Analysis of students' computational thinking skills in science and mathematics subject in fifth grade of elementary school
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2025738Keywords:
computational thinking, decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, design algorithms, elementary school, science, mathematicsAbstract
Introduction: This study aimed to explore the components of computational thinking skills at the End of Term Summative Assessment (ETSA) and End of Year Summative Assessment (EYSA) questions as well as the profile of computational thinking skills in science and mathematics subjects of fifth-grade students in Surakarta City, Indonesia.
Method: This was a qualitative study with a case study approach. Data were collected through analysis of ETSA and EYSA documents, which include test instruments and student answers. Sampling was carried out using purposive sampling by considering the level of cognitive development of students.
Results: The results showed that each ETSA question included components of decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithm design. Meanwhile, each EYSA question included different components from one question to another. The profile of students' computational thinking skills showed variation in the success of answering questions, with significant differences between components and types of questions.
Conclusions: This study concludes that ETSA questions are more consistent in covering all components of computational thinking skills compared to EYSA. The profile of student skills varies, with some components showing lower results. The implications of these findings include the need for adjustments in the curriculum and teaching methods to emphasize more evenly distributed mastery of computational thinking skills. Further research should explore the causes of variation in mastery of these skills and develop more comprehensive evaluation instruments.
References
1. Su J, Yang W. A systematic review of integrating computational thinking in early childhood education. Comput Educ Open. 2023;4(August 2022):100122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100122
2. Yilmaz R, Karaoglan Yilmaz FG. The effect of generative artificial intelligence (AI)-based tool use on students’ computational thinking skills, programming self-efficacy and motivation. Comput Educ Artif Intell. 2023;4(June):100147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100147
3. Triantafyllou SA, Sapounidis T, Farhaoui Y. Gamification and Computational Thinking in Education: A systematic literature review. Salud, Cienc y Tecnol - Ser Conf. 2024;3(March). DOI: https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2024.582
4. Kumala FN, Yasa AD, Wibawa AP, Hidayah L. Application of the hybrid learning project STEAMER in science courses for prospective elementary school teachers: Computational thinking and creative thinking. Multidiscip Sci J. 2024;6(6):1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2024113
5. De Prada E, Mareque M, Pino-Juste M. Self-Esteem among University Students: How It Can Be Improved through Teamwork Skills. Educ Sci. 2024;14(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010108
6. S C. International Journal of Heat and Technology: Foreword. Int J Heat Technol. 2021;26(1).
7. Gong D, Yang HH, Cai J. Exploring the key influencing factors on college students’ computational thinking skills through flipped-classroom instruction. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2020;17(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00196-0
8. Sırakaya DA. Investigating computational thinking skills based on different variables and determining the predictor variables. Particip Educ Res. 2020;7(2):102–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17275/per.20.22.7.2
9. Rodríguez-García JD, Moreno-León J, Román-González M, Robles G. LearningML: A tool to foster computational thinking skills through practical artificial intelligence projects. Rev Educ a Distancia. 2020;20(63). DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/red.410121
10. Chen P, Yang D, Metwally AHS, Lavonen J, Wang X. Fostering computational thinking through unplugged activities: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Int J STEM Educ. 2023;10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00434-7
11. Alfaro-Ponce B, Patiño A, Sanabria-Z J. Components of computational thinking in citizen science games and its contribution to reasoning for complexity through digital game-based learning: A framework proposal. Cogent Educ. 2023;10(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2191751
12. Ching YH, Hsu YC. Educational Robotics for Developing Computational Thinking in Young Learners: A Systematic Review. TechTrends. 2024;68(3):423–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-023-00841-1
13. Verawati NNSP, Rijal K, Grendis NWB. Examining STEM Students’ Computational Thinking Skills through Interactive Practicum Utilizing Technology. Int J Essent Competencies Educ. 2023;2(1):54–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36312/ijece.v2i1.1360
14. Abdulrasool AA, Aljibory MW, Abbas AK, Al-Silbi MM. A Computational Study of Perforated Helical Tube Inserted in a Double Pipe Heat Exchanger with Fluid Injection. Int J Heat Technol. 2023;41(1):35–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/ijht.410104
15. EC S, EN M, RNO M, MAB G, LGM O, AU B. Exergetic Assessment and Computational Modeling of a Solar-Powered Directly-Coupled Air Conditioning System. An Appl Libr Cool Int J Heat Technol [Internet]. 2023;31(41). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/ijht.410408
16. Amiri EO. Application of computational experiments based on the response surface methodology for studying of the recirculation zone in the Y-shaped channel. Math Model Eng Probl. 2018;5(3):243–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/mmep.050317
17. Nouhaila O, Hassane M. Analyzing the Impact of Cracks on Exhaust Manifold Performance: A Computational Fluid Dynamics Study. Int J Heat Technol. 2024;42(2):475–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/ijht.420213
18. Benakli N, Kostadinov B, Satyanarayana A, Singh S. Introducing computational thinking through hands-on projects using R with applications to calculus, probability and data analysis. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol. 2017;48(3):393–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1254296
19. Wing. Computational thinking benefits society. 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in Computing. In: Computing Handbook: Two-Volume Set. 2014.
20. Hsu TC, Chang SC, Hung YT. How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Comput Educ. 2018;126(June):296–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
21. Tsai MJ, Liang JC, Hsu CY. The Computational Thinking Scale for Computer Literacy Education. J Educ Comput Res. 2021;59(4):579–602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120972356
22. del Olmo-Muñoz J, Cózar-Gutiérrez R, González-Calero JA. Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Comput Educ. 2020;150(September 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103832
23. Tang X, Yin Y, Lin Q, Hadad R, Zhai X. Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Comput Educ. 2020;148(Mc 147). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
24. Sutejo, Refdinal, Wakhinuddin, Ersan Fadrial Y, Yunefri Y. Ready to Master Data Structures? Discover How Eduplay and Problem-Based Learning Elevate Computational Thinking and Real-World Problem Solving. Data Metadata. 2024;3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2024540
25. Helsa Y, Turmudi, Juandi D. TPACK-based hybrid learning model design for computational thinking skills achievement in mathematics. J Math Educ. 2023;14(2):225–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i2.pp225-252
26. Liu X, Wang X, Xu K, Hu X. Effect of Reverse Engineering Pedagogy on Primary School Students’ Computational Thinking Skills in STEM Learning Activities. J Intell. 2023;11(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11020036
27. Huang SY, Tarng W, Ou KL. Effectiveness of AR Board Game on Computational Thinking and Programming Skills for Elementary School Students. Systems. 2023;11(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11010025
28. Rukayah, Daryanto J, Ragil I, Atmojo W, Ardiansyah R, Saputri DY, et al. Augmented reality media development in STEAM learning in elementary schools. Ingénierie des Systèmes d ’ Inf. 2022;27(3):463–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/isi.270313
29. Wen Y, Wu Y-J, Qi G, Guo S-C, Spector JM, Chelliah S, et al. Expanding global horizons through technology enhanced language learning. Irish Educational Studies. 2021. 1–229 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7579-2
30. Ottenbreit-Leftwich A, Kimmons R. The K-12 Educational Technology Handbook. EdTech Books; 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59668/7
31. Piatti A, Adorni G, El-Hamamsy L, Negrini L, Assaf D, Gambardella L, et al. The CT-cube: A framework for the design and the assessment of computational thinking activities. Comput Hum Behav Reports. 2022;5:100166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100166
32. Ashour AF. Design responsibility and sustainability in education. Int J Des Nat Ecodynamics. 2020;15(1):129–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/ijdne.150117
33. Zhang LC, Nouri J. A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Comput Educ. 2019;141(July). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
34. Lim BL, Chen CJ. Computational Thinking (Algorithms) Through Unplugged Programming Activities: Exploring Upper Primary Students’ Learning Experiences. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci. 2021;11(14):384–403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i14/8946
35. Dagiene V, Sentance S, Stupuriene G. Developing a Two-Dimensional Categorization System for Educational Tasks in Informatics. Inform. 2017;28(1):23–44.
36. Brackmann CP, Moreno-León J, Román-González M, Casali A, Robles G, Barone D. Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. ACM Int Conf Proceeding Ser. 2017;(November):65–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137069
37. Fagerlund J. Teaching, learning and assessing computational thinking through programming with Scratch in primary schools. JYU dissertations. 2021.
38. Kemendikbudristek. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 032/H/KR/2024. 2024. 1–2042 p.
39. Bocconi S, Chioccariello A, Kampylis P, Dagiene V, Wastiau P, Engelhardt K, et al. Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education: state of play and practices from computing education. 2022. 138 p.
40. Furidha BW. Comprehension of the descriptive qualitative research method: A critical assessment of the literature. ACITYA WISESA J Multidiscip Res. 2023;2(4):1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56943/jmr.v2i4.443
41. Zakwandi R, Istiyono E. A framework for assessing computational thinking skills in the physics classroom: study on cognitive test development. SN Soc Sci. 2023;3(3):1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00633-7
42. Fried D, Legay A, Ouaknine J, Vardi MY. Sequential Relational Decomposition. Log Methods Comput Sci. 2022;18(1):37:1-37:29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46298/lmcs-18(1:37)2022
43. Boom KD, Bower M, Siemon J, Arguel A. Relationships between computational thinking and the quality of computer programs. Educ Inf Technol. 2022;27(6):8289–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10921-z
44. Alordiah CO, Oji J. Theoretical Sampling Strategies in Qualitative Interviews: Enhancing Data Richness and Theoretical Saturation. NIU J Soc Sci. 2024;10(2):181–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58709/niujss.v10i2.1882
45. Agbo FJ, Okpanachi LO, Ocheja P, Oyelere SS, Sani G. How can unplugged approach facilitate novice students’ understanding of computational thinking? An exploratory study from a Nigerian university. Think Ski Creat [Internet]. 2024;51:101458. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1871187123002250 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101458
46. Asbell-Clarke J, Rowe E, Almeda V, Edwards T, Bardar E, Gasca S, et al. The development of students’ computational thinking practices in elementary- and middle-school classes using the learning game, Zoombinis. Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2021;115:106587. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563220303344 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106587
47. Labusch A, Eickelmann B, Vennemann M. Computational Thinking Education [Internet]. Computatio. Singapore: Springer; 2019. 65–78 p. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_5
48. Anderson ND. A Call for Computational Thinking in Undergraduate Psychology. Psychol Learn Teach [Internet] [Internet]. 2016;15(3):226–34. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1475725716659252 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659252
49. Dagienė V, Sentance S, G S. Developing a Two-Dimensional Categorization System for Educational Tasks in Informatics. Informatica [Internet]. 2017;28(1):23–44. Available from: https://informatica.vu.lt/doi/10.15388/Informatica.2017.119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatica.2017.119
50. Shute VJ, Sun C, Asbell-Clarke J. Demystifying computational thinking. Educ Res Rev [Internet]. 2017;22:142–158. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1747938X17300350 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
51. Parker MC, Kao YSS, Stehberger D, Franklin D, Krause S, Richardson D. Development and Preliminary Validation of the Assessment of Computing for Elementary Students (ACES). In: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education [Internet]. New York, NY: ACM; 2021. p. 10–16. Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3408877.3432376 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432376
52. Román-González M, Pérez-González J-C, Jiménez-Fernández C. Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Comput Hum Behav [Internet]. 2017;72:678–691. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0747563216306185 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
53. Tran Y. Computational Thinking Equity in Elementary Classrooms: What Third-Grade Students Know and Can Do. J Educ Comput Res [Internet] [Internet]. 2019;57(1):3–31. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0735633117743918 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117743918
54. Palts T, Pedaste M. Tasks for Assessing Skills of Computational Thinking. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2017. p. 367. Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3059009.3072999 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3059009.3072999
55. Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Bandung: CV. Alfabeta; 2019.
56. Bujuri DA. Analisis Perkembangan Kognitif Anak Usia Dasar dan Implikasinya dalam Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar. LITERASI (Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan) [Internet] [Internet]. 2018;9(1):37. Available from: https://ejournal.almaata.ac.id/index.php/LITERASI/article/view/720 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21927/literasi.2018.9(1).37-50
57. Weintrop D, Rutstein D, Bienkowski M, McGee S. Assessment of Computational Thinking [Internet]. Computatio. Computational Thinking in Education. New York: Routledge; 2021. 90–111 p. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781003102991/chapters/10.4324/9781003102991-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003102991-6
58. Sun L, Hu L, Zhou D. Improving 7th-graders’ computational thinking skills through unplugged programming activities: A study on the influence of multiple factors. Think Ski Creat [Internet]. 2021;42:100926. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100926 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100926
59. Ezeamuzie NO, Leung JS. Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature. J Educ Comput Res [Internet]. 2022;60(2):481–511. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211033158 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211033158
60. Nordby SK, Bjerke AH, Mifsud L. Computational thinking in the primary mathematics classroom: A systematic review. Digit Exp Math Educ [Internet]. 2022;8(1):27–49. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40751-022-00102-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-022-00102-5
61. Ogegbo AA, Ramnarain U. A systematic review of computational thinking in science classrooms. Stud Sci Educ [Internet]. 2022;58(2):203–30. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057267.2021.1963580#abstract DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1963580
62. Salwadila T, Hapizah H. Computational thinking ability in mathematics learning of exponents in grade IX. Infin J [Internet]. 2024;13(2):441–56. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v13i2.p441-456 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22460/infinity.v13i2.p441-456
63. Korkmaz Ö, Çakir R, Özden MY. A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Comput Human Behav [Internet]. 2017;72:558–69. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
64. Doleck T, Bazelais P, Lemay DJ, Saxena A, Basnet RB. Algorithmic thinking, cooperativity, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving: exploring the relationship between computational thinking skills and academic performance. J Comput Educ. 2017;4:355–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0090-9
65. Kwon K, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT, Brush TA, Jeon M, Yan G. Integration of problem-based learning in elementary computer science education: effects on computational thinking and attitudes. Educ Technol Res Dev [Internet]. 2021;69:2761–87. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-021-10034-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10034-3
66. Mukhibin A, Herman T, Aulia LS, Firdaus H. Integrating Computational Thinking in STEM Learning: An Effort to Improve Students’ Problem-Solving Skills. Mosharafa J Pendidik Mat [Internet]. 2024;13(1):49–62. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.31980/mosharafa.v13i1.1975 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31980/mosharafa.v13i1.1975
67. Susiani TS, Salimi M, Ngatman, Hidayah R, Suhartono. STEAM in Art Education Course: Students Perception. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Innovation and Quality Education. 2020. p. 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3452144.3452266
68. Sapriati A, Rahayu U, Sausan I, Sekarwinahyu M. The Impact of Inquiry-Based Learning on Students’ Critical Thinking in Biology Education Programs within Open and Distance Learning Systems. J Pendidik IPA Indones [Internet]. 2024;13(3):367–76. Available from: https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jpii/article/view/5789/1315 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15294/7sty9026
69. Anam RS, Gumilar S, Handayani M. The effects of teaching with real, virtual, and real-virtual experimentation modes on conceptual knowledge and science process skills among sixth-grade primary school students: a case study on concepts of electricity. Educ 3-13 [Internet]. 2023;53(3):393–407. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004279.2023.2192224 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2023.2192224
70. Anam RS, Widodo A, Sopandi W. Teachers, pre-service teachers, and students understanding about the heat conduction. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series [Internet]. IOP Publishing; 2019. p. 022012. Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022012/pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/2/022012
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Idam Ragil Widianto Atmojo, Fadhil Purnama Adi, Matsuri, Moh Salimi, Lilia Halim, Roslinawati Mohd Roslan, Dwi Yuniasih Saputri, Devira Nur Pratama, Roy Ardiansyah, Fajar Danur Isnantyo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
