SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3

Adaptation Study of The Competent Computational Thinking Test (cCTt) to Turkish

Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme Becerisi Testinin Türkçeye Adaptasyon Çalışması

Banu Sever(T.C. MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI)0000-0001-7416-396X
Dilek Altun(BOĞAZİÇİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9973-0585
Zeynep Aydemir(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3002-1809
Pages
1020–1039
Publication Date
2025-12-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A measurement tool that can be used to determine the level of CT skills without a computer (unplugged) has been added to the literature for researchers and educators who will conduct studies with fourth-grade primary school students.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Developments in today's digitalized world have given new impetus to technology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Measurement tools are needed to integrate computational thinking skills, most generally defined as problem-solving skills, into education and to determine levels of Computational Thinking (CT).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A measurement tool that can be used to determine the level of CT skills without a computer (unplugged) has been added to the literature for researchers and educators who will conduct studies with fourth-grade primary school students.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Bilgi işlemsel düşünme · bilgisayarsız · ilkokul

Abstract

Developments in today's digitalized world have given new impetus to technology. This has been reflected in the targeted learning outcomes and skill sets in education, highlighting the importance of thinking skills. Measurement tools are needed to integrate computational thinking skills, most generally defined as problem-solving skills, into education and to determine levels of Computational Thinking (CT). The aim of this research is to adapt the "Competent Computational Thinking Test (cCTt)," developed by El-Hamamsy et al. (2022), from English to Turkish. The cCTt is a scale with its 25-item and 6-dimensional structure. The translation process was completed after the necessary permissions were obtained. The Turkish form of the test was administered to 250 fourth-grade students using the convenience sampling method. Data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 and MPlus 7.0. KMO was .76 and Bartlett's test of sphericity was calculated as χ2 (276)= 1087.96 and p<0.05, and the values were found to be suitable for factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed within the scope of validity examinations. Items 16 and 19 were removed from the test due to low values in the correlation matrix. Based on the WRMR=.91 estimation method, it was revealed that it had good fit indices as χ2/sd=1.25; p=.00; RMSEA=.03; CFI=.95; TLI=.95. The internal consistency coefficient of the KR-20, which was examined for the reliability of the test consisting of 23 items and 6 dimensions, was calculated as .78. The Turkish version of the Computational Thinking Skills Test was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool. A measurement tool that can be used to determine the level of CT skills without a computer (unplugged) has been added to the literature for researchers and educators who will conduct studies with fourth-grade primary school students.

Özet

Dijitalleşen günümüz dünyasındaki gelişmeler teknolojiye yeni bir ivme kazandırmıştır. Bu durum eğitim öğretimde hedeflenen öğrenme çıktılarına, beceri setlerine de yansımış ve düşünme becerilerinin önemi ön plana çıkmıştır. En genel anlamıyla problem çözme becerisi olarak tanımlanan bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisinin eğitim öğretime entegrasyonu ve Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme (BİD) düzeylerinin belirlenmesi için ölçme araçlarına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Bu araştırmanın amacı, El-Hamamsy vd. (2022) tarafından geliştirilmiş olan “The competent Computational Thinking test (cCTt)”in İngilizceden Türkçeye uyarlama çalışmasını gerçekleştirmektir. cCTt, orijinalinde 25 madde ve 6 boyuttan oluşmaktadır. Gerekli izinler alındıktan sonra çeviri süreci tamamlanmıştır. Testin Türkçe formu uygun örnekleme yöntemi ile 250 dördüncü sınıf öğrencisine uygulanmıştır. Veriler SPSS 22.0 ve MPlus 7.0 programları ile analiz edilmiştir. KMO .76 ve Bartlett Küresellik testi sonucu χ2 (276)= 1087.96 ve p<.05 olarak hesaplanmış olup değerlerin faktör analizi için uygun olduğu görülmüştür. Geçerlik incelemeleri kapsamında doğrulayıcı faktör analizi (DFA) gerçekleştirilmiştir. Testten 16. ve 19. maddeler korelasyon matrisindeki düşük değerler sebebiyle çıkarılmıştır. WRMR=.91 kestirim yöntemi temelinde χ2/sd = 1.25; p=.00; RMSEA=.03; CFI=.95; TLI=.95 olarak iyi uyum indekslerine sahip olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. 23 madde ve 6 boyuttan oluşan testin güvenirliği için incelenen KR-20 iç tutarlılık katsayısı .78 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme Becerileri Testi’nin Türkçe versiyonunun geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. İlkokul dördüncü sınıf öğrencileri ile çalışma yürütecek olan araştırmacılara ve eğitimcilere bilgisayarsız (unplugged) olarak BİD becerisi düzeyi belirlemede kullanılabilecek ölçme aracı alanyazına kazandırılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Sever, B., Altun, D., Aydemir, Z. (2025). Adaptation Study of The Competent Computational Thinking Test (cCTt) to Turkish. Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 3, 1020–1039. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.1776993

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (69)

  1. Abanoz, T., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2024). Potansiyeli açığa çıkarmak: Erken çocukluk eğitimcileri tarafından STEM eğitiminde kullanılan aydınlatıcı pedagojik stratejiler, genç öğrencilerde algoritmik düşünme becerilerini geliştirmek için. Avrupa Erken Çocukluk Eğitimi Araştırma Dergisi, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2024.2339274
  2. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In G. R. Hancock & R.O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (ss. 93-114). Routledge.
  3. Bayık, M. E., & Gürbüz, S. (2016). Ölçek uyarlamada metodoloji sorunu: Yönetim ve örgüt alanında uyarlanan ölçekler üzerinden bir araştırma. İş ve İnsan Dergisi, 3(1), 1-20. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/iid/
  4. Bellettini, C., Lonati, V., Malchiodi, D., Monga, M., Morpurgo, A., & Torelli, M. (2015, June). How challenging are Bebras tasks? An IRT analysis based on the performance of Italian students. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (ss. 27-32). https://doi.org/10.1145/2729094.2742603
  5. Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), 1-20. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ910910.pdf
  6. Bers, M. U., Blake-West, J., Kapoor, M. G., Levinson, T., Relkin, E., Unahalekhaka, A., & Yang, Z. (2023). Coding as another language: Research-based curriculum for early childhood computer science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 64, 394-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.05.002
  7. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J. Horvath, M.A., Jasutė, E., Malagoli, C., et al. (2022). Reviewing computational thinking in Compulsory Education, Inamorato Dos Santos, A., Cachia, R., Giannoutsou, N., Punie, Y., Eds.; Publications Office of the European Union. DOI: 10.2760/126955 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bbf875ec-a5a2-11ec-83e1-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
  8. Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017, Kasım). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education (ss. 65-72). https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.31370
  9. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  10. Bundy, A. (2007). Computational thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical Computing, 1(2). http://www.spclab.com/publisher/journals/Vol1No2/N1.pdf
  11. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kuey/issue/10365/126871
  12. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
  13. Caeli, E. N., & Yadav, A. (2020). Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: A historical perspective. TechTrends, 64(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00410-5
  14. Can, A. (2017). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma surecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Akademi.
  15. Chew, S. L., & Cerbin, W. J. (2021). The cognitive challenges of effective teaching. The Journal of Economic Education, 52(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.184526
  16. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626 Cohen (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
  17. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
  18. Çetin, İ., Şendurur, P., & Otu, T. (2022). Tech Check isimli bilgi işlemsel düşünme testlerinin Türkçeye uyarlanması. Öğretim Teknolojileri ve Öğretmen Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(2), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.51960/jitte.1102904
  19. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Pegem Akademi.
  20. Denning, P. J. (2009). The profession of IT Beyond computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 28-30. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/1516046.1516054
  21. DiSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Mit Press.
  22. El-Hamamsy, L., Zapata-Cáceres, M., Barroso, E. M., Mondada, F., Zufferey, J. D., & Bruno, B. (2022). The competent computational thinking test: Development and validation of an unplugged computational thinking test for upper primary school. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(7), 1818-1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221081753
  23. El-Hamamsy, L., Zapata-Cáceres, M., Martín-Barroso, E. et al. (2025). The Competent Computational Thinking Test (cCTt): A valid, reliable and gender-fair test for longitudinal CT studies in grades 3–6. Tech Know Learn, 30, 1607–1661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09777-8
  24. Feaster, Y., Segars, L., Wahba, S. K., & Hallstrom, J. O. (2011, June). Teaching CS unplugged in the high school (with limited success). In Proceedings of the 16th annual joint conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (ss. 248-252). https://doi.org/10.1145/1999747.1999817
  25. Finch, J.F. & West, S.G. (1997) The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 439-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2194
  26. Gülbahar, Y., Kert, S. B., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2019). Bilgi işlemsel düşünme becerisine yönelik öz yeterlik algısı ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 10(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.385097
  27. Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  28. Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment, 1, 3-38.
  29. Hermans, F., & Aivaloglou, E. (2017, Kasım). To scratch or not to scratch? A controlled experiment comparing plugged first and unplugged first programming lessons. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education (ss. 49-56). https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137072
  30. Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I. & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. Roudledge Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203642597
  31. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  32. Hubwieser, P., & Mühling, A. (2015). Playing PISA with Bebras. Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, WiPSCE ’14, Berlin, Germany, 5–7 Kasım, 2014. (128–129). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670759
  33. ISTE (2016). ISTE standarts for students. http://www.iste.org/docs/Standards-Resources/iste-standards_students-2016_one-sheet_final.pdf?sfvrsn=0.23432948779836327.
  34. Jacob, S. R., & Warschauer, M. (2018). Computational thinking and literacy. Journal of Computer Science Integration, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2018.01.1.1
  35. Kline, R. B. (2012). Assumptions in structural equation modeling. Handbook of structural equation modeling, 111, 125.
  36. Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in human behavior, 72, 558-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005
  37. Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J.,. & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902
  38. Lu, C., Zhang, S., Yu, X., & Wang, Q. (2025). Computational thinking of elementary school students in social support systems: exploring the influence effects of teachers, family, and peers. Education and Information Technologies, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13475-y
  39. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. 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
  40. Mangaroska, K., Sharma, K., Gašević, D., & Giannakos, M. (2021). Exploring students' cognitive and affective states during problem solving through multimodal data: Lessons learned from a programming activity. J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 38, 40-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12590
  41. MEB. (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/
  42. Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (2017). Mplus: A general latent variable modeling program. Muthén & Muthén. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). An overview of psychological measurement. Clinical diagnosis of mental disorders: A handbook, 97-146.
  43. Palop, B., Díaz, I., Rodriguez-Muniz, L. J., & Santaengracia, J. J. (2025). Redefining computational thinking: A holistic framework and its implications for K-12 education. Education and Information Technologies, 1-26. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-024-13297-4
  44. Peng, H. H., Murti, A. T., Silitonga, L. M., & Wu, T. T. (2023). Effects of the fundamental concepts of computational thinking on students’ anxiety and motivation toward k-12 english writing. Sustainability, 15(7), 5855. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075855
  45. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. sage. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412984898
  46. Polat, E., Hopcan, S., Kucuk, S. & Sisman, B. (2021). A comprehensive assessment of secondary school students’ computational thinking skills. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(5), 1965-1980. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13092
  47. Pugnali, A., Sullivan, A. & Bers, M. U. (2017). Journal of ınformation technology education. ınnovations in practice. Santa Rosa, 16, 171-193. DOI:10.28945/3768
  48. Relkin, E. ve Bers, M. (2021). TechCheck-K: A measure of computational thinking for kindergarten children. In 2021 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 1696-1702. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON46332.2021.9453926
  49. Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L. & Bers, M. U. (2020). TechCheck: Development and validation of an unplugged assessment of computational thinking in early childhood education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 482-498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09831-x
  50. Rodriguez, B., Kennicutt, S., Rader, C. & Camp, T. (2017, Mart). Assessing computational thinking in CS unplugged activities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (501-506). https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017779
  51. Román-González, M. (2015). Computational thinking test: Design guidelines and content validation. In EDULEARN15 proceedings (ss. 2436-2444). IATED. https://library.iated.org/view/ROMANGONZALEZ2015COM
  52. Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2019). Combining assessment tools for a comprehensive evaluation of computational thinking ınterventions. In: Kong, SC., Abelson, H. (eds) Computational Thinking Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_6
  53. 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
  54. Saygıner, Ş. (2024). Okul öncesine yönelik geliştirilen bilgisayarsız kodlama etkinliklerinin motivasyon, bilgi işlemsel düşünme ve problem çözme becerilerine etkilerinin incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  55. Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 17(2), 268-274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
  56. Şaybak, B., & Birişçi, S. (2024). Bilgi işlemsel düşünmenin okuryazarlık kapsamında değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 13(2), 500-511. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1357138
  57. Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and reliability of the research instrument; how to test the validation of a questionnaire/survey in a research. International journal of academic research in management (IJARM), 5(3), 28-36. https://hal.science/hal-02546799/
  58. Taub, R., Ben-Ari, M., & Armoni, M. (2009). The effect of CS unplugged on middle-school students' views of CS. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1145/1595496.1562912
  59. Uzumcu, O., & Bay, E. (2021). The effect of computational thinking skill program design developed according to interest driven creator theory on prospective teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 565-583. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-020-10268-3
  60. Üzümcü, Ö. (2023). Computational thinking scale: The predictive role of metacognition in the context of higher order thinking skills. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 11(3), 423-437. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1355722
  61. WEF (2025). The future of jobs report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/
  62. Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118-154.
  63. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  64. Wing, J. M. (2011). Research Notebook: Computational thinking—What and Why. The link Magazine, 6, 20-23. https://people.cs.vt.edu/~kafura/CS6604/Papers/CT-What-And-Why.pdf
  65. Yıldırım, E. (2023). İlkokul öğrencileri için bilgi işlemsel düşünme ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi ve öğrencilerin düşünme düzeylerinin farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
  66. Zapata-Cáceres, M., Martín-Barroso, E., & Román-González, M. (2020, April). Computational thinking test for beginners: Design and content validation. In 2020 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (ss. 1905-1914). IEEE. 10.1109/EDUCON45650.2020.9125368
  67. Aristizábal Zapata, J. H., Gutiérrez Posada, J. E., & Diago, P. D. (2024). Design and validation of a computational thinking test for children in the first grades of elementary education. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 8(5), 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti8050039
  68. Zhang, W., Guan, Y., & Hu, Z. (2024). The efficacy of project-based learning in enhancing computational thinking among students: A meta-analysis of 31 experiments and quasi-experiments. Education and Information Technologies, 29(11), 14513-14545. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-023-12392-2
  69. Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J.,. & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902