A Proposal of In-Service Teacher Training Approach for Computer Science Teachers

Abstract

Recently, there has been growing interest among practitioners and scientists in teaching children computer programming languages. The international efforts to raise generations who produce technologies are supported at the national level in Turkey too. Programming language education is included beginning from secondary school curricula of computer science education. However, it can be mentioned that up-to-date methodological and pedagogical requirements of the courses are not adequately researched. Therefore, the primary aim of the study is to share innovative methods regarding programming education processes with middle school computer science teachers. This paper presents the details of a project conducted to design an in-service training model for computer science teachers and funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) with the project number of 116B298. During the training period, up-to-date methodology and technologies were presented in workshops with an integrated approach. At the end of the courses, the participants’ development and the efficiency of the activities were investigated based on the analyses of qualitative and quantitative data and positive results about the content of proposed in-service teacher training methodology were yielded.

Keywords

• Programming and programming languages,STEM teaching/learning strategies,secondary education,improving classroom teaching

Kaynakça

1. Ackermann, E. K. (2006, September). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference? Retrieved from http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
2. Alkaria, A., & Alhassan, R. (2017). The effect of in-service training of computer science teachers on scratch programming language skills using an electronic learning platform on programming skills and the attitudes towards teaching programming. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(11), 1-12. doi: 10.11114/jets.v5i11.2608
3. Arslan, H., & Sahin, I. (2013). Bilisim teknolojileri ögretmenlerinin hizmetici egitim kurslarına yonelik gorusleri [Information technology teachers’ opinions about in-service training courses]. Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, (5), 56-66.
4. Barger, R. N. (2008). Computer ethics: A case-based approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.006
6. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum, Computers & Education, 72, 145-157. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
7. Brennan, K. (2015). Beyond technocentrism: Supporting constructionism in the classroom. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), 289-296.
8. Corral, J. M. R., Balcells, A. C., Estevez, A. M., Moreno, G. J., & Ramos, M. J. F. (2014). A game-based approach to the teaching of object-oriented programming languages. Computers & Education, 73, 83-92. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.013

9. Computer Science Education Research Group (CSERG). (2017, August 10). CS unplugged activities. Retrieved from http://csunplugged.org/activities/
10. Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39. doi: 10.1145/2998438
11. Doukakis S., Koilias C., Adamopoulos N., Giannopoulou P. (2013) Computer Science Teachers’ In-service Training Needs and Their Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In M. D. Lytras, D. Ruan, R. D.Tennyson, P. Ordonez De Pablos, F. J. García Penalvo, & L. Rusu (Eds.), Information Systems, E-learning, and Knowledge Management Research (pp.311-316). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
12. Erdem, A. R., & Simsek, S. (2013). Ogretmenlere ve okul yoneticilerine verilen hizmet ici eğitimlerin irdelenmesi [Investigating in-service training given to teachers and school heads]. Usak University Journal of Social Sciences, (16), 94-108.
13. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, (63), 87-97. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
14. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12463051
15. Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Constructionism. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
16. Howland, K., & Good, J. (2015). Learning to communicate computationally with Flip: A bi-modal programming language for game creation, Computers & Education, 80, 224-240, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.014
17. ICILS (2013). The international computer and information literacy study. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/library/study/2014/ec-icils_en.pdf
18. Ismail, M. N., Ngah, N. A., & Umar, I. N. (2010). Instructional strategy in the teaching of computer programming: a need assessment analyses. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(2), 125-131.
19. Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (Eds.) (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Abingdo, UK: Routledge.
20. Kert, S. B. , Kayak, S., Erkoc, M. F., & Avincan, K. (2014). Kodu ile Kendi Oyununu Gelistiren Cocuklar [Children who develop their own game with code]. Paper presented at the 8th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium, Edirne, Turkey.
21. Kordaki, M. (2010). A drawing and multi-representational computer environment for beginners’ learning of programming using C: Design and pilot formative evaluation. Computers & Education, 54(1), 69-87. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.012
22. Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1202-1213. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.002
23. MoE (Ministry of Education) (2012, January 17). Ortaokul ve imam hatip ortaokulu bilisim teknolojileri ve yazilim dersi (5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) ogretim programi [Secondary school and imam hatip secondary school information technologies and software course (Grades 5, 6, 7 and 8)]. Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program2.aspx?islem=2&kno=196
24. Navarrete, C. C. (2013). Creative thinking in digital game design and development: A case study, Computers & Education, 69, 320-331. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.025.
25. Neil, R. (1986). Current models and approaches to in‐service teacher education. Journal of In-Service Education, 12(2), 58-67. doi: 10.1080/0305763860120202
26. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
27. Pereira, H. B. D. B., Zebende, G. F., & Moret, M. A. (2010). Learning computer programming: Implementing a fractal in a Turing Machine. Computers & Education, 55(2), 767-776. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.009.
28. Raud, N., & Orehhova, O. (2017). In-service training of teachers of English as a foreign language in Estonia: Mapping of trends and opportunities. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 75(2), 194-203.
29. Shaw, R. S. (2012). A study of the relationships among learning styles, participation types, and performance in programming language learning supported by online forums. Computers & Education, 58(1), 111-120. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.013.
30. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. doi: 10.1145/1118178.1118215
31. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366(1881), 3717–3725. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
32. Wing, J. M. (2010). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The Link. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why
33. Wing, J. M. (2016). Computational thinking 10 years later. Microsoft Research Blog. Retrieved from https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/msr_er/2016/03/23/computational-thinking-10-years-later/