International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No.

4
ISSN 2513-8359

Investigation of Computational Thinking in the Context of ICT and

Mobile Technologies

Didem Alsancak Sırakaya

Kırşehir Ahi Evran University

DOI: 10.21585/ijcses.v3i4.73

Abstract
This research aims to determine the change in students’ computational thinking skills according to their ICT and
mobile technology experience and frequency of use. The sample of the study, designed with the survey model,
consisted of 269 students attending a vocational school of higher education. Data were collected using the
Computational Thinking Scale and the Personal Information Form. Descriptive statistics, independent samples
t-test and one-way ANOVA were used in data analysis. According to results, it was determined that students’
computational thinking skills differs according to their internet experience, mobile device experience, mobile
internet experience and period of daily mobile Internet use, while no differences were found based on computer
experience, the number of times they checked their mobile devices a day and purpose of mobile technology usage.

Keywords: computational thinking, ICT experience, mobile technology experience

1. Introduction
The increase in the space that technology occupies in our lives in terms of volume and function brings about the
necessity to update the features that individuals should have (Sırakaya, 2019). Today, regardless of age, every
individual is expected to have basic computer skills. Kalelioğlu, Gülbahar and Kukul (2016) state that today, all
individuals should have some basic computational skills. Drawing attention to a similar topic, Kalelioğlu (2015)
and Sáez-López, Román-González and Vázquez-Cano Lopez (2016), emphasize that individuals in 21st century
should not only use technology but also produce technology. In this context, computational thinking skills come to
the forefront as among the important skills students should acquire. The concept of computational thinking skills
which gained popularity in 2006 with the research conducted by Wing, is essentially a concept that has been
discussed in the literature for many years. Wing (2006) pointed out that computational thinking is a necessary
competence for every individual.
Although it has been discussed for a long time, it can be argued that there is no consensus on the definition of
computational thinking (Grover & Pea, 2013; Demir & Seferoğlu, 2017). It is seen that similar definitions are
produced for the concept of computational thinking. Some of these definitions are based on computer sciences.
Korkmaz, Cakır and Özden (2017) and Wing (2008) point out that the concepts and applications that constitute
computational thinking are based on the basic concepts of computer science. Using computer science concepts,
Wing (2006) defines computational thinking as problem solving, systems design, and human behaviour analysis.
Similarly, Sengupta, Kinnebrew, Basu, Biswas and Clark (2013) state that computational thinking utilizes the
basic subjects and concepts found in computer sciences. In different definitions, computational thinking is
associated with concepts such as problem solving (Lye & Koh, 2014), algorithmic thinking (Barr and Stephenson,
2011; Lee et al., 2011) and abstraction (Wing, 2008). Kalelioğlu, Gülbahar and Kukul, (2016) identify three most
accepted components of computational thinking as abstraction, algorithmic thinking and problem solving. ISTE
(International Society for Technology in Education) (2019) examines computational thinking skills under the
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

categories of fragmentation, patterning, abstraction and algorithm. Shute et al. (2017) cite skills such as
fragmentation, abstraction, generalization, algorithmic design, debugging and iteration along with thinking and
acting as computational thinking skills. From a more general perspective, Pulimood, Pearson and Bates (2016)
describe the reasoning process in the solution of abstract problems as computational thinking.
For a better understanding of computational thinking and its concepts, the operational definitions are provided
along with its conceptual definition. In their operational definition that considers computational thinking as a
problem-solving process, ISTE and CSTA (Computer Science Teachers Association) state that computational
thinking includes, but not limited to, the following activities (ISTE, 2019):
• Re-formulating problems in order to solve them with computers and other tools.
• Organizing and analyzing data logically.
• Re-presenting data in manners of abstraction, such as models and simulations.
• Automating solutions through algorithmic thinking.
• Identifying, analyzing and implementing possible solutions to ensure the most effective and efficient
combination of steps and resources.
• Generalizing and transferring the problem-solving process to a wide range of problems.
In order to understand the concept of computational thinking more clearly, it may be useful to look at the process
from the reverse. In this context, it is useful to take the characteristics of individuals who have computational
thinking skills as a reference. Accordingly, individuals with computational thinking skills have the following
characteristics (Lee et al. 2011; Wing, 2006, 2008, 2011):
• Making problems solvable by using technological tools.
• Organizing and analyzing data logically.
• Making the data abstract.
• Developing solutions through algorithmic thinking.
• Identifying, analyzing and applying possible solutions and resources.
• Adapting the solution to different problems.
Computational thinking a key skill for the 21st century (Pérez-Marín, Hijón-Neira, Bacelo & Pizarro, 2018), is a
necessary skill for every individual just like literacy and basic mathematical skills (Wing, 2014). Educators are
researching how to ensure that students acquire computational thinking skill that is regarded to be highly important
(Wing, 2006). Many researchers suggest that computational thinking skill should be added to the curriculum in
order to ensure students are given an opportunity to acquire computational thinking skills (Juškevičienė &
Dagienė, 2018; Karal et al., 2017; Yadav et al., 2017). As a matter of fact, many countries include computational
thinking in their curricula in order to instruct students starting from early ages (Küçük & Şişman, 2017; Webb et
al., 2017; Wong & Cheung, 2018). It is aimed to improve students’ computational thinking skills through activities
such as courses, projects and competitions organized as a supplement to the curriculum. However, it is not clear
how to acquire and evaluate this skill, since the definition and limits of computational thinking skills are not clear
(Pérez-Marín et al., 2018; Werner, Denner, Campe & Kawamoto, 2012). In addition, the required level is not
achieved yet in terms of resources and informed teachers that are needed to ensure this skill is acquired by students
(Brackmann et al., 2016; Pérez-Marín et al., 2018). Literature review shows that different methods and tools are
used to develop computational thinking skills. Various methods such as computer-free activities (Takaoka,
Fukushima, Hirose & Hasegawa, 2014), block-based programming (Kalelioğlu, 2015; Yünkül et al., 2017; Oluk &
Korkmaz, 2016; Oluk, Korkmaz & Oluk, 2018), text-based programming (Alsancak-Sırakaya, 2019) and robotic
sets (Karaahmetoğlu & Korkmaz, 2019) are used for the development of computational thinking skills.
Although different tools are used in the development of computational thinking skills, it is remarkable that most of
these tools are technological. Technological tools such as computers, mobile devices, programming languages and
robotic sets play an important role in the process of acquiring computational skills. Pellas and Peroutseas (2016)
state that computer sciences are an important resource in the acquisition of computational thinking skills.
Similarly, in their studies, Yıldız Durak and Sarıtepeci (2018) report that experience in using information and
communication technologies (ICT) may influence computational thinking skills. Juškevičienė and Dagienė (2018)
state that research on the relationship between digital competence and computational thinking is needed. Based on
these, this study aims to determine the change in students’ computational thinking skills according to their
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

experience and frequency of ICT and mobile technology usage. For this purpose, answers to the following
sub-problems are be sought:
• Do students’ computational thinking skills significantly differ according to their experience in computer
and Internet use?
• Do students’ computational thinking skills significantly differ according to their experience in using
mobile technologies?
• Do students’ computational thinking skills significantly differ according to the frequency of their mobile
technology use?
• Do students’ computational thinking skills significantly differ according to the purpose of using mobile
technology?

2. Method
2.1 Research Design
Screening model was used in the study. Screening model reveals a group's attitudes, beliefs, thoughts,
expectations, attitudes, and characteristics (Creswell, 2012). Creswell (2012) defines screening model as
"quantitative research processes that researchers apply to a specific sample to define attitude, opinion, behavior or
characteristic features related to the universe". Generally, the aim of screening studies conducted with larger
sample groups compared to other types of research is to reveal the situation in question as is (Büyüköztürk, Kılıç
Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz & Demirel, 2008).

2.2 Universe and Sample

The universe of the study consisted of vocational school of higher education students at a state university and the
sample is composed of 269 students from a vocational college at the same state university. According to gender,
18.6% (50) of the participants were female and 81.4% (219) were male. Of these, 23% (62) were in their first year
and 77% (207) were in their second year. According to department, 31.6% (85) were students at Computer
Technologies, 48.3% (130) were studying Construction Technology, 20.1% (54) attended the Department of
Electricity and Energy. Convenient sampling method was used in determining the study group. In the convenient
sampling method, the researcher tries to reach the number of samples that is needed by starting with the
participants that he/she can reach most easily (Büyüköztürk et al., 2008). Ethical permit document has been
obtained from the educational institution that the students are affiliated with.

2.3 Data Collection and Data Collection Tools

The process of data collection began with informing participants verbally about the purpose of the study. Then,
data were collected from volunteer participants through data collection tools. The data collection tools used in this
study are described below:
Computational Thinking Scale: The Computational Thinking Scale developed by Korkmaz, Çakır and Özden
(2017) was used to determine the computational thinking skills of the participants. The scale, with a total of 29
items, is collected under 5 factors. The internal consistency coefficient of the whole scale was calculated as 0.822
and the internal consistency coefficients of the factors were stated as follows: Creativity (0.843), Algorithmic
thinking (0.869), Cooperativity (0.865), Critical thinking (0.784) and Problem solving (0.727). The reliability
analyses of the scale were re-performed with the data collected within the scope of this study. Accordingly, the
overall reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated to be 0.869 with the following internal consistency
coefficients for the factors: Creativity, 0.855; Algorithmic thinking, 0,913; Cooperativity, 0.77; Critical thinking,
0,818 and Problem solving, 0.817. Korkmaz, Çakır and Özden (2017) stated that the scale is a valid measurement
tool based on the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Personal Information Form: Personal Information Form prepared by the researchers was used to determine the
gender, department, school year, ICT experience, mobile technology experience, frequency of mobile technology
usage and purpose of mobile technology use. The form, which was prepared in accordance with the opinions of
two subject areas experts, consists of a total of 16 questions.
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

2.4 Data Analysis

Since there was a small amount of data loss (1%) in the responses to the scale items, mean substitution technique
was used based on the recommendation of Schumacker and Lomax (2004). Since the sample size was greater than
50, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Büyüköztürk, 2007) and Q-Q Plot graphs were used to determine whether the data
showed normal distribution or not. As a result of the test, it was found that the normal distribution value was not
statistically significant (p> .05) and the graphical analysis showed that the data showed normal distribution. For
this reason, data analysis included descriptive statistics along with parametric tests such as independent samples
t-test and one-way ANOVA. Levene test (variance homogeneity of groups) was taken into consideration in
determining which groups caused the difference as a result of ANOVA test. Since the variance was
homogeneously distributed in all variables (p> .05), LSD test was preferred (Büyüköztürk, 2007).

3. Results
3.1 Findings Related to Computer and Internet Experience
In order to determine whether students’ computational thinking skills changed according to their computer and
internet experiences, one-factor analysis of variance was used for independent samples. The test results are given
in Table 1.

Table 1. Change of computational thinking skills according to computer and internet experience
N S N S
1 Less than 1 year 19 87.06 21.64 1 Less than 1 year 9 94.44 17.64
Computer experience

Internet experience

2 Between 1-2 years 18 98.90 16.21 2 Between 1-2 years 28 91.54 20.51
3 Between 2-3 years 36 100.53 15.20 3 Between 2-3 years 43 96.01 16.99
4 Between 3-4 years 46 98.92 18.04 4 Between 3-4 years 59 97.42 16.06
5 Between 4-5 years 52 100.67 15.36 5 Between 4-5 years 58 98.69 14.65
6 More than 5 years 88 98.58 14.12 6 More than 5 years 64 102.92 15.55
Total 259 98.51 16.22 Total 261 98.08 16.58

Source of Mean Significant

Variable Sum of squares SD F p
variance square difference
Between groups 2890.152 5 578.030
Computer
In-groups 65017.289 253 256.985 2.249 .050 ----
experience
Total 67907.441 258
Internet Between groups 3047.367 5 609.473 Between 6 and
experience In-groups 68446.342 255 268.417 2.271 .048 2, 3
Total 71493.709 260

According to the Table, it was determined that students’ computational thinking mean scores did not show
significant differences based on computer experience. (F (5-253) = 2.249; p <=.05).
As a result of the analysis, it was determined that internet experience caused a significant difference in
computational thinking mean scores (F (5-255) = 2.271; p <.05). According to the LSD test, it was found that students
with more than 5 years of internet experience had significantly higher computational thinking scores than those
with 1-2 years and 2-3 years of experience.

3.2 Findings on Mobile Technology Experience

One-factor analysis of variance for independent samples was used to determine whether students’ computational
thinking skills changed based on mobile technology experience. The test results are given in Table 2.
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

Table 2. Change of computational thinking skills based on mobile technology experience

N S N S
1 Less than 1 year 9 89.26 22.60 1 Less than 1 year 12 86.88 18.57
2 Between 1-2 years 15 87.99 21.22 2 Between 1-2 years 24 90.48 18.98

Mobile Internet
Mobile device

experience
experience

3 Between 2-3 years 26 94.54 14.06 3 Between 2-3 years 40 94.95 18.28
4 Between 3-4 years 40 98.39 18.36 4 Between 3-4 years 50 99.48 14.05
5 Between 4-5 years 51 98.15 15.50 5 Between 4-5 years 69 98.05 16.00
6 More than 5 years 126 100.67 15.07 6 More than 5 years 68 103.19 14.54
Total 267 98.15 16.48 Total 263 97.98 16.52

Source of Sum of Significant

Variable SD Mean square F p
variance squares difference
Between 3400.874 5 680.175
Between 1 and 6
Mobile device groups
2.576 .027 Between 2 and 4,
experience In-groups 68913.698 261 264.037
5, 6
Total 72314.572 266
Mobile Internet Between 5154.202 5 1030.840 Between 1 and 4,
experience groups 5, 6
3.990 .002
In-groups 66404.305 257 258.383 Between 2 and 4,
Total 71558.507 262 5, 6

When Table 2 was examined, it was found that students’ computational thinking skills mean scores differed
significantly according to mobile device experience (F (5-261) = 2.576; p <.05). The results of the LSD test
conducted to determine which groups caused the difference show that computational thinking skills mean scores of
students with less than 1 year of mobile device experience were lower compared to those with more than 5 years of
experience and computational thinking skills mean scores of students with 1-2 years of experience were
significantly lower than those with 3-4 years, 4-5 years and more than 5 years experience in mobile devices.
It was concluded that mobile internet experience caused a significant difference in computational thinking skills
scores (F (5-257) = 3.990; p <.05). According to the LSD test, it was found that the computational thinking skills
mean scores of students with less than 1 year and 1-2 years of mobile internet experience were significantly lower
than those with 3-4 years, 4-5 years and more than 5 years experience.

3.3 Findings Related to Frequency of Mobile Technology Use

One-factor analysis of variance for independent samples was used in order to determine whether students’
computational thinking skills differed based on the frequency of mobile technology use. Table 3 presents the test
results.
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

Table 3. Changes in computational thinking skills based on frequency of mobile technology use
N S N S
1 1-19 69 93.44 19.66 1 < 1 hour 38 93.52 19.44
Number of daily checks for

Duration of daily mobile

2 20- 39 48 102.53 13.64 2 1-2 hours 53 101.21 15.02
3 40-59 46 97.85 14.72 3 2-3 hours 54 98.10 15.62

internet use
the mobile

4 60-79 29 97.77 15.37 4 3-4 hours 28 91.89 17.77

5 80-99 29 102.21 17.70 5 4-5 hours 35 101.73 17.05
6 >99 46 98.28 14.22 6 More than 5 56 99.99 12.17
hours
Total 267 98.09 16.47 Total 264 98.29 16.11

Source of Sum of Significant

Variable Sd Mean square F p
variance squares difference
Between 2938.162 5 587.632
Number of daily
groups
checks for the 2.214 .053 -----
In-groups 69284.439 261 265.458
mobile
Total 72222.601 266
Duration of daily Between 3041.923 5 608.385 Between 1 and 2, 5
mobile internet use groups Between 2 and 4
2.406 .037
In-groups 65238.895 258 252.864 Between 4 and 5, 6
Total 68280.818 263

According to Table 3, it was found that students’ computational thinking skills mean scores did not show
significant difference based on how many times they checked their mobile devices (F (5-261) = 2.214; p>.05).
Based on the conducted analyzes, it was determined that duration of daily mobile internet use caused a significant
difference in computational thinking skills mean scores (F (5-258) = 2.406; p <.05). According to LSD test results,
computational thinking skills of students with less than 1 hour of daily mobile internet use were significantly lower
than those with 1-2 hours and 4-5 hours; computational thinking skills of students with 3-4 hours were
significantly lower than those with 1-2 hours and computational thinking skills of students with 3-4 hours were
significantly lower than those with 4-5 hours and more than 5 hours.

3.4 Findings Regarding Purpose of Use of Mobile Technology

Independent samples t-test was applied to determine whether students’ computational thinking skills differed
based on their purpose for using a mobile technology. Table 4 presented the obtained results.
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

Table 4. Change of computational thinking skills based on purpose of using mobile technology
Purpose of Use At present N S SD t p
Connecting to social Yes 239 98.02 15.79
260 .768 .070
networks No 23 95.29 20.72
Yes 146 98.20 15.86
Playing games 245 .433 .387
No 101 97.27 17.53
Keeping up to date with Yes 222 98.49 16.30
251 1.309 .995
current news No 31 94.37 16.90
Yes 221 98.20 16.68
Doing homework/research 254 1.027 .224
No 35 95.14 14.01
Yes 243 98.24 15.84
Listening to music 257 .410 .106
No 16 96.51 23.31
Online shopping Yes 144 99.16 15.64
235 1.298 .487
No 93 96.39 16.69
Watching videos Yes 237 98.17 15.80
252 .445 .404
No 17 96.38 19.60

Table 4 shows that while computational thinking skill mean scores of students who used mobile technology to
connect to social networks ( =98.02) were higher than the mean score of the students who did not use mobile
technology for this purpose ( =95.29), the difference was not significant (t(260)= .768, p>.05). Similarly, it was
concluded that while computational thinking skill mean scores of students who used their mobile technology to
play games ( =98.22) were higher than the mean scores of students who did not use mobile technology purpose
( =97.27), the difference was not significant (t(245)= .433, p>.05).
Although the computational thinking skills mean scores of students who used their mobile technology to follow
the current developments ( =98.49) were higher than the computational thinking skills mean scores of students
who did not use their devices purpose ( =94.37), the difference was not significant (t(251)= 1.309, p>.05). It was
found that although the computational thinking skills mean scores of students who used their mobile technology
for doing homework/research ( =98.20) were higher than the computational thinking skills mean scores of
students who did not use their mobile technology for this purpose ( =95.14), the difference was not significant
(t(254)= 1.027, p>.05). While the computational thinking skills mean scores of students who used their mobile
technology to listen to music was higher ( =98.24) than the computational thinking skills mean scores of students
who did not use their devices for this purpose ( =96.51), the difference was not significant (t(257)= .410, p>.05). It
was also found that the computational thinking skills mean scores of students who used their mobile technology to
do online shopping were higher ( =99.16) than he computational thinking skills mean scores of students who did
not use their devices for this purpose ( =96.39); the difference was not significant (t(235)= 1.298, p>.05). The
findings also show that while the computational thinking skills mean scores of students who used their mobile
technology to watch videos were higher ( =98.17) than the computational thinking skills mean scores of students
who did not use their devices for this purpose ( =96.38), the difference was not significant (t(252)= .445, p>.05).
Evaluation of these results in general demonstrates that students’ computational thinking skills did not differ based
on the purpose of mobile technology use and that their mean scores were very close to one another.

4. Results and Discussion

Based on the results of the analyses, it was determined that students’ computational thinking skills did not differ
based on computer experience. Arriving at a similar finding, Oluk and Korkmaz (2016) stated that computational
thinking skills did not differ according to the duration of daily computer use. Another result obtained in the study
demonstrated that internet experience affected computational thinking skills. Accordingly, students with 1-2 years
internet experience had significantly lower computational skills than those with more than 5 years experience.
Korucu et al. (2017) concluded that middle school students’ computational thinking skills did not change based on
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

their weekly internet use. Yıldız Durak and Sarıtepeci (2018) concluded that ICT experience did not predict
computational thinking skills.
The analyses demonstrated that mobile technology experience differentiated computational thinking skills.
Accordingly, students with less mobile device experience and less mobile Internet experience had significantly
lower computational thinking skills than those with more experience. This finding can be interpreted to suggest
that mobile technology experience can increase computational thinking skills. Reaching a different conclusion,
Korucu et al. (2017) stated that those with only 2 years of mobile technology experience had significantly higher
computational thinking skills than with longer experience. Differences in the levels of samples in studies may
cause variations in the obtained results.
The analyses conducted based on the frequency of mobile technology use concluded that computational thinking
skills did not differ according to how many times a person checked his/her mobile device but varied according to
the duration of daily mobile Internet use. Accordingly, students who use less mobile Internet daily had
significantly lower computational thinking skills than those who used mobile Internet more. According to Korucu
et al. (2017), who similarly studied the ability to use mobile devices as a variable, computational thinking skills did
not differ. Yıldız Durak and Sarıtepeci (2018), who examined the duration of daily internet use of secondary
school students, concluded that this variable did not affect computational thinking skills.
The study also aimed to determine whether students’ computational thinking skills differed based on their
purposes while using their mobile technology. According to the analyses, it was concluded that using mobile
technology to connect to social networks, play games, follow the current developments, do homework/research,
listen to music, shop and watch videos did not change students’ computational thinking skills. While
computational thinking skills differed according to mobile device experience and frequency of use, it is a
remarkable finding that computational thinking skills did not change based on purpose of use. There are no other
studies in the literature that explored these variables. Future studies may consider filling this gap.
This research is limited to 269 vocational school students in terms of participants. One of the limitations of the
study is that self-reported instruments were used. Self-reported instruments may not reflect the actual measure as
students' perceptions might be differ from their actual levels. Qualitative data collection tools such as observation
and interview can be used in future research. In addition, experimental studies examining CT and ICT (mobile
technology) can be conducted.

References
Alsancak-Sırakaya, D. (2019). Programlama öğretiminin bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisine etkisi. Turkish Journal
of Social Research/Turkiye Sosyal Arastirmalar Dergisi, 23(2), 575-590.
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? Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
Brackmann, C., Barone, D., Casali, A., Boucinha, R., & Muñoz-Hernandez, S. (2016, September). Computational
thinking: Panorama of the Americas. In 2016 International symposium on computers in Education (SIIE) (pp.
1-6). IEEE.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of
computational thinking. Paper presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel Araştırma
Yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluatingquantitative and qualitative
research. Boston: Pearson Education.
Demir, G. Ö., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2017). Yeni kavramlar, farklı kullanımlar: Bilgi-işlemsel düşünmeyle ilgili bir
değerlendirme (Eds: Akkoyunlu, B., Odabaşı, F., & İşman, A.). In Eğitim teknolojileri okumaları, 801-830.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K12 a review of the state of the field. Educational
Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
ISTE (2019). Operational definition of computational thinking. Retrieved from
https://id.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf on 28.11.2019
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

Juškevičienė, A., & Dagienė, V. (2018). Computational thinking relationship with digital competence. Informatics
in Education, 17(2), 265-284.
Kalelioglu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic
research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583
Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K-12 students: Code.org. Computers in
Human Behavior, 52, 200-210.
Karaahmetoğlu, K., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2019). The effect of project-based arduino educational robot applications on
students' computational thinking skills and their perception of Basic Stem skill levels. Participatory
Educational Research, 6(2), 1-14.
Karal, H., Şılbır, G.M., & Yıldız, M. (2017). STEM eğitiminde bilişimsel düşünme ve kodlamanın rolü. (Ed: Salih
Çepni). In Kuramdan Uygulamaya STEM Eğitimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 389-411.
Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi. (18. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the Computational Thinking
Scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558-569.
Korucu, A.T., Gençtürk, A.T. & Gündoğdu, M.M. (2017). Examination of the computational thinking skills of
students. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 2(1), 11-19.
Küçük, S., & Şişman, B. (2017). Behavioral patterns of elementary students and teachers in one-to-one robotics
instruction. Computers & Education, 111, 31-43.
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L., 2011.
Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32-37.
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.
Oluk, A., Korkmaz, Ö., & Oluk, H.A. (2018). Scratch’ın 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin algoritma geliştirme ve
bilgi-işlemsel düşünme becerilerine etkisi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 9(1),
54-71.
Oluk, A., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2016). Comparing students' scratch skills with their computational thinking skills in
terms of different variables. Online Submission, 8(11), 1-7.
Pellas, N., & Peroutseas, E. (2016). Gaming in Second Life via Scratch4SL: Engaging high school students in
programming courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(1), 108-143.
Pérez-Marín, D., Hijón-Neira, R., Bacelo, A., & Pizarro, C. (2018). Can computational thinking be improved by
using a methodology based on metaphors and scratch to teach computer programming to
children? Computers in Human Behavior.
Pulimood, S. M., Pearson, K., & Bates, D. C. (2016, February). A study on the impact of multidisciplinary
collaboration on computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing
science education (pp. 30-35). ACM.
Sáez-López, J. M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated
across the curriculum in elementary school: A two years case study using “Scratch” in five
schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129-141.
Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2004). Data Entry and Data Editing Issues. In A beginner’s guide to structural
equation modeling (pp. 13-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with
K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information
Technologies, 18(2), 351-380.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research
Review, 22, 142-158.
Sırakaya, M. (2019). İlkokul ve ortaokul öğretmenlerinin teknoloji kabul durumları. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 578-590.
 International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, April 2020, Vol. 3, No. 4
ISSN 2513-8359

Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y. J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., & Sysło, M. M. (2017). Computer
science in K-12 school curricula of the 21st century: Why, what and when?. Education and Information
Technologies, 22(2), 445-468.
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012, February). The fairy performance assessment:
measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium
on Computer Science Education (pp. 215-220). ACM.
Wing, J. M. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society, 40th Anniversary Blog of Social Issues in
Computing, 2014
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35
Wing, J. M. (2011). Computational thinking. In G. Costagliola, A. Ko, A. Cypher, J. Nichols, C. Scaffidi, C.
Kelleher, et al. (Eds.), 2011 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human-centric computing (p. 3).
Wing, J. M., (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of The
Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical And Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
Yıldız Durak, H., & Saritepeci, M. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and
various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116, 191-202.
Yunkül, E., Durak, G., Çankaya, S., & Mısırlı, Z.A. (2017). The effects of Scratch software on students’
computational thinking skills. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(2), 502-517.