What influences computational thinking? A theoretical and empirical study based on the influence of learning engagement on computational thinking in higher education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As an important part of core competencies in the 21 st century, computational thinking has received a lot of attention from all over the world. In the field of higher education, cultivating the ability of computational thinking has become an important goal of teaching. Previous research has shown that students' learning engagement is related to partial dimensions within computational thinking. However, there was a lack of research on the overall relationship between learning engagement and computational thinking. Therefore, this study aims at constructing an overall relationship model between learning engagement and computational thinking to examine the influence of three dimensions of learning engagement on the five dimensions of computational thinking. The participants were 341 freshmen from central China. The results show that compared with behavioral engagement, both emotional engagement and cognitive engagement had a stronger predictive power for computational thinking. In addition, the learning environment played a significant role in the relationship between learning engagement and computational thinking. On the whole, when compared with traditional multimedia classrooms, the relationship between learning engagement and computational thinking in smart classrooms was closer. A theoretical and empirical study of the relationship between learning engagement and computational thinking presents researchers and education practitioners with a method to improve students' computational thinking by building a learning environment and designing pedagogy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".