A Comparison of the Programming‐Oriented Computational Thinking Skills of Engineering and Nonengineering Students at Turkish Universities

ABSTRACT This study examines the programming‐oriented computational thinking (PoCT) skills of engineering and nonengineering faculty students, comparing them in terms of grade level and the three subdimensions of PoCT: Conceptual knowledge, algorithmic thinking, and evaluation. Additionally, the stu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Computer applications in engineering education Jg. 33; H. 5
1. Verfasser: Menzi Çetin, Nihal
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2025
Schlagworte:
Colleges & universities
computational thinking
design thinking
Effectiveness
engineering education
programming language self‐efficacy
Programming languages
Regression analysis
Skills
Students
ISSN:1061-3773, 1099-0542
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ABSTRACT This study examines the programming‐oriented computational thinking (PoCT) skills of engineering and nonengineering faculty students, comparing them in terms of grade level and the three subdimensions of PoCT: Conceptual knowledge, algorithmic thinking, and evaluation. Additionally, the study investigates the extent to which students' PoCT skill levels can be predicted by programming language self‐efficacy and design thinking skill through hierarchical regression analysis. The data of 571 computer science students from two types of faculties in Turkish universities were analysed. The findings revealed that engineering students had superior computational thinking skills to their nonengineering counterparts, as well as a slightly higher predictive power of programming self‐efficacy and design thinking on computational thinking. These results offer valuable insights and strategies for developing instructional practices that address the disadvantages faced by nonengineering disciplines.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1061-3773
1099-0542
DOI:10.1002/cae.70069