IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v11y2021i2p21582440211016418.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Code-Centric Nature of Computational Thinking Education: A Review of Trends and Issues in Computational Thinking Education Research

Author

Listed:
  • Vance Kite
  • Soonhye Park
  • Eric Wiebe

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) is being recognized as a critical component of student success in the digital era. Many contend that integrating CT into core curricula is the surest method for providing all students with access to CT. However, the CT community lacks an agreed-upon conceptualization of CT that would facilitate this integration, and little effort has been made to critically analyze and synthesize research on CT/content integration (CTCI). Conflicting CT conceptualizations and little understanding of evidence-based strategies for CTCI could result in significant barriers to increasing students’ access to CT. To address these concerns, we analyzed 80 studies on CT education, focusing on both the CT conceptualizations guiding current CT education research and evidence-based strategies for CTCI. Our review highlights the code-centric nature of CT education and reveals significant gaps in our understanding of CTCI and CT professional development for teachers. Based on these findings, we propose an approach to operationalizing CT that promotes students’ participation in CT, present promising methods for infusing content with CT, and discuss future directions for CT education research.

Suggested Citation

  • Vance Kite & Soonhye Park & Eric Wiebe, 2021. "The Code-Centric Nature of Computational Thinking Education: A Review of Trends and Issues in Computational Thinking Education Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:21582440211016418
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440211016418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440211016418
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440211016418?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Halevi, Gali & Moed, Henk & Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2017. "Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation—Review of the Literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 823-834.
    2. TaeYoung Kim & NamIl An & JongBeom Lim, 2018. "Scientific Information System for Silk Road Education Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-12, September.
    3. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    4. Anne‐Wil Harzing & Ron van der Wal, 2009. "A Google Scholar h‐index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 41-46, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    2. Perez-Vega, Rodrigo & Hopkinson, Paul & Singhal, Aishwarya & Mariani, Marcello M., 2022. "From CRM to social CRM: A bibliometric review and research agenda for consumer research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-16.
    3. Maor Weinberger & Maayan Zhitomirsky-Geffet, 2021. "Diversity of success: measuring the scholarly performance diversity of tenured professors in the Israeli academia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 2931-2970, April.
    4. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    5. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    6. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    7. Salim Moussa, 2021. "Citation contagion: a citation analysis of selected predatory marketing journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 485-506, January.
    8. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    9. Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Multifactor Citation Analysis over Five Years: A Case Study of SIGMETRICS Papers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, December.
    10. David Jancsics & Salvador Espinosa & Jonathan Carlos, 2023. "Organizational noncompliance: an interdisciplinary review of social and organizational factors," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 1273-1301, September.
    11. Jingqi Gao & Xiang Wu & Xiaowei Luo & Shukai Guan, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Safety Sign Research: 1990–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, January.
    12. Cristina Robledo-Ardila & Juan Pablo Román-Calderón, 2022. "Potential: in search for meaning, theory and avenues for future research a systematic review," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 149-186, February.
    13. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    14. Birkmaier, Daniel & Wohlrabe, Klaus, 2014. "The Matthew effect in economics reconsidered," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 880-889.
    15. Mazaher Kianpour & Stewart J. Kowalski & Harald Øverby, 2021. "Systematically Understanding Cybersecurity Economics: A Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-28, December.
    16. Zoltán Lakner & Brigitta Plasek & Gyula Kasza & Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Ágoston Temesi, 2021. "Towards Understanding the Food Consumer Behavior–Food Safety–Sustainability Triangle: A Bibliometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    17. Gonzalo Wandosell & María C. Parra-Meroño & Alfredo Alcayde & Raúl Baños, 2021. "Green Packaging from Consumer and Business Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    18. Ignacio Rodríguez-Rodríguez & José-Víctor Rodríguez & Niloofar Shirvanizadeh & Andrés Ortiz & Domingo-Javier Pardo-Quiles, 2021. "Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Big Data and the Internet of Things to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scientometric Review Using Text Mining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-29, August.
    19. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    20. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:21582440211016418. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.