## 3 Results
### The Study Participants' General Characteristics and Homogeneity Testing
#### 3.2.1 Group Comparison at Each Point of Time for a Change in Computational Thinking  
To verify the effects of the international training program for enhancing intelligent capabilities, a repeated measures analysis of variance was carried out to analyze a change in computational thinking of the experimental and control groups at each measurement point of time. The results are as follows (see Table 3). Because computational thinking failed to meet sphericity (W = 0.75, \(p\) < 0.005), [PERSON]'s epsilon correction (\(\varepsilon\) = 0.801) was applied. No significant interaction was found between groups, time points, and group-time point (Table 3). According to the analysis on each subfactor, the decomposition score of the experimental group right after the program increased by 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.64, compared to the score before the program, whereas that of the control group decreased by \(-\)0.02 \(\pm\) 0.56. The difference in the change was not statistically significant (\(t\) = 1.62, \(p\) = 0.113). However, the decomposition score of the experimental group in the 12 th week of the program increased by 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.61, compared to the pre-program score, whereas that of the control group decreased by \(-\)0.06 \(\pm\) 0.64. The difference in the change was statistically significant (\(t\) = 2.27, \(p\) = 0.029). According to the independent samples \(t\)-test conducted for the group comparison at each point of time for the change, the experimental group had a greater change between the pre-program and in the 12 th week of the program than the control group. The algorithm score of the experimental group right after the program increased by 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.71, compared to the pre-program score, whereas the control group decreased by \(-\)0.11 \(\pm\) 0.46. Therefore, the difference in the change was statistically significant (\(t\) = 2.40, \(p\) = 0.021). Additionally, the algorithm score of the experimental group in the 12 th week of the program increased by 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.58, compared to the pre-program score, whereas the control group decreased by \(-\)0.18 \(\pm\) 0.75. Therefore, the difference in the change was statistically significant (\(t\) = 2.33, \(p\) = 0.025). According to the independent samples t-test conducted for the group comparison at each point of time for the change, the experimental group had a greater change between the pre-program and in the 12 th week of the program than the control group. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Characteristics**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Categories**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Exp. (\(n\) = 20)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Cont. (\(n\) = 20)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**x\({}^{2}\) or t**} & \multirow{2}{*}{_p_} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & \(n\) **(\%) or M \(\pm\) SD** & & \(n\) **(\%) or M \(\pm\) SD** & \\ \hline Gender & Male & 14 (70.0) & 14 (70.0) & 0.000 & 1.000 \\  & Female & 6 (30.0) & 6 (30.0) & & \\ \hline  & 20s & 7 (35.0\%) & 4 (20.0) & 3.77 & 0.287 \\ Age (year) & 30s & 6 (30.0) & 11 (55.0) & & \\  & 40s & 2 (10.0) & 3 (15.0) & & \\  & 50s & 5 (25.0) & 2 (10.0) & & \\ \hline  & Bachelor’s degree & 17 (85.0) & 18 (90.0) & 2.36 & 0.307 \\ Education (year) & Master’s degree & 1 (5.0) & 2 (10.0) & & \\  & Doctoral degree & 2 (10.0) & 0 (0.0) & & \\ \hline Satisfaction with major & Satisfied & 17 (85.0) & 16 (80.0) & 0.17 & 0.677 \\  & Moderate & 3 (15.0) & 4 (20.0) & & \\  & Dissatisfied & 0 (0.0) & 0 (0.0) & & \\ \hline Computational thinking & & 3.72 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 3.91 \(\pm\) 0.55 & \(-\)1.38 & 0.175 \\ AI competency & & 3.13 \(\pm\) 0.50 & 3.01 \(\pm\) 1.01 & 0.43 & 0.663 \\ Core competencies & & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 5.07 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 0.62 & 0.534 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Exp. = experimental group; Cont. = control group; AI = artificial intelligence; M = mean score; SD = standard deviation; x\({}^{2}\) = Chi-square statistic; t = t-statistic; \(p\) = significance level; significance at \(p\) < 0.05.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The study participants’ general characteristics and homogeneity testing (N = 40).