Abstract
This study explores the influence of schools’ general characteristics, and their information and communication technology (ICT) capabilities on students’ computational thinking. The computational thinking achievements of 31,823 students who participated in a large-scale comparative study in 1412 schools and across nine countries/regions were analyzed using supervised machine learning. Five classification rules were triangulated to determine how 22 schools’ general characteristics and their ICT capabilities predicted students’ computational thinking achievements. Data analysis showed no predictive relationship between schools’ ICT capabilities and computational thinking. However, some classification rules predicted higher computational thinking achievement for students from affluent schools. The discussion amplifies the need for proper incorporation of ICT in schools with recommendations for more research on the nuanced relationship between schools’ characteristics and computational thinking development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data supporting this study's findings are available for free and can be accessed from the ICILS-2018 database [https://www.iea.nl/data-tools/repository/icils].
References
Agbo, F. J., Oyelere, S. S., Suhonen, J., & Tukiainen, M. (2022). Design, development, and evaluation of a virtual reality game-based application to support computational thinking. Educational Technology Research and Development,71(2), 505–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10161-5
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.learningandleading-digital.com/learning_leading/20110304?pm=2&pg=22#pg22
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education - Implications for policy and practice. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/792158
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Vol. 1, pp. 1–25). http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf
Bull, G., Garofalo, J., & Hguyen, N. R. (2020). Thinking about computational thinking. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,36(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1694381
Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/424545/
Denner, J., Campe, S., & Werner, L. (2019). Does computer game design and programming benefit children? A meta-synthesis of research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education,19(3), 19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277565
Ezeamuzie, N. O. (2023). Abstractive-based programming approach to computational thinking: Discover, extract, create, and assemble. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(3), 605–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221134423
Ezeamuzie, N. O., & Leung, J. S. C. (2022). Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research,60(2), 481–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211033158
Ezeamuzie, N. O., Leung, J. S. C., Fung, D. C. L., & Ezeamuzie, M. N. (2024). Educational policy as predictor of computational thinking: A supervised machine learning approach. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4190891/v2
Ezeamuzie, N. O., Leung, J. S. C., Garcia, R., & Ting, F. S. T. (2022). Discovering computational thinking in everyday problem solving: A multiple case study of route planning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,38(6), 1779–1796. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12720
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Duckworth, D., & Friedman, T. (2019). IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018: Assessment framework. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19389-8
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020a). IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018: Technical report. IEA. https://www.iea.nl/publications/technical-reports/icils-2018-technical-report
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Duckworth, D. (2020b). Preparing for life in a digital world: IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018 international report. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38781-5
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2013). International computer and information literacy study: Assessment framework. IEA. https://www.iea.nl/publications/assessment-framework/international-computer-and-information-literacy-study-2013
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. Holt.
Gerick, J. (2018). School level characteristics and students’ CIL in Europe – A latent class analysis approach. Computers & Education,120, 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.013
Gerick, J., Eickelmann, B., & Bos, W. (2017). School-level predictors for the use of ICT in schools and students’ CIL in international comparison. Large-Scale Assessments in Education,5(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-017-0037-7
Grover, S., Jackiw, N., & Lundh, P. (2019). Concepts before coding: Non-programming interactives to advance learning of introductory programming concepts in middle school. Computer Science Education,29(2–3), 106–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1568955
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher,42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12463051
Guzdial, M. (2008). Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,51(8), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1378704.1378713
Hew, K. F., Hu, X., Qiao, C., & Tang, Y. (2020). What predicts student satisfaction with MOOCs: A gradient boosting trees supervised machine learning and sentiment analysis approach. Computers & Education,145, 103724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103724
Hsu, T.-C., Chang, S.-C., & Hung, Y.-T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education,126, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
Jin, H.-Y., & Cutumisu, M. (2023). Predicting pre-service teachers’ computational thinking skills using machine learning classifiers. Education and Information Technologies,28(9), 11447–11467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11642-7
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology, Research and Development,45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299613
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development,48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02300500
Knuth, D. E. (1974). Computer science and its relation to mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly,81(4), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1974.11993556
Li, W., & Yang, W. (2023). Promoting children’s computational thinking: A quasi-experimental study of web-mediated parent education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,39(5), 1564–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12818
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior,41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In A. Clear & R. Lister (Eds.), Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (pp. 1–29). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science,26(1–2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003088013286
McKnight, K., O’Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016). Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,48(3), 194–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1175856
Mikheeva, E., & Meyer, S. (2020). IEA international computer and information literacy study 2018: User guide for the international database. IEA. https://www.iea.nl/publications/user-guides/icils-2018-user-guide-international-database
Nardelli, E. (2019). Do we really need computational thinking? Communications of the ACM,62(2), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231587
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development,68(1), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). PISA 2021 mathematics framework (draft). OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/sitedocument/PISA-2021-mathematics-framework.pdf
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Pelgrum, W. (2008). School practices and conditions for pedagogy and ICT. In N. Law, W. J. Pelgrum, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Pedagogy and ICT use: In schools around the world findings from the IEA sites 2006 study (pp. 67–120). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8928-2_4
Popat, S., & Starkey, L. (2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education,128, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.005
Rizvi, S., Rienties, B., & Khoja, S. A. (2019). The role of demographics in online learning; A decision tree based approach. Computers & Education,137, 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.001
Romero, C., López, M.-I., Luna, J.-M., & Ventura, S. (2013). Predicting students’ final performance from participation in on-line discussion forums. Computers & Education,68, 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.009
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Viveros, B. S. (2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology,111(5), 764–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000314
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Viveros, B. S. (2020). A meta-analysis of teaching and learning computer programming: Effective instructional approaches and conditions. Computers in Human Behavior,109, 106349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106349
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/
Shih, P.-C., Muñoz, D., & Sánchez, F. (2006). The effect of previous experience with information and communication technologies on performance in a Web-based learning program. Computers in Human Behavior,22(6), 962–970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.016
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review,22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Standl, B. (2017). Solving everyday challenges in a computational way of thinking. In V. Dagienė & A. Hellas (Eds.), Informatics in schools: Focus on learning programming (pp. 180–191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71483-7_15
Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2022). Programming attitudes predict computational thinking: Analysis of differences in gender and programming experience. Computers, Education,181, 104457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104457
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education,94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study. Review of Educational Research,81(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361
Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education,148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
Tedre, M., & Denning, P. J. (2016). The long quest for computational thinking. In J. Sheard & C. S. Montero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 120–129). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999542
Tondeur, J., van Keer, H., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). ICT integration in the classroom: Challenging the potential of a school policy. Computers & Education,51(1), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.05.003
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology,25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Witten, I. H., Frank, E., Hall, M. A., & Pal, C. J. (2016). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (4th ed.). Morgan Kaufmann.
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education,141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ezeamuzie, N.O. Influence of school characteristics on computational thinking: A supervised machine learning approach. Educ Inf Technol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12644-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12644-9