Using Computational Thinking Processes to Improve Pedagogical Approaches to Digitally Born Learners

2021 ◽  
pp. 349-366
Author(s):  
Deborah Anne Banker ◽  
Dana Manning
Author(s):  
Serhat Altiok ◽  
Erman Yükseltürk

In our age, computational thinking that involves understanding human behavior and designing systems for solving problems is important as much as reading, writing and arithmetic for everyone. Computer programming is one of the ways that could be promote the process of developing computational thinking, in addition to developing higher-order thinking skills such as problem solving, critical and creative thinking skills etc. However, instead of focusing on problems and sub-problems, algorithms, or the most effective and efficient solution, focusing on programming language specific needs and problems affects the computational thinking process negatively. Many educators use different tools and pedagogical approaches to overcome these difficulties such as, individual work, collaborative work and visual programming tools etc. In this study, researchers analyze four visual programming tools (Scratch, Small Basic, Alice, App Inventor) for students in K-12 level and three methodologies (Project-based learning, Problem-based learning and Design-based learning) while teaching programming in K-12 level. In summary, this chapter presents general description of visual programming tools and pedagogical approaches, examples of how each tool can be used in programming education in accordance with the CT process and the probable benefits of these tools and approaches to explore the practices of computational thinking.


2022 ◽  
pp. 648-676
Author(s):  
Serhat Altiok ◽  
Erman Yükseltürk

In our age, computational thinking that involves understanding human behavior and designing systems for solving problems is important as much as reading, writing and arithmetic for everyone. Computer programming is one of the ways that could be promote the process of developing computational thinking, in addition to developing higher-order thinking skills such as problem solving, critical and creative thinking skills etc. However, instead of focusing on problems and sub-problems, algorithms, or the most effective and efficient solution, focusing on programming language specific needs and problems affects the computational thinking process negatively. Many educators use different tools and pedagogical approaches to overcome these difficulties such as, individual work, collaborative work and visual programming tools etc. In this study, researchers analyze four visual programming tools (Scratch, Small Basic, Alice, App Inventor) for students in K-12 level and three methodologies (Project-based learning, Problem-based learning and Design-based learning) while teaching programming in K-12 level. In summary, this chapter presents general description of visual programming tools and pedagogical approaches, examples of how each tool can be used in programming education in accordance with the CT process and the probable benefits of these tools and approaches to explore the practices of computational thinking.


MaPan ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 103
Author(s):  
Ai Siti Nurhayati ◽  
Usman Aripin

Abstract:This study aims to find out how the thinking process of female and male students in solving problems analyzed using thinking type indicators according to Zuhri and Wing that divided into three, namely conceptual, semi-conceptual, and computational thinking processes. This research method used a qualitative descriptive study. The instrument in the study consisted of test questions given to 34 VII grade students in one of Junior High School in Cimahi. Based on the results, can be known about the conceptual thinking process only done by female students with a percentage of 11.8%, the semi-conceptual thinking process of female students was 64.7% and 47% of male students, as for computational thinking process of female students was 23.5% and 53%  male students. From the results of this study, it can be concluded that female students tend to think semi-conceptually while male students tend to think computationally.Abstrak:Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana proses berpikir siswa perempuan dan laki-laki dalam menyelesaikan masalah yang dianalisis menggunakan indikator jenis berpikir menurut Zuhri dan Wing yang dibagi menjadi tiga yaitu proses berpikir konseptual, semi-konseptual, dan komputasi. Metode penelitian ini berupa penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Instrumen dalam penelitian berupa soal tes yang diberikan kepada 34 siswa kelas VII SMP di Kota Cimahi. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian yang telah dilakukan dapat diketahui bahwa proses berpikir konseptual hanya dilakukan siswa perempuan dengan persentase 11,8%, proses berpikir semi-konseptual siswa perempuan adalah 64,7% dan siswa laki-laki 47%, sedangkan untuk proses berpikir komputasi siswa perempuan adalah 23,5% dan siswa laki-laki 53%. Dari hasil penelitian tersebut dapat disimpulkan bahwa siswa perempuan cenderung berpikir secara semikonseptual, sedangkan siswa laki-laki cenderung berpikir secara komputasional.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-52
Author(s):  
Arnindia Via Mawardi ◽  
Aning Wida Yanti ◽  
Yuni Arrifadah

The students’ thinking process when solving HOTS questions in mathematics National Examinations very necessary to know. There are three types of students’ thinking processes used in this study, namely conceptual thinking, semi-conceptual thinking, and computational thinking. This study aims to describe in detail about field-independent and field-dependent students' thinking process when solving HOTS questions in the 2018 Mathematics National Examination. The research subjects were six 8th grade students, consisting of 3 students on each cognitive style. Data collection techniques are written test and interview. The written test and interview results data are analyzed according to indicators of the thinking process. The results of this study indicate that the field independent students' thinking process is conceptual while dependent students are computational.


Author(s):  
Andrew R. Brown

The chapter discusses how bringing music and computation together in the curriculum offers socially grounded contexts for the learning of digital expression and creativity. It explores how algorithms codify cultural knowledge, how programming can assist students in understanding and manipulating cultural norms, and how these can play a part in developing a student’s musicianship. In order to highlight how computational thinking extends music education and builds on interdisciplinary links, the chapter canvasses the challenges, and solutions, involved in learning through algorithmic music. Practical examples from informal and school-based educational contexts are included to illustrate how algorithmic music has been successfully integrated with established and emerging pedagogical approaches.


Author(s):  
Maria Kukhareva ◽  
Anne Lawrence ◽  
Katherine Koulle ◽  
Nazlin Bhimani

University Special Collections are increasingly being recognised as a valuable pedagogical resource in higher education teaching and learning. The value of historic artefacts as a cross-disciplinary tool to promote higher order thinking processes such as criticality, questioning and narrative construction is well-established in the museum education literature and is gaining increasing attention in teaching and learning development. In this paper, we present three case studies in which we explore the application of Special Collections in a range of learning development contexts, in order to help students engage with their discipline and discipline-specific higher order skills. Our case studies are explorative in the sense of ‘trialling’ the use of historic artefacts in the classroom, to inform our next steps and development of our method. We conclude with our reflections on the process and outcomes of our explorations, to inform our practice and that of other educators looking to apply this method.


2021 ◽  
pp. 369-389
Author(s):  
Ashok Kumar Veerasamy ◽  
Peter Larsson ◽  
Mikko-Ville Apiola ◽  
Daryl D’Souza ◽  
Mikko-Jussi Laakso

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document