Assessing Computational Thinking in Engineering Education: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational thinking (CT) is an integrated part of engineering education due to the rapidly evolving global economy and the need for a workforce equipped with strong interdisciplinary skills, and an understanding of computing concepts. Assessment plays a critical role in finding out how teaching methods improve CT skills. We systematically reviewed 28 journal articles to analyze CT assessment in engineering education. The reviewed literature predominantly focused on specific engineering disciplines such as biology, mechanical, electrical, and software engineering among undergraduates, particularly first-year students. Among the assessment tools that were reviewed, ECTD is specially designed to assess CT skills in engineering. This comprehensive temporal research showed that scholarly work with an explicit focus on the assessment of CT skills has been emerging mainly in the last five years. The study provides a broad overview of the current state of research and represents an important opportunity for further scientific exploration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it