MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206410723 · doi:10.1109/te.2021.3105938

Using Structural Equation Modeling to Examine the Relationship Between Preservice Teachers’ Computational Thinking Attitudes and Skills

2021· article· en· W3206410723 on OpenAlexafffund
Maria Cutumisu, Catherine Adams, Florence Glanfield, Connie Yuen, Chang Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsStructural equation modelingNotationMathematics educationTest (biology)Coding (social sciences)PsychologyComputational thinkingReliability (semiconductor)MathematicsStatisticsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing interest of educational researchers in computational thinking (CT) has led to an expanding literature on assessments of CT skills and attitudes. However, few studies have examined whether CT attitudes influence CT skills. The present study examines the relationship between CT attitudes and CT skills for preservice teachers (PSTs). The Callysto CT test (CCTt) for Teachers was administered to$n\,\,=$105 PSTs to measure their CT attitudes and skills. Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationship of participants’ CT and problem-solving skills with their attitudes toward CT, technology, coding, and data. Findings revealed that CT attitudes predicted CT skills and provided the first step in exploring the validity and reliability of the CCTt instrument.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on EducationSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207