– 43.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 378 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 378, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 378, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

24 S. Grover and R. Pea, Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come, Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school ( S. Sentance, E. Barendsen, and C. Schulte, eds.), Bloomsbury Academic, London, 2018, pp. 19– 37.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 379 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 379, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 379, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

25 F. J. Gutierrez, J. Simmonds, N. Hitschfeld, C. Casanova, C. Sotomayor and V. Peña-Araya, Assessing software development skills among K–6 learners in a project-based workshop with scratch. 2018 ACM/IEEE 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training. 2018, pp. 98–107.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 380 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 380, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 380, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 380, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

26 N. R. Haddaway, P. Woodcock, B. Macura and A. Collins, Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews, Conserv. Biol. 29 (2015), no. 6, 1596– 1605.Wiley Online Library CAS PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 381 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 381, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 381, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 381, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 381, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

27 F. Heintz, L. Mannila and T. Färnqvist, A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K–12 education. 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. IEEE. 2016, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 382 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 382, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 382, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 382, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 382, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

28 T. C. Hsu, S. C. Chang and Y. T. Hung, How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature, Comput. Edu. 126 (2018), 296– 310.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 383 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 383, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 383, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 383, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

29 M. Israel, Q. M. Wherfel, S. Shehab, E. A. Ramos, A. Metzger and G. C. Reese, Assessing collaborative computing: Development of the collaborative-computing observation instrument (C-COI), Comput. Sci. Edu. 26 (2016), no. 2–3, 208– 233.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 384 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 384, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 384, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 384, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 384, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 384, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

30 F. Ke, An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing, Comput. Edu. 73 (2014), 26– 39.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 385 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 385, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 385, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 385, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

31 C. Lewis, How programming environment shapes perception, learning and goals. The 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. New York, NY: ACM. 2010, pp. 346–350.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 386 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 386, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 386, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 386, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 386, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

32 C. Lewis and N. Shah, How equity and inequity can emerge in pair programming. The eleventh annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research. New York, NY: ACM. 2015, pp. 41–50.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 387 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 387, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 387, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 387, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 387, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

33 K. Lonka, M. Kruskopf and L. Hietajärvi, Competence 5: Information and communication technology (ICT). Phenomenal learning from Finland ( K. Lonka, ed.), Edita, Keuruu, Finland, 2018, pp. 129– 150.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 388 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 388, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 388, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 388, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

34 S. Y. Lye and J. H. L. Koh, Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K–12? Comput. Human. Behav. 41 (2014), 51– 61.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 389 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 389, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 389, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 389, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 389, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 389, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

35 A. Mackey and S. M. Gass, Second language research, Methodology and design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2005.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 390 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 390, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

36 B. Mako Hill, A. Monroy-Hernández and K. R. Olson, Responses to remixing on a social media sharing website. Paper presented at the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington, D.C. 2010.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 391 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 391, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 391, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

37 J. Maloney, K. Peppler, Y. B. Kafai, M. Resnick and N. Rusk, Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. The 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. New York, NY: ACM. 2008, pp. 367– 371.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 392 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 392, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 392, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 392, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 392, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

38 J. Maloney, M. Resnick, N. Rusk, B. Silverman and E. Eastmond, The Scratch programming language and environment, ACM Trans. Comput. Edu. 10 (2010), no. 4, 1– 15.Crossref Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 393 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 393, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 393, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 393, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 393, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 393, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

39 L. Mannila, V. Dagiene, B. Demo, N. Grgurina, C. Mirolo, L. Rolandsson and A. Settle, Computational thinking in K–9 education. Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference. New York, NY: ACM, 2014, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 394 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 394, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 394, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 394, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

40 R. E. Mayer, Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction, Am. Psychol. 59 (2004), no. 1, 14– 19.Crossref PubMed Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 395 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 395, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 395, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 395, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 395, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 395, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

41 O. Meerbaum-Salant, M. Armoni and M. Ben-Ari, Habits of programming in Scratch. The 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. New York, NY: ACM. 2011, pp. 168–172.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 396 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 396, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 396, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 396, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 396, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

42 O. Meerbaum-Salant, M. Armoni and M. Ben-Ari, Learning computer science concepts with Scratch, Computer Sci. Educ. 23 (2013), no. 3, 239– 264.Crossref Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 397 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 397, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 397, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 397, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 397, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

43 G. Michaelson, Teaching programming with computational and informational thinking, J. Pedagog. Dev. 5 (2015), no. 1, 51– 66.Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 398 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 398, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 398, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 398, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 398, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 398, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

44 J. Moreno-León, G. Robles and M. Román-González, Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of Scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking, Revista de Educación a Distancia 15 (2015), no. 46, 1– 23.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 399 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 399, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 399, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

45 J. Moreno-León, G. Robles and M. Román-González, Towards data-driven learning paths to develop computational thinking with Scratch. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing. 2017.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 400 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 400, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 400, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 400, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

46 G. Ota, Y. Morimoto and H. Kato, Ninja code village for Scratch: Function samples/function analyser and automatic assessment of computational thinking concepts. Paper presented at the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), Cambridge, England. 2016.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 401 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 401, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 401, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 401, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

47 S. J. Papadakis, M. Kalogiannakis, V. Orfanakis and N. Zaranis, The appropriateness of scratch and app inventor as educational environments for teaching introductory programming in primary and secondary education, Int.. J. Web-Based Learn. Teach. Technol. 12 (2017), no. 4, 58– 77.Crossref Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 402 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 402, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 402, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 402, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 402, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 402, Sentence 5 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

48 M. Román-González, J. Moreno-León and G. Robles, Combining assessment tools for a comprehensive evaluation of computational thinking interventions, Comput. Thinking Edu. ( S. C. Kong and H. Abelson, eds.), Springer, Singapore, 2019, pp. 79– 98.Crossref Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 403 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 403, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 403, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 403, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 403, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

49 L. Seiter, Using SOLO to classify the programming responses of primary grade students. The 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. New York, NY: ACM. 2015, pp. 540–545.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 404 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 404, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 404, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 404, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 404, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

50 L. Seiter and B. Foreman, Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. The 9th annual international ACM conference on International computing education research. New York, NY: ACM. 2013, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 405 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 405, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 405, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 405, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 405, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

51 A. Settle and L. Perkovic, Computational Thinking across the Curriculum: A Conceptual Framework. 2010. Technical Reports, Paper 13, available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.910.8295%26rep=rep1%26type=pdfGoogle Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 406 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 406, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 406, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 406, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

52 N. Shah, C. Lewis and R. Caires, Analyzing equity in collaborative learning situations: A comparative case study in elementary computer science. The 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences. 2014, pp. 495–502.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 407 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 407, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 407, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 407, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 407, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

53 V. J. Shute, C. Sun and J. Asbell-Clarke, Demystifying computational thinking, Edu. Res. Rev. 22 (2017), 142– 158.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 408 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 408, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 408, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 408, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 408, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

54 B. Standl, Solving everyday challenges in a computational way of thinking, Informatics in schools: Focus on learning programming. ISSEP 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science ( V. Dagienė and A. Hellas, eds.), 10696, Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 180– 191.Crossref Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 409 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 409, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 409, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 409, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 409, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

55 J. M. Sáez-López, M. Román-González and E. Vázquez-Cano, Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools, Comput. Edu. 97 (2016), 129– 141.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 410 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 410, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 410, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 410, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

56 M. Tedre and P. Denning, The long quest for computational thinking. 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. New York, NY: ACM; 2016, pp. 120–129.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 411 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 411, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 411, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 411, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

57 J. Tsan, F. J. Rodríguez, K. E. Boyer and C. Lynch, “I think we should…”: Analyzing elementary students’ collaborative processes for giving and taking suggestions. The 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. New York, NY: ACM. 2018, pp. 622–627.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 412 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 412, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 412, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 412, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 412, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

58 J. Voogt, P. Fisser, J. Good, P. Mishra and A. Yadav, Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice, Educ. Information Technol. 20 (2015), no. 4, 715– 728.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 413 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 413, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 413, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 413, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 413, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

59 C. Wangenheim, J. C. R. Hauck, M. F. Demetrio, R. Pelle, N. Cruz Alves, H. Barbosa and L. F. Azevedo, CodeMaster—Automatic assessment and grading of App Inventor and Snap! programs, Informatics in Education 7 (2018), no. 1, 117– 150.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 414 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 414, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 414, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

60 A. Wilson, T. Hainey and TM. Connolly, Evaluation of computer games developed by primary school children to gauge understanding of programming concepts. Paper presented at the 6th European Conference on Games-based Learning (ECGBL), Cork, Ireland. 2012.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 415 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 415, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 415, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 415, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 415, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

61 J. M. Wing, Computational thinking, Commun. ACM 49 (2006), no. 3, 33– 35.Crossref Web of Science®Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 416 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 416, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 416, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 416, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

62 J. M. Wing, A definition of computational thinking from Jeannette Wing, available at https://computinged.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/a-definition-of-computational-thinking-from-jeanette-wing/Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 417 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 417, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

63 I. Zur-Bargury, B. Pârv and D. Lanzberg, A nationwide exam as a tool for improving a new curriculum. The 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. New York, NY: ACM. 2013, pp. 267–272.Google Scholar

New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 418 0
No paragraph-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 418, Sentence 1 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 418, Sentence 2 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 418, Sentence 3 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.
New Thinking Partner Conversation New Conversation
Paragraph 418, Sentence 4 0
No sentence-level conversations. Start one.

DMU Timestamp: July 22, 2021 14:08

General Document Comments 0
New Thinking Partner Conversation Start a new Document-level conversation

Image
0 comments, 0 areas
add area
add comment
change display
Video
add comment

Quickstart: Commenting and Sharing

How to Comment
  • Click icons on the left to see existing comments.
  • Desktop/Laptop: double-click any text, highlight a section of an image, or add a comment while a video is playing to start a new conversation.
    Tablet/Phone: single click then click on the "Start One" link (look right or below).
  • Click "Reply" on a comment to join the conversation.
How to Share Documents
  1. "Upload" a new document.
  2. "Invite" others to it.

Logging in, please wait... Blue_on_grey_spinner