Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procediaonline
Available Manufacturing 00 (2018) 1038–1044
Available onlineatatwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 1038–1044 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 1031–1037
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering, INTER-ENG 2017, 5-6 October
11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering,
2017, Tirgu-Mures, Romania INTER-ENG 2017, 5-6 October
2017, Tirgu-Mures, Romania
Algorithmic thinking vs. text comprehension
ManufacturingAlgorithmic thinking
Engineering Society vs. Conference
International text comprehension
2017, MESIC 2017, 28-30 June
2017, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain
Katalin Harangus *, Zoltán Kátaia
a,
Katalin Harangusa, *, Zoltán Kátaia
P P0F P

P P0F P

Costing models for capacity optimization in Industry

OP 9, CP 4, Tg.4.0: Trade-off
P Sapientia-Hungarian University of Transylvania, Faculty of Technical and Human Sciences, OP 9, CP 4, Tg. Mures 540485, Romania
P

a
Sapientia-Hungarian
P P University of Transylvania, Faculty of Technical and Human Sciences, Mures 540485, Romania

between used capacity and operational efficiency

Abstract
Abstract
A. Santanaa, P. Afonsoa,*, A. Zaninb, R. Wernkeb
Our research aims to provide information on whether students who have finished a school have mastered the ability of
Our researchthinking
algorithmic aims toor provide
the focusinformation on whether
in theira University
training was morestudents
of Minho, on simply
4800-058 who have finished
memorizing
Guimarães, a school
and using
Portugal have mastered
the algorithms. the ability
The question of
is how
algorithmic
typical it isthinking
for eachor specialization
the focus in their training
in our b was more
educational
Unochapecó, on simply
system
89809-000 that memorizing and using
the composition
Chapecó, SC, Brazil of thethesubjects
algorithms. The question
specified is how
in the national
typical it is
curricula for each
should specialization
influence in our educational
the development system that
of problem-solving the and
skills composition
limit the of theofsubjects
field human specified in the itnational
subjects where is less
curricula
importantshould influence
to apply cognitive themodels
development of problem-solving
or algorithmic skills through
thinking acquired and limit
thethe field
study of of human
formal subjects
sciences. Thewhere it is less
participants in
important to apply
the experiment werecognitive
taken frommodelstheorfirst
algorithmic thinking
year students acquired University,
of Sapientia through the Faculty
study ofofformal sciences.
Technical The participants
and Human Sciences in of
Abstract
the experiment
Tirgu Mures (Nwere taken
= 231). Ourfrom the first
research year students
confirmed of Sapientia
the expected University,
results, that Facultyexperience
programming of Technical and and
goodHuman Sciences
programming of
skills
Tirgu Mures (Nwith
are associated = 231). Our research
in-depth, confirmed the expected
context-independent results,
algorithmic that programming
thinking. An even more experience
importantand goodhowever,
result, programming skills
is that the
Under
are
advancedthealgorithmic
associatedconcept ofthinking
with in-depth, "Industry 4.0", production
context-independent
operations presume highprocesses
algorithmic
levelthinking.willAn
reading beeven
pushed
moretoimportant
comprehension be increasingly
skill: ofinterconnected,
result, however,
possession is that the
integration and
information
advanced based
algorithmic
interpretation, as wellonasthinking
areflection
real time basis
operations
and and, necessarily,
presume
evaluation high level
skills. much morecomprehension
reading efficient. In this context,
skill: capacity
possession optimization
of integration and
interpretation,
goes beyond
© 2018 as well
the as reflection
traditional
The Authors. Published aim and
byof evaluation
capacity
Elsevier B.V. skills.
maximization, contributing also for organization’s profitability and value.
© 2018 The
Peer-review
Indeed, leanAuthors.
under Publishedand
responsibility
management byofElsevier
the
continuousB.V. committee
scientific improvement of the approaches
11th International Conference
suggest capacity Interdisciplinarity
optimization ininstead of
© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
Engineering.
maximization. under
Theresponsibility
study of of the scientific
capacity committee
optimization andofcosting
the 11thmodels
International
is an Conference
important Interdisciplinarity
research topic in deserves
that
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
Engineering.
contributions from both the practical and theoretical perspectives. This paper presents and discusses a mathematical
Keywords: Algorithmic thinking; Problem-solving; Reading comprehension; Thinking process; Education.
model for capacity management based on different costing models (ABC and TDABC). A generic model has been
Keywords: Algorithmic thinking; Problem-solving; Reading comprehension; Thinking process; Education.
developed and it was used to analyze idle capacity and to design strategies towards the maximization of organization’s
value. The trade-off
1. Problem – solvingcapacity
thinkingmaximization
in educationvs operational efficiency is highlighted and it is shown that capacity
optimization might hide operational
1. Problem – solving thinking in education inefficiency.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
The term computational thinking has been well-known due to Jeannette Wing’s article published in 2006 [1], in
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference
The she
which termemphasizes
computational that thinking has been
computational well-known
thinking has to due to Jeannette
be basic skill forWing’s articleand
everybody, published
not onlyin for
2006 [1], in
computer
2017.
which she emphasizes that computational thinking has to be basic skill for everybody, and not only for computer
Keywords: Cost Models; ABC; TDABC; Capacity Management; Idle Capacity; Operational Efficiency

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +40-770-456-853.
* Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +40-770-456-853.
katalin@ms.sapientia.ro
The cost
E-mail of idle
address: capacity is a fundamental information for companies and their management of extreme importance
katalin@ms.sapientia.ro
in modern©production
2351-9789 systems.
2018 The Authors. In general,
Published it isB.V.
by Elsevier defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
in several©under
2351-9789
Peer-review ways:
2018 The tons of production,
Authors.
responsibility Published available
by Elsevier
of the scientific B.V.hours
committee of manufacturing,
of the 11th etc. The
International Conference management
Interdisciplinarity of the idle capacity
in Engineering.
Peer-review under Tel.:
* Paulo Afonso. responsibility
+351 253of the761;
510 scientific committee
fax: +351 253 604of741
the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
E-mail address: psafonso@dps.uminho.pt

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
2351-9789 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 11th International Conference Interdisciplinarity in Engineering.
10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.146
1032 Katalin Harangus et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 1031–1037
Katalin Harangus and Zoltán Kátai / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 1038–1044 1039

scientists. Computational thinking should be in line with other domains, like reading, writing and mathematics,
because it provides the development of children’s analytical skills.
There are reports about attempts in the United States of America where, for the first time, notions connected to
computational thinking have been introduced in different departments of higher education (not only in the IT
section). Since higher education graduates constitute a rather narrow segment of society, several scientists started
researching the topic; how can this tendency be extended to secondary school education as well, so the whole
society would become target population. The writers of the article [2] emphasized that it is very important to pay
special attention to those students who do not wish to study Mathematics or Science, and girls – and this fact is well-
known –, who are under-represented in IT section. Settle and others [2] report about a successful initiative, as well:
IT experts and their colleagues teaching subjects belonging to Human Sciences associated the development of
computational thinking to subjects like Literature, History, Arts and Latin.
The writers of a very recent article [3] studied what skills and precognition are needed for teaching programming
effectively according to 7 experienced university teachers from Columbia and 44 students. In conformity with the
scientific literature [4, 5, 6, 7] the research included potential factors from 4 categories: solving a task, programming
precognition, programming skills and algorithmic thinking. The results have shown that the secret of success lies
dominantly in skills, rather than in precognition or experience. The most important factor according to both teachers
and students is the advanced reading comprehension.
A Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) and International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE), organizations committed to IT education and teaching, associate nine key words to computational thinking:
data collection, data analysis, data presentation, problem decomposition, abstraction, algorithm, automation,
parallelism, simulation. It is obvious that the skills connected to these concepts are not limited only to the issue of IT
or other sciences, they can be improved and practiced during the process of learning any other subject. A recent
article [8] studied in what way the above mentioned concepts are present in elementary and secondary education and
how can they be linked. The writers of the article report about formal and informal initiatives from Europe and the
United States of America and about 961 teachers’ experiences as they find the possibilities and methods to develop
computational thinking in the framework of different subjects.
There are many other researchers who also claim that school children should master computational skills during
school years even if they will not become IT experts. The way of thinking improves only if during problem-solving
the student tries to use not only the acquired methods, rules, but he or she is able to solve tasks requiring thinking
and based on interpretation. The lack of understanding the processes may lead to the unavailability of the acquired
knowledge. There is no consensus among the researchers on what kind of knowledge would students exactly need,
or which are exactly the basic components of computational thinking, and furthermore to what extent should
students take part in different specific trainings, master algorithmic thinking.
In the Romanian educational system digital literacy and information communication knowledge appears in the
framework of the Informatics as a school subject. This subject is learned by the pupils from the elementary stage
until the finishing stage of secondary school. In elementary classes this subject is taught as an optional subject, in
secondary school it appears as an obligatory subject and covers a very varied topic: from word processing, making
presentations, table and database management, through the use of the internet to the study of programming
languages. Studying Information Technology should mean that the student is able to use information technology
tools, source of information and online possibilities and he or she understands the importance of problem-solving in
the learning process.
The aim of our research has been to study whether students who left school mastered the ability of algorithmic
thinking or the emphasis during the learning process was rather on memorizing algorithms. To what extent is it
characteristic to specific trainings of our educational system that the content of subjects belonging to the framework
curricula influences the development of problem-solving ability and delimits the area of human sciences, where the
predominance of reflective models acquired through sciences is not so important.
 Katalin Harangus et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 1031–1037 1033
1040 Katalin Harangus and Zoltán Kátai / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 1038–1044

2. The presentation of the research

The research sample was composed by first year students of Sapientia University, Faculty of Technical and
Human Sciences of Tirgu Mures (N = 231). The stratification of the sample was provided by the different
specialities of initial training. We studied the following using a test paper:
(1) students’ reading comprehension skill regarding technical texts. The task contained a descriptive text and an
illustration about the logical construction of the computer. After having read the text, there were questions about it.
The questions of the task were grouped according to main thinking operations differentiated by PISA 2010 (access
and retrieve, integrate and interpret, reflect and evaluate) [9];
(2) students' capacity to identify algorithmic elements in general texts (BBC reports and literary texts) – an
imbricated if-structure (decision structure), a sequence structure, and a while-loop construct had to be identified in
the given text. We used flow chart for visual representation of algorithm, with which we indicated certain
operations, the sequence of their completion and the connection among them. After having read a short text the
students had to follow the line of actions with the help of a flow chart, and to fill in the marked spaces. The
interpretation of both texts was based on similar principle, the texts differed only in content.
The students were divided in three groups, according to what their basic training in high school was. The first
group was made up of students who graduated sciences and learned Computer Sciences for several years (N = 87).
The second group also consisted of students who graduated science and studied Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry,
but did not have knowledge of programming (N = 71). In the third group there were students who studied Human
Sciences. (N = 73).
We considered this grouping very important because subjects demanding algorithmic thinking are studied at
different levels in schools where students learn in different classes such as science, human sciences, technical etc.
Students belonging to the first group (Science 1) acquired programming knowledge, developed algorithmic skills
and used flow chart as the tool of describing algorithm during Computer Science lessons. The second group
(Science 2) of students did not have programming knowledge, so they did not know the flow chart, but algorithmic
thinking was indispensable for studying Mathematics and Natural Sciences. The ICT education of the third group
(Human Sciences) was focused especially on the use of the ICT tools, therefore algorithmic thinking in problem-
solving could not develop.

3. Results

3.1. Connecting reading comprehension with algorithmic thinking

In the technical text measuring reading comprehension skill (Task 1.) from the thinking operations gained from
contracting the items the first operation tested the ability of ordering access and retrieval, through which the students
had to find information hidden in different parts of the text. In order to interpret and integrate the text the students
had to process it, which enabled them to understand it in details, to confer it meaning and to draw detailed, complex
conclusions. The students had to recognise basic connections in the text like part-whole, cause-effect, similarity-
contrast or problem-solving [10]. In order to accomplish the operations belonging to the third level, reflection and
evaluation, they need knowledge and opinion independent of the text. They had to make a connection between the
understanding and recognition of the meaning of the text, then they had to compare this with their previous
knowledge as well as with information gained from other texts as well. Access and retrieval was measured with 8
items, interpretation and integration with 4 items, reflection and evaluation with 5 items. The total possible points
that they could get at the reading comprehension task was 100 points, for the access and retrieval 36 points, for
interpretation and integration 20 points and for reflection and evaluation 44 points were given. Table 1. totalizes the
means (/percentages) reached by certain groups of students according to main thinking operations.
It can be noticed that students were the most successful in the access and retrieval operations, almost three
quarters of them got high points for accurate reading. In the second scale the results are average, slightly more than
half of the students were able to execute the operation of adding meaning within the text. At the level of the third
operation it was more difficult to execute the tasks outside the text, to form personal opinion and make a connection
with own knowledge, so the results are under the mean. There is a significant difference among the thinking
1034 Katalin Harangus et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 1031–1037
Katalin Harangus and Zoltán Kátai / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 1038–1044 1041

operation levels with respect to all three groups ( p = 0.000) 1. If this analysis is done considering the groups there is
no significant difference among the levels. However, it can be noticed that students of the first group achieved
results above the mean in all three operations.

Table 1. Students’ mean (/percentage).

Interpretation and Reflection and
Task 1. Access and retrieval Mean
integration evaluation
Science 1. 26.14 / (72.61%) 13.02 / (65.10%) 18.26 / (41.50%) 57.43 / (57.43%)
Science 2. 25.68 / (71.33%) 12.78 / (63.90%) 17.62 / (40.05%) 56.08 / (56.08%)
Human Sciences 25.75 / (71.53%) 12.57 / (62.85%) 18.86 / (42.86%) 57.17 / (57.17%)
Students’ means 25.88 / (71.89%) 12.80 / (64.00%) 18.25 / (41.48%) 56.93 / (56.93%)
In order to identify the algorithmic elements students had to read two short texts and with the help of flow chart
to track the line of actions and fill in the spaces according to the steps leading to the solution of the task. Both texts
were based on the same principle, they differed only in content.
In the case of the first task (Task 2/a.) they had to identify an embedded if-structure (decision structure) in a
newspaper article:
„Can the next Dalai Lama be a women? – asked the reporter of BBC from the present Dalai Lama. Yes, reassured
me the displaced priest from Tibet, but she cannot be any kind of woman. Only a woman with a beautiful face.
According to the 14th Dalai Lama, Tendzin Gyaco we live in a difficult world where women play a more
important role, but it is important to have a beautiful face. “If a there were a female Dalai Lama, she had to be
very beautiful, otherwise there were not much use.” – continued the spiritual leader. The reporter even asked
back whether he was joking, but no, he wasn’t.”
We gave the flow chart version of the following structure:
if the Dalai Lama is a woman then
if …(1)… then
promising future
else
…(3)…
end-if
else
…(2)…
end-if
We expected the following answers: (1) she will have a beautiful face; (2) there will not be significant change;
(3) there will be not much use.
Answers (1) and (3) were directly in the text, but their identification needed realizing the embedded if-structures.
The (2) answer required more from the students because of two reasons. First of all it was in parallel directly with
one embedded if-structure, but in its character it had to be similar with the true/false content of inner if-structure (it
had to be a prophecy regarding the future of the world). Furthermore this answer had to be deduced from the text.
So, this presumed more advanced reading comprehension skill both at the level of structure and of notions.
Table 2 contains the mean of the points gained by the three groups of students.
We can observe here as well, that students of the first group achieved the highest points in all three tasks, above
the mean. The second group also achieved points above the mean in two tasks ((1), (3)). Yet, the achievement of the
Human Sciences group is far behind the mean considering all three tasks. The difference proved to be significant in
the means gained by the groups, in the case of the first and the third tasks between the first two groups and the third
group, in the case of the second task between the first, the second groups and the third group. Table 3. presents the
homogeneity test and the results of the tests.

1
The comparison of thinking types, groups and algorithmic tasks was performed with the help of variant analysis. The heterogeneity and
homogeneity was determined with the help of Levene-test. The statistical analysis was performed with the help of LSD and Tamhane tests.
 Katalin Harangus et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 1031–1037 1035
1042 Katalin Harangus and Zoltán Kátai / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 1038–1044

Table 2. Students’ mean

Task 2/a. (1) (2) (3) Mean
Maximum available points 20 15 15
Science 1. 17,70 2,69 9,48 29,87
Science 2. 18,59 1,49 9,08 29,17
Human Sciences 14,52 1,16 5,14 20,82
Students’ mean 16,97 1,84 7,99 26,80

Table 3. The result of variance analysis

Task 2/a. Result of homogeneity test Result of F test Significant differences among groups
(1) Homogenous Sig.* 1-3, 2-3**
(2) Homogenous Sig.* 1-2, 1-3**
(3) Homogenous Sig.* 1-3, 2-3**
With one-way analysis of variance: *p<0.05, **groups: 1 – Science 1., 2 – Science 2., 3 – Human Sciences.

The second task (Task 2/b.) was a fragment from a tale in which there were a sequence structure and a while
loop:
„The poor man and his wife had hardly left the aunt’s house Panka had to start working immediately. She had to
clean the huge house, to make breakfast for the aunt and if she finished with this she had to work in the garden. „
I wouldn’t like you to stop working, not even for a minute. You should know that you cannot screw around here.
And you should keep in your mind that I would not like to hear you laughing, because it is forbidden in my
house. I am just off to the judge to forbid laughing in front of my house. Do your job while I am away because
you might be punished!” The girl started to work very diligently, but her cheerfulness could not be taken away by
her aunt either. She was singing and laughing joyfully in the garden. She smiled at everything. She was delighted
but the birds’ song. She quickly finished her work. She was bored and didn’t know how to kill time. She started
walking in the garden under the apple trees. She admired everything she saw. She was talking with the trees,
kindly caressed their crusty trunk. If a little bird flew on one of the trees, she was listening to her song in
amazement, and she whistled a beautiful folk song to her.”
We gave the flow chart version of the following structure:
…(1)…
…(2)…
while …(3)… do
following garden work
end-while
There was a extra question (4): Even if Panka is very obedient, and does all her work conscientiously, which were
the possibilities the aunt had not expected and –contrary to her expectations– she will not find the girl doing her
work? We expected the following answers: (1) clean the house; (2) make breakfast; (3) the aunt is away; (4) Panka
finishes her work in the garden before the aunt arrives home. The tale is about the fact that Panka executes another
algorithm than the one given by her aunt. This is excluded in the case of computer algorithms. This all happens
because the aunt does not count with each possibility and this is a fundamental mistake in creating algorithms. Our
purpose with this task (3) was to see whether students can distinguish between the specified (the aunt is away) and the
executed algorithm (there is still work in the garden). By asking the source of the mistake in task (4) we would have
liked to offer help in giving the right answer for task (3). Table 4. presents the mean of points achieved by the groups
of students.
It can be observed that students of the first group achieved the highest points, above the average for all the tasks.
The results of the other two groups are variable; in the case of the first two tasks the second group, in the case of the
third task the third group achieved more than the mean points. In case of the last tasks both groups achieved fewer
points than the mean. Analysing the differences among the groups we can notice significant difference only at the
1036 Katalin Harangus et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 1031–1037
Katalin Harangus and Zoltán Kátai / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 1038–1044 1043

fourth task between the groups Science 1. and Science 2. Table 5. contains the results of homogeneity test and the
tests.

Table 4. Students’ mean

Task 2/b. (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean
Maximum available points 10 10 20 10
Science 1. 8,05 7,82 5,86 5,06 26,78
Science 2. 8,31 8,03 4,08 3,10 23,52
Human Sciences 7,53 7,40 5,21 3,84 23,97
Students’ mean 7,97 7,75 5,11 4,07 24,89

Table 5. Result of variance analysis

Task 2/b. Result of homogeneity test Result of F test Significant differences among groups
(1) Homogenous Not sig. Not sig.
(2) Homogenous Not sig. Not sig.
(3) Heterogeneous Not sig. Not sig.
(4) Heterogeneous Sig.* 1-2**
With one-way analysis of variance: *p<0.05, ** groups: 1 – Science 1., 2 – Science 2.

3.2. The role of algorithmic thinking in reading comprehension

At the 2/a. task the solution of the first part-task (1) required to find the information in the text and to identify it,
which corresponds to the access and retrieval level. The correct answer required not only to find the part of the text,
but the students had to identify and understand the algorithm, because the solution was an answer to a conditional if-
structure. We noticed significant difference among groups at the interpretation of the technical text, comparing the
means of the solved part-tasks with the result of access and retrieval. Students in the first two groups (Science 1.,
Science 2.) achieved better results interpreting the text with the help of the flow chart than interpreting the technical
text (t Science 1 = 4.399, p = 0.000 ; t Science 2 = 6.358, p = 0.000). The third group (Human Sciences) did not show
significant differences among the achieved means.
At the second (2) part-task students had to deduce the correct answer from the given text. Since hidden
information based on logical thinking had to be recognised and integrated, we compared the means achieved by the
groups with the means of the integration and interpretation operations of the technical text. We obtained significant
results at all three groups (tScience 1 =
−17.333, p =
0.000; tScience 2 =
−15.499,
p= 0.000; t Human Sciences =−14.066, p = 0.000), the results of the interpretation of the technical text were much
higher than in case of the text interpreted with the help of the algorithm.
The solution of the third part-task (3) also meant recognising and identifying the information present in the text,
but students had to recognise the reflective scheme according to which he or she could continue in order to deduce
the correct answer. At the same time the third part-task (3) meant the solution of an if-structure within an if-
structure, and finding the part of the text presumed the correct answer for the first (1) part-task. Students of the first
two groups achieved far better results at the task demanding algorithmic thinking, than in case of the interpretation
of the technical text (t Science 1 = 3.945, p = 0.000 ; t Science 2 = 3.443, p = 0.001). The means of the third group were the
same in case of the two tasks.
In the 2/b. task the solution of the first (1) and the second (2) part-tasks also presumed to find the information
directly in the text, so we compared the means of the two tasks with the means of access and retrieval of the
technical text. We analysed the results according to groups, and we noticed significant difference
(t Science 2 = 2.541, p = 0.013) , only in the second group; they obtained higher means in the solution of the part-tasks
than in interpreting the technical text.
 Katalin Harangus et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 22 (2018) 1031–1037 1037
1044 Katalin Harangus and Zoltán Kátai / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2018) 1038–1044

The third (3) part-task was one which demanded interpretation and integration, and needed understanding the text
and recognising the hidden or implicit information in it. Recognising the repetitive structure containing conditional
command was a problem for the students; all three groups achieved significantly worse results
(t Science 1 = −9.708, p = 0.000 ; t Science 2 = −11.514, p = 0.000 ; t Human Sciences = −8.495, p = 0.000), they could just partially
read the algorithms from the general text.
The answer for the last part-task (4) presumed the operations of reflection and evaluation. In order to get the right
answer students had to understand and recognise the meaning of the text and then, according to the content of the
text, to make an objective decision. Students achieved the same result both in interpreting the text and understanding
the algorithm.

4. Conclusion

Summing up the results we can conclude that students were able to execute the operations of adding meaning
within the text, but tasks demanding distance from the texts proved to be more difficult for them.
Analysing the data it can be observed that students of the first group obtained the best results in all tasks; those
students who could master algorithmic view and thinking at school. Students belonging to this group were able to
solve tasks demanding thinking, not only using the rules and algorithms they had learned. This leads to the
conclusion that it is worth paying attention to professionals’ opinion who propose that computational thinking
should be raised to the level of knowledge of writing, reading and mathematics.
Our research confirmed the expected results. Programming experience and good programming skills are
associated with in-depth, context-independent algorithmic thinking. An even more important result, however, is that
the advanced algorithmic thinking operations presume high level reading comprehension skill: possession of
integration and interpretation, as well as reflection and evaluation skills.

Acknowledgements

The research was carried out with the financial support of the KPI – Institute of Research Programmes, Cluj-
Napoca.

References

[1] J. M. Wing, Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM. 49(3) (2006) 33-35.
[2] A. Settle, B. Franke, R. Hansen, F. Spaltro, C. Jurisson, C. Rennert-May, B. Wildeman, Infusing computational thinking into the middle-and
high-school curriculum. In. Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education,
ACM. (2012, July) 22-27.
[3] A. V. Prados, L. R. Rivera, S. Gerardo. Competences that facilitate the achievement of the objectives of an introductory programming
course. Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning, World Engineering Education Forum, Florence,
Italy, 2015.
[4] R. Lister, E.S. Adams, S. Fitzgerald, W. Fone, J. Hamer, M. Lindholm, R. McCartney, J.E. Moström, K. Sanders, O. Seppälä, B. Simon, L.
Thomas, A Multi-National Study of Reading and Tracing Skills in Novice Programmers., New York: Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education, ACM. (2004) 119-150.
[5] M. Lopez, J. Whalley, P. Robbins, R. Lister, Relationships Between Reading, Tracing and Writing Skills in Introductory Programming,
ICER '08 Proceedings of the Fourth international Workshop on Computing Education Research, ACM. (2008) 101-112.
[6] Z. Karimi, S. Wagner, The Influence of Personality on Computer Programming: A Summary of a Systematic Literatur Review, Stuttgart:
Universitat Stuttgart, 2014.
[7] R. M. Kaplan, Teaching Novice Programmers Programming Wisdom. In 22nd Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group, Madrid,
España, (2010) 112-120.
[8] L. Mannila, V. Dagiene, B. Demo, N. Grgurina, C. Mirolo, L. Rolandsson, A. Settle, Computational thinking in K-9 education. In
Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014 on innovation & technology in computer science education conference, ACM. (2014)
1-29.
[9] OECD, PISA 2009 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. (2010) Volume
I. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264091450-en
[10] R. Pletl, Helyzetjelentés az erdélyi magyar diákok olvasási és szövegértési képességének színvonaláról. Ábel, Cluj-Napoca, 2012.