Journal of Research in Educational Systems
Scientific Journal

The Landscape of Computational Thinking Assessment in Primary Education: A Critical Review of Tools and Research Trends

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mona Batoei Avarzaman 1
Maryam Mohsenpour 2
Abolfazl Rafiepour 3

1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran. E

2 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor of Mathematics Education, Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer- Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman & Mahani Math Center, Afzalipour Research Institute, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran.Kerman, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2026.551273.3385
Abstract
Objective: Computational thinking is a key competency in primary education; however, its valid measurement faces serious conceptual and psychometric challenges. Beyond a mere classification of tools, this study presents a diagnostic analysis of the field through a dual approach: first, mapping the scientific landscape via scientometric analysis; and second, critically evaluating existing assessment tools.
Method: In this systematic critical review (PRISMA 2020), 45 eligible articles were identified by searching Scopus and Google Scholar databases (2006-2025). Analyses were conducted in two phases: 1) Scientometric analysis to map the conceptual structure of the field using R and VOSviewer software, and 2) Qualitative critical analysis of 8 selected key tools regarding their theoretical foundations and psychometric properties.
Results: The scientometric analysis revealed a rapidly growing but unbalanced field. The keyword co-occurrence map indicated a strong focus on "educational applications" and "programming tools," contrasted by a significant absence of assessment concepts such as "validity" and "fairness." This structural gap is directly reflected in the tools, revealing three main limitations: 1) Psychometric weakness due to reliance on traditional metrics (Cronbach's alpha) and neglect of modern standards (such as Omega coefficient and DIF analysis); 2) Conceptual limitations by focusing on algorithmic knowledge while ignoring process skills (debugging) and attitudinal aspects (perseverance); and 3) An instrumental gap for upper primary students.
Conclusions: Based on the findings, no single tool is sufficient for the comprehensive assessment of computational thinking. The maturity of this field requires adopting modern psychometric standards such as the Omega reliability coefficient, designing and localizing tests for primary students in Iran, and creating hybrid assessment frameworks that integrate standardized tests with performance-based assessments. This integrated approach will lead to more accurate skill diagnosis and the design of more effective educational programs.

Keywords

Assessment Tools
Computational Thinking
primary students, Critical Review
Psychometric Properties
Subjects
رزبان، س.، شاه حسینی، س.، و باقری، م. (1399). تأثیر آموزش برنامه نویسی با نرم افزار اسکرچ بر مهارت حل مسئله دانش آموزان. آموزش و ارزشیابی (علوم تربیتی)، 13(49 )، 93-107.    https://doi.org/10.30495/jinev.2020.673920
رمضانی، ع.، و شریفی، م. (1403). مدل‌سازی تأثیر شکاف دیجیتال، تفکر رایانشی (محاسباتی) و جذب شناختی بر سواد هوش مصنوعی در بین دانشجو معلمان. مطالعات آموزش و یادگیری، 16(2)، 259-278.  http://noo.rs/xp3h9
روحی، م.، دهقانی، م.، و خطاط، م. (1402). شناسایی مؤلفه‌های تفکر محاسباتی در مهارت‌های یادگیری دوره ابتدایی. مطالعات آموزش و یادگیری، 15(1)، ۱۶ – ۴۵.      https://doi.org/10.22099/jsli.2023.7180
شایان، م.، و یافتیان، ن. (1397). ارزیابی عملکرد دانش‌آموزان پایه دهم و معلمان متوسطه اول در آزمون سواد ریاضی. پژوهش در نظام‌های آموزشی، 12(43)، 65-94. https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2018.83764
ضیاءنژاد شیرازی، آ.، کوروش نیا، م.، سهرابی، ن.، و بقولی، ح. (1401). تدوین معادله افتراقی عوامل فردی موثر بر عملکرد در آزمون تیمز 2019 پایه چهارم در دانش آموزان با عملکرد بالا و پایین. پژوهش در نظام‌های آموزشی، 16(58)، 141-129. https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2022.167791
مومنی کوهستانی، ا.، و نژادحسینیان، ی. (1401، آذر). تاثیر به کار گیری نرم افزار اسکرچ بر خلاقیت دانش آموزان. هفتمین کنفرانس ملی رویکردهای نوین در آموزش و پژوهش، محمودآباد. https://civilica.com/doc/1619732
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, 1, 25. https://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf
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
Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Assessing computational thinking in a programming course for pre-service teachers. Informatics in Education, 20(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2021.10
González, M. J. C., Pérez, J. M., & Chas-Apiñeiro, M. (2017). A tool for the assessment of computational thinking skills in primary school students. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM'17), 1–7. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3144826.3145404
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Haseski, H. İ., Ilić, U., & Tuğtekin, U. (2018). The relationship between computational thinking skills, and programming self-efficacy and problem-solving skills in the programming process. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(6), 848–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117718298
Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But… Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24.https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
Hsu, T. C., & Chen, M. S. (2025). Effects of students using different learning approaches for learning computational thinking and AI applications. Education and Information Technologies, 30(6), 7549–7571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12933-w
Li, Y., & Liu, K. (2021). Development and validation of a computational thinking test for upper primary school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 457–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120967347
McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433.  https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000147
Momeni Kohestani, A. M., & Nezhadhosseinian, Y. (2022, December). The effect of using Scratch software on students' creativity. 7th National Conference on New Approaches in Education and Research, Mahmudabad. (in Persian) https://civilica.com/doc/1619732
Ocampo, J. L. D., Herman, J., & Suson, R. (2024). A systematic review of computational thinking assessment tools in K-12 education. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 329–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11756-5
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Parker, M. C., Chen, Y., O’Neal, L. J., Wagh, A., Tucker-Cuthbertson, A. J., & Century, J. (2021). Assessing computation for elementary students (ACES): An assessment of sequences and repeating patterns. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1, 518–524. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3430665.3456382
Ramezani, A., & Sharifi, M. (2024). Modeling the effect of digital divide, computational thinking and cognitive absorption on artificial intelligence literacy among student teachers. Journal of Studies in Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 259–278. (in Persian) http://noo.rs/xp3h9
Razban, S., Shahhosseini, S., & Bagheri, M. (2020). The effect of teaching programming with Scratch software on students problem solving skills. Journal of Instruction and Evaluation, 13(49), 93–107. (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.30495/jinev.2020.673920
Relkin, E., de Ruiter, L., & Bers, M. U. (2020). TechCheck: Development and validation of an unplugged computational thinking assessment for early primary education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 482–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09831-x
Rouhi, M., Dehghani, M., & Khatat, M. (2023). Identifying components of computational thinking in elementary school learning skills. Journal of Studies in Learning and Instruction, 15(1), 16–45. (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.22099/jsli.2023.7180
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. University of Southampton. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/
Shayan, M., & Yaftian, N. (2018). Evaluation of the performance of 10th grade students and junior high school teachers in mathematical literacy test. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 12(43), 65–94. (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2018.83764
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Stewart, W. H., et al. (2021). The effects of collaborative coding on upper elementary students' computational thinking. Computer Science Education, 31(4), 432–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1866931
Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798
Tang, X., Wang, M., & Qian, Y. (2020). A systematic review of computational thinking assessment for K-12 students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29, 626–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09840-w
Tikva, C., & Tambouris, E. (2021). Mapping computational thinking through programming in K-12 education: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 162, 104082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104082
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yadav, A., et al. (2022). Computational thinking in education: A pedagogical perspective. Handbook of Research on Teaching.  https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-48-6_8
Zapata-Cáceres, M., & Martín-Barroso, E. (2024). Validation of the computational thinking test for primary education students (CTt-PE). IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje, 19(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2024.3364402
Zapata-Cáceres, M., Martín-Barroso, E., & Román-González, M. (2020). Bebras and CTt-v2: Two instruments for the assessment of computational thinking. Journal of Information Technology Research (JITR), 13(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/JITR.2020100101
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
Zhang, L., & Wang, Q. (2023). Development and validation of a computational thinking test for lower primary students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(1), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12736
Zianezhad Shirazi, A., Kouroshnia, M., Sohrabi, N., & Baghouli, H. (2022). Formulating differential equation of individual factors affecting performance in TIMSS 2019 fourth grade in high and low performance students. Journal of Research in Educational Systems, 16(58), 129–141. (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.22034/jiera.2022.167791
 
Journal of Research in Educational Systems
Volume 19, Issue 70
September 2025
Pages 17-32

Home

Editorial Boards

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us