Elucidate The Role of Gender and Age on Computational Thinking Skills in University

This study investigates differences in computational thinking (CT) skills among university students by gender and age. Using a quantitative crosssectional design, data were collected from 259 pre-service teachers aged 19-22. Results indicated a significant gender difference in CT skills (p = 0.000), with male students outperforming female peers. Although no individual age-related differences were found (p = 0.331), a significant interaction between gender and age was observed (p = 0.002). These findings highlight the need for educational strategies that inclusively foster CT skills development, addressing gender disparities to create a balanced learning environment for all students.

REFERENCES:

• Al-Fedaghi, S., & Alkhaldi, A. A. (2019). Thinging for Computational Thinking. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2019.0100277.
• Anderson, N. (2016). A Call for Computational Thinking in Undergraduate Psychology. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15(3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716659252.
• Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008.
• Başaran, M. (2023). Investigation of the Relationship Between Teachers’ Inquiry-Based Teaching Self-Efficiency for STEM+S and Their Computational Thinking Skills. Research on Education and Media, 15(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2478/rem-2023-0019.
• Chen, P., Yang, D., Metwally, A. H. S., Lavonen, J., & Wang, X. (2023). Fostering computational thinking through unplugged activities: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00434-7.
• Creswell, W. J., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative adn Mixed Methods Approaches. In Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (Vol. 53, Issue 9).
• Espino, E. E. E., & González, C. G. (2016). Gender and computational thinking: Review of the literature and applications. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, September 2016, 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998626.2998665.
• Gadanidis, G., Cendros, R., & Floyd, L. (2017). Computational Thinking in Mathematics Teacher Education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 458–477.
• Gillott, L., Joyce-Gibbons, A., & Hidson, E. (2020). Exploring and comparing computational thinking skills in students who take GCSE Computer Science and those who do not. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(4), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i4.77.
• Gong, D., Yang, H. H., & Cai, J. (2020). Exploring the key influencing factors on college students’ computational thinking skills through flipped-classroom instruction. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00196-0.
• Gunuc, S., Artun, H., Yigit, E., & Keser, H. (2022). Examining the Relationship Between Student Engagement and Campus Climate: A Case in Turkey. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 23(4), 1099–1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025119894579.
• Günüç, S., Yiğit, E., Artun, H., & Okur, M. (2022). Examining the Relationships between Student Engagement, Campus Facilities, and Technology Integration among Elementary Teacher Candidates. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 9(2), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.53400/mimbar-sd.v9i2.42884.
• Hu, L. (2024). Exploring Gender Differences in Computational Thinking Among K-12 Students: A Meta-Analysis Investigating Influential Factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 62(19), 1358–1384. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331241240670.
• Katai, Z. (2015). The challenge of promoting algorithmic thinking of both sciences- and humanities-oriented learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 31, 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12070.
• Kılıç, S. (2022). Tendencies towards Computational Thinking: A Content Analysis Study. Participatory Educational Research, 9(5), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.115.9.5.
• Kılıçaslan, E. A. (2022). Changes in Prospective Primary School Mathematics Teachers’ Conceptions of Teaching and Learning. 15(1), 81–97.
• Koopman, M., Thurlings, M., & den Brok, P. (2019). Factors influencing students’ proficiency development in the fraction domain: the role of teacher cognitions and behaviour. Research Papers in Education, 34(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2017.1390595.
• Kumala, F. N. (2023). Patterns of Computational Thinking Skills for Elementary Prospectives Teacher in Science Learning: Gender Analysis Studies. International Journal of Elementary Education, 7(4), 646–656. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijee.v7i4.68611.
• Lavrijsen, J., Ramos, A., & Verschueren, K. (2022). Detecting Unfulfilled Potential: Perceptions of Underachievement by Student, Parents, and Teachers. Journal of Experimental Education, 90(4), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1852523.
• Lechner, C. M., Gauly, B., Miyamoto, A., & Wicht, A. (2021). Stability and change in adults’ literacy and numeracy skills: Evidence from two large-scale panel studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 180(February), 110990. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110990.
• Ma, X., Su, Y., & Ji, L. (2018). Research on the Cultivation of High School Students’ Computational Thinking Based on DBR Strategy. Us-China Education Review A, 8(5). https://doi.org/10.17265/2161-623x/2018.05.002.
• NAPLAN. (2012). Literacy and Numeracy Indicators Using NAPLAN. ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority), January, 1–3.
• Piasecki, S., Urquhart, L., & McAuley, D. (2019). Defence Against Dark Artefacts: An Analysis of the Assumptions Underpinning Smart Home Cybersecurity Standards. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463799.
• Rosmana, P. S., Iskandar, S., Fauziah, H., Azzifah, N., & Khamelia, W. (2022). Kebebasan dalam Kurikulum Prototype. As-Sabiqun, 4(1), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.36088/assabiqun.v4i1.1683.
• Selby, C. C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational Thinking : The Developing Definition. University of Southampton, http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/356481.
• Vidergor, H. E. (2018). Effectiveness of the Multidimensional Curriculum Model in Developing Higher‐order Thinking Skills in Elementary and Secondary Students. The Curriculum Journal, 29(1), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2017.1318771.
• Yadav, A., Hai, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational Thinking for All: Pedagogical Approaches to Embedding 21st Century Problem Solving in K-12 Classrooms. Techtrends, 60(6), 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7.
• Yang, D., Chen, P., Wang, K., Li, Z., Zhang, C., & Huang, R. (2023). Parental Involvement and Student Engagement: A Review of the Literature. Sustainability (Switzerland). 15(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075859.
• Yokuş, E., & Kahramanoğlu, R. (2022). Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme Üzerine Genel Bir Bakış. Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.1033403.