Journals / Sakarya University Journal of Education / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3

Meta-Analysis of Computational Thinking Studies in Science Education: Descriptive Statistics

Fen Eğitiminde Hesaplamalı Düşünme Çalışmalarının Meta-Analizi: Betimsel İstatistikler

Pages
526–544
Publication Date
2021-12-01
DOI
—
🏛️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 findings of this research reveal that it is a necessity to use science fields, which are very suitable for developing computational thinking, and to make the necessary changes in the curriculum.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims is to examine the studies on computational thinking in the field of science education descriptive analysis with a holistic approach.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Findings from 32 primary studies were analyzed under 9 sub-titles.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings of this research reveal that it is a necessity to use science fields, which are very suitable for developing computational thinking, and to make the necessary changes in the curriculum.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Meta-analiz · fen eğitimi · hesaplamalı düşünme

Abstract

This study aims is to examine the studies on computational thinking in the field of science education descriptive analysis with a holistic approach. Primary studies were determined according to compliance with inclusion and exclusion criteria through document review and national and international database review. The studies included in the scope of the research were evaluated according to the keywords they used, type of publication, year, the language of publication, research methods, sample characteristics, the subject area, and applications covered, and the characteristics of data collection tools used. Findings from 32 primary studies were analyzed under 9 sub-titles. Keywords, which have an important place in the findings, were visualized with word cloud in accordance with the nature of the data. Findings from 32 primary studies were analyzed under 9 sub-titles. Keywords, which have an important place in the findings, were visualized with word cloud in accordance with the nature of the data. According to the determination in the related literature review, researches to develop computational thinking focus on Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, and mathematics. The findings of this research reveal that it is a necessity to use science fields, which are very suitable for developing computational thinking, and to make the necessary changes in the curriculum.

Özet

Bu araştırmanın amacı, fen eğitimi alanında hesaplamalı düşünme üzerine yapılmış çalışmaları bütüncül bir yaklaşımla betimsel olarak incelemektir. Doküman incelemesi yoluyla ulusal ve uluslararası veri tabanları incelenerek dahil edilme ve hariç tutulma kriterlerine uygun olduğu belirlenen birincil araştırmalar, anahtar kelimeler, yayın türü, yıl, yayın dili, araştırma yöntemleri, örneklem özellikleri, konu alanı ve uygulamalar ve veri toplama araçlarının özelliklerine göre değerlendirilmiştir. 32 birincil araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular dokuz alt başlıkta incelenmiştir. Bulgular içinde önemli bir yeri olan anahtar kelimeler verinin doğasına uygun olarak kelime bulutuyla görselleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada hesaplamalı düşünmeyi geliştirmeye yönelik araştırmaların daha çok bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri ve matematik eğitimi alanlarında gerçekleştirildiği tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda fen eğitimi alanında yıl, yayın dili, araştırma yöntemleri, örneklem özellikleri, konu alanı ve uygulamalar gibi değişkenlerin odağında gerçekleştirilecek araştırmaların alan yazına katkı sağlayacağı önerilmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIYICI, G., YAMAK, H. (2021). Meta-Analysis of Computational Thinking Studies in Science Education: Descriptive Statistics. Sakarya University Journal of Education, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3, 526–544. https://ajindex.com/articles/391256

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1990. “Science for All Americans: Education for a changing future”. 272. Tarihinde 14 Eylül 2019 (http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm). APA. 2020. Publication Manual of The American Psychological Association. C. 126. 7. baskı. Washington DC: THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO APA STYLE. Arthur, Winfred Jr., Winston Jr. Bennett, ve Allen I. Huffcett. 2011. Conducting Meta-Analysis Using SAS. LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS. Basu, Satabdi. 2016. “Fostering Synergistic Learning of Computational Thinking and Middle School Science in Computer-based Intelligent Learning Environments By Satabdi Basu Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfill”. Graduate School of Vanderbilt University. Bocconi, Stefania, Augusto Chioccariello, Giuliana Dettori, Anusca Ferrari, ve Katja Engelhardt. 2016. Developing Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education - Implications for policy and practice. editör P. Kampylis ve Y. Punie. European Union. Çakır, Esra, ve Süleyman Yaman. 2018. “Ters Yüz Sınıf Modelinin Öğrencilerin Fen Başarısı ve Bilgisayarca Düşünme Becerileri Üzerine Etkisi”. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 38(1):75–99.
  2. Canbazoğlu Bilici, Sedef, Mehmet Ali Küpeli, ve S. Selcen Guzey. 2021. Inspired by nature: an engineering design-based biomimicry activity. C. 58. Routledge. Christensen, Dana M. 2020. “Learning Biologıcal Evolution Through Computational Thinking”. Temple University. Clark, David I. 2015. Computational and algorithmic thinking 2011—2015. Australia: AMT Publishing. Creswell, John W., ve J. Davi. Creswell. 2018.
  3. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 5. Los Angles/London/ New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC/ Melbourne: SAGE. Denning, Peter J. 2017. “Computational Thinking in Science”. American Scientist 205(1):67–77.
  4. Ellis, Paul D. 2010. The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes. C. 11. Cambridge University Press.
  5. Glass, Gene V. 1976. “Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research”. Educational Researcher 5(10):3–8.
  6. Gülbahar, Yasemin;, Ünal; Çakıroğlu, Filiz;. Kalelioğlu, İbrahim;. Delen, Bahadır;. Yıldız, ve Zehra; Sayın. 2020. Bilgi İşlemsel Düşünme Becerisinin Disiplinlerarası Yaklaşım ile Öğretimi. editör S. Akbıyık ve V. H. Kaya. Ankara:
  7. MEB ÖYGM. Gürsakal, Necmi, ve Ayşe Oğuzlar. 2015.
  8. No Title. Dora Yayıncılık. Hunt, Kenny A., ve David D. Riley. 2014. Computati