Using Card Sorting Activity as a Strategy for Evaluating Students’ Learning of Computational Thinking Concepts
Keywords:
Computational thinking, assessment, learning, card sorting activity, teacher training, trainee teachersAbstract
This study investigated the effectiveness of the ‘Match it’ card sorting activity for evaluating the prospective teachers’ knowledge and understanding of computational thinking (CT) concepts. 146 primary prospective teachers were asked to sort 26 scenarios and words alongside nine images under five main computational concepts: algorithmic thinking, abstraction, decomposition, patterns & generalisation, and evaluation. The study found that the card sorting activity, as a method for assessment was useful, however, the issues around the design and the content of the current card sorting activity were reported by students which suggests that further revisions should be made to improve the effectiveness of the tool.
Downloads
References
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and Computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832-835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074
Allsop, Y. (2019). Assessing computational thinking process using a multiple evaluation approach. International journal of child-computer interaction, 19, 30-55.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D., (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: principles, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New Frameworks for Studying and Assessing the Development of Computational Thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, 1-25.
Cooke, N. J. (1994). Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. International journal of human-computer studies, 41(6), 801-849. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1994.1083
Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying Computational Thinking for Non-Computer Scientists. [Unpublished Manuscript] Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf Accessed January 21, 2021
Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E., (2014). Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education 46, 277–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.888272
Department for Education. (2013). The National Curriculum in England, Framework Document. Retrieved from www.Education.Gov.Uk/Nationalcurriculum Accessed January 21, 2021
Dorn, B. and Guzdial, M., (2010, April). Learning on the job: characterizing the programming knowledge and learning strategies of web designers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 703-712). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753430
Eli, J.A., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J. and Lee, C.W., (2011). Exploring mathematical connections of prospective middle-grades teachers through card-sorting tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(3), p.297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-011-0017-0
Fincher, S. and Tenenberg, J., (2005). Making sense of card sorting data. Expert Systems, 22(3), 89-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0394.2005.00299.x
Friedrichsen, P.M. and Dana, T.M., (2003). Using a card-sorting task to elicit and clarify science-teaching orientations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), 291-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JSTE.0000009551.37237.b3
Grover, S. & Pea, R., (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014). Assessing computational learning in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education (pp. 57–62). ACM, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591713
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Systems of assessments” for deeper learning of computational thinking in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2015 annual meeting of the American educational research association (pp. 15-20).
Grover, S., (2017). Assessing algorithmic and computational thinking in K-12: Lessons from a middle school classroom. In Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking, 269-288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_17
Haines, S., Krach, M., Pustaka, A., Li, Q., & Richman, L. (2019). The Effects of Computational Thinking Professional Development on STEM Teachers’ Perceptions and Pedagogical Practices. Athens Journal of Sciences, 6 (2), 97-122.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H., (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hennissen, P., Beckers, H. and Moerkerke, G., (2017). Linking practice to theory in teacher education: A growth in cognitive structures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 314-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.008
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2015). Constructionist Gaming: Understanding the Benefits of Making Games for Learning. Educational Psychologist, 50 (4), 313-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1124022
Kim, B., Kim, T., & Kim, J., (2013). Paper-and-pencil programming strategy toward computational thinking for non-majors: Design your solution. Journal of Educational Computing Research 49, 437–459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.4.b
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking About Computational Thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508959
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2013.832022
Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2015). Dr. Scratch: A web tool to automatically evaluate Scratch projects. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 132–133). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818338
Mühling, A., Ruf, A., & Hubwieser, P. (2015). Design and first results of a psychometric test for measuring basic programming abilities. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 2–10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818320
Pagano, R. R. (2010). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences (9th ed.). Belmont, CA; Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. NY: Basic Books.
Rich, P. J., Mason, S. L., & O'Leary, J. (2021). Measuring the effect of continuous professional development on elementary teachers’ self-efficacy to teach coding and computational thinking. Computers & Education, 168, 104196.
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047
Rugg, G. and McGeorge, P., (2005). The sorting techniques: a tutorial paper on card sorts, picture sorts and item sorts. Expert Systems, 22(3), pp.94-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0394.2005.00300.x
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2014). ‘Refining an Understanding of Computational Thinking.’ Author's Original, 1-23. Retrieved from https://Eprints.Soton.Ac.Uk/372410/1/372410understdct.Pdf Accessed January 21, 2021
Shute, V.J., Sun, C. & Asbell-Clarke, J., (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 42-158. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Spencer, D. (2009). Card sorting: Designing usable categories. Rosenfeld Media.
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., et al., (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25 (1), 127–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The Fairy Performance Assessment: Measuring Computational Thinking in Middle School. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, ACM, pp. 215-220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157200
Werner, L., Denner, J., & Campe, S. (2014). Using computer game programming to teach computational thinking skills. Learning, education and games, 37.
Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with learning: What will it take to make it work? Routledge.
Wing, J. (2010). Computational Thinking: What and Why? Retrieved from www.Cs.Cmu.Edu/~Compthink/Resources/Thelinkwing.Pdf
Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011, March). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 465-470). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297
Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., Korb, J. T., (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 14 (1), 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872
Yadav, A., Krist, C., Good, J., & Caeli, E. N. (2018). Computational thinking in elementary classrooms: measuring teacher understanding of computational ideas for teaching science. Computer Science Education, 28(4), 371-400.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2024 Yasemin Allsop, Filiz Kalelioglu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
