Next Article in Journal
Are Short-Term Study Abroad Experiences Effective in Developing Global Citizenship in University Students Studying Health Degrees?
Next Article in Special Issue
Game On: A Journey into Computational Thinking with Modern Board Games in Portuguese Primary Education
Previous Article in Journal
An Investigation of Content-Specific Unit Emotions in Secondary Physical Education
Previous Article in Special Issue
Computational Thinking and Modeling: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Learning Transfer
 
 
Systematic Review
Peer-Review Record

Systematic Review of Instruments to Assess Computational Thinking in Early Years of Schooling

Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(10), 1124; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101124
by Lina Marcela Ocampo 1,*, Milena Corrales-Álvarez 1, Sergio Augusto Cardona-Torres 1 and María Zapata-Cáceres 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(10), 1124; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101124
Submission received: 14 July 2024 / Revised: 9 September 2024 / Accepted: 11 September 2024 / Published: 16 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Measuring Children’s Computational Thinking Skills)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a comprehensive systematic review of instruments to assess computational thinking in the early years of schooling. What I missed are the possible trajectories for future research based on the thorough analysis the authors have presented. Otherwise, all other aspects are really good.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper entitled “Systematic review of instruments to assess computational thinking in early years of schooling." The paper presents the PRISMA methodology regarding the computational thinking assessment instruments for children and adolescents in order to identify which variables they assess and their psychometric properties. The analysis is good. The authors present the results with clarity. I would recommend the authors enhance the Discussion section, writing down any limitations and providing future directions. I suggest the authors fix any typos in the whole manuscript.

Line 45: Please correct the article “The” with "the.”

 

Page 15: There is no table label, and the table needs formatting. I suppose that refers to Table 4.

 

 

Line 367: Remove an extra space character.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop