Conference Paper
Citation
Rushton, N., Smith, H., Perez, L., Castro, F., & Smith, G. (October, 2022). Using vignettes to explore student perceptions of computational thinking. To be included in the Proceedings of the Northeastern Educational Research Association Conference. Trumbull, CT.
Project Overview
Computational Thinking (CT) is widely recognized as an essential problem-solving skill across disciplines, yet its definition remains ambiguous and is often conflated with computer programming or technology use. This study examined how college students perceive computational thinking when it is presented in varied, real-world contexts.
Using a vignette-based survey design, we investigated whether students’ judgments about what constitutes CT aligned with researcher intent and explored the extent to which technology presence influenced perceptions of CT.
Using a vignette-based survey design, we investigated whether students’ judgments about what constitutes CT aligned with researcher intent and explored the extent to which technology presence influenced perceptions of CT.
Research Questions
- Do student judgments about whether a vignette represents computational thinking align with researcher-designed intentions?
- In what ways do students associate computational thinking with technology use?
My Role
- Contributed to the design of CT and non-CT vignettes
- Participated in qualitative coding development and refinement
- Supported thematic analysis of open-ended student responses
Methods
Study Design
- Online vignette-based survey administered via Qualtrics
- Participants evaluated short scenarios and answered:
- Whether the scenario represented computational thinking (Yes/No)
- A brief written explanation of their reasoning
Participants
- 37 undergraduate students
- Small, private, STEM-focused university
Vignettes
- 12 total vignettes:
- 8 designed to represent computational thinking
- 4 designed as non-CT examples
- Balanced across:
- Technology-related and non-technology-related contexts
- Four CT core concepts (Weintrop et al., 2016):
- Debugging
- Data practices
- Decomposition
- Iteration
Analytical Approach
- Quantitative analysis of agreement rates between student responses and researcher intent
- Qualitative analysis of open-ended explanations using a grounded theory approach
- Iterative coding process:
- Independent coding
- Group discussion and reconciliation
- Final codebook development
Key Findings
Alignment with Researcher Intent
- Students largely agreed with researcher intent for CT-designed vignettes, particularly those involving data analysis and iteration.
- Agreement was lower for non-CT vignettes, reflecting ambiguity in how students define CT.
Role of Technology
- Vignettes that included technology were more likely to be labeled as computational thinking.
- Students frequently equated CT with:
- Computer use
- Programming
- Digital tools
- This pattern persisted even when non-technology vignettes clearly demonstrated CT core concepts.
Why This Matters
Findings highlight a persistent misconception that computational thinking requires technology, despite CT being fundamentally about problem-solving processes rather than tools. This misconception has important implications for:
- CT curriculum design
- Teacher professional development
- Assessment of CT in non-technical disciplines
Understanding student perceptions is critical for designing instruction that accurately represents computational thinking and avoids reinforcing narrow, technology-centric interpretations.
Skills Demonstrated
- Survey and vignette-based research design
- Qualitative coding and thematic analysis
- Mixed-methods analysis
- Research collaboration and conference presentation
- Translating research findings into instructional implications