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

Teacher Views on Programming Teaching

Pages
70–86
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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 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:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

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 were both positive and negative responses for teaching computer science at an early age. Similarly, 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. According to the opinions reported in terms of students, students are uninterested to the course and they 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.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dağ, F., Durdu, L. (2022). Teacher Views on Programming Teaching. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 70–86. https://ajindex.com/articles/428308

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Balanskat, K. E. A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding. http://fcl.eun.org/documents/10180/14689/Computing+our+future_final.pdf/746e36b1-e1a6-4bf1- 8105-ea27c0d2bbe0 Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.
  2. Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., ve 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). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30891-8_18
  4. Buckingham, R. A. (1965). The computer in the university. The Computer Journal, 8(1), 1-7.
  5. Bundy, A. (2007). Computational thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical Computing, 1(2), 67- 69. Cevahir, H., & Özdemir, M. (2017). Programlama öğretiminde karşılaşılan zorluklara yönelik öğretmen görüşleri ve çözüm önerileri. In Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu, 320- 335. Ching, Y. H., Hsu, Y. C., & Baldwin, S. (2018). Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners. TechTrends, 62, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0292-7
  6. 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
  7. 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 (ss. 164-173).
  8. Koli, Finland: ACM. EBA. (2019). Eğitimde Bilişim Ağı: Açıklama. http://www.eba.gov.tr
  9. Göncü, A., Çetin, İ., & Şendurur, P. (2020). Bilişim Teknolojileri ve Yazılım Dersi Öğretmenlerinin kodlama eğitimine yönelik görüşleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 301-321.
  10. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. htt