Insights into Computational Thinking E-Assessment Tool (Cte-AT) In Engineering Education: A Preliminary Study of Student and Educator Perspectives

Insights into Computational Thinking E-Assessment Tool (Cte-AT) In Engineering Education: A Preliminary Study of Student and Educator Perspectives

Article Number: e2025269 | Available Online: June 2025 | DOI: 10.22521/edupij.2025.16.269

Nagaletchimee Annamalai , Mohamed Nasor

Full text PDF | 1229 | 737

Abstract

Background/purpose. This study presents the findings of an initial investigation into developing a Computational Thinking-Enhanced Assessment Tool (CTe-AT) based on computational thinking principles.

Materials/methods. We conducted comprehensive interviews with 10 lecturers and another 10 students to gain a deeper insight into educators' and students’ viewpoints. The analysis of these interviews involved a thematic approach, utilising the steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) to identify and categorise the emerging themes.

Results. The participants acknowledged the anticipated advantages of the CTe-AT. Educators and students foresee enhancements in computational abilities, individualised feedback provision, and facilitation of the shift toward hybrid learning. The objective was to ensure engineering students not only grasp theoretical principles but also cultivate practical skills essential for success in the dynamically changing realm of engineering. Emphasis on critical and creative thinking and potential benefits for independent learning and career preparation strengthens the case for intentional efforts to integrate computational thinking into the educational framework.

Conclusion. The study addresses the need for human evaluation, particularly in assessing presentation and collaboration skills. Educators and students emphasise the nuanced nature of these skills, suggesting a reliance on human judgment for accurate assessment. In conclusion, the positive response from educators and students provides a solid foundation for the practical design and implementation of the CTe-AT.

Keywords: Computational thinking, e-assessment, engineering students, higher education

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison Wesley Longman.

Athanassiou, N., McNett, J. M., & Harvey, C. (2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom's taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27(5), 533-555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903252515

Barak, M., & Usher, M. (2019). The innovation profile of nanotechnology team projects of face-to-face and online learners. Computers & Education, 137, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.014

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006), “Using thematic analysis in psychology”, Qualitative Research inPsychology, 3(2), 77-101, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. M. (1996). The systematic design of instruction. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Falkner, K., & Sheard, J. (2019). Pedagogic approaches. In S. A. Fincher & A. V. Robins (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of computing education research (pp. 445-467). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.016

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

Howitt, D. (2012). Using qualitative methods to research offenders and forensic patients. In D. A. Crighton & G. J. Towl (Eds.), Research in practice for forensic professionals (pp. 132-158). Routledge.

Kemp, S., Ng, M., Hollowood, T., & Hort, H. (2018). Introduction to descriptive analysis. In S. E. Kemp, J. Hort, & T. Hollowood (Eds.). Descriptive analysis in sensory evaluation (pp. 3–41). UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Lee, J., Lim, C., & Kim, H. (2017). Development of an instructional design model for flipped learning in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 427–453. DOI 10.1007/s11423-016-9502-1

Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93–134.

Rojas López, A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2019). Personalised education for a programming course in higher education. In M. L. Sein-Echaluce, A. Fidalgo-Blanco, & F. J. García-Peñalvo (Eds.), Innovative trends in flipped teaching and adaptive learning (pp. 203–227). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8142-0.ch009

Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in human behavior, 72, 678-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047

Tsai, M.-J., Liang, J.-C., & Hsu, C.-Y. (2020). The computational thinking scale for computer literacy education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(3), 687-709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120972356

Usher, M., & Barak, M. (2018). Peer assessment in a project-based engineering course: Comparing between on-campus and online learning environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 745-759. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1405238

Varela, C., Rebollar, C., García, O., Bravo, E., & Bilbao, J. (2019). Skills in computational thinking of engineering students of the first school year. Heliyon, 5(11), e02820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02820

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!