No abstract

This study investigated if using Dr. Scratch as a formative feedback tool would accelerate students' Computational Thinking (CT). Forty-one 4th-6th grade students participated in a 1-hour/week Scratch workshop for nine weeks. We measured pre- and posttest results of the computational thinking test (CTt) between control (n = 18) and treatment groups (n = 23) using three methods: propensity score matching (treatment = .575; control = .607; p = .696), information maximum likelihood technique (treatment effect = -.09; p = .006), and multiple linear regression. Both groups demonstrated significantly increased posttest scores over their pretest (treatment = +8.31%; control = +5.43%), showing that learning to code can increase computational thinking over a 2-month period. In this chapter, we discuss the implications of using Dr. Scratch as a formative feedback tool the possibilities of further research on the use of automatic feedback tools in teaching elementary computational thinking.

This study investigated if using Dr. Scratch as a formative feedback tool would accelerate students' Computational Thinking (CT). Forty-one 4th-6th grade students participated in a 1-hour/week Scratch workshop for nine weeks. We measured pre- and posttest results of the computational thinking test (CTt) between control (n = 18) and treatment groups (n = 23) using three methods: propensity score matching (treatment = .575; control = .607; p = .696), information maximum likelihood technique (treatment effect = -.09; p = .006), and multiple linear regression. Both groups demonstrated significantly increased posttest scores over their pretest (treatment = +8.31%; control = +5.43%), showing that learning to code can increase computational thinking over a 2-month period. In this chapter, we discuss the implications of using Dr. Scratch as a formative feedback tool the possibilities of further research on the use of automatic feedback tools in teaching elementary computational thinking.