SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Teacher Views on Programming Teaching

Funda Dağ(KOCAELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0868-6647
Levent Durdu(KOCAELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3788-7226
Pages
70–86
Publication Date
2020-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The teachers stated that there is a need for teaching material for a more effective teaching process and laboratory conditions need to be improved.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study is to evaluate the processes of programming teaching in the context of Information Technologies and Software course.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the study where qualitative research method was adopted, teachers' answers to open-ended questions were subjected to content analysis and common themes were created.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The teachers stated that there is a need for teaching material for a more effective teaching process and laboratory conditions need to be improved.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Programlama Öğretimi · Öğretmen Görüşleri · Bilişim Teknolojileri ve Yazılım

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the processes of programming teaching in the context of Information Technologies and Software course. In the study where qualitative research method was adopted, teachers' answers to open-ended questions were subjected to content analysis and common themes were created. Within this scope, nine Information Technology Teachers graduated from different programs, working in different regions and different school types have answered open-ended questions. Teachers defined their knowledge as intermediate and above-sufficient in terms of block-based programming tools, and expressed themselves as beginner or not competent, especially for physical programming environments. There was no positive or negative trend in teaching computer science at an early age according to teachers. There are both positive and negative views on Information Network in Education Activity Books and Coding Guide. The number of students per computer is the most important problem raised regarding the instructional process. On the students’ side, students are uninterested to the course and students do not have computers at home for practicing. The teachers stated that there is a need for teaching material for a more effective teaching process and laboratory conditions need to be improved.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, 2018-2019 itibariyle güncellenen Bilişim Teknolojileri ve Yazılım dersi kapsamındaki programlama öğretimine yönelik sürecin değerlendirilmesidir. Nitel araştırma yönteminin benimsendiği çalışmada öğretmenlerin açık uçlu sorulara verdikleri yanıtlar içerik analizine tabi tutulmuş ve ortak temalar oluşturulmuştur. Bu kapsamda, farklı lisans mezuniyet derecelerine, farklı tecrübe düzeylerine, farklı bölgelerde ve farklı okul türlerinde görev yapan dokuz Bilişim Teknolojileri Öğretmeni açık uçlu sorulara yanıt vermiştir. Blok tabanlı programlama araçları konusunda bilgi düzeylerini orta ve üstü olarak tanımlarken, özellikle fiziksel programlamada kendilerini başlangıç düzeyinde ya da yetkin değil olarak ifade etmişlerdir. Bilgisayar biliminin erken yaşlarda öğretimi konusunda öğretmenlerin olumlu ya da olumsuz bir yönde eğilimleri ortaya çıkmamıştır. EBA Etkinlik Kitapları ve Kodlama Kılavuzu kaynağına yönelik hem olumlu hem de olumsuz görüşleri vardır. Bilgisayar başına düşen öğrenci sayısı öğretim süreciyle ilgili olarak dile getirilen en önemli sorundur. Öğrencilerin derse karşı ilgisiz olması ve öğrencilerin evde bilgisayarlarının olmayışı da öğrenci açısından ifade edilen temel sorunlardır. Öğretmenler, daha etkili bir öğretim süreci için öğretim materyali ihtiyaçlarının olduğunu ve laboratuvar koşullarının iyileştirilmesi gerektiğini ifade etmişlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dağ, F., Durdu, L. (2020). Teacher Views on Programming Teaching. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 70–86. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.629428

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (28)

  1. Balanskat, K. E. A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding. Erişim adresi: http://fcl.eun.org/documents/10180/14689/Computing+our+future_final.pdf/746e36b1-e1a6-4bf1-8105-ea27c0d2bbe0
  2. Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., & Grimley, M. (2009). Computer science unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. The New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 13(1), 20-29.
  3. Bell, T., Rosamond, F., & Casey, N. (2012). Computer science unplugged and related projects in math and computer science popularization. In H. L. Bodlaender, R. Downey, F. V. Fomin, & D. Marx (Eds.), The multivariate algorithmic revolution and beyond (pp. 398-456). (Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Vol. 7370). Online: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30891-8_18.
  4. Cevahir, H., & Özdemir, M. (2017). Programlama öğretiminde karşılaşılan zorluklara yönelik öğretmen görüşleri ve çözüm önerileri. Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu içinde, 320-335.
  5. Dağ, F. (2019). Prepare pre-service teachers to teach computer programming skills at K-12 level: experiences in a course. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(2), 277-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-019-00137-5
  6. Diethelm, I., Hubwieser, P., & Klaus, R. (2012). Students, teachers, and phenomena: Educational reconstruction for computer science education. Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (pp. 164-173). Koli, Finland: ACM.
  7. EBA. (2019). Eğitimde Bilişim Ağı: Açıklama. Erişim adresi: http://www.eba.gov.tr
  8. Heintz, F., Mannila, L., & Färnqvist, T. (2016, October). A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K-12 education. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education conference (FIE) (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
  9. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
  10. Guzdial, M. (2008). Education paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25-27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1378704.1378713
  11. Hiltunen, T. (2016). Learning and teaching programming skills in Finnish primary schools – the potential of games (Unpublished Master Thesis). Oulu: University of Oulu.
  12. Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross -case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022
  13. ISTE. (2011). Computational thinking in K–12 education leadership toolkit. Erişim adresi: http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4
  14. Kale, U., Akcaoglu, M., Cullen, T., Goh, D., Devine, L., Calvert, N., & Grise, K. (2018). Computational what? Relating computational thinking to teaching. TechTrends, 62(6), 574–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0290-9
  15. Larke, L. R. (2019). Agentic neglect: Teachers as gatekeepers of England’s national computing curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1137–1150. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12744
  16. Lamagna, E. A. (2015). Algorithmic thinking unplugged. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 30(6), 45-52.
  17. Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2017). Computational thinking in education: Where does it fit? A systematic literary review. Erişim adresi: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1703/1703.07659.pdf
  18. MEB. (2018). Bilişim teknolojileri ve yazılım dersi öğretim programı (1-8.sınıf). Ankara: Turkey Ministry of National Education Basic Education General Directorate.
  19. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
  20. Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 73-88.
  21. Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469-495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9482-0
  22. Shailaja, J., & Sridaran, R. (2015). Computational thinking the intellectual thinking for the 21st century. International Journal of Advanced Networking & Applications, May 2015 Special Issue, 39-46.
  23. Sırakaya, M. (2018). Kodlama eğitimine yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. OMU Journal of Education Faculty, 37(2), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.394649.
  24. Tairab A., Huang R., Chang TW., Zheng L. (2016) A framework to promote ICT in K-12 education in developing countries: A case study in Sudan. In: Cheung S., Kwok L., Shang J., Wang A., Kwan R. (eds), Blended learning: Aligning theory with practices. ICBL 2016.
  25. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
  26. Yecan, E., Özçınar, H., & Tanyeri, T. (2017). Bilişim Teknolojileri Öğretmenlerinin görsel programlama öğretimi deneyimleri. İlköğretim Online, 16(1). 377-393. http://doi.org/10.17051/io.2017.80833
  27. Yükseltürk, E., & Altıok, S. (2015). Bilişim Teknolojileri Öğretmen adaylarının bilgisayar programlama öğretimin e yönelik görüşleri. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 50-65.
  28. Yükseltürk, E., & Altıok, S. (2016). BT Öğretmen Adayları K-12 Seviyesinde Bilgisayar Programlama Eğitimi Hakkındaki Seminere Neden Katılmak İster? In Proceedings of 10th International Computer and Instructional Technologies Symposium (ICITS) (pp. 216 - 222). Rize, Turkey.