Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study developed the Computational Thinking Self-Efficacy Instrument (CT-SEI) to measure self-efficacy in key computational thinking skills among higher education students. Through expert evaluation and data collection from 270 students, the initial pool of 91 items was refined to 27 items using principal component analysis, revealing two distinct categories: creating solutions and evaluating solutions. The CT-SEI has the potential to assess self-efficacy effectively and guide interventions aimed at enhancing computational thinking skills in educational settings.
A newly developed instrument reveals that self-efficacy in computational thinking can be effectively measured and categorized, providing insights into student engagement and success.
Much effort is put into helping students at different educational levels develop Computational Thinking (CT) skills. Self-efficacy is important for skill development. It can predict perseverance, engagement and success on educational tasks. We created an instrument to measure self-efficacy of students in higher education for the CT skills abstraction, algorithmic thinking, decomposition, evaluation and generalization. First, 91 candidate items were created by including, adapting and extending items found in the literature. These items were evaluated by experts in the field of CT and education. 54 items remained and to reduce the number of items further, data was collected from 270 students in higher education recruited both through Prolific and a university setting in Costa Rica. Through principle component analysis (PCA) using a subset of 200 responses, the number of items was reduced to 27. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the remaining responses in the dataset showed the items can be divided into two categories: (1) creating the solution and (2) evaluating the solution. The created instrument can be valuable when assessing CT self-efficacy of students in higher education. With additional validation (e.g. examination of test-retest validity), we believe the scale could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, or decide what interventions should be provided to foster CT skill development.