PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026ACM Transactions on Computing Education0 citations

Computational Thinking in ICILS 2023: Analyzing the Construct and Its Antecedent- and Process-Level Predictors

View Full Paper
JVJan VahrenholdUniversity of MünsterJNJan NiemannPaderborn UniversityKDK DrosselPaderborn University

Key Points

  • The aim is to analyze the construct of computational thinking and identify its predictors using ICILS 2023 data.
  • Conducted structured deductive content analyses comparing ICILS 2023 items and those from established frameworks.
  • Mapped ICILS data across various computational thinking frameworks and Bloom's revised taxonomy.
  • Performed linear regression analyses on educational contexts providing CT performance and predictor data.
  • ICILS 2023 CT items correspond to existing frameworks, validating their utility for comparative research.
  • No dominant predictor for CT performance was found, highlighting the complexity of influencing factors.
  • Associations observed with socio-economic status, gender, and home language align with prior research.

Abstract

Motivation and Objectives. Computational Thinking (CT) has become a central theme in K–12 Computer Science education. Over the past twenty years, multiple conceptualizations of CT have emerged, many forming the basis for assessment instruments. One such conceptualization was developed for the large-scale International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS), which assessed CT across 24 countries using representative sampling. The size and sampling quality of the ICILS data set allow for robust statistical analyses which in turn will be of interest to researchers and policy-makers alike. This study situates the ICILS 2023 conceptualization of CT within other established frameworks and conducts a secondary analysis of the ICILS 2023 CT data on non-cognitive antecedents and processes. Methods . Structured deductive content analyses compare the ICILS 2023 items with those from the Bebras Challenge on Informatics and Computational Thinking 13 ( Bebras ) and the Computational Thinking Test 55) ( CTt ), mapped across three CT frameworks—ICILS 28, Shute et al. 65 and Weintrop et al. 71—and aligned with Bloom's revised taxonomy 2. Linear regression analyses on the data of the 20 educational contexts that provided not only CT performance data but also a complete coverage of student data relative to the predictors of CT performance studied in prior work examine the predictive effect of non-cognitive factors on CT performance. Results . The qualitative analyses showed that the ICILS 2023 CT items can be mapped to existing frameworks. Conversely, items from both Bebras and CTt can be mapped to the ICILS framework. The distinct, partially overlapping profiles of the instruments across the frameworks as well as Bloom's taxonomy indicate that they are complementary in assessing CT, confirming and expanding prior comparisons of Bebras and CTt . The regression analyses indicate no single dominant predictor of CT performance. The association of socio-economic status, gender, or the home language was consistent with prior findings, predictors related to learning processes, however, vary across educational contexts. Discussion . Our results demonstrate that ICILS 2023 items can be mapped onto multiple established CT frameworks, supporting their broader validity and utility for comparative research. The findings of the regression analysis underscore the complex interplay of non-cognitive factors affecting CT and illustrate the significance of contextual interpretation within educational systems.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Vahrenhold et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fa8e3804f884e66b5309bfhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3813115
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper