Exploring the Development of Primary School Students’ Computational Thinking and 21st Century Skills Through Scaffolding: Voices from the Stakeholders
Keywords:
Computational Thinking, 21st Century Skills, Scaffolding, Game ProgrammingAbstract
Computational thinking (CT) has become a skill that is taught starting from an early age with its increasing popularity. In addition, the opinion that CT is related to other 21st century skills finds its place in the literature. The main purpose of this study is to identify the contributions of scaffolding-based game programming activities to students' CT and 21st-century skills. In line with this purpose, the study was designed as a qualitative case study. The participants of the study consisted of 16 primary school students, 10 pre-service ICT Teachers, and 2 primary school teachers. The research results reveal that game programming has a positive effect on students' CT skills, 21st century skills and some psychometric variables like self-confidence and motivation. In future studies and implementations, educators may support their instructions of programming through different scaffolding strategies. In addition, it should be taken into consideration that students can become innovative designers with content that they find interesting.
Downloads
References
Akcaoglu, M., & Green, L. S. (2019). Teaching systems thinking through game design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 1-19.
Allsop, Y. (2019). Assessing computational thinking process using a multiple evaluation approach. International journal of child-computer interaction, 19, 30-55.
Bean, T. W., & Patel Stevens, L. (2002). Scaffolding reflection for pre-service and inservice teachers. Reflective Practice, 3(2), 205–218.
Bermingham, S., Charlier, N., Dagnino, F., Duggan, J., Earp, J., Kiili, K., ... & Whitton, N. (2013). Approaches to collaborative game-making for fostering 21st century skills. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (p. 45). Academic Conferences International Limited.
Biesta, G. J. J., & Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and educational research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Chiazzese, G., Fulantelli, G., Pipitone, V., & Taibi, D. (2018). Engaging primary school children in computational thinking: Designing and developing videogames. Education in the Knowledge Society, 19(2), 63-81.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th Edition ed.). Boston: Pierson.
Dennen, V. P. (2004). Cognitive Apprenticeship In Educational Practice: Research On Scaffolding, Modeling, Mentoring, And Coaching As Instructional Strategi es. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Second Edition ed.). New Jersey: LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES.
Denner, J., Campe, S., & Werner, L. (2019). Does computer game design and programming benefit children? A meta-synthesis of research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(3), 1-35.
Dolgopolovas, V., Jevsikova, T., Savulionienė, L., & Dagienė, V. (2015). On Evaluation of Computational Thinking of Software Engineering Novice Students.
Feng, C. Y., & Chen, M. P. (2014). The effects of goal specificity and scaffolding on programming performance and self‐regulation in game design. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 285-302.
Fowler, A., & Khosmood, F. (2018). The Potential of Young Learners Making Games: An Exploratory Study. In 2018 IEEE Games, Entertainment, Media Conference (GEM)(pp. 1-9). IEEE.
Garneli, V., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). Programming video games and simulations in science education: exploring computational thinking through code analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 386-401.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational technology research and development, 51(1), 21-38.
Genç, Z., & Karakuş, S. (2011). Learning by Design: Using Scratch in the Design of Educational Computer Games. 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium (ICITS), Elazığ, Turkey. Retrieved From http://goo.gl/KX5Psz
Gomes, A., & Mendes, A. J. (2007). Learning to program-difficulties and solutions. In International Conference on Engineering Education–ICEE (Vol. 2007).
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Guay, F., Boggiano, A. K., & Vallerand, R. J. (2001). Autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and perceived competence: Conceptual and empirical linkages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(6), 643-650.
Hainey, T., Baxter, G., & Ford, A. (2019). An evaluation of the introduction of games-based construction learning in upper primary education using a developed game codification scheme for scratch. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12 (3), 377-402.
International Society of Technology in Education [ISTE] (2011). Computational Thinking Leadership Toolkit. Retrieved from https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf?sfvrsn=4
International Society of Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2016). 21st Century Standarts for Students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students
Kalelioglu, F., Gülbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583.
Kazakoff, E., & Bers, M. (2012). Programming in a robotics context in the kindergarten classroom: The impact on sequencing skills. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 21(4), 371-391.
Kukul, V., & Karatas, S. (2019). Computational Thinking Self-Efficacy Scale: Development, Validity and Reliability. Informatics in Education, 18(1), 151-164.
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., . . . Werner, L. (2011). Computational Thinking for Youth in Practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32-37.
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.
Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational Thinking in K-9 Education. In Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014 on innovation & technology in computer science education conference (pp. 1-29)
McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.
Partnership for 21st Century Learning (2007). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved From:
http://static.battelleforkids.org/documents/p21/P21_framework_0816_2pgs.pdf
Perkovic, L., & Settle, A. (2010). Computational thinking across the curriculum: A conceptual framework. College of Computing and Digital Media Technical Report, 10-001.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press
Román-González, M. (2015). Computational Thinking Test: Design Guidelines And Content Validation. In Proceedings of EDULEARN15 conference (pp. 2436-2444).
Roman-Gonzalez, M., Perez-Gonzalez, J.-C., & Jimenez-Fernandez, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678-691.
Roman-Gonzalez, M., Perez-Gonzalez, J.-C., Moreno-Leon, J., & Robles, G. (2018). Extending the nomological network of computational thinking with non-cognitive factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 441-459.
Thomas, M. K., Ge, X., & Greene, B. A. (2011). Fostering 21st century skill development by engaging students in authentic game design projects in a high school computer programming class. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(4), 391-408.
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577-588.
Vos, N.H., van der Meijden, H. and Denessen, E. (2011), “Effects of constructing versus playing an educational game on student motivation and deep learning strategy use”, Computers & Education, 56 (1), 127-137.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Cole M., Jolm-Steiner V., Scribner S., & Souberman E., Eds.). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Yükseltürk, E., & Üçgül, M. (2018). Blok Tabanlı Programlama. In Y. Gülbahar & H. Karal (Ed.), Kuramdan Uygulamaya Programlama Öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Wang, L. C., & Chen, M. P. (2010). The effects of game strategy and preference‐matching on flow experience and programming performance in game‐based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1), 39-52.
Weinberg, A. E. (2013). Computational Thinking: An Investigation Of The Existing Scholarship And Research. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Colorado State University,
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communıcatıons of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725.
Wing, J. (2010). Computational Thinking: What and Why? https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
Zimmerman, E. (2007) Gaming Literacy: game design as a model for literacy in the 21st century. Harvard Interactive Media Review, 1(1), 30‐35.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
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).
