Comparing Students' Scratch Skills with Their Computational Thinking Skills in Terms of Different Variables

Автор: Ali OLUK, Özgen KORKMAZ

Журнал: International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS) @ijmecs

Статья в выпуске: 11 vol.8, 2016 года.

Бесплатный доступ

This study aimed to compare 5th graders' scores obtained from Scratch projects developed in the framework of Information Technologies and Software classes via Dr Scratch web tool with the scores obtained from Computational Thinking Levels Scale and to examine this comparison in terms of different variables. Correlational research model was utilized in the study that 31 students participated in. Students were taught basic programming by using Scratch during a 6-week period. At the end of training, students' programming skills were measured via Dr. Scratch web tool. Computational thinking skills were measured using Computational Thinking Levels Scale which includes 5 factors: creativity, problem solving, algorithmic thinking, collaboration and critical thinking. Data were analyzed for internal reliability to calculate scale reliability. Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient was found to be 0.809. It was found that scores obtained by students by using any of the measurement tools did not differ according to gender or period of computer use, however, a high level significant relationship was observed between students' programming skills with Scratch and their computational thinking skills.

Еще

Scratch, Thinking Skills, Computational Thinking, Dr. Scratch

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/15014915

IDR: 15014915

Текст научной статьи Comparing Students' Scratch Skills with Their Computational Thinking Skills in Terms of Different Variables

Published Online November 2016 in MECS DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2016.11.01

It can be argued that advanced technology has changed the skills that the individuals are expected to have such as computational thinking skills. It is believed that computational thinking skills will be necessary for everyone in mid-21st century [1]. It can be claimed computational thinking skills are basic skills that need to be acquired by all and not just by computer experts [2,3] Teaching these skills especially to children is a topic of discussion in educational systems [4]. It is known that many countries have recently attempted to include computational thinking skills in their curriculums [5]. Computational thinking seeks to solve problems, designs systems and comprehends human behaviors with the help of basic computer sciences [1]. Computational thinking is an important skill to educate individuals to identify problems, have a command of problem solving process and solve problems more productively [6]. Computational thinking aims to highlight skills such as creativity, logical thinking and critical thinking to develop problem solving skills with the help of computers [7]. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) [8] states that computational thinking cannot be fully defined without sub skills such as creative thinking, algorithmic thinking, critical thinking, cooperative learning and communication skills. Definitions of computational thinking skills point to the importance of training in programming to acquire sub skills [9-11]. Hence, it can be argued that training is significant to teach computational thinking skills [12].

For beginners, programming seems to be a hard task which can only be managed by individuals with high level training [13, 14]. This belief may be related to the fact that programming involves the use of many skills in combination such as generalization, abstraction and critical thinking [15]. In order to facilitate training, it is suggested to use programming tools and methods such as cooperative learning, game based learning, project based learning, simulation and drag and drop [14]. Instead of dealing with the complex structure of traditional programming languages, primary school students’ computational thinking skills can be measured via programming tools such as Scratch [12]. There are programming tools like Scratch, Alice, Microsoft Small Basic and Toontalk that emphasize visual aspects such as drag and drop. It is suggested that beginners use these programming tools [12,16] . Since they are free and have easy-to-use interfaces, it is thought that these programming tools provide significant advantages for beginners and primary school students.

Among these vial programming tools, Scratch is distinguished due to its interface, language support and its feature of sharing projects [10]. It is known that Scratch is a program for beginners in programming, logic and algorithmic thinking skills [17 – 19].

One of the most important problems facing educators in using Scratch support in lesson planning is related to tools developed to assess projects prepared with Scratch [20]. Dr. Scratch is a web tool that is used to score projects by entering source files or URL addresses of Scratch projects. Dr Scratch has been developed to analyze projects generated by primary and secondary school students using Scratch programming tool and to provide feedback regarding the development of computational thinking skills [20]. Dr. Scratch offers web based analysis and supports teachers and students in calculating the computational thinking scores of Scratch projects in 7 headings: abstraction, synchronization, analogy/paralellism, information, user interactivity, digital logic and control flow [20]. Dr. Scratch assigns three points to each heading cited above and the highest score that can be obtained is 21. In addition to supporting teachers in the assessment of Scratch projects, Dr. Scratch also assists students who want to develop programming skills on their own [20].

Список литературы Comparing Students' Scratch Skills with Their Computational Thinking Skills in Terms of Different Variables

  • J. Wing. Computational Thinking. Communication of ACM, 2006, 33-35.
  • Ö. Korkmaz. R. Çakır. and M. Özden. Computational Thinking Levels Scale (CTLS) Adaptation For Secondary School Level. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 2015, 143-162.
  • A.Yadav. C. Mayfield. N . Zhou. S . Hambrusch. and J. Korb. Computational Thinking in Elementary and Secondary Teacher Education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 2014, 14(1).
  • J. Wing. Computational Thinking and Thinking About Computing. Phil. Trans.R. Soc. A, 2008, 366, 3717–3725 doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0118.
  • J. León. and G. Robles. Analyze your Scratch projects with Dr. Scratch and assess your Computational Thinking skills. Scratch2015AMS, 2015 Amsterdam, Netherlands.
  • B. Czerkawski. And E. Lyman. Exploring Issues About Computational Thinking in Higher Education. TechTrends, 2015, 59(2), 57-65.
  • Ö. Korkmaz. R. Çakır. M. Özden. A. Oluk. and S. Sarıoğlu. Investigation of Individuals' Computational Thinking Skills in terms of Different Variables. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Faculty ok Education, 2015, 68-87 doi: 10.7822/omuefd.34.2.5.
  • ISTE. 2015. Computational Thinking Leadership Toolkit Firs Edition. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ctleadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
  • Y. Akpınar. and A . Altun. Bilgi Toplumu Okullarında Programlama Eğitimi Gereksinimi[Programming Educational Needs in Information Society SchoolProgramming Educational Needs in Information Society School]. Elementary Education Online, 2014, 13(1), 1-4.
  • D. Karabak. and A .Güneş. Curriculum Proposal For First Class Secondary School Students In The Field Of Software Development. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 2013, 163-169.
  • S. Shin. P. Park. and Y. Bae. The Effects of an Information-Technology Gifted Program on Friendship Using Scratch Programming Language and Clutter. International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering, 2013, 2(3), 246-249.
  • S. Lye. and J. Koh. Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 2014, 41, 51-61.
  • Z. Genç. and G. Karakuş. Learning Through Design: Using Scratch In Instructional Computer Games Design. 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium, 22-24 September 2011 (s. 981-987). Elazığ: Fırat University.
  • M. Başer. M. Bilgisayar Programlamaya Karşı Tutum Ölçeği Geliştirme Çalışması.[ Attitude Scale Development Study Against Computer Programming]. The Journal Of Academic Social Science Studies, 2013, 6(6), 199-215.
  • A. Gomes. and A. Mendes, A. Learning to Program - Difficulties and Solutions. International Conference on Engineering Education – ICEE 2007. Coimbra, Portugal.
  • Ş. Çatlak, M. Tekdal. and F. Baz. The Status of Teaching Programming with Scratch: A Document Review Work. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 2015, 4(3), 13-25.
  • N. Çağıltay Ercil. and M. Fal. Scratch İle Programlamayı Öğreniyorum.[I learn programming with scratch.], 2013, Ankara: METU Pub.
  • M. Armoni. O. Meerbaum – Salant. and M. Ben – Ari. From Scratch to " Real" Programing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 2015, 14(4), 10-25.
  • J. Maloney. M. Resnick. N. Rusk. B. Silverman. and E . Eastmond. The Scratch Programming Language and Environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 2010, 10(4), 1-16.
  • J. León. G. Robles. and M. González. Dr. Scratch: Automatic Analysis of Scratch Projects to Assess and Foster Computational Thinking. RED-Revista de Educación a Distancia, 2015, 1-23.
  • L. Begosso. and P. Silva. Teaching computer programming: a practical review. In 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2013, (s. 508-510).
  • Ö. Korkmaz. The Effects of Scratch - Based Game Activities on Students' Attitudes, Self - Efficacy and Academic Achievement. I.J. Modern Education and Computer Science, 2016, 16-23.
  • B. Kaučič. and T. Asič. Improving Introductory Programming with Stratch? MIPRO 2011, 1095-1100.
  • D. Ozoran. N. Çağıltay. and D. Topalli. Using Scratch In Introduction To Programing Course For Engineering Students. 2nd International Engineering Education Conference (IEEC2012), 125 - 132.
  • A. OLUK. and F. SALTAN. Effects of Using the Scratch Program in 6th Grade Information Technologies Courses on Algorithm Development and Problem Solving Skills. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 2015, 10-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.15.spi.2.2
  • S. Nikou. and A. Economides. Transition in Student Motivation During a Scratch and an App Inventor Course. Proceedings of Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). 2014, İstanbul Turkey.
  • S. Federici. A Minimal, Extensible, Drag-and-drop Implementation of the C Programming Language. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education. 2011, New York.
  • J. León. and G. Robles. The Europe Code Week (CodeEU) initiative. 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). Tallinn, Estonia: Tallinn University of Technology.
  • M. Resnick. J. Maloney. A. Hernandez. N. Rusk. E. Eastmond. K. Brennan. . . . Y. Kafai. Scratch: Programing for All. Communications Of The ACM, 2009, 52(11), 60-67.
  • Ş. Büyüköztürk. E. Kılıç Çakmak. Ö. Akgün. Ş. Karadeniz. and F. Demirel. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri[Research Methods]. 2014, Ankara: Pegema Akademi.
  • Ö. Özyurt. and H. Özyurt. A Study For Determining Computer Programming Students' Attitudes Towards Programming And Their Programming Self - Efficacy. Journal Of Theory And Practice In Education, 2015, 11(1), 51-67.
  • W.W.F. Lau. and A.H.K. Yuen. Modeling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 2011, 571(1), 1202-1213
  • S. Beyer. M. DeKeuster. K. Walter. M. Colar. and C. Holcomb. Changes in CS students' sttitudes towards CS over time: an examination of gender differences. SIGCSE Bull., 2005, 37(1), 392-396. doi: 10.1145/1047124.1047475
  • S. Toker. An Assessment Of Pre-Service Teacher Education Program In Relation To Technology Training For Future Practice: A Case Of Primary School Teacher Education Program, Burdur.( Unpublished master's thesis), 2004, Gradute School of Education,METU
  • A. Altun. S. Mazman. Programlamaya İlişkin Öz Yeterlilik Algısı Ölçeğinin Türkçe Formunun Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlilik Çalışması.[ Validity and Reliability Study of Self-Efficacy Scale Turkish Form on Programming]. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 2012, 3(2), 297-308.
  • P. Byrne. and G. Lyons. The Effect of Student Attributes on Success in Programming. Proceedings of ITICSE, 49-52.
  • M. Yağcı. Effect of attitudes of information ,technologies (IT) preservice teachers and computer programming (CP) students toward programming on their perception regarding their self-sufficiency for programming. International Journal of Human Science, 2016, 13(1), 1418-1432, doi:10.14687/ijhs.v13i1.3502.
  • S. Köse. A. Savran Gencer. and K. Gezer. Vocational High School Students' Attitudes Toward Computer and Internet. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 2007, 21(1), 44-54.
  • S. Deniz. İ. Görgen. and H. Şeker. Tezsiz yüksek lisans öğretmen adaylarının teknolojiye yönelik tutumları. Eğitim Araştırmaları[Thesis of Master Teachers Attitudes Towards Technology.], Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 2006, 6 (23), 62–71.
  • B. Akkoyunlu. F. Orhan. Bilgisayar ve Ögretim Teknolojileri Egitimi (BÖTE) Bölümü Ögrencilerinin Bilgisayar Kullanma Öz Yeterlik İnancı ile Demografik Özellikleri Arasındaki İliski.[ Computer Education and Instructional Technologies (CEIT) Department of Computer Use Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Students with long relationship between demographic characteristics] The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2003, 2(3), 86-93.
  • A.P. Ambrosio. F. M. Costa. L. Almeida. A. Franco. and J. Macedo. Identifying cognitive abilities to improve CS1 outcome. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2011.
Еще
Статья научная