Formative Assessment of Computational Thinking: Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes

IF 1.1 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Applied Measurement in Education Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/08957347.2020.1835912
Sarah M. Bonner, Peggy P. Chen, Kristi Jones, Brandon Milonovich
{"title":"Formative Assessment of Computational Thinking: Cognitive and Metacognitive Processes","authors":"Sarah M. Bonner, Peggy P. Chen, Kristi Jones, Brandon Milonovich","doi":"10.1080/08957347.2020.1835912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We describe the use of think alouds to examine substantive processes involved in performance on a formative assessment of computational thinking (CT) designed to support self-regulated learning (SRL). Our task design model included three phases of work on a computational thinking problem: forethought, performance, and reflection. The cognitive processes of seven students who reported their thinking during all three phases were analyzed. Ratings of artifacts of code indicated the computational thinking problem was moderately difficult to solve (M = 15, SD = 5) on a scale of 0 to 21 points. Profiles were created to illustrate length and sequence of different types of cognitive processes during the think-aloud. Results provide construct validity evidence for the tasks as formative assessments of CT, elucidate the way learners at different levels of skill use SRL, shed light on the nature of computational thinking, and point out areas for improvement in assessment design.","PeriodicalId":51609,"journal":{"name":"Applied Measurement in Education","volume":"18 2","pages":"27 - 45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08957347.2020.1835912","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Measurement in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2020.1835912","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

ABSTRACT We describe the use of think alouds to examine substantive processes involved in performance on a formative assessment of computational thinking (CT) designed to support self-regulated learning (SRL). Our task design model included three phases of work on a computational thinking problem: forethought, performance, and reflection. The cognitive processes of seven students who reported their thinking during all three phases were analyzed. Ratings of artifacts of code indicated the computational thinking problem was moderately difficult to solve (M = 15, SD = 5) on a scale of 0 to 21 points. Profiles were created to illustrate length and sequence of different types of cognitive processes during the think-aloud. Results provide construct validity evidence for the tasks as formative assessments of CT, elucidate the way learners at different levels of skill use SRL, shed light on the nature of computational thinking, and point out areas for improvement in assessment design.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计算思维的形成性评估:认知和元认知过程
摘要:我们描述了使用大声思考来检查在旨在支持自我调节学习(SRL)的计算思维(CT)形成性评估中涉及的实质性过程。我们的任务设计模型包括计算思维问题的三个阶段:预见、执行和反思。分析了7名学生在这三个阶段的认知过程。代码工件的评分表明计算思维问题在0到21分的范围内是中等难度的(M = 15, SD = 5)。在有声思考过程中,不同类型的认知过程的长度和顺序被创建。研究结果为CT形成性评估任务提供了构建效度证据,阐明了不同技能水平的学习者使用SRL的方式,揭示了计算思维的本质,并指出了评估设计中需要改进的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Because interaction between the domains of research and application is critical to the evaluation and improvement of new educational measurement practices, Applied Measurement in Education" prime objective is to improve communication between academicians and practitioners. To help bridge the gap between theory and practice, articles in this journal describe original research studies, innovative strategies for solving educational measurement problems, and integrative reviews of current approaches to contemporary measurement issues. Peer Review Policy: All review papers in this journal have undergone editorial screening and peer review.
期刊最新文献
New Tests of Rater Drift in Trend Scoring Automated Scoring of Short-Answer Questions: A Progress Report Item and Test Characteristic Curves of Rank-2PL Models for Multidimensional Forced-Choice Questionnaires Impact of violating unidimensionality on Rasch calibration for mixed-format tests Can Adaptive Testing Improve Test-Taking Experience? A Case Study on Educational Survey Assessment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1