Pre-Service Information Technologies Teachers' Views on Computer Programming Tools for K-12 Level

  • Serhat Altıok Kırıkkale University
  • Erman Yükseltürk Kırıkkale University
Keywords: Programming Education, Programming, Coding


The purpose of the study is to analyze pre-service IT teachers' views on seminar which is supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) related to current methodologies and tools in K-12 computer programming education. The study sample consisted of 44 pre-service IT teachers who study as 3rd or 4th undergraduate program at Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology in 21 different universities. The data is collected through a Students’ Perceptions about Kid’s Programming Language Questionnaire consisting of 27 five-point Likert-type items, grouped under three factors. The collected quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations. The results of the study indicated that almost all visual programming tools have positive effects on students’ views, Small Basic is not as effective as other tools. It is due to this situation that Small Basic tool is text-based in contrast to the other block-based features.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Serhat Altıok, Kırıkkale University
Research Asistant, Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey 

Research Asistant Serhat Altıok

Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies,
Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey

Erman Yükseltürk, Kırıkkale University
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey


Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: implications for teacher knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47-58. Received from

Astrachan, O., Briggs, A., Diaz, L., & Osborne, R. B. (2013). CS principles: development and evolution of a course and a community. Paper presented at the Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. Received from

Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145-157. Received from

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada. Received from

Carnegie Mellon University. (1997). About Alice. Retrieved from Retrieved March 15, 2017, from

Choi, H. (2012). Learners’ reflections on computer programming using Scratch: Korean primary pre-service teachers’ perspective. Paper presented at the 10th International Conference for Media in Education 2012 (ICoME).

desJardins, M. (2015). Creating AP® CS principles: let many flowers bloom. ACM Inroads, 6(4), 60-66. Received from

Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Dynamic programming The Bellman Continuum (pp. 13-70): World Scientific.

Du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 57-73. Received from

Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with scratch on future teachers' opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. Received from

Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97. Received from

Fowler, A., Fristoe, T., & MacLaurin, M. (2012). Kodu Game Lab: a programming environment. The Computer Games Journal, 1(1), 17-28. Received from

Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (2009). The nature of qualitative research. How to design and evaluate research in education, seventh edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 420.

Gouws, L. A., Bradshaw, K., & Wentworth, P. (2013). Computational thinking in educational activities: an evaluation of the educational game light-bot. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. Received from

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12 A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. Received from

Gülbahar, Y., & Kalelioğlu, F. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education-An International

Journal(Vol13_1), 33-50. Received from

Heintz, F., Mannila, L., & Färnqvist, T. (2016). A review of models for introducing computational thinking, computer science and computing in K-12 education. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016 IEEE. Received from

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., Kampylis, P., Vuorikari, R., & Punie, Y. (2014). Horizon Report Europe: 2014 Schools Edition. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, & Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

Kay, K., & Greenhill, V. (2011). Twenty-first century students need 21st century skills Bringing schools into the 21st century (pp. 41-65): Springer. Received from

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005). Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 37(2), 83-137. Received from

King, F., Goodson, L., & Rohani, F. (2010). Higher order thinking skills: Definition, teaching strategies, assessment. Publication of the Educational Services Program, now known as the Center for Advancement of Learning and Assessment. Obtido de:

Kuzu, A., Günüç, S., & Odabaşı, H. F. (2013). 21. yüzyıl öğrenci özelliklerinin öğretmen adayları tarafından tanımlanması: Bir twitter uygulaması. Received from

Lister, R., Adams, E. S., Fitzgerald, S., Fone, W., Hamer, J., Lindholm, M., . . . Seppälä, O. (2004). A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. Paper presented at the ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. Received from

Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61. Received from

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 16. Received from

Microsoft. (2017). About Small Basic. Retrieved from Retrieved March 15, 2017, from

Ministry of Education. (2012). 12-Year Compulsory Education Questions - Answers. Retrieved from Retrieved March 15, 2017, from

MIT, M. I. o. T. (2017a). About App Inventor. Retrieved from Retrieved March 15, 2017, from

MIT, M. I. o. T. (2017b). About Scratch. Retrieved from Retrieved March 15, 2017, from

Ozoran, D., Cagiltay, N., & Topalli, D. (2012). Using scratch in introduction to programming course for engineering students. Paper presented at the 2nd International Engineering Education Conference (IEEC2012). Received from

Pears, A., Seidman, S., Malmi, L., Mannila, L., Adams, E., Bennedsen, J., . . . Paterson, J. (2007). A survey of literature on the teaching of introductory programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(4), 204-223. Received from

Pierce, B. C. (2002). Types and programming languages. Received from MIT press.

Repenning, A., Basawapatna, A., & Escherle, N. (2016). Computational thinking tools. Paper presented at the Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2016 IEEE Symposium on. Received from

Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer science education, 13(2), 137-172. Received from

Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary school: a pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education-An International Journal(Vol 10_1), 73-88. Received from

SaÄŸlam, M. (2014). The 4+ 4+ 4 in the Educational Experiences of the the Teachers Teaching the First Grade Students in Turkey: Yozgat City as an Example. Journal of History School, 7(18), 377-396. Received from

Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition. Received from

Spohrer, J. C., & Soloway, E. (1989). Simulating student programmers. Ann Arbor, 1001, 48-109. Received from

Szlávi, P., & Zsakó, L. (2006). Programming versus application. Paper presented at the International Conference on Informatics in Secondary Schools-Evolution and Perspectives. Received from

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127-147. Received from

Wikipedia. ((n.d.)). Programming. Retrieved from from

Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy—a psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17-22. Received from

Xinogalos, S. (2012). An evaluation of knowledge transfer from microworld programming to conventional programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(3), 251-277. Received from

How to Cite
AltıokS., & YükseltürkE. (2018). Pre-Service Information Technologies Teachers’ Views on Computer Programming Tools for K-12 Level. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 2(3).