Although abstraction is widely understood to be one of the primary components of computational thinking, the roots of abstraction may be traced back to different fields. Hence, the meaning of abstraction in the context of computational thinking is often confounded, as researchers interpret abstraction through diverse lenses. To disentangle these conceptual threads and gain insight into the operationalisation of abstraction, a systematic review of 96 empirical studies was undertaken. Analysis revealed that identifying features of entities, extracting relevant features, discovering patterns, creating rules and assembling the parts together were the core actions of abstraction. With the primary aim of simplifying practical procedures, abstraction was operationalised as the sophistication of a program, the matching of patterns, the creation of alternative representations, the transfer of solutions, the measurement of a learner’s activity and reading program codes. There is an obvious need for researchers to align the conceptual meanings they have established of abstraction with the practical facts of operationalisation. The need to empirically validate emerging models and the implications for future research are discussed.
AharoniD. (2000). Cogito, ergo sum! Cognitive processes of students dealing with data structures. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/331795.331804
2.
AlexanderP. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
3.
AllsopY. (2019). Assessing computational thinking process using a multiple evaluation approach. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 19, 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2018.10.004
4.
AngeliC.ValanidesN. (2019). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior, 105(2), 105954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.018
5.
AngeliC.VoogtJ.FluckA.WebbM.CoxM.Malyn-SmithJ.ZagamiJ. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47–57.
6.
Asbell-ClarkeJ.RoweE.AlmedaV.EdwardsT.BardarE.GascaS.BakerR. S.ScruggsR. (2021). The development of students’ computational thinking practices in elementary- and middle-school classes using the learning game, zoombinis. Computers in Human Behavior, 115(25), 106587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106587
7.
AtmatzidouS.DemetriadisS. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75(B), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008
8.
BaekY.WangS.YangD.ChingY.SwansonS.ChittooriB. (2019). Revisiting second graders' robotics with an understand/use-modify-create (U2MC) strategy. European Journal of STEM Education, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/5772.
9.
BarrD.HarrisonJ.ConeryL. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.
BasuS.McElhaneyK. W.GroverS.HarrisC. J.BiswasG. (2018). A principled approach to designing assessments that integrate science and computational thinking. In KayJ.LuckinR. (Eds), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count. International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2018.384
12.
BasuS.RutsteinD.XuY.ShearL. (2020). A principled approach to designing a computational thinking practices assessment for early grades. In ZhangJ.SherriffM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 912–918). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366849
13.
BersM. U. (2017). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.
14.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. AERA, 1, 1-25
15.
CalderonA. C.SkillicornD.WattA.PerhamN. (2020). A double dissociative study into the effectiveness of computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 1181–1192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09991-3
ChenK.-Z.ChiH.-H. (2020). Novice young board-game players’ experience about computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1722712
18.
ChiazzeseG.ArrigoM.ChifariA.LonatiV.TostoC. (2019). Educational robotics in primary school: Measuring the development of computational thinking skills with the bebras tasks. Informatics, 6(4), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/informatics6040043
19.
ÇınarM.TüzünH. (2020). Comparison of object-oriented and robot programming activities: The effects of programming modality on student achievement, abstraction, problem solving, and motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12495
20.
CittàG.GentileM.AllegraM.ArrigoM.ContiD.OttavianoS.RealeF.SciortinoM. (2019). The effects of mental rotation on computational thinking. Computers & Education, 141, 103613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103613
CorralL.FronzaI. (2019). A Strategy for Assessing the Acquisition of Computational Thinking Competences: A Software Engineering Approach. In FronzaI.PahlC. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Systems of Assessments for Computational Thinking Learning workshop. CEUR.
23.
CsizmadiaA.CurzonP.DorlingM.HumphreysS.NgT.SelbyC.WoollardJ. (2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/424545/
24.
DagienėV.SentanceS. (2016). It’s computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. In BrodnikA.TortF. (Eds), Informatics in schools: Improvement of informatics knowledge and perception (pp. 28–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46747-4_3
25.
del Olmo-MuñozJ.Cózar-GutiérrezR.González-CaleroJ. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers & Education, 150(1), 103832. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103832
26.
DengW.PiZ.LeiW.ZhouQ.ZhangW. (2020). Pencil code improves learners’ computational thinking and computer learning attitude. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(1), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22177
27.
DennerJ.CampeS.WernerL. (2019). Does computer game design and programming benefit children? A meta-synthesis of research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277565
28.
DenningP. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438
29.
DenningP. J.TedreM.YongpraditP. (2017). Misconceptions about computer science. Communications of the ACM, 60(3), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3041047
30.
DinsmoreD. L.AlexanderP. A.LoughlinS. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
31.
DurakH. Y.SaritepeciM. (2018). Analysis of the relation between computational thinking skills and various variables with the structural equation model. Computers & Education, 116(C), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.004
32.
EzeamuzieN. O.LeungJ. S. C. (2021). Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211033158
33.
FronzaI.IoiniN. E.CorralL. (2017). Teaching computational thinking using agile software engineering methods: A framework for middle schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(4), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3055258
34.
GarneliV.ChorianopoulosK. (2018). Programming video games and simulations in science education: Exploring computational thinking through code analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1337036.
35.
GillottL.Joyce-GibbonsA.HidsonE. (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
GroverS.PeaR.CooperS. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142
HarimurtiR.EkohariadiMMunotoB.IGP AstoB. (2019). The concept of computational thinking toward information and communication technology learning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 535, 012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/535/1/012004
40.
HazzanO. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71–90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3483306
41.
HillJ.HouleB.MerrittS.StixA. (2008). Applying abstraction to master complexity. In HazzanO.KramerJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on The Role of Abstraction in Software Engineering (pp. 15–21). ACM. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1145/1370164.1370169
42.
IsraelM.PearsonJ. N.TapiaT.WherfelQ. M.ReeseG. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022
43.
Jaipal-JamaniK.AngeliC. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z
44.
KanakiK.KalogiannakisM. (2019). Assessing computational thinking skills at first stages of schooling. In PfennigA.ChenK.-C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education and E-Learning (pp. 135–139). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3371647.3371651
45.
KertS. B.ErkoçM. F.YeniS. (2020). The effect of robotics on six graders’ academic achievement, computational thinking skills and conceptual knowledge levels. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 38(1), 100714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100714
KongS.-C.LaoA. C.-C. (2019). Assessing in-service teachers’ development of computational thinking practices in teacher development courses. In HawthorneE. K.Pérez-QuiñonesM. A.HeckmanS.ZhangJ. (Eds), Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, NY, New York, 22 Feb 2019 (pp. 976-982). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287470
48.
KorkmazÖ.ÇakirR.ÖzdenM. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72(C), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
LeeT. Y.MaurielloM. L.AhnJ.BedersonB. B. (2014). CTArcade: Computational thinking with games in school age children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.06.003
51.
LeonardJ.BussA.GamboaR.MitchellM.FasholaO. S.HubertT.AlmughyirahS. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2
52.
LooiC.-K.HowM.-L.LongkaiW.SeowP.LiuL. (2018). Analysis of linkages between an unplugged activity and the development of computational thinking. Computer Science Education, 28(3), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1533297
53.
LyeS. Y.KohJ. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: what is next for K-12?Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
54.
MannilaL.DagieneV.DemoB.GrgurinaN.MiroloC.RolandssonL.SettleA. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In ClearA.ListerR. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference. (pp. 1–29). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610
55.
Mendoza DiazN. V.MeierR.TryttenD. A.Yoon YoonS. (2020). Computational thinking growth during a first-year engineering course. In APearsMDaniels (Eds.), 2020 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE44824.2020.9274250.
56.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G.& The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS med, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Moreno-LeónJ.RoblesG.Román-GonzálezM. (2015). Dr Scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 46, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.6018/red/46/10.
59.
MouzaC.PanY.-C.YangH.PollockL. (2020). A multiyear investigation of student computational thinking concepts, practices, and perspectives in an after-school computing program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(5), 1029–1056. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120905605
60.
MunozR.VillarroelR.BarcelosT. S.RiquelmeF.QuezadaA.Bustos-ValenzuelaP. (2018). Developing computational thinking skills in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder through digital game programming. IEEE Access, 6, 63880-63889. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2877417
61.
MurphyP. K.AlexanderP. A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1019
62.
NardelliE. (2019). Do we really need computational thinking?Communications of the ACM, 62(2), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231587
63.
NewtonK. J.LeonardJ.BussA.WrightC. G.Barnes-JohnsonJ. (2020). Informal STEM: Learning with robotics and game design in an urban context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1713263
64.
PanskyiT.RowinskaZ.BiedronS. (2019). Out-of-school assistance in the teaching of visual creative programming in the game-based environment - case study: Poland. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 34, 100593. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2019.100593
65.
PapavlasopoulouS.SharmaK.GiannakosM. N. (2020). Coding activities for children: Coupling eye-tracking with qualitative data to investigate gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.003
66.
PapertS. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
67.
PerrenetJ.GrooteJ. F.KaasenbroodE. (2005). Exploring students’ understanding of the concept of algorithm: levels of abstraction. In CunhaJ.FleischmanW. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 64–68). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1067445.1067467
68.
PriceC. B.Price-MohrR. M. (2018). An evaluation of primary school children coding using a text-based language (Java). Computers in the Schools, 35(4), 284–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1531613
69.
RepenningA.WebbD.IoannidouA. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In LewandowskiG.WolfmanS.CortinaT. J.WalkerE. L. (Eds), Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee Wisconsin USA, 10–13 Mar 2010 (pp. 265–269). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734357
70.
RepenningA.WebbD. C.KohK. H.NickersonH.MillerS. B.BrandC.HorsesI. H. M.BasawapatnaA.GluckF.GroverR.GutierrezK.RepenningN. (2015). Scalable game design. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 15(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2700517
71.
RijkeW. J.BollenL.EysinkT. H. S.TolboomJ. L. J. (2018). Computational thinking in primary school: An examination of abstraction and decomposition in different age groups. Informatics in Education, 17(1), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.05
72.
Román-GonzálezM.Pérez-GonzálezJ.-C.Jiménez-FernándezC. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72(C), 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
73.
RothsteinH. R.HopewellS. (2009). Grey literature. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 10–125). Russell Sage Foundation.
74.
RoweE.AlmedaM. V.Asbell-ClarkeJ.ScruggsR.BakerR.BardarE.GascaS. (2021). Assessing implicit computational thinking in zoombinis puzzle gameplay. Computers in Human Behavior, 120, 106707. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106707
75.
SchererR.SiddiqF.Sánchez ViverosB. (2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 764–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000314
ShalliceTBroadbentD. E.WeiskrantzL. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 298(1089), 199–209. https://doi.org/doi:10.1098/rstb.1982.0082
SulistiyoM. A. S.WijayaA. (2020). The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning on computational thinking skills and self-efficacy of high school students. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1581(1), 12046. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1581/1/012046
80.
TedreM.DenningP. J. (2016). The long quest for computational thinking. In SheardJ.MonteroC. S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 120–129). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999542
81.
TissenbaumM.SheldonJ.AbelsonH. (2019). From computational thinking to computational action. Communications of the ACM, 62(3), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265747
82.
WangD.WangT.LiuZ. (2014). A tangible programming tool for children to cultivate computational thinking. The Scientific World Journal, 428080. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/428080
83.
WeintropD.BeheshtiE.HornM.OrtonK.JonaK.TrouilleL.WilenskyU. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
WingJ. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
86.
WuB.HuY.RuisA. R.WangM. (2019). Analysing computational thinking in collaborative programming: A quantitative ethnography approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12348
87.
WuS.-Y.SuY.-S. (2021). Visual programming environments and computational thinking performance of fifth- and sixth-grade students. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 59(6), 1075–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120988807
88.
YadavA.GoodJ.VoogtJ.FisserP. (2017). Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain. In MulderM. (Ed), Competence-based vocational and professional education: Bridging the worlds of work and education (pp. 1051–1067). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_49
89.
YinY.HadadR.TangX.LinQ. (2019). Improving and assessing computational thinking in maker activities: The integration with physics and engineering learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8
90.
ZhangL.NouriJ. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
