A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers

Burcu Şener; Duygu Umutlu

doi:10.18009/jcer.1435182

TR EN

A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers

Öz

To meet the needs of 21st-century learners in today’s classrooms, it is needed that teachers be familiar with programming and computational thinking. Particularly, subject-area pre-service teachers should be exposed to programming instruction in their teacher education programs. This case study including three participants aims to explore the process of pre-service teachers’ learning of programming while completing CT-oriented tasks through observations and interviews in a 14-week educational technology course at a public university in Turkey. The findings demonstrate that pre-service teachers, being novice programmers, prefer contextualized, structured and visually well-designed programming tasks. They use various strategies to face challenges, and the effort they put into dealing with these challenges enables them to produce higher-quality programs. Accordingly, implications for further research are also discussed in this study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Computer science education, programming skills, teacher education, computational thinking

Etik Beyan

Name of the board that carries out ethical assessment: Boğaziçi University Social and Humanities Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Board The date and number of the ethical assessment decision: 24.01.2023-109746

Kaynakça

Albayrak, E., & Ozden, Ş. Y. (2021). Improvement of pre-service teachers’ computational thinking skills through an educational technology course. Journal of Individual Differences in Education, 3(2), 97-112.
Bal, I. A., Alvarado–Albertorio, F., Marcelle, P., & Oaks–Garcia, C. T. (2022). Pre–service teachers computational thinking (CT) and pedagogical growth in a micro–credential: A mixed methods study. TechTrends, 66(3), 468-482.
Bers, M. U. (2019). Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(4), 499–528.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). 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 (Vol. 1, p. 25).
Buitrago Flórez, F., Casallas, R., Hernández, M., Reyes, A., Restrepo, S., & Danies, G. (2017). Changing a generation’s way of thinking: Teaching computational thinking through programming. Review of Educational Research, 87(4), 834-860.
Butler, D., & Leahy, M. (2021). Developing preservice teachers' understanding of computational thinking: A constructionist approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1060-1077.
Cooper, J.E., Brandon, P.R., & Lindberg, M.A. (1998). Evaluators’ use of peer debriefing: Three impressionist tales. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 265-279.
Creative Computing Lab (2021). Getting unstuck. Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved from https://gettingunstuck.gse.harvard.edu/
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cutumisu, M., Adams, C., Glanfield, F., Yuen, C., & Lu, C. (2021). Using Structural Equation Modeling to Examine the Relationship Between Preservice Teachers’ Computational Thinking Attitudes and Skills. IEEE Transactions on Education, 65(2), 177-183.

Çiftçi, A., & Topçu, M. S. (2022). Improving early childhood pre-service teachers’ computational thinking teaching self-efficacy beliefs in a STEM course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(4), 1215-1241.
Çoklar, A., N. & Akçay, A. (2018). Evaluating programming self-efficacy in the context of inquiry skills and problem-solving skills: A perspective from teacher education. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues. 10(3), 153-164.
Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39.
Dong, Y., Marwan, S., Catete, V., Price, T., & Barnes, T. (2019, February). Defining tinkering behavior in open-ended block-based programming assignments. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 1204-1210).
Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 12-28.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (1st ed., p. 301-316). Sage Publications.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
Hanbay-Tiryaki, S., & Balaman, F. (2021). Açık kaynak kodlu yazılımlardan scratch, arduino ve python kullanımı hakkında öğrenci görüşleri. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 9(18), 831-852. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.938706
Ilic, U. (2021). The impact of scratch-assisted instruction on computational thinking (ct) skills of pre-service teachers. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(2), 426-444.
Instefjord, E. J., & Munthe, E. (2017). Educating digitally competent teachers: A study of integration of professional digital competence in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 37-45.
ISTE (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/standards/for-students-2016
Jin, H. Y., & Cutumisu, M. (2023). Predicting pre-service teachers’ computational thinking skills using machine learning classifiers. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 11447–11467.
Kafai, Y., & Burke, Q. (2013). Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309500111
Kapur, M. (2015). Learning from productive failure. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 51–65.
Kaya, E., Yesilyurt, E., Newley, A., & Deniz, H. (2019). Examining the impact of a computational thinking intervention on pre-service elementary science teachers’ computational thinking teaching efficacy beliefs, interest and confidence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 38(4), 385-392.
Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & MacKinnon, L. (2012). Learning programming at the computational thinking level via digital game-play. Procedia Computer Science, 9, 522-531.
Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.
Lee, D. M. C., Rodrigo, M. M. T., Baker, R. S. D., Sugay, J. O., & Coronel, A. (2011). Exploring the relationship between novice programmer confusion and achievement. In Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction: 4th International Conference, ACII 2011, Memphis, TN, USA, October 9–12, Proceedings, Part I 4 (pp. 175-184). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
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.
Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004). Scratch: A sneak preview [Conference proceeding]. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing. (pp. 104-109). IEEE.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Miyake, N., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). The social and interactive dimensions of collaborative learning. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 418-438). Cambridge.
Mouza, C., Yang, H., Pan, Y. C., Ozden, S. Y., & Pollock, L. (2017). Resetting educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: A computational thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 61-76.
Mugayitoglu, B. (2016). Attitudes of pre-service teachers toward computational thinking in education. [Doctoral Dissertation, Duquesne University].
OpenAI. (2022). Whisper [Automatic speech recognition system]. https://openai.com/research/whisper
Piedade, J., Dorotea, N., Pedro, A., & Matos, J. F. (2020). On teaching programming fundamentals and computational thinking with educational robotics: A didactic experience with pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 10(9), 214.
Qualls, J. A., & Sherrell, L. B. (2010). Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), 66-71.
Resnick, M., & Rosenbaum, E. (2013). Designing for tinkerability. In M. Honey (Ed.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 163-181). Routledge.
Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.
Umutlu, D. (2022). An exploratory study of pre-service teachers’ computational thinking and programming skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(5), 754-768.
VERBI Software. (2022). MAXQDA [Computer software]. https://www.maxqda.com/
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wakil, K., Khdir, S., Sabir, L., & Nawzad, L. (2019). Student ability for learning computer programming languages in primary schools. International e-Journal of Educational Studies, 3(6), 109-115.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1-16.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Öğretim Teknolojileri

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Burcu Şener
0000-0002-0487-6849
Türkiye

Duygu Umutlu ^*
0000-0002-2030-2626
Türkiye

Erken Görünüm Tarihi

20 Mart 2024

Yayımlanma Tarihi

21 Mart 2024

Gönderilme Tarihi

12 Şubat 2024

Kabul Tarihi

19 Mart 2024

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2024 Cilt: 12 Sayı: 23

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1435182

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA83EZ99NJ

APA

Şener, B., & Umutlu, D. (2024). A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 12(23), 292-318. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1435182

AMA

1.Şener B, Umutlu D. A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers. JCER. 2024;12(23):292-318. doi:10.18009/jcer.1435182

Chicago

Şener, Burcu, ve Duygu Umutlu. 2024. “A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers”. Journal of Computer and Education Research 12 (23): 292-318. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1435182.

EndNote

Şener B, Umutlu D (01 Mart 2024) A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers. Journal of Computer and Education Research 12 23 292–318.

IEEE

[1]B. Şener ve D. Umutlu, “A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers”, JCER, c. 12, sy 23, ss. 292–318, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.18009/jcer.1435182.

ISNAD

Şener, Burcu - Umutlu, Duygu. “A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers”. Journal of Computer and Education Research 12/23 (01 Mart 2024): 292-318. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.1435182.

JAMA

1.Şener B, Umutlu D. A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers. JCER. 2024;12:292–318.

MLA

Şener, Burcu, ve Duygu Umutlu. “A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers”. Journal of Computer and Education Research, c. 12, sy 23, Mart 2024, ss. 292-18, doi:10.18009/jcer.1435182.

Vancouver

1.Burcu Şener, Duygu Umutlu. A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers. JCER. 01 Mart 2024;12(23):292-318. doi:10.18009/jcer.1435182

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

Değerli Yazarlar,

JCER dergisi 2018 yılından itibaren yayımlanacak sayılarda yazarlarından ORCID bilgilerini isteyecektir. Bu konuda hassasiyet göstermeniz önemle rica olunur.

Önemli: "Yazar adından yapılan yayın/atıf taramalarında isim benzerlikleri, soyadı değişikliği, Türkçe harf içeren isimler, farklı yazımlar, kurum değişiklikleri gibi durumlar sorun oluşturabilmektedir. Bu nedenle araştırmacıların tanımlayıcı kimlik/numara (ID) edinmeleri önem taşımaktadır. ULAKBİM TR Dizin sistemlerinde tanımlayıcı ID bilgilerine yer verilecektir.

Standardizasyonun sağlanabilmesi ve YÖK ile birlikte yürütülecek ortak çalışmalarda ORCID kullanılacağı için, TR Dizin’de yer alan veya yer almak üzere başvuran dergilerin, yazarlardan ORCID bilgilerini talep etmeleri ve dergide/makalelerde bu bilgiye yer vermeleri tavsiye edilmektedir. ORCID, Open Researcher ve Contributor ID'nin kısaltmasıdır. ORCID, Uluslararası Standart Ad Tanımlayıcı (ISNI) olarak da bilinen ISO Standardı (ISO 27729) ile uyumlu 16 haneli bir numaralı bir URI'dir. http://orcid.org adresinden bireysel ORCID için ücretsiz kayıt oluşturabilirsiniz. "

A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

A Qualitative Case Study: Pre-service Teachers as Novice Programmers

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Etik Beyan

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Erken Görünüm Tarihi

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster