Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
To respond to the growing integration of digital technologies across all sectors of society, a curriculum should be developed to nurture the next generation as creative problem solvers in order to see the world through a computational lens. One way to achieve this goal is to design a curriculum in K-12 to promote computational thinking (CT) through programming. In order to facilitate the design of the CT curriculum, the expected learning outcomes of the curriculum are proposed in this study. The CT learning outcomes of this study compose of CT knowledge, practices, and perspectives. Based on the proposed CT learning outcomes and interest-driven creator theory, this article aims to propose a seven-principle framework for guiding the design of K-12 CT curriculum. The first three principles ensure CT skills and perspectives are delivered in the curriculum through a programming environment that fosters CT knowledge acquisition. The other four principles are the design strategies for CT development: provide incrementally complex computational tasks across all levels of the curriculum to develop CT skills; review each level of the curriculum by producing final project samples to ensure a comprehensive coverage of CT knowledge; design the computational tasks that are of interest to the target learners to nurture interest-driven creator; and establish appropriate assessment criteria for the final projects and showcase their productions to enhance learners’ creativity. The future work is to design, implement, and evaluate CT curriculum underpinned by these seven principles in K-12.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
AAC&U—Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2010). Creative Thinking VALUE Rubric. Retrieved Nov 11, 2016 from https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/creative-thinking.
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835. CrossRef
Akkoyunlu, B., Yilmaz Soylu, M., & Çağlar, M. (2010). A study on developing “digital empowerment scale” for university learners. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 39(39), 10–19.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2000). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing—A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. ISTE Learning and Leading, 38(6), 20–22.
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. CrossRef
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association (pp. 1–25). Vancouver: American Educational Research Association.
Chan, T. W., Looi, C. K., & Chang, B. (2015). The IDC theory: Creation and the creation loop. In T. Kojiri, T. Supnithi, Y. Wang, Y.-T. Wu, H. Ogata, W. Chen, S. C. Kong, & F. Qiu (Eds.), Workshop proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computers in education (pp. 814–820). Hangzhou: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Chen, W., Chan, T. W., Liao, C. C. Y., Cheng, H. N. H., So, H., & Gu, X. (2015). The IDC theory: Habit and the habit loop. In T. Kojiri, T. Supnithi, Y. Wang, Y.-T. Wu, H. Ogata, W. Chen, S. C. Kong, & F. Qiu (Eds.), Workshop proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computers in education (pp. 821–828). Hangzhou: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1993). The measurement of flow in everyday life: Toward a theory of emergent motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 40, 57–97.
Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2014). Developing computational thinking in the classroom: A framework. Retrieved Nov 11, 2016 from https://academy.bcs.org/sites/academy.bcs.org/files/DevelopingComputationalThinkingInTheClassroomaFramework.pdf.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142. CrossRef
Frymier, A., Shulman, G., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45(3), 181–199. CrossRef
Futschek, G. (2006). Algorithmic thinking: The key for understanding computer science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4226, 159–168. CrossRef
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. CrossRef
Jonassen, D. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.
Krems, J. F. (1995). Cognitive flexibility and complex problem solving. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 201–218). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Looi, C. K., Chan, T.-W., Wu, L., & Chang, B. (2015). In T. Kojiri, T. Supnithi, Y. Wang, Y.-T. Wu, H. Ogata, W. Chen, S. C. Kong, & F. Qiu (Eds.), Workshop proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computers in education. Hangzhou: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
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. CrossRef
Makinen, M. (2006). Digital empowerment as a process for enhancing citizens’ participation. E-Learning, 3(3), 381–395. CrossRef
Parnas, D. L. (1972). On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM, 15(12), 1053–1058. CrossRef
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. CrossRef
Schiefele, U. (1991). Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 299–323. CrossRef
Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In B. Simon, A. Clear, & Q. Cutts (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on international computing education research (pp. 59–66). La Jolla: Association for Computing Machinery.
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. In J. Carter, I. Utting, & A. Clear (Eds.), Proceedings of 18th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (p. 6). Canterbury: University of Southampton.
Spady, W. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. Arlington: American Association of School Administrators.
Spady, W., & Marshall, K. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67–72.
Wang, H.-Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G.-J. (2016). Comparison of the effects of project-based computer programming activities between mathematics-gifted students and average students. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(1), 33–45. CrossRef
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. CrossRef
Wing, J. M. (2011). Computational thinking: What and why?. Retrieved Nov 11, 2016 from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf.
Wong, L. H., Chan, T. W., Chen, Z. H., King, R. B., & Wong, S. L. (2015). The IDC theory: Interest and the interest loop. In T. Kojiri, T. Supnithi, Y. Wang, Y.-T. Wu, H. Ogata, W. Chen, S. C. Kong, & F. Qiu (Eds.), Workshop proceedings of the 23rd international conference on computers in education (pp. 804–813). Hangzhou: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education.
- A framework of curriculum design for computational thinking development in K-12 education
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA