Evaluating algorithmic thinking ability of primary schoolchildren who learn computer programming

Author(s):  
Hidekuni Tsukamoto ◽  
Yasumasa Oomori ◽  
Hideo Nagumo ◽  
Yasuhiro Takemura ◽  
Akito Monden ◽  
...  
2022 ◽  
pp. 253-269
Author(s):  
Hüseyin Özçınar

The idea that computational thinking or algorithmic thinking should be taught to everyone dates back to the 1960s. First in 1960s, Alan Perlis argued that computer programming should be taught to everyone because it can be used as a mental tool for understanding and solving every kind of problem. In 1980s, under the leadership of Seymour Papert, students at the level of primary education were attempted to be taught LOGO programming language with the aim of gaining procedural thinking skill. After the publication of Jeannette Wing's “computational thinking” in Communications of the ACM in 2006, the idea that the basic concepts of computer science should be learned by all was started to be debated widely again. In the present paper, the justifications for teaching computational thinking and applicability of teaching computational thinking within the context of existing conditions will be discussed.


Author(s):  
PINAR MIHCI Türker ◽  
Ferhat Kadir Pala

In this study, the effect of algorithm education on teacher candidates’ computational thinking skills and computer programming self-efficacy perceptions were examined. In the study, one group pretest posttest experimental design was employed. The participants consisted of 24 (14 males and 10 females) teacher candidates, majoring in Computer Education and Instructional Technology (CEIT). In order to determine the teacher candidates’ computer programming self-efficacy perceptions, the Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale was used, whereas Computational Thinking Skills Scale was used to determine their computational thinking skills. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to analyze the differences between pretest and posttest scores of students' computer programming self-efficacy perceptions and computational thinking skills. Throughout the practices, 10 different algorithmic problems were presented to the students each week, and they were asked to solve these problems using flow chart. For 13 weeks, 130 different algorithmic problems were solved. Algorithm education positively and significantly increased students' simple programming tasks, complex programming tasks and programming self-efficacy perceptions. On the other hand, algorithm education had a positive and significant effect only on students’ algorithmic thinking sub-dimension but did not have any effect on other sub-dimensions and computational thinking skills in general.  


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 295-305
Author(s):  
Katalin Fried ◽  
István Fekete ◽  
Péter Princz

1985 ◽  
Vol 78 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-130
Author(s):  
Rita L. Petosa

Our school has not adopted a computer literacy course. Instead, we have opted to direct students’ interest in computers toward the study of mathematics. That is, we have infused an ongoing component of instruction in computer programming into our mathematics curriculum with interesting results.


Author(s):  
Hüseyin Özçınar

The idea that computational thinking or algorithmic thinking should be taught to everyone dates back to the 1960s. First in 1960s, Alan Perlis argued that computer programming should be taught to everyone because it can be used as a mental tool for understanding and solving every kind of problem. In 1980s, under the leadership of Seymour Papert, students at the level of primary education were attempted to be taught LOGO programming language with the aim of gaining procedural thinking skill. After the publication of Jeannette Wing's “computational thinking” in Communications of the ACM in 2006, the idea that the basic concepts of computer science should be learned by all was started to be debated widely again. In the present paper, the justifications for teaching computational thinking and applicability of teaching computational thinking within the context of existing conditions will be discussed.


1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-174
Author(s):  
J A Cantrill ◽  
B Johannesson ◽  
M Nicholson ◽  
P R Noyce

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document