A Normative Analysis of the TechCheck Computational Thinking Assessment

被引:9
作者
Relkin, Emily [1 ]
Johnson, Sara K. [2 ]
Bers, Marina U. [3 ]
机构
[1] Educ Dev Ctr, Ctr Children & Technol, Waltham, MA 02451 USA
[2] Tufts Univ, Eliot Pearson Dept Child Study & Human Dev, Medford, MA USA
[3] Boston Coll, Lynch Sch Educ & Human Dev, Chestnut Hill, MA USA
来源
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY | 2023年 / 26卷 / 02期
关键词
Assessment; Computer science; Early childhood; Coding;
D O I
10.30191/ETS.202304_26(2).0009
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
TechCheck is an assessment of Computational Thinking (CT) for early elementary school children consisting of fifteen developmentally appropriate unplugged challenges that probe six CT domains. The first version of TechCheck showed good psychometric properties as well as ease of administration and scoring in a validation cohort of 768 children between 5 and 9 years of age. To increase sensitivity and reduce possible ceiling and floor effects, grade-specific versions of TechCheck (K, 1, 2) were subsequently created. In the present study, we explored how CT skills could be compared across grades when grade-specific versions of TechCheck are administered. First, we examined TechCheck raw score distributions and responses within CT domains in a representative sample of students from the three grades. Grade-specific Z-scores and percentile rankings were then calculated. To show utility of this normalization system, we used percentiles to compare CT outcomes between first and second graders who participated in a ScratchJr coding educational intervention. While TechCheck change scores suggested an unexpected 42.74% difference in CT outcomes between first and second grade, application of the normative scoring system indicated a more plausible 5.17 percentile rank difference between grades. Normative analysis may provide a more meaningful way to compare results across grades when grade-specific versions of TechCheck are used. Implications for the future use of the TechCheck CT assessments are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:118 / 130
页数:13
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2015, P 14 INT C INT DES C, DOI DOI 10.1145/2771839.2771894
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2010, Computational thinking: What and why?
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2016, ED INN
[4]  
Bakala E., 2021, International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, V29, P100337, DOI [DOI 10.1016/J.IJCCI.2021.100337, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100337]
[5]  
Barr Valerie, 2011, ACM Inroads, V2, P48, DOI 10.1145/1929887.1929905
[6]  
Bell T., 2018, LNCS, V11011, P497, DOI [DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4_29, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-98355, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-98355-429]
[7]  
Bers M. U., J COMPUT EDUC
[8]  
Bers M. U., 2018, CODING PLAYGROUND PR, DOI DOI 10.4324/9781315398945
[9]   Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum [J].
Bers, Marina Umaschi ;
Flannery, Louise ;
Kazakoff, Elizabeth R. ;
Sullivan, Amanda .
COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2014, 72 :145-157
[10]   Assessing elementary students' computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming [J].
Chen, Guanhua ;
Shen, Ji ;
Barth-Cohen, Lauren ;
Jiang, Shiyan ;
Huang, Xiaoting ;
Eltoukhy, Moataz .
COMPUTERS & EDUCATION, 2017, 109 :162-175