Proc.
of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 8-9, 2018
Developing A Unified Model of Teaching
Computational Thinking
Nurul Faizah Rozali
School of Education
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FSSH)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Skudai, Malaysia
nfaizah38@live.utm.my
Norah Md Noor
School of Education
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FSSH)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Skudai, Malaysia
norah@utm.my
Abstract— Soft skills are important criteria in preparing
for a viable future employment, the lack of which, may result
in a low employment rate among university graduates. These
skills can be acquired via the use of Computational Thinking
(CT) to cultivate problem solving and thinking skills. Since the
inception of CT, however, not a single unified model has been
developed as a guideline for educators. Based on the relevant
articles available in IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Springer and
ScienceDirect Journal, this paper comparing different CT
models that focus on different CT dimensions which is
concepts, practices and perspectives.
Keywords— computational thinking; soft skill; employment;
problem solving; thinking.
I. INTRODUCTION
Soft skills cannot possibly be acquired in a day, as
repetitive practices are required in the process. Shakir [1]
reported the lack of soft skills as one of the main reasons for
failing an interview. This report highlighted the cause for a
low employability percentage among public university
graduates. Soft skills, such as problem-solving and thinking
skills are highly demanded today’ fast changing world, as
employees need to be always ready to tackle every problem
by thinking the best and the fastest solution. With the current
advancement of computer technology, relying on non-
technological solutions alone is no more sufficient to catch
up with the problems encountered. Even if they did, it will
take a longer time. For example, a traditional account report
is not preferable, as even the purchasing process is being
done online.
Technological innovations have positively disrupted the
way the world works, and the resulting pace of technological
advancement has called for analytical thinking skills to be
revisited. Short & Keller-Bell [2] mentioned that, “the key to
success in the twenty-first century and future labor markets is
to integrate hard and soft skills into a comprehensive
package tailored to specific needs, including the ability to
think clearly about complex problems and apply creative and
innovation solutions to solve problems”. The emergence of
Computational Thinking (CT) has provided an opportunity to
cultivate problem solving and thinking skills and tackle
employment problems as defined by Jeannette Wing [3],
“CT is the thought processes involved in formulating a
problem and expressing its solution(s) in such a way that a
computer - human or machine – can effectively carry out”.
IEEE ICEED 2018-223
978-1-5386-6847-4/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Norasykin Mohd Zaid
School of Education
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FSSH)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Skudai, Malaysia
norasykin@utm.my
Nor Hasniza Ibrahim
School of Education
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (FSSH)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Skudai, Malaysia
norhasniza@utm.my
Hence, CT can be a bridge between machine and human
ways of solving problems by merging both ways.
CT was first introduced by Seymour Papert [4] in 1996.
However, it was not until 2006, that it began to receive a lot
of attention, after being re-introduced by Jeannette Wing [5],
and this was subsequently followed by many researches on
CT from various fields. Despite the increasingly growing
interests in CT within a span of almost two decades, unified
models which all schools of thoughts can refer to remain
lacking, making assessment and pedagogical designs
difficult to conduct.
This paper provided an overview of existing models
available in teaching CT. A unified CT model can be created
by reviewing the other models developed from previous
studies. In this study, these models were compared, focus on
three different dimensions of CT which is concepts, practices
and perspectives.
II. METHODS
This paper is another version of an overview model of
CT by Palts and Pedaste [6] with a similar method of
analysis by sorting the CT approach into concept, practice
and perspective. In contrast to the study by Palts and Pedaste
[6] which was about a CT learning model, this research
attempted to identify a CT teaching model. The research was
carried out electronically from IEEE Xplore Digital Library,
Springer and ScienceDirect Journal. These outstanding
databases consist of established articles related to technology
and education disciplines. The research was done as follows:
1. The articles were searched under the keyword
“computational thinking”, which resulted in a total of
2296 (IEEE), 153876 (Springer) and 43729
(ScienceDirect) published articles about CT found in
academic journals.
2. The articles were sorted for those published between
year 2016 until year 2018 only, where a total of 461
(IEEE), 18520 (Springer) and 7385 (ScienceDirect)
were found.
3. Only articles written in English with full access and
related to the implementation of computational
thinking in education equipped with models were
selected. Abstracts of the 6326 articles were read for
further sorting, leaving only 12 articles to be
analyzed.
Proc. of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 8-9, 2018

4. For a systematic analysis of the 12 final articles, e. Computational thinking dimensions:

Table I was constructed according to: i. Concepts – programming concepts, such as
a. Name of author(s) loops
b. Setting of the research (primary school, high ii. Practices – programming problem solving
school, university) practices
c. Type of research (survey, experimental, case iii. Perspective – computational thinking
study) concept understanding.
d. Intervention (project-based learning, block-
oriented programming)

TABLE I. ARTICLES FOUND IN ACADEMIC JOURNAL

Research Computational Thinking Dimensions

Author Setting Intervention
Type
Concepts Practices Perspectives
[7] Burbaitė, Drąsutė &
High school Case study CT in STEM 
Štuikys
[8] Pérez & Valladares Pre- University Experiment CT in computation 
[9] Pedersen et.al Primary school Survey Programming 
[10] Xiao & Yu Primary school Experiment Project-based learning 
[11] Sharifah Maryam,
University Survey CT in innovation 
Mahyuddin & Hasnah
[12] Borges et. al General Case study Formal thinking of CT 
[13] Missiroli, Russo &
University Experiment CT in computation 
Ciancarini
[14] Malizia, Turchi &
University Survey CT in computation 
Olsen
[15] Daungcharone University Survey CT in computation 

[16] Chang University Experiment Programming 

Middle & High Gamified interactive
[17] Tabesh Case Study 
school platform
[18] Chalmers Primary school Case Study CT in robotic 

Table I shows the findings from IEEE, Springer and
ScienceDirect database that contain the integration of CT in
various fields and settings of learning. These findings show
that, research activities mostly involved university settings,
with a score of 60%, compared to school settings. The
intervention was used mostly for computer science subjects,
except in a study by Burbaite [7] which was used for STEM
education.
Three dimensions of CT were first proposed by Brennan
and Resnick [8] in their framework back in 2012, before Lye
and Koh [9] used the same concept to review CT in
programming teaching and learning in 2014. Meanwhile,
Palts and Pedaste [6] used three dimensions of CT, namely,
CT concepts, CT practices, and CT perspectives, to review a
model of learning CT. In this paper, the three dimensions
were used to categorize the articles to review a model of
teaching CT. These dimensions are fit to understand the way
to nurture CT in teaching as they are also in line with
assessing the development of CT in the original framework
as proposed by Brennan and Resnick [8].
A. Dimension 1: Computational Thinking Concepts
Concepts dimension exposed students to programming
concepts, such as sequencing, switches, events, conditionals,
operators, variables and loops. This dimension perceives
“how students learnt the technicalities of programming” [9].
Findings from this study showed that, only two studies used
the CT concepts dimension, namely those by Borges et. al
[10] and Missiroli, Russo & Ciancarini [11]. The case study
by Borges et. al [10] concluded that CT could contribute to
the development of formal thinking. Missiroli, Russo &
Ciancarini [11], meanwhile, who studied experimental data,
found that, pair learning would be needed to enforce CT by
merging the values of CT and Agile. The philosophy of
Agile “acknowledges that, not all information and know-how
might be available at the beginning of a project; therefore,
reaching the goal requires several iterations, each closer to
the solution” [11].
B. Dimension 2: Computational Thinking Practices
Practices dimension is a problem-solving practice [6] that
happens throughout the process of programming learning.
This includes problem identification, decomposition,
abstraction, testing and debugging [12]. CT practices is the
highest dimension found with a score of 50%, 3 each being
in a school setting and a university setting, where more
complex programming was taught. These 6 articles were
found to be present in all the three types of research, namely,
survey (3 articles), experimental (2 articles) and case study
(1 article).
Studies by Pedersen et.al [13], Malizia, Turchi and Olsen
[14] and Daungcharone [15] found that, an educational
robotic system could naturally inject CT in other subjects
[13], develop algorithmic thinking among non-programmers
[14] and affect learner’s motivation [15], respectively.
Tangible user interface (TUI) is more helpful in learning,
compared to screen, as evident in educational robotic

IEEE ICEED 2018-224

 Proc. of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 8-9, 2018
systems, known as BRICKO [13] and Tangible
Programmable Augmented Surface (TAPAS) [14].
On the other hand, experimental studies conducted by
Xiao & Yu [16] in primary schools and Chang [17] in
universities revealed that both settings reported results in
favor of CT cultivation using visual programming tools, App
Inventor [16] and StarLogo TNG [17].
However, a case study conducted by Tabesh [18],
conducted in a Polypup platform to expose CT by exploring
mathematical concepts through games, found that, through
digital experience, learners developed their own
mathematical abilities [18].
C. Dimension 3: Computational Thinking Perspectives
Perspective dimension is the concept shaped by
understanding “the world around them and about
themselves” [8] which emphasizes on students’
understanding in solving a problem critically. It was found
that, 4 out of 12 articles were perspective dimension in
nature, covering a fair number of school and university
settings. For a school setting, both studies conducted by
Burbaitė, Drąsutė and Štuikys [7] and Chalmers [12] found
that, CT injection in STEM discipline resulted in positive
results [7] [12]. As for the university setting, both studies by
Pérez and Valladares [19] and Sharifah Maryam, Mahyuddin
and Hasnah [20] concluded that, the best integration of CT
would require a centralized assessment [19] and a framework
[20].
III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
As listed in Table I, the search found that, 7 out of 10
studies concentrated on different aspects of CT: platform to
auto generate CT report [19]; playful interactions in CT
learning [13]; CT in formal thinking to foster a cognitive
development [10]; cooperative thinking for computer science
students [11]; block-orientation programmable objects to
learn CT [14]; CT enhancement through simulation games
[15]; designing programming courses [17], problem solving
puzzles through CT [18] and robotic coding to introduce CT
[12].
Based on these findings, a total of three models of CT
could be referred to: 1) Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and
Computational Thinking 2) CICP Process in Ideation Stage
and 3) Model of Cultivating Computational (Table II). These
models were referred to in creating a unified model of CT
due to their concrete evidence of implementation. Besides,
the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Computational Thinking
model by Burbaite, Drasute, and Stuikys [7] has been
published in “Smart STEM-driven computer science
education” a 14- chapter book discussing the practical use
and values of the model with multiple case studies [21].
TABLE II. ARTICLES CONSIST MODEL
Author Model Assessment
[7] Burbaitė, Drąsutė Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy Achievement
and Štuikys and Computational Thinking test
[20] Sharifah Maryam, Observation
CICP Process in Ideation Stage
Mahyuddin & Hasnah Interview
Model of Cultivating Problem-
[16] Xiao and Yu Computational Thinking Based solving test
on Visual Programming
IEEE ICEED 2018-225
The model developed by Burbaite, Drasute, and Stuikys
[7], introduced a Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and
Computational Thinking Model to prove that STEM
supported the cultivation of CT. This model provided the
evidence of availability through a case study implemented in
the existing curriculum.
The model developed by Sharifah Maryam, Mahyuddin
& Hasnah [20] is about a CICP Process in Ideation Stage,
which integrates CT and innovation processes in a higher
educational curriculum. A qualitative action research study
has been conducted through observation and interviews
among school teachers in different disciplines.
The model of Cultivating Computational Thinking Based
on Visual Programming by Xiao and Yu [16] aims to
cultivate CT via a visual programming tool, known as App
Inventor, based on the combination of teaching plan and
learning plan. The experimental results confirmed that,
students’ CT improved, in terms of formalization and
modelling.
All the three models have different settings, in the forms
of high school [7], university [20] and primary school [16]
and also different types of research, namely, case study [7],
survey [20] and experiment [16]. These differences are good
to develop a unified model of CT for a better implementation
in various fields and settings which will provide different
perspectives of CT acceptance at all levels. A unified model
is the combination of similar issues with different
perspectives [22].
TABLE III. COMPONENTS OF CT IN MODELS
Components of Computational
Thinking
Data Representation
Pattern Recognition
Evaluating Solution
Generalization/
Decomposition
Abstraction
Algorithm
Model
[7] Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
    
and Computational Thinking
[20] CICP Process in Ideation Stage    
[16] Model of Cultivating
Computational Thinking Based on    
Visual Programming
Components of CT present in these three models are
displayed in Table III. They are all well in accordance with
the operational definitions of CT by Computer Science
Teachers Association (ISTE) and International Society for
Technology in Education (CSTA) [23]. These two
organizations are the most suitable reference, due to their
extensive involvement and expertise in developing
educational standards, curriculum materials, and professional
development for educators [24].
The definition of each components of CT are as follows:
1) Abstraction – simplifying from concrete to general
2) Decomposition– breaking down problems
3) Pattern recognition– expanding existing solutions to
cover more cases
4) Data representation – sequencing of meaningful symbols
5) Algorithm – step by step instructions
6) Evaluating solution – ensure solution fit for purpose
Proc. of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 8-9, 2018

Abstraction, generalization or pattern recognition and TABLE IV. KNOWLEDGE DIMENSION, COGNITIVE DIMENSION AND CT
SKILLS (ADAPTED FROM [7][27])
algorithm were all present in these three models. Meanwhile,
data representation was present in one model, namely, CICP Cognitive Process Dimension
Process in Ideation Stage and evaluating solution was present

Understand
Remember
also in only one model, namely, Model of Cultivating Knowledge

Evaluate
Analyze

Create
Apply
Computational Thinking Based on Visual Programming. Dimension
However, for a full access of CT skills, all six components
are accountable in a unified model, all deemed important in
Factual
teaching CT [4]. Conceptual
Procedural X X X
A. Model 1: Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT) and Metacognitive
Computational Thinking (CT) Model

Generalization/
Decomposition

Representation
A model by Burbaitė, Drąsutė and Štuikys [7] is to assess

Recognition
Abstraction

Algorithm
Pattern
students’ achievements, according to Bloom’s taxonomy in

relations to CT skills. The revised Bloom’s taxonomy (RBT)
proposed by Anderson and Krathwohl [26] focuses on
learning objective represented in Knowledge and Cognitive
Process dimension.
The Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (RBT) and
Computational Thinking (CT) Model is presented in Fig.1.
Fig. 1. Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Computational Thinking Model
[7]
The model shown in Fig.1 represents the increase in
knowledge dimension, from Factual to Metacognitive once
more cognitive process and computational thinking skills are
acquired by a learner. For example, if a learner can create an
algorithm to solve a problem while understanding and
decomposing the problem and analyzing the pattern, he or
she is considered to have achieved Procedural Knowledge, as
shown in Table IV.
Data
CT Skills
Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Computational
Thinking Model has been implemented in two case studies in
developing CT skills among STEM learners in Computer
Science which covered both formal and informal learning.
Results of the case studies found that, through the integration
of CT in formal learning environment, a mixed science
knowledge of Physics and CS, leading to acquiring the
procedural knowledge is obtained, where a learner reuses
prior knowledges to generate a new knowledge. This study
presents a vision to develop CT skills by injecting STEM in
CS education.
The idea of merging Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy as
proposed by Burbaitė, Drąsutė and Štuikys [7] in assessing
learner’s computational thinking is brilliant, as it is an
appropriate way to merge all the dimensions of learning. A
unified model should be carefully developed so as to
beautifully merge all the dimensions in any future work.
Step-by-step instructions to solve a problem by CT were
not discussed in detail in this model, whereas these steps
need to be addressed well in a unified model, as highlighted
by Nilsen [28], who stated, that through detailed steps of the
way the model works, its best implementation can be
achieved.
B. Model 2: CICP Process in Ideation Stage
The model by Sharifah Maryam, Mahyuddin & Hasnah
[20] is focused on the CICP process in the ideation stage
framework which integrates CT in the innovation process.
The flowchart in Fig. 2 shows the CICP process in the
ideation stage.

IEEE ICEED 2018-226

 Proc. of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 8-9, 2018

decompose complex problems into a smaller chunk of

problems, and lastly provide ideas or approaches to solve the
given problems.
Whereas, in this model, the project-based teaching was
done in the other way around, where it was a bottom–up
project. In this approach, the teacher presents the students
with problem gradually, by expanding the complexity,
according to the students’ understanding, thus allowing them
the opportunities to explore the whole process of problem-
solving. Details of the Model of Cultivating Computational
Thinking are presented in Fig. 3.

Fig. 2. CICP Process in the Ideation Stage [20]

The CICP process of innovation consists of four stages

as follows:
1) Crack The Big Issue
Find the main problem and the concrete issue. Fig. 3. Model of Cultivating Computational Thinking [16]
2) Identify Similarities This model is complete with teacher guidance criteria,
Identify some common issues where a teaching plan and a learning plan are included. An
3) Compress The Data effective learning process involves both teachers and learners
Reduce the irrelevant details of information in the learning process [29]. A teaching plan and a learning
plan should be made available in unified models.
4) Plan Step-By-Step Instructions
Instructions of planning are shown using graphic This model uses visual programming tools to convey the
organizers learning which has successfully cultivated CT. A visual
programming “replaces the boring and error-prone complex
codes with intuitive building blocks”, which indirectly ease
These stages were developed by integrating components the learners’ learning process and promote their CT ability in
of CT with the ideation process which is crucial in solving problems [16].
innovation. In this case, CT was used to ease student
generate ideas and paths of the proposed solution. These
integrations can be seen in Table V. IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the articles found in the IEEE
TABLE V. INTEGRATION OF CT IN CICP PROCESS OF IDEATION Xplore Digital Library, Springer and ScienceDirect Journal,
STAGE this paper categorized the findings into three dimensions of
CT namely, concepts, practices and perspectives and
CICP Process in
Ideation Process Components of CT
Ideation Stage presented three models of CT from these findings. Unified
Identify the problem Decomposition Crack the big issue models of teaching CT should include all components of CT
Research the problem Pattern recognition Identify similarities presented in these models, namely, abstraction,
Find the solutions Abstraction Compress the data decomposition, pattern recognition, data representation,
Choose the best Plan the step-by-step
possible solution
Algorithm
instructions
algorithm and evaluating solution.
The key elements from the models were integrated in
The CICP process model has detailed steps describing the developing a unified model of teaching CT. First model
problem-solving process for learning CT. This will ensure suggested that, different dimensions should be merged
detailed executions of the model. A unified model should appropriately, and STEM education integration is
consider detailed step-by-step instructions for its best recommended. Learners link their prior STEM knowledge to
implementation [28]. generate new knowledge, which is crucial to cultivate CT
skills. Meanwhile, the second model suggested that, specific
steps for describing the process of learning CT and parallel
C. Model 3: Model of Cultivating Computational Thinking integration for fit merging be taken. On the other hand, third
The model by Xiao and Yu [16] is a Computational model recommended the use of visual programming tools
Thinking Training Model, a mixture of a teaching plan and a and bottom-up, project-based teaching to assess CT.
learning plan with CT to plan teaching and nurture CT.
A unified model can be created by including these
A traditional project-based teaching presents student with elements which cater for various dimensions of CT for a
whole problems and the outcomes, which require them to better learning. Further researches on the way teachers are

IEEE ICEED 2018-227

Proc. of the IEEE 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED2018), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, November 8-9, 2018
trained to teach CT and the evaluation of the implementation
of CT also need to be done to ensure that, the integration of
CT in learning is centralized and effective.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are very grateful to Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia and the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) for
sponsoring this research (RJ130000.7831.4F909) under the
Fundamental Research Grand Scheme.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Shakir, “Soft skills at the Malaysian institutes of higher learning,”
Asia Pacific Educ. Rev., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 309–315, 2009.
[2] M. Short and Y. Keller-Bell, Essential Skills for the 21st Century
Workforce. 2019.
[3] J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking Benefits Scoiety,” Soc. Issues
Comput., 2014.
[4] P. Seymour, “An exploration in the space of mathematics
educations,” pp. 1–12, 1996.
[5] J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking,” Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no.
3, pp. 33–35, 2006.
[6] T. Palts and M. Pedaste, “Model of Learning Computational
Thinking,” IFIP TC3 Work. Conf. a New Cult. Learn. Comput. Next
Gener., pp. 211–221, 2015.
[7] R. Burbaite, V. Drasute, and V. Stuikys, “Integration of
Computational Thinking Skills in STEM-Driven Computer Science
Education,” 2018 IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf., pp. 1824–1832,
2018.
[8] K. Brennan and M. Resnick, “New frameworks for studying and
assessing the development of computational thinking,” pp. 1–25,
2012.
[9] S. Y. Lye and J. H. L. Koh, “Review on teaching and learning of
computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-
12?,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 41, pp. 51–61, 2014.
[10] K. S. Borges, C. S. de Menezes, and L. da Cruz Fagundes, “The use
of computational thinking in digital fabrication projects a case study
from the cognitive perspective,” 2017 IEEE Front. Educ. Conf., pp.
1–6, 2017.
[11] M. Missiroli, D. Russo, and P. Ciancarini, “Cooperative Thinking, or:
Computational Thinking Meets Agile,” 30th IEEE Conf. Softw. Eng.
Educ. Training, CSEE T 2017, pp. 187–191, 2017.
[12] C. Chalmers, “International Journal of Robotics and computational
thinking in primary school,” Int. J. Child-Computer Interact., vol. 17,
pp. 93–100, 2018.
[13] B. K. M. K. Pedersen, K. E. Andersen, A. J rgensen, S. Köslich, F.
Sherzai, and J. Nielsen, “Towards Playful Learning and
IEEE ICEED 2018-228
Computational Thinking - Developing the Educational Robot
BRICKO,” 2018 IEEE Integr. STEM Educ. Conf., pp. 37–44, 2018.
[14] A. Malizia, T. Turchi, and K. A. Olsen, “Block-oriented programming
with tangibles: An engaging way to learn computational thinking
skills,” 2017 IEEE Blocks Beyond Work., pp. 61–64, 2017.
[15] K. Daungcharone, “Enhancement the computational thinking skills
via the simulation game,” 2017 Int. Conf. Digit. Arts, Media Technol.,
pp. 195–199, 2017.
[16] M. Xiao and X. Yu, “A Model of Cultivating Computational
Thinking Based on Visual Programming,” 2017 Int. Conf. Educ.
Innov. through Technol., pp. 75–80, 2017.
[17] C.-K. Chang, “Using Computational Thinking Patterns to Scaffold
Program Design in Introductory Programming Course,” 2016 5th IIAI
Int. Congr. Adv. Appl. Informatics, pp. 397–400, 2016.
[18] Y. Tabesh, “Digital Pedagogy in Mathematical Learning,” pp. 669–
678, 2018.
[19] A. D. F. Pérez and G. M. Valladares, “Development and assessment
of computational thinking,” 2018 IEEE Glob. Eng. Educ. Conf., pp.
787–795, 2018.
[20] S. A. Sharifah Maryam, A. Mahyuddin, and M. Hasnah, “The
Framework for the Integration of Computational Thinking in Ideation
Process,” 2017 IEEE Int. Conf. Teaching, Assessment, Learn. Eng.,
no. December, pp. 61–65, 2017.
[21] B. R. Štuikys V., Smart STEM-Driven Computer Science Education -
Theory, Methodology and Robot-based Practices. Springer, Cham,
2018.
[22] C. Boutilier, “A Unified Model of Qualitative Belief Change: A
Dynamical Systems Perspective.,” Artif. Intell., vol. 98, no. 1–2, pp.
281–316, 1998.
[23] ISTE and CSTA, “Operational Definition of Computational
Thinking,” 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-
documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf.
[24] V. Barr and C. Stephenson, “Bringing computational thinking to K-
12,” ACM Inroads, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 48, 2011.
[25] J. Wing, “Computational thinking,” Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no. 3,
pp. 33–35, 2006.
[26] L. W. Anderson and D. R. Krathwohl, A Taxonomy for Learning,
Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. New York: Longman, 2001.
[27] D. R. Krathwohl, “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy : An
Overview,” in Theory Into Practice, vol. 41, no. 4, Taylor & Francis,
2002, pp. 212–218.
[28] P. Nilsen, “Making sense of implementation theories, models and
frameworks,” Implement. Sci., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2015.
[29] S. O’neill, “Effective Teaching,” Dep. Educ. Train., no. June, p. 4,
2009.