Abstract

This study aims to identify and describe patterns of students’ computational thinking errors in solving systems of linear inequalities in two variables. Specifically, it examines errors occurring at each stage of computational thinking, such as problem decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithm construction, as well as the underlying factors contributing to these errors. A qualitative descriptive approach was employed. The participants consisted of 36 tenth-grade students. Data were collected through written tests, observation, and semi-structured interviews to explore students’ cognitive processes in depth. The data were analyzed through data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. The findings indicate that students experienced errors at all stages of computational thinking. Students encountered difficulties identifying relevant information during problem decomposition, recognizing conceptual relationships during pattern recognition, transforming problems into appropriate mathematical representations during abstraction, and constructing systematic solution procedures during algorithm construction. These errors were primarily attributed to insufficient conceptual understanding, difficulties in interpreting problem statements, and limitations in formulating effective problem-solution strategies. These findings provide valuable insights into students’ learning difficulties and may serve as a foundation for designing more effective instructional strategies to enhance students’ computational thinking skills.

There is no Figure or data content available for this article

References

• Bower, M., Wood, L. N., Lai, J., Howe, C., Lister, R., Mason, R., Highfield, K., & Veal, J. (2017). Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n3.4
• Chai, C. S., Ng, E. M., & Tan, L. (2023). Exploring computational thinking competency. International Journal of STEM Education, 10, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00455-2
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2021). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
• Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2015). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
• Fagerlund, J. (2018). A Study on the assessment of introductory computational thinking via scratch programming in primary schools. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3231013
• Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Computational thinking in programming with scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29, 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22255
• Flick, U. (2022). An introduction to qualitative research (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350057142.ch-003.
• Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning.
• Husna, A., & Himmi, N. (2022). Analysis of mathematics education students’ errors in solving limit function problems. Indonesian Journal of Mathematics Education, 4(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.31002/ijome.v4i1.5871
• Liu, Z., Gearty, Z., & Orrill, C. (2024). Bringing computational thinking into classrooms. International Journal of STEM Education, 11, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00510-6
• Lockwood, E., DeJarnette, A., Asay, A., & Thomas, M. (2016). Algorithmic thinking: An initial characterization of computational thinking in mathematics. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.
• Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2021). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Nurazizah, S., Maharani, D., Sari, I., & Camara, J. (2025). Trends in computational thinking research in science education: A systematic review. Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia Gemilang. https://doi.org/10.53889/jpig.v5i2.697
• Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 587–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9302-x
• Sari, I., & Mawarni, M. (2025). Error analysis of mathematics students in solving mathematical finance problems. Union: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika, 13(2), 596–608. https://doi.org/10.30738/union.v13i2.19873
• 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
• Suparman, Juandi, D., Turmudi, & Wahyudin. (2024). Computational thinking in mathematics instruction integrated STEAM education: Global trend and students’ achievement in the last two decades. Beta: Jurnal Tadris Matematika, 17(2), 101–134. https://doi.org/10.20414/betajtm.v17i2.643
• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Cognitive Load Theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
• Taherdoost, H. (2025). Data collection techniques in qualitative research. In Navigating Qualitative Research (pp. 1–36). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003616412-1
• Tambychik, T., & Meerah, T. S. M. (2010). Students’ difficulties in mathematics problem-solving: What do they say? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 8, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.020
• Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
• Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of The ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
• Ye, H., Liang, B., Ng, O. L., & Chai, C. S. (2023). Computational thinking in K-12 mathematics education: A systematic review on ct‑based mathematics instruction and student learning. International Journal of STEM Education, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-023-00396-w
• Zahid, M. Z. (2025). Mathematics teachers’ perceptions of computational thinking and its integration into mathematics education. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 13(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.31129/lumat.13.1.2696
• Zubainur, C. M., Rossalina, C. R., Subianto, M., & Fadhiliani, D. (2025). Unpacking research on computational thinking in mathematics education: A systematic literature review. Jurnal Elemen, 11(2), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v11i2.29183

How to Cite This

Article Metrics

Download Statistics

Other Statistics

Copyright and Permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors published in this journal agree to the following terms:

• The copyright of each article is retained by the author (s) without restrictions
• The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions
• The author grants the journal the first publication rights with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, allowing others to share the work with an acknowledgement of authorship and the initial publication in this journal.
• Authors may enter into separate additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of published journal versions of the work (for example, posting them to institutional repositories or publishing them in a book), with acknowledgement of their initial publication in this journal
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (For example in the Institutional Repository or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and larger citations of published work
• Articles and all related material published are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 International Public License (CC - BY 4.0).

License

AlphaMath: Journal of Mathematics Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- 4.0 International Public License (CC - BY 4.0).

You are free to :

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially

Data Availability