DOI: https://doi.org/10.31865/2414-9292.9.2019.174532

COMPUTATIONAL THINKING AS A PEDAGOGICAL TOOL FOR UKRAINIAN STUDENTS

Joseph C. Kush

Анотація


The article focuses on the importance of developing computational thinking of Ukrainian students and the ways computational thinking can be integrated into the curricula of higher educational institutions. The incorporation of enhanced pedagogy into the educational curricula is particularly needed in countries such as Ukraine which is currently undergoing strategic modernization and reform. The author defines the concept of computational thinking as it is used in constructivism learning theory and social-constructivism theories. It is emphasized in the article that computational thinking reduces complex problems into smaller and more manageable problems, which make it easier to solve either using a computer or without technology. A wide range of researches conducted by the scientists all over the world are presented.

The aim of the article is to analyse the implementation of computational thinking as a pedagogical tool for Ukrainian educational system.

The special attention is paid to developing computational thinking of children at an early age. Pattern Recognition is considered to be one component of computational thinking and can be used to teach the process of searching for trends, similarities, differences, or regularities.

The computational thinking instructions can be carried out in the area of the computer science or outside of computer science. Students who learn computer-programming skills as part of a have been shown to experience numerous benefits to their education because computational thinking is a problem-solving skill for all disciplines that can be taught through the integration into a particular content area or alternatively by teaching it as a stand-alone content area.

The author recommends Ukrainian educators to consider the integration of unplugged CT activities into their lesson plans. Unplugged curricular activities are implemented without the use of computers and are typically considered as an important first step toward comprehensive CT integration. Unplugged experiences are claimed to serve as a foundational in learning CT because they typically require the least amount of technical knowledge.


Ключові слова


computational thinking; logic-based problem solving; STEM; understanding algorithms.

Повний текст:

PDF (English)

Посилання


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.

Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., & Marshall, K. S. (2011). Recognizing computational thinking patterns. ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 245–250). Dallas, TX: ACM Press.

Berry, M. (2013). Computing in the national curriculum. A guide for primary teachers. Bedford: Computing at School.

Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

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

Curzon, P. (2013). cs4fn and computational thinking unplugged. WiPSE ‘13 Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 47–50.

Czerkawski, B. C. (2016). Classroom implementations of computational thinking: Examples from education majors. Proceedings of the World Conference on E-Learning, USA, 151–156.

Flannery, L.P., Silverman, B., Kazakoff, E.R., Bers, M.U., Bontá, P., & Resnick, M. (2013). Designing Scratcher's: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–10.

Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press.

Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Beede, D., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). STEM: Good jobs now and for the future (ESA Issue Brief #03-11). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration website: http://www.esa.doc.gov/Reports/stem-good-jobs-now-and-future

Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 1–15.

Malyn-Smith, J., Coulter, B., Denner, J., Lee, I., Stiles, J., & Werner, L. (2010). Computational thinking in K-12: Defining the space. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, USA, 3479–3484.

McOwan, P. W., & Curzon, P. (2008). The Magic of Computer Science. Queen Mary, University of London.

McOwan, P. W., Curzon, P., & Black, J. (2009). The Magic of Computer Science II: Now we have your attention. Queen Mary, University of London, 2009.

Nishida, T., Kanemune, S., Idosaka, Y., Namiki, M., Bell, T., & Kuno, Y. (2009). A CS unplugged design pattern. SIGCSE, 41(1), 231–235.

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student needs, Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321–1335

Papert, S. (2005). Teaching children thinking. Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 5(3), 353–365.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1987). Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. Retrieved August 1, 2016. Retrieved from http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=8751190.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism: New York: Ablex Publishing.

Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Computational thinking in high school science classrooms. The Science Teacher, 81(5), 53–59.

Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. M. (2004). Vygotskian collaborative project of social transformation: History, politics, and practice in knowledge construction. The International Journal of Critical Psychology, 12 (4), 58–80.

Voskoglou, M. G., & Buckley, S. (2012). Problem solving and computational thinking in a learning environment. Egyptian Computer Science Journal, 36(4), 28–45.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34–41.

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

Wing, J. M. (2008a). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366, 3717–3725.

Wing, J. M. (2008b). Five deep questions in computing. Communications of the ACM, 51(1), 58–60.

Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. Tech Trends, 60, 565–568. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7

Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. SIGCSE, 11, 465–470.