Assessing Computational Thinking Across the Curriculum

  • Julie MuellerEmail author
  • Danielle Beckett
  • Eden Hennessey
  • Hasan Shodiev
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)


Computational thinking (CT) refers to a set of processes through which people arrive at solutions to problems using principles based in computer science. A CT approach to problem-solving is increasingly valuable in education and workplace settings as the economy grows more dependent on digital literacy. Given the importance of CT, it is essential to assess these skills. However, a reliable assessment tool is absent from the current literature. This chapter, therefore, defines CT across the Ontario (Canada) Elementary School curriculum in elementary classrooms and addresses the need for effective instructional strategies and assessment of CT-related problem-solving abilities. Finally, we establish where CT concepts and skills already exist or are missing from the curriculum and suggest a workable tool to assess CT based on existing literature.


Assessment of problem-solving Computational thinking (CT) Curriculum expectations Elementary education 



The research discussed in this chapter is supported by a Social Science and Humanities Research Council Insight Development Grant.


  1. Ahonen, A. K. & Kankaanranta, M. (2015). Introducing assessment tools for 21st century skills in Finland. In P. Griffin & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 213–225). Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Andrade, H. L. (2009). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment: Academic self-assessment and the self-regulation of learning. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90–105). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  3. Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bring computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Transaction on Computational Logic, 2(1), 48–54.Google Scholar
  5. Bellanca, J., & Brandt, R. (Eds.). (2010). 21st century skills. Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. New York, NY: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brookhart, S. M. (2009). Mixing it up: Combining sources of classroom achievement information for formative and summative purposes. In H. L. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 279–296). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Cashin, W. E. (1990). Students do rate different academic fields differently. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 43, 113–121. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219904310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charlton, P., & Luckin, R. (2012). Computational thinking and computer science in schools. In ‘What The Research Says’ Briefing 2. The London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education: United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  12. Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), & The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2011). Computational Thinking. Teacher Resources (2nd ed.). USA: National Science Foundation. Grant No. CNS-1030054.Google Scholar
  13. Constable, R. L. (2005). Transforming the academy: Knowledge formation in the age of digital information. New York, NY: Cornell University Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computing at School. Retrieved from
  15. Dann, R. (2014). Assessment as learning: Blurring the boundaries of assessment and learning for theory, policy, and practice. Assessment in Education, 21(2), 149–166. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.898128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  17. DiCerbo, K. (2014). Review of the book chapter Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills, by P. Griffin, E. Care, & B. McGaw, Eds. Assessment in education: Principles, policies, and practices, 21l(4), 502-505. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.931836
  18. Drake, S. M., Reid, J. L., & Kolohan, W. (2014). Interweaving curriculum and assessment in the 21st century: Engaging students in 21st century leanring. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goyvaerts, J. (2016). Regular-expressions. Retrieved from:
  23. Griffin, P. (2014). Performance assessment of higher order thinking. Journal of Applied Measurement, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  24. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2015). Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills: Methods and Approach. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Grover, S. (2015). “Systems of Assessments” for deeper learning of computational thinking in K-12. Draft paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 15–20, 2015.Google Scholar
  26. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hennessey, E., Mueller, J., Beckett, D., & Fisher, P. Hiding in plain sight: Assessing how much and where computational thinking is represented with the ontario elementary school curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  29. Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 37–56). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Jun, S. J., Han, S. G., Kim, H. C., & Lee, W. G. (2014). Assessing the computational literacy of elementary students on a national level in Korea. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 319–332. doi: 10.1007/s11092-013-9185-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2011). Retrieved from
  32. Leighton, J. P., & Gierl, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Cognitive diagnostic assessment for education: Theory and applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (2010). Report of a Workshop on the Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12840.Google Scholar
  34. Naughton, J. (2012). Why all our kids should be taught how to code. Observer New Review, 31(3), 12.Google Scholar
  35. Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education: ACM, 265-269.Google Scholar
  36. Scratch Ed (2016). Computational thinking with scratch. Retrieved February 12, 2016, from
  37. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144.Google Scholar
  38. Shear, M. D. (2016). Obama’s budget urges a deeper commitment to computer education. New York Times. Retrieved from
  39. Shelby, C. & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. Available:
  40. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence applied. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  41. Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Foreword. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook on metacognition in education (pp. viii–viix). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Volante, L., & Beckett, D. (2011). Formative assessment and the contemporary classroom: Synergies and tensions between research and practice. Canadian Journal in Education, 34(2), 239–255.Google Scholar
  43. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20, 715–728.Google Scholar
  44. Voskoglou, M. G., & Buckley, S. (2012). Problem solving and computers in a learning environment. Egyptian Computer Science Journal, ECS, 36(4), 28–46.Google Scholar
  45. Voskoglou, M. G., & Perdikaris, S. C. (1993). Measuring problem-solving skills. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 24(3), 443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Western and Northern Protocol for Collaboration in Education. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with a purpose in mind. Retrieved from
  47. Wilson, M., Scaliseb, K., & Gochyyev, P. (2015). Rethinking ICT literacy: From computer skills to social network settings. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wing, J. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. Social Issues in Computing Blog. Retrieved from:

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Mueller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Danielle Beckett
    • 2
  • Eden Hennessey
    • 1
  • Hasan Shodiev
    • 1
  1. 1.Wilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Brock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations