Halvdan Haugsbakken
email: halvdan.haugsbakken@ntnu.no

Learning to Share by Reflection-On-Action on an Enterprise Social Media Platform

Keywords: Sharing, Enterprise Social Media Platforms, organisation, Norway

Enterprise Social Media Platforms are now commonplace in organisations. They are argued to bring benefits, like simplifying work processes, enhance internal communications and reduce internal organisational barriers. Such benefits can be obtained on the assumption that employees naturally engage on a platform and share knowledge. But how to and what to share on an enterprise platform is not always a straightforward task and is a practice that must be learned through sense-making of sharing. Therefore, this challenges the assumption that sharing on Social Media Enterprise Platforms can bring benefits. Consequently, the paper examines the challenges in making sense of the meaning of the practice of sharing. The paper explores a case study on how a County Authority in a Nordic country implemented an Enterprise Social Media Platform and how a group of employees tried to make sense of the practice of sharing by reflection-on-action. The results show that the employees interpreted sharing as an informing practice, resulting in information-overload and disengaged users.

Introduction

Over the years, Nordic public organisations have implemented Enterprise Social Media Platforms (ESMPs). In 2010, the top management in a County Authority (CA) in a Nordic Country decided to implement one. The main objective was to improve internal communication and simplify work surfaces. Also, the goal was to motivate the CA's employees to replace work practices by transferring work interaction from e-mail to shared work on the ESMP. The platform was embedded with features facilitated for sharing of digital items, user profiles, a news feed, groups, possibilities to follow colleagues, etc. Although the implementation went well, one later experienced a conundrum. The top management saw an increased volume of shared information, but the employees did not adopt the practice of sharing as expected, as there were few traces of collaborative work practices and awareness of an online community.

This paper uses a qualitative research perspective, and asks how a small group of employees interpret the meaning of sharing and how they use reflection-on-action to make sense of sharing in an ESMP intended to be the new work surface for roughly about 2,800 employees. To answer the research question, this is analysed over the paper's five parts. The next section addresses a relevant research horizon, the subsequent part outlines methods. Thereafter, the research findings are presented, and the final part concludes the analysis.

In short, sharing on social media can be defined as the act to post information. Over the last decade, researchers have tried to conceptualise the meaning of sharing in organisations without having a clear understanding of what is actually shared [START_REF] Ardichvili | Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual knowledge-sharing communities of practice[END_REF]. In early studies, for example, sharing on Knowledge Sharing Platforms was understood as information that could be coded, stored, and be retrieved by employees. Also, studies focused on making assumptions on knowledge sharing and establishing technological definitions of communities [START_REF] Chen | To give or to receive? Factors influencing members' knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities[END_REF]. Scholars explored the conditions and requirements essential to making online communities thrive [START_REF] Yoo | Exploring the factors enhancing member participation in virtual communities[END_REF], what characterises "knowledge" [START_REF] Usoro | Trust as an antecedent to knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice[END_REF], distinguishing what motivates users to share knowledge [START_REF] Ardichvili | Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers[END_REF], and what role cultural values [START_REF] Ardichvili | Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice[END_REF] and social capital play in knowledge sharing processes [START_REF] Chang | Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator[END_REF]. This led to an understanding of sharing as a controlled process, omitting that a knowledge-sharing process is an active and relational communication process between two parties [START_REF] Kosonen | Knowledge sharing in virtual communities -A review of the empirical research[END_REF]. With the arrival of ESMPs, researchers mapped the impact of these technologies, raising new questions about what is to be shared and how to perform sharing. A growing ESMPs research stream shows different experiences. For example, studies find that employees use ESMPs to connect and expand professional networks [START_REF] Steinfield | Bowling online: social networking and social capital within the organization[END_REF] and researchers chart basic user patterns [START_REF] Zhao | How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work[END_REF][START_REF] Zhang | A case study of micro-blogging in the enterprise: use, value, and related issues[END_REF]. Also, researchers examine the challenges of adopting ESMPs. Studies demonstrate how employees still prefer to communicate via e-mail and chat and silently monitor news streams [START_REF] Lüders | Networking and notworking in social intranets: User archetypes and participatory divides[END_REF]. Experimental papers have used the affordance concept to theorise what benefits ESMPs can provide to understand organisational processes like socialisation and the organisation of work processes [START_REF] Leonardi | Ambient Awareness and Knowledge Acquisition: Using Social Media to Learn "Who Knows What" and "Who Knows Whom[END_REF].

Lacking within the above research stream is an updated learning perspective on how knowledge workers learn the practice of sharing, to organise knowledge work. This analytical perspective can be developed by combining the concepts of reflection-onaction, [START_REF] Schön | The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action[END_REF] and situated learning [START_REF] Lave | Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation[END_REF], viewing them in the light of the learning theory for the digital age, connectivism [START_REF] Siemens | Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age[END_REF]. Connectivism draws up a number of new principles for learning but assumes that knowledge resides outside us in forms of social structures like databases and in nodes of complex social networks. This means there is a need to focus more on pattern recognition; and the way in which knowledge workers interact on ESMPs can be understood using network learning approaches. This argument is indeed relevant, as knowledge workers interact in a social context characterised by complexity and chaos, which can easily lead to information overload. Confronted with a new disrupted work context, the attention is redirected to how workers can apply a skill set that forces them to reflect on their action in interactive situations on ESMPSs. This perspective does not appear to be developed in the current research literature on ESMPs.

Methods

The study used a qualitative research strategy, following an explorative research design. The motivation for using it was to gain in-depth knowledge on how the practice of sharing is interpreted and performed on an ESMP by users. The study's main method was the use of qualitative research interviews following the principles outlined by Brinkmann and Kvale [START_REF] Brinkmann | InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing[END_REF]. Brinkmann and Kvale argue that qualitative research interviews can be used as a means to learn more about a particular phenomenon. Eight singular in-depth and open qualitative research interviews were conducted with eight different people working in the CA. The interviews were one-to-one, meaning that only the researcher and the informant were present in the interview setting. The interviews were semi-structured with the use of a guide and lasted an hour. Each interview was recorded on a digital audio recorder and covered topics that focused on sharing. After completion, the research interviews were transcribed. The data analysis was inspired by an open coding strategy of the interview data, where the main focus was on finding emerging patterns. The participants' perceptions, user patterns and experiences were compared and grouped, with reference to how they used the ESMP. In order to offer the participants a voice, direct quotations are used in the data presented. Data were collected in May 2013 and April 2014.

Research results

The results from the data analysis consists of four themes. The themes are based on an interpretive analysis of the participants' use of the ESMP and shows how they use a reflection-on-action approach to frame the organisation of knowledge work.

Theme 1: Sharing as an enabler for organisational change

The first theme relates to how sharing is interpreted as an enabler for organisational change, which is framed from a top management perspective. Here, sharing was used to solve a problem in CA. The motivation for the implementation was to cope with a challenge seen in organisations -e-mail overload and use of various ICTs.

The top-management aimed at simplifying the work surface, as employees worked across several information and communication technologies (ICTs) and stored information in various places. This made it difficult to get an overview. A single site was needed, which could work as the central access point connecting the employees. Introducing an ESMP could resolve the matter, but a new interface would break a work pattern. While the intranet was run as an internal web site, the new design suggested that the ESMP should be the site an employee opened each day with embedded sharing features and URL-links to various information technology (IT)-systems. Afterwards, a discourse emphasising the importance of a sharing culture emerged:

" Later, this awareness amplified. The ESMP initiators realised that the employees seldom started a work process by beginning from scratch-by creating a document that everyone can engage in, for example-but viewed sharing as an informing practice of circulating ready-made documents. Sharing was linked to previous publishing habits. The employees were accustomed to an "article format", meaning that postings on the ESMP had a "news story" label attached to them. User interaction was characterised by seeing the ESMP as a channel where information was "pushed out", not a platform where one engaged in a two-way dialogue. The employees fulfilled activities that required little commitment, like posting a profile picture, writing status updates, etc. Beyond that, there was little evidence that users participated to share:

"Ninety percent of the information posted on the ESMP is not something that we '

Theme 2: Sharing viewed as self-censorship and risk-taking

The second theme shows that sharing is associated with self-censorship, as the employees used private and previous experiences from engaging on social media to establish views on sharing. For example, the participants viewed Facebook as a site for "scrolling after fun stuff and setting likes" and Twitter as a place where "you only send URLlinks to news you have already read". Not surprisingly, monitoring online grooming and gossiping for years on social media generated scepticism, producing a belief that sharing is seldom seen as a public two-way communicative practice, but as a means to monitor what others do, although the participants acknowledged the benefits of sharing. Hence, sharing is practiced on the basis of being informed and to inform rather than to engage, meaning that personal branding and information about oneself disregards participation on the ESMP. Instead, one should share "interesting" and "relevant" items, implying that the value of what can be shared has to be informative and of high quality. So, the experiences mentioned above create certain boundaries for how one should engage. For example, the participants remarked that appropriate items need to be "work-related", setting standards for what internal communication should be like. Sharing on the ESMP should be a safe matter as no external audience has access. Findings show otherwise. In fact, sharing is risk-taking, which was expressed in the participants' views on how they are willing to make a work process transparent to others: "I don't have a problem with posting something that is not one hundred percent complete. I would have made it clear that this is "work-in-progress" and I want feedback."

We find examples that sharing can have greater risks, as participants can be criticised. Publishing unfinished work can create misunderstandings: "One thing is that some of us find it a bit uncomfortable to share things that are not finished, because then we get criticized. If things are just published and not finished, it can cause harm because it creates sanctions on something that it was not intended to be. We have specific discussions within our work areas, documents concerning the management side and on the political aspects, which we publish. When things are at a certain stage, a working document, it is not intended that everybody should see it.

Data show that participants seek "approval" from their managers to publish content and do not want to be held accountable for what they share. Rather than deciding independently, as the basis for sharing a document, the participants enforce a quality-safety practice where they "ask permission" from someone in the management structure:

"Things that are unfinished and not approved can create panic, when it is a different figure from what you think is going to be on paper. If we begin to rewrite the CA's economy and everyone can read it, there will be something new to most people. People absorb it, even when it is wrong. It creates a lot of "storm" in your organization, if it is not correct."

Theme 3: Sharing in separate digital eco-systems

The third theme illustrates how sharing is accepted when using social media as part of a work practice, showing sharing of work beyond the ESMP. This shows how employees create "separate digital eco-systems", which are used when they perceive that the ordinary ICTs the CA provide are not sufficient to perform their work, a technology adoption taking place "under the radar" of the IT department.

Looking at practice, an informant explained how they combined Dropbox and Google Drive to complete a public procurement. In several cases, the CA works together with the neighbouring municipalities. Here, the CA takes on the role of the leading organiser and acts on behalf of many municipalities to achieve greater benefits. This requires collaboration with colleagues in other municipalities. In this regard, colleagues in municipalities can have different needs and competences, which can lead to long email exchanges and many attached documents. And one can lose the overview. Instead of sending e-mails with attached documents back and forth, they combined various applications to make the work simpler:

"We created a Dropbox account because we don't have the same e-mail system or share the same case management system. You don't get Dropbox solutions on the PCs here. The IT department thinks it's unsecure, [lacking] information security. We need tools to do our job, so we ended up defying that a bit and we downloaded the software to our PCs. I used Google Drive to share documents more efficiently than by e-mail.

Another example is how Facebook groups are used as information repositories or as a mean to reach particular groups who use the welfare services of the CA. Here, one does not find examples of practice showing sharing between several parties, but how Facebook groups are used as public bulletin boards. Again, sharing is an informing practice. One employee was a representative in a worker union and interacted with representatives from other CAs. As part of it, they created a Facebook group which enabled them to stay in contact and inform each other:

"I had contact with others with the same role in other CAs. We used the Facebook group to share information that was more or less of the same nature. It was a way to share knowledge on issues of health and safety at work."

An employee explained how they created a Facebook group to communicate with high school students. As students are in the social media landscape, one concluded that they also needed to be present there in a similar way. After some years of use, the Facebook group is used as a public bulletin board:

"It runs every day. We don't get many requests. We publish when we have specific information. We were unsure whether it would be an active user channel. I think it's going to become that in the long run."

Theme 4: Sharing performed as an individual informing strategy

The fourth theme shows how sharing is practiced as an individual informing strategy where it is enacted as a "push-of-information", which discourages internal communication on the ESMP. Sharing is rarely practiced as part of a two-way communication process but turns into an informing practice where users publish information that is already stored elsewhere. This creates situations where participants share information, but experience that nobody responds to their sharing. Thus, sharing has little benefit. This is exemplified by analysing a feature created for sharing on the ESMP, the socalled "rooms". The room feature is a space for collaboration. Generally, the data show that all participants adopted the rooms to perform simple assignments, but afterwards they experienced challenges. Firstly, the participants created rooms and registered members who worked in the same department or who worked in the same field as themselves. Secondly, findings indicated that uploaded documents were republished information which was already stored in other sites. Also, employees seldom created new documents and started to co-write them in real-time, but they instead uploaded approved documents that were only read for notification purposes. Thirdly, the participants reported little interactivity, like participating and reading discussions. In sum, the participants saw the rooms as information repositories rather than sites for collaboration.

Later, employees with super-user status-users with administrative roles in the rooms-tried to stimulate interactivity and adopted individual strategies to promote engagement. Looking at practices, a super-user adopted an "online gardener" strategy. She tried to encourage co-workers to engage in the two rooms she administrated. This role-performance is not dissimilar to an automated e-mail notification feature, which is generated when there has been interactivity in a knowledge repository. The user extended this strategy and took on the role of a "sharer-and-pusher of information", which consisted of sending friendly e-mail reminders when she uploaded something:

"I send an e-mail to everyone who has an interest. Then, I share information with them that it's posted on the ESMP. I invite them to follow the room. I think I've been sending reminders for a year."

She informed across multiple channels too, but afterwards questioned the value of sharing. She did not know if what she shared was used, a thought shared by another informant:

"I note that there are not many who follow the rooms, after many invitations to others who I think might have an interest in it. Then, do we spend unnecessary time on posting information that people do not read?"

This raised a question of whether the rooms are used in the intended way. For example, after uploading, this informant received telephone calls from co-workers:

"I often get the question, if I also can send them an e-mail, when there is new information in the rooms. We have decided on that, no, we don't send an extra e-mail. We put it out there and then people must seek it out themselves. I feel that people don't pay attention to all that is posted in the rooms."

This user-experience shows a gradual disengagement from sharing, as it vanishes and is overtaken by other assignments seen as more important to complete: "We have two rooms. I post a lot of information in them. But I do not use the opportunity to follow other rooms, as I had hoped and thought I would. It disappears into my daily work life. When I need information, I don't find it with the search mechanisms that we have today as we had with the old intranet, although there is more information out there now."

Informing over a long period of time creates an awareness that sharing has an embedded information overload problem attached to it. This is illustrated by repeatedly performing an informing practice wherein users redirect information that is stored elsewhere, for example on servers or local folders; but they observe that the information is redistributed many times in the rooms. Making information available to create transparency thus leads to other results:

"The intention with the ESMP was that we should move away from local storage of information in our own local folder structures. Everything was to be stored on the ESMP. I'm skeptical of it, because it is such a vast amount of information that it makes it difficult to identify what is relevant. We end up with huge hits when we search, and we spend a lot of time on finding out what is relevant. The most concerning thing, however, is that it has become such a huge volume of information."

Exposure to too much information leads to users enforcing a personal filter and returning to established work principles like using email to communicate, leading to disengagement and a disapproved view on sharing: "In the start, when it was brand new, I tried to make use of any opportunity. We had the possibility to create rooms. But afterwards, I failed to follow up all that. In neither the rooms I administer, did I manage to develop anything. I'm rarely there and don't check the rooms I am a member of."

This user saw the rooms as an opportunity to create better conditions for interaction with the high schools with which she has frequent contact as part of her work. Much of the daily contact with them consisted of sending general information. Instead of sending all of that via e-mail, it could be transferred to the rooms, but later the good intentions faded out: "I haven't had time to prioritize the rooms. My workday is packed with "to-do tasks". To sit down to try to use the possibilities and communicate in the rooms, has instead led me not doing that. Now, I don't bother checking notifications from the rooms I administer or follow or what my colleagues have written in their status updates. I skip that very fast and I go directly to check my e-mails."

The pattern of disengagement was found in another experience. This user explained that the challenges of generating engagement were related to the ESMP's user interface itself. For example, it was difficult to ascertain whether the rooms were used by others as there was no panel to show the numbers of visitors. The user also argued that the information shared in the rooms was already available and ready-made in other spaces, which meant that co-workers had it stored in their e-mail inbox:

"The challenge is that there are too many rooms. As the participants were uncertain to what extent sharing in the rooms had benefits, other experience indicated otherwise. A user working with accounting explained that the rooms are a "manual". She was an active user and saw the benefit of retrieving and finding information that had been shared by others:

"For example, I'm working in the accounting system and I find out that I need to get hold of a manual or retrieve information on an account. I go on the ESMP. There, I locate documents or things that are written about the case I'm working on. I'm a member of all the rooms that have something to do with accounting, a factor allowing me to know what we've posted and what others ask about."

The rooms were beneficial in different ways. For example, they were information depositories, where one could find quick answers, as they narrowed down the need for searching. Alternatively, this employee would have to search for the same information in larger web-based databases:

"

Conclusion

In short, research on ESMPs is still in its infancy, but it shows that employees in organisations use ESMPs for online social interaction like connecting and expanding professional networks [START_REF] Steinfield | Bowling online: social networking and social capital within the organization[END_REF]. Also, researchers have charted basic user patterns [START_REF] Zhao | How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging plays in informal communication at work[END_REF][START_REF] Zhang | A case study of micro-blogging in the enterprise: use, value, and related issues[END_REF][START_REF] Ehrlich | Microblogging inside and outside the workplace[END_REF] and examined the challenges of adopting ESMPs. A number of studies have tried to theorise the material understanding of ESMPs, like expanding our understanding of the concept of affordance. This has been used to hypothesise what potential benefits ESMPs can provide to grasp organisational processes like socialisation and the organising of work processes [START_REF] Leonardi | Ambient Awareness and Knowledge Acquisition: Using Social Media to Learn "Who Knows What" and "Who Knows Whom[END_REF][START_REF] Oostervink | Knowledge Sharing on Enterprise Social Media: Practices to Cope With Institutional Complexity[END_REF]. Missing from the ESMP research stream is a learning perspective on how users learn to share knowledge. This can be established by looking at the main finding from the study, which suggests filling a gap in the research on ESMPs.

Throughout the analysis, we can establish a contradiction, which is often on display in unsuccessful implementations of new technologies in organisations -end-users do not use the technology as intended. This study finds that an ESMP, intended to simplify the work surface among employees in a public organisation in a Nordic country, gives opposite outcomes among the end-users. Sharing, introduced as a new workplace principle, expected to create transparency and enhance internal communication, creates disengaged users. Instead, sharing is learned to be a practice that is difficult to master, an aspect that is learned by the participants when they attempt to engage on the ESMP and use features facilitated for sharing. In fact, they learn by reflecting on their actions that they seldom engage in a two-way communication process where knowledge is created by collaboration. Rather, they perform an informing practice to fulfil the goal of sharing. This informing practice, which is an essential ingredient in creating a knowledgesharing process, is performed on the premise of informing an audience and to be informed. Moreover, the informing practice is seldom the start of a knowledge process where two users exchange information to create knowledge, for example. Instead, the practice of sharing is a republishing of ready-made and approved official documents found elsewhere in the CA, creating an information overload problem. Furthermore, this gives clues to what is shared, which in this explorative case study relates to information that is already known to an organisation. Sharing proves to be challenging and is associated with great risk-taking for those carrying it out, leading to the enforcement of self-censorship and the construction of separate and private workplaces that the participants deem beneficial to complete their work. In contrast, the users institute personal filters and return to work surfaces which they believe "works", which in most cases is e-mail. In other words, the meaning of the practice of sharing on the ESMP found in this case study is performed as an informing strategy and used to be informed.

  It's almost like we have a room for each employee. Then you have to click around a great deal before you find [what] you're looking for."


Birgit Eickelmann
email: birgit.eickelmann@upb.de

Amelie Labusch
email: amelie.labusch@upb.de

Mario Vennemann
email: mario.vennemann@upb.de

Computational Thinking and Problem-Solving in the Context of IEA-ICILS 2018

Keywords: Computational thinking, problem-solving, ICILS 2018

. What is therefore required is a large-scale study that compares students' competences in computational thinking and the underlying conditions of acquisition at an international level, as provided by the International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 (ICILS 2018). In addition, to draw on well-proven problemsolving theories and facilitate access for non-computer scientists, it is important to compare these competences with students' problem-solving skills [3]. This will be accomplished through a German national extension to ICILS 2018 which, on a representative basis at the national level, will enable comprehensive analysis of this relationship. The purpose of the present paper is to introduce computational thinking and problem-solving in the context of ICILS 2018. This study should then provide a starting point for empowering students for life in the digital age.

Introduction

In today's knowledge and information society, competent handling of information and communication technologies is indispensable in order to meet the diverse requirements of the various areas of life. In this context, it is important that students develop the necessary skills to use these technologies in their daily lives to allow them an active and full participation in today's digital age [START_REF] Fraillon | Preparing for Life in a Digital Age: The IEA International Computer and Information Literacy Study[END_REF][START_REF] Wilson | Rethinking ICT literacy: From Computer Skills to Social Network Settings[END_REF][START_REF]OECD: Skills for a Digital World: Policy Brief on the Future of Work[END_REF][START_REF] Ainley | A global measure of digital and ICT literacy skills[END_REF]. Based on research studies and on recent developments, changes in the digital technologies themselves and changes in the notions of the importance of digital skills, an understanding of the required skills and competences has been expanded to include computational thinking [START_REF]IEA: The IEA's International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2018: What's next for IEA's ICILS in 2018? IEA[END_REF][START_REF] Yadav | Computational Thinking as an Emerging Competence Domain[END_REF]. Since publication of Wing's [START_REF] Wing | Computational Thinking[END_REF] influential article, in which she states her grand vision that everyone should have skills in this field and be able to use them, computational thinking has been the subject of research and scientific discourse. However, it also assigns an important role to the school systems and thus to the school as a mediating authority for corresponding competences [START_REF] Lockwood | Computational Thinking in Education: Where does it Fit? A systematic literary review[END_REF][START_REF] Eickelmann | Measuring Secondary School Students' Competence in Computational Thinking in ICILS 2018 -Challenges, Concepts and Potential Implications for School Systems around the World[END_REF]. As a result, many initiatives have been launched in K-12 schools [START_REF] Czerkawski | Computational Thinking and Teacher Education: Are we there yet?[END_REF].

In this context, there are differences between educational systems in the integration of computational thinking into compulsory education. This leads to the need to study the results of the implementation of computational thinking and related teaching and evaluation methods [START_REF] Bocconi | Developing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education-Implications for policy and practice[END_REF], also with a view to enabling comparability of computational thinking outcomes within and between educational systems.

However, the broad spectrum of perspectives on computational thinking also means that various elements of definition have emerged, resulting in a lack of clarity as to what computational thinking should be [START_REF] Rich | Computational Thinking: Toward a Unifying Definition[END_REF].

When it comes to the question of how computational thinking can be conceptualised, it becomes apparent that the construct of computational thinking is known to be poorly defined [START_REF] Román-González | Extending the nomological network of computational thinking with non-cognitive factors[END_REF], that there is no universally accepted definition [START_REF] Mannila | Computational Thinking in K-9 Education[END_REF] and that there is thus the challenge to assess computational thinking [START_REF] Brennan | New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking[END_REF]. These circumstances complicate the widespread integration of computational thinking in the learning and teaching context, as educational systems place different emphases on how to learn and teach computational thinking. This is also reflected in teacher education, as there is a great need to prepare well-trained teachers to integrate computational thinking into their daily teaching activities [START_REF] Lye | Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12?[END_REF]. Yet, there is still only marginal understanding of how non-computer science teachers can be engaged in computational thinking [START_REF] Yadav | Computational Thinking in Elementary and Secondary Teacher Education[END_REF][START_REF] Yadav | Computational Thinking for Teacher Education[END_REF].

What is taught, however, are problem-solving skills. Students are expected to work in new environments, overcome problems they are unfamiliar with, and apply multidisciplinary reasoning skills that are not tied to specific content [START_REF] Csapó | The development and assessment of problem solving in 21st-century schools[END_REF]. The majority of existing computational thinking definitions and a few existing studies suggest that there is a high correlation between student competences in computational thinking and problem-solving skills [START_REF] Barr | Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the Role of the Computer Science Education Community?[END_REF][START_REF] Román-González | Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test[END_REF][START_REF] Yadav | Computational Thinking as an Emerging Competence Domain[END_REF][START_REF] Boom | Relationship between Computational Thinking and a Measure of Intelligence as a General Problem-Solving Ability[END_REF].

If it can be shown that this high correlation between computational thinking and problem-solving does in fact exist, then this finding can be used to structure computational thinking lessons accordingly, which necessitates investigation of the relationship between computational thinking and problem-solving [START_REF] Labusch | Computational Thinking and Problem-Solving -a Research Approach in the Context of ICILS[END_REF].

Measuring this relationship has several benefits. In addition to the referral to wellproven problem-solving theories to explain computational thinking, it might provide an explanatory approach for variation in students' achievement in computational thinking.

Summarising all these aspects related to the increasing relevance of computational thinking, the inconsistent conceptualisation, the different emphases in learning and teaching computational thinking in different educational systems, and the resulting advantage of measuring the correlation between computational thinking and general problem-solving, leads to three major challenges: conceptualising computational thinking and problem-solving; finding an appropriate research design; and highlighting the benefits and nature of the results. This raises the three research questions, which are addressed in this article: 1. How are computational thinking and general problem-solving to be conceptualised, where do they overlap and how can this be presented on a theoretical level? 2. Which data and which research approach are appropriate for an empirical examination of the theoretical understanding? 3. Which kind of results with respect to the overlap between computational thinking and problem-solving will be obtained in such a research process? Section 2 is concerned with answering the first question, whereby, firstly, the conceptualisation of computational thinking (2.1) and problem-solving (2.2) and then their overlapping areas (2.3) and, thus, the relationship at the theoretical level, are covered. Section 3 responds to question 2 by introducing the International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 and thereby presenting international options on computational thinking (3.1) and the German national extension to problem-solving (3.2). Finally, Section 4 addresses question 3 and outlines the expected results related to the overlap between computational thinking and problem-solving.

Computational thinking and problem-solving at a theoretical level 2.1 Conceptualisation of computational thinking

The identification of the spectrum of computational thinking skills is a balancing act between algorithmic procedural thinking related to computer programming and a wider range of transferable problem-solving skills and dispositions [START_REF] Barr | Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the Role of the Computer Science Education Community?[END_REF][START_REF] Barr | Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone[END_REF][START_REF] Voogt | Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice[END_REF].

There are many definitions and conceptualisations of computational thinking, all with different emphases. Wing, for instance, argues that computational thinking should not be limited to programming and that it should be added to the analytical skills of all people [START_REF] Wing | Computational Thinking[END_REF]. Denning [START_REF] Denning | Remaining Trouble Spots with Computational Thinking[END_REF] asserts that definitions of computational thinking are "vague and confusing" (p. 33) when they do not originate in the field of computer science. Thus, it makes a difference whether the definition comes from the field of computer science or from the field of education.

In the International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 (ICILS 2018), computational thinking is defined as "the ability to identify a problem, break it down into manageable steps, work out the important details or patterns, shape possible solutions, and present these solutions in a way that a computer, a human, or both, can understand. Computational thinking can also involve structuring and manipulating data sets to support the solution process" [START_REF]IEA: The IEA's International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2018: What's next for IEA's ICILS in 2018? IEA[END_REF] (p. 1).

The computational thinking construct in ICILS 2018 consists of two general conceptual categories (strands) and three or respectively two specific content categories within a strand (aspects). Strand 1 focuses on the conceptualisation of problems, assuming that before developing solutions, problems must first be understood and designed in such a way that algorithmic thinking or system thinking can support the process of solution development. This includes, for instance, the aspect of knowing about and understanding computer systems, whereby students should have the ability to recognise and describe the characteristics of systems. On a declarative level, a person should be able to describe rules and boundary conditions. A second aspect describes the formulation and analysis of problems. For this purpose, a problem is broken down into smaller, manageable parts (decomposition) and the properties of the task are systematised in such a way that a computational solution can be developed. The third aspect of the first strand refers to the meaningful collection and representation of relevant data in order to effectively assess the problem solution within a system.

Strand 2 comprises the operationalisation of solutions in the form of planning, implementation, testing and evaluation of algorithmic solutions to real-world problems.

On the one hand, the strand focuses on the aspect of planning and evaluating solutions. Typically, there is a wide range of possible computer-based solutions for a particular problem. It is therefore important to be able to plan and evaluate solutions from different perspectives and to understand the advantages, disadvantages and effects of different solutions. On the other hand, the second strand includes the developing of algorithms, programs and designs. This does not assume that the students are familiar with the syntax and functions of a particular programming language, but rather with the logical reasoning underlying the development of algorithms for problem-solving [START_REF] Eickelmann | Measuring Secondary School Students' Competence in Computational Thinking in ICILS 2018 -Challenges, Concepts and Potential Implications for School Systems around the World[END_REF][START_REF] Fraillon | Assessment Framework of ICILS 2018[END_REF].

Computational thinking processes emerge from the framework on three levels. On the level of problem conceptualisation (strand 1), problem identification and definition are important, as is decomposition, in which a problem is broken down into sub-steps to make it easier to deal with. On the second level -the operationalisation of solutions (strand 2) -various processes play a role, such as pattern recognition, pattern matching and algorithmic thinking, which contain abstraction. On the third level -the evaluation of solutions -the focus is on the debugging and evaluation of the solution. This level is closely linked to the second level of operationalisation of solutions, which is reflected in the fact that this is included in aspect 2.1 of the framework under the second strand [START_REF] Labusch | Computational Thinking Processes and Their Congruence with Problem-Solving and Information-Processing[END_REF].

Conceptualisation of problem-solving

When considering computational thinking as a competence and/or a competence area, it becomes apparent that it requires the development of both domain-specific and general problem-solving skills [START_REF] Yadav | Computational Thinking as an Emerging Competence Domain[END_REF]. Nevertheless, the investigation of general problemsolving is not the approach considered in the above-mentioned computational thinking construct, but rather it focuses on domain-specific problem-solving (although the framework would also apply to general problem-solving).

Problem-solving can be described as a transformation from an undesirable initial state to a desirable final state [START_REF] Beecher | Computational Thinking: A beginner's guide to problem-solving and programming[END_REF] by overcoming a barrier. Achieving this requires higher order thinking skills [START_REF] Spector | Argumentation, Critical Reasoning, and Problem Solving[END_REF].

A problem-solving process is frequently described as a seven-stage cycle [START_REF] Pretz | Recognizing, Defining and Representing Problems[END_REF]. On the level of problem conceptualisation, it comprises the recognition or identification of a problem and the definition and mental representation of the problem. On the level of the operationalisation of solutions, the development of a strategy to solve the problem, the organisation of knowledge concerning the problem, as well as the allocation of mental and physical resources needed to solve the problem, all play a role. Monitoring of progress towards the goal, and evaluation of the solution in terms of accuracy are on the third level, which focuses on evaluating solutions.

Overlapping areas of computational thinking and problem-solving

On a theoretical level, there are apparent indications of a strong correlation between computational thinking and problem-solving processes [START_REF] Labusch | Computational Thinking Processes and Their Congruence with Problem-Solving and Information-Processing[END_REF]. When comparing the two constructs, there is considerable overlap between them, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Overlapping areas of computational thinking and problem-solving

Therefore, introducing students to problem-solving and algorithmic thinking at an early age is useful in enabling them to learn computational thinking step-by-step. This ensures that all students have sufficient skills at the end of their schooling to keep up with technological progress. To further develop these initiatives, it is necessary to know which competences the students already possess and where similarities and differences exist with regard to their general problem-solving skills.

For this purpose, it is necessary to introduce a study in which empirical research can be conducted into the introduced theoretical constructs, also to support students' acquisition of computational thinking in schools and taking school context and learning as well as student characteristics into account.

Computational thinking and problem-solving in ICILS 2018

Computational thinking as an international option of ICILS 2018

Based on the described computational thinking construct, the International Computer and Information Literacy Study 2018 (ICILS 2018) meets the challenge of measuring student competences in the field of computational thinking on a representative basis, with an international comparison, by having integrated computational thinking as an international option (as a response to the increasing relevance of this field in research, scientific discourse and school life).

With ICILS 2018, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) provides for the second time after ICILS 2013, with the help of an internationally developed and elaborated set of tools, the empirically validated assessment of students' computer and information literacy (CIL; comparable to information and communication technologies (ICT) literacy) in the participating countries with an international comparison. For the first time, the IEA also supplied the international option for computational thinking [START_REF]IEA: The IEA's International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2018: What's next for IEA's ICILS in 2018? IEA[END_REF]. In addition, the relationship of these competences to the school and extracurricular context of learning was examined [START_REF] Eickelmann | Measuring Secondary School Students' Competence in Computational Thinking in ICILS 2018 -Challenges, Concepts and Potential Implications for School Systems around the World[END_REF].

Educational systems participating in ICILS 2018 could decide whether they also wanted to participate in this international option. Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the United States of America (USA), as well as Moscow (Russia) and North-Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), as benchmark participants, took the opportunity to do so.

The international option for ICILS 2018 is essentially aimed at clarifying the research questions as to: (1) which computational thinking competences students have and how the conditions for acquiring these competences are related to the competence level of the students; and (2) how students' achievements in computational thinking relate to their computer and information literacy skills. While the first question aims to capture computational thinking as a new area of competence for the first time and to explain the conditions for acquiring competences at student, school and educational system level, the second research question focuses on empirically clarifying the relationship with the area of computer and information literacy.

The sample in ICILS 2018 is 20 students per school in Grade 8 with a minimum age of 13.5 years, 15 teachers per school who teach in Grade 8, and the school principal and ICT coordinator at school level. In all participating countries, a representative random sample of at least 150 schools was drawn and a sample of students and teachers was taken in these schools [START_REF] Fraillon | Assessment Framework of ICILS 2018[END_REF].

The concept of the additional module in computational thinking is that students' achievement in computational thinking is measured in the same student cohort by extending the computer-based student tests by two test modules.

Computer-based testing with authentic tasks in a software-based test environment is essential for measuring the construct to be captured. A major challenge in test design has been that the computer-based student tests must be applicable to eighth graders, whether they have learned a programming language or not, must be applicable in a wide range of countries and curricula, and must have the least possible overlap with other disciplines (e.g. mathematics). In ICILS 2018, this area is made accessible for the first time using an adequately developed test instrument in the form of computer-based measurement with an international comparison, which can be used without knowledge of programming languages, but includes typical features of computer-based problemsolving processes such as the use of algorithms and loops for systematic and repeated problem-solving steps. A visual coding approach is used to consider algorithmic logic. The international computer-based student tests consist of questions and tasks that are embedded in real-life contexts [START_REF] Fraillon | Assessment Framework of ICILS 2018[END_REF].

All students complete two computer and information literacy modules. In the countries participating in the international option computational thinking, students complete two additional 25-minute test modules. According to the computational thinking construct in ICILS 2018 with two strands (problem conceptualisation and solution operationalisation), each of the two computational thinking test modules concentrates on one of these strands. The computational thinking test modules contain information-based response tasks and nonlinear competence tasks.

Since competences are always embedded in a context, the research questions featured in ICILS 2018 focus in addition on the measurement of Grade 8 students' computer and information literacy achievement in computational thinking, as well as the relationship between these competence areas in terms of individual characteristics and the school context. By means of supplemented items in the background questionnaires of ICILS 2018, factors related to specific individual, school and teaching contexts and conditions in the field of computational thinking are also considered. The student and teacher questionnaires collect process-related context factors, including students' reports on the extent of learning about approaches to computational thinking at school, and teachers' emphasis on teaching approaches to computational thinking in class. School ICT coordinators were asked about their perceptions of school emphasis on teaching computational thinking activities to students. The data obtained from the so-called National Context Survey are intended to support the interpretation of the results of the student, teacher and school questionnaires [START_REF] Fraillon | Assessment Framework of ICILS 2018[END_REF].

The results of ICILS 2018 will be published in the international and national report at the end of 2019.

Problem-solving as a German national extension to ICILS 2018

In addition, the participating educational systems had the possibility to add national extensions, of which several took advantage [START_REF] Caeli | Computational Thinking Initiatives in Danish Grade 8 Classes. A Quantitative Study of How Students are Taught to Think Computationally[END_REF][START_REF] Labusch | Computational Thinking as a Key Competence -a Research Concept[END_REF]. In Germany, reading tests and tests on cognitive abilities [START_REF] Eickelmann | Measuring Secondary School Students' Competence in Computational Thinking in ICILS 2018 -Challenges, Concepts and Potential Implications for School Systems around the World[END_REF], items aiming to examine the correlation between computational thinking and general problem-solving skills [START_REF] Labusch | Computational Thinking as a Key Competence -a Research Concept[END_REF], information about students' self-reported proficiency in completing computational thinking tasks, and items focusing on computer science and its practice in schools, were therefore also gathered within the context of computational thinking. This means that the relationship between computational thinking and problem-solving could only be addressed for Germany.

The aim is to design an empirically verifiable theoretical analysis model that investigates this relationship with statistical controls for individual student characteristics such as students' self-reported proficiency in computational thinking and their background characteristics, as well as for the school context such as students' reports on the extent of learning about approaches to computational thinking at school and teachers' emphasis on teaching approaches to computational thinking in class.

Expected outcomes and discussion on the overlap of computational thinking and problem-solving

Studying the relationship between students' computational thinking achievement and their general problem-solving skills, taking into consideration individual student characteristics and the school context, aims to provide a starting point for achieving a deeper understanding from a theoretical and empirical perspective as well as a holistic picture of computational thinking. The benefit of this is that all relationships are examined in the same sample and are calculated in one model on two levels [START_REF] Grover | Computational Thinking in K-12: A Review of the State of the Field[END_REF].

Focusing on the relationship between computational thinking and general problemsolving and on their links would be of interest for the development of educational systems. As a matter of fact, this would allow in the coming years to work specifically on computational thinking and to use well-proven problem-solving theories, thus making it possible to implement development measures in each considered country (e.g. Germany).

Obviously, the question arises as to whether everyone should be able to learn and apply computational thinking [START_REF] Grover | Computational Thinking in K-12: A Review of the State of the Field[END_REF] as Wing [START_REF] Wing | Computational Thinking[END_REF][START_REF] Labusch | Computational Thinking as a Key Competence -a Research Concept[END_REF] proposed, but in the spirit of equal opportunities, it would not necessarily be reasonable to deny some students the possibility of acquiring computational thinking skills that are becoming increasingly important for their professional future. When it comes to bringing computational thinking into schools as a cross-curricular competence, there is no alternative to conceptualise computational thinking in such a way that it can also be taught by noncomputer science teachers and can also be learned by students who do not attend computer science classes. In doing so, it must also be kept in mind that neither students nor teachers with little knowledge of computer science can be expected to be familiar with a programming language. The logical conditions behind computational thinking can, however, be explained to them and it can then be left up to them to decide whether they want to gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter and acquire knowledge of or skills in a programming language or not.

However, society has the responsibility to offer young people the opportunity to acquire at least basic competences in the field of computational thinking, which they can then upgrade in line with their own particular preferences and needs. Students need a different kind of knowledge that enables them to succeed in a rapidly changing environment. If schools only prepare their students to meet current expectations, the knowledge and skills they may have to use in their private and professional lives can soon become outdated [START_REF] Csapó | The development and assessment of problem solving in 21st-century schools[END_REF].

To ensure students are properly prepared for life in the digital age, it is of great relevance to consider and investigate computational thinking in the context of general problem-solving. This is addressed on a representative basis in the German national extension to ICILS 2018. Germany is currently thus the only educational system, which, with the help of a national extension to ICILS 2018, is able to investigate the relationship between computational thinking and general problem-solving, in an analysis controlling for other individual student characteristics and the school context. Results will be published in November 2019 and in-depth results in 2020.