Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education (정보교육학회논문지)

Korea Association of Information Education (한국정보교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Complementary Approach of Three Methods for Computational Thinking Assessment

컴퓨팅 사고력 평가를 위한 3가지 상호보완적 접근 방안

  • Choi, Hyungshin (Dept. of Computer Education, Chuncheon National University of Education) ;
  • Kim, Mi Song (Dept. of Curriculum Studies, University of Western Ontario)
  • 최형신 (춘천교육대학교 컴퓨터교육과) ;
  • 김미송 (웨스턴 온타리오 대학교 교육과정 연구 학과)
  • Received : 2017.10.10
  • Accepted : 2017.10.27
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As computational thinking(CT) is gaining focus as a key 21st century skill much attention has been paid to promoting CT through software education. However, more studies are needed to design and implement effective CT assessment methods. This study aims to investigate the effects of three CT assessment methods in a course designed to enhance CT competencies of 52 pre-service teachers with a non-computer science background during one semester. To analyze pre-service teachers' CT competencies, we used 3 CT assessment methods: (1) pre-and post-testing based on Bebras computational thinking challenge questions, (2) Dr. Scratch to analyze group scratch projects automatically, and (3) scratch exam designed in this study to evaluate the development of CT. Our results show the positive effects of integrating assessment methods for promoting CT competencies. We end this paper with the discussion of advantages and implications of this integration.

컴퓨팅 사고력(CT: Computational Thinking)은 21세기 핵심 역량으로 주목받으며 소프트웨어교육을 통한 CT 역량 증진에 많은 관심이 모아지고 있으나, 효과적인 CT역량 평가 방법의 설계 및 구현에 대한 더 많은 연구가 필요하다. 본 연구는 한 학기 동안 CT역량 증진을 위한 비전공자 프로그래밍 수업을 수강한 52명의 예비교원을 대상으로 세 가지 CT 평가 방법을 활용하여 수업의 효과를 살펴보았다. CT 평가 방법은 (1) 사전-사후 베브라스 CT 검사, (2) 그룹 스크래치 프로젝트에 대한 Dr. Scratch 자동 평가, 그리고 (3) 예비교원의 스크래치 프로그래밍을 통한 CT역량 평가 지필 시험을 포함한다. 본 연구의 결과 CT 역량을 위한 평가 방법의 통합이 긍정적인 효과를 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 본 논문은 이러한 CT 평가 방법의 통합의 장점 및 시사점을 논의하고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander Ruf, Adnreas Muhling, Peter Hubwieser (2014). Scratch vs. Karel - Impact on Learning Outcomes and Motivation. WiPSCE '14 November 05-07, 2014, Berlin, Germany.
  2. Benjamin Bloom. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: David Mckay Company Inc.
  3. CSTA, ISTE. (2011). Computational Thinking in K-12 Education leadership toolkit. Retrieved from: https://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/471.11CTLeadershiptToolkit-SP-vF.pdf
  4. David Barr, John Harrison, & Leslie Conery (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/docs/learning-and-leading-docs/march-2011-computational-thinking-ll386.pdf
  5. Dr. Scratch Website http://drscratch.org
  6. Hyungshin Choi, Kibum Kim (2015). The Effects of Scratch Programming on Preservcie Teachers" Assessment Utilizing Computational Thinking and Bloom's Taxonomy. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 19(2), 225-232. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2015.19.2.225
  7. Hyungshin Choi (2014). Computational Thinking Framework-based Analysis of Afterschool Scratch Team Project Experiences Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 18-4, 549-558. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2014.18.4.549
  8. International Challenge on Informatices and Computational Thinking. http://bebras.org
  9. Jeanette Wing (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 33-35.
  10. Jeongmin Lee, Yeonji Jung, Hyeonkyeong Park (2017). Gender Differences in Computational Thinking, Creativity, and Academic Interest on Elementary SW Education. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 21(4), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2017.21.4.381
  11. Jesus Moreno-Leon, Gregorio Robles (2015). Dr. Scratch: a Web Tool to Automatically Evaluate Scratch Projects. WiPSCE '15 November 09-11, 2015, London, United Kingdom.
  12. Karen Brennan, Mitchel Resnick (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 (pp. 1-25).
  13. Marcos Roman-Gonxalez, Jesus Oman-Gonzalez, Jesus Moreno-Leno, Gregorio Robles (2017). Complementary Tools for Computational Thinking Assessment 154-159 Conference Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education 2017. Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.
  14. Soohwan Kim (2015). Analysis of Scratch Assessment about Computational Thinking Capability. The Korean Association of Computer Education Research Journal, 18(5), 25-34.
  15. Ungyeol Jung, Young-jun Lee (2017). The Applicability and Related Issues of Bebras Challenge in Informatics Education. The Korean Association of Computer Education Research Journal, 20(5), 1-14.
  16. Valentine Dagiene, Sue Sentence (2016). It's computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. Retrieved from http://issep2016.ens-cachan.fr/talks/ISSEP2016_Sentance_Dagiene_presentation.pdf
  17. Yonhap News (2014.7.22). Mandatory SW education starting from the first-year junior high school students next year.
  18. Youngki Park, Inkee Jeong (2017). Assessing Elementary School Students' Computational Thinking Skills on Bebras Tasks. The Korean Association of Information Education Research Journal, 8(1), 27-31.

Cited by

  1. 스크래치 프로젝트 분석을 통한 컴퓨팅사고력 수준 분석 vol.22, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2018.22.6.661
  2. 알고리즘 교육을 통한 비버챌린지 결과 분석 vol.23, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2019.23.1.65
  3. 발달에 적합한 유아기 컴퓨팅 교육의 방향에 대한 탐색 vol.39, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.18023/kjece.2019.39.5.005