MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198198404 · doi:10.5539/jel.v10n5p76

Systematizing ICT Education Curriculum for Developing Computational Thinking: Case Studies of Curricula in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom

2021· article· en· W3198198404 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Satoshi Kusaka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumInformation and Communications TechnologyComputational thinkingCurriculum frameworkSociologyPedagogyCurriculum developmentPerspective (graphical)Social studiesEngineering ethicsMathematics educationPolitical sciencePsychologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) education has been actively implemented around the world recently. ICT curriculum in schools is intended to improve students’ programming-oriented thinking rather than to train them as programmers. The core of ICT education is ‘computational thinking’. Computational thinking is taking an approach to solving problems, designing systems and understanding human behaviour that draws on concepts. Various countries try to develop ICT curriculum based on this concept. However, unlike traditional subjects, the ICT curriculum has yet to create a unified structure. This research sheds light on the characteristics of ICT education curricula by comparing and contrasting curricula in the United Kingdom (UK), the United States and Australia. Finally, a common framework is proposed on the basis of the discussion. Furthermore, while ICT education is often addressed solely from the standpoint of science and technology, a social science perspective is needed. Therefore, the importance of social science in ICT education will also be clarified.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207