MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794896411 · doi:10.5539/ies.v11n4p29

Defining a New 21st Century Skill-Computational Thinking: Concepts and Trends

2018· article· en· W2794896411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Halil İbrahim Haseski, Ulaş İLİÇ, Ufuk Tuğtekin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational thinkingCritical systems thinkingManagement scienceCritical thinkingMathematics educationPsychologyLateral thinkingComputer scienceEpistemologyCreative thinkingSocial psychologyCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational Thinking is a skill that guides the 21th century individual in the problems experienced during daily life and it has an ever-increasing significance. Multifarious definitions were attempted to explain the concept of Computational Thinking. However, it was determined that there was no consensus on this matter in the literature and several different concepts were mentioned in the definitions found in the literature. It was considered that this fact made it difficult to understand the concept of Computational Thinking. To establish a more comprehensive approach, the present study aimed to identify the concepts that are included in the Computational Thinking definitions that were presented in previous studies. It also aimed to reveal trends in the identified concepts throughout the years. As a result of the search, a total of 59 definitions were identified and a content analysis was conducted on these definitions. Analysis results demonstrated that Computational Thinking was defined based on several concepts such as problem solving, technology, thinking, individual and social qualities. Furthermore, it was determined that statements on thinking were prominent before 2006, and today, emphasis on problem solving and technology became more significant. It was considered that the present study would contribute to a better understanding of the Computational Thinking concept. At the end of the study, certain suggestions were presented for further research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations102
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207