Developing an Instructional Design for the Field of ICT and Software for Gifted and Talented Students
This study aimed to develop an instructional design that focuses on programming teaching for gifted and talented students and to investigate its effec.
- Pub. date: February 15, 2020
- Pages: 161-183
- 1377 Downloads
- 1078 Views
- 10 Citations
This study aimed to develop an instructional design that focuses on programming teaching for gifted and talented students and to investigate its effects on the teaching process. During the development of the instructional design; the steps of Morrison, Ross and Kemp Instructional Design Model were followed. Embedded experimental design, one of the mixed-method research designs, was used in the modeling of the study. The participants consisted of students studying at the Science and Art Center (BILSEM) (experimental group: 13 girls and 12 boys, control group: 10 girls and 15 boys). While the instructional design developed by the researchers was applied to the gifted and talented students in the experimental group, the standard activities used in Information Technologies and Software Courses at BILSEM were applied to the gifted and talented students in the control group. “Computational Thinking Scale (CTS)”, “Torrance Creative Thinking Test (TCTT-Figural)” and “Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSES)” were used to collect the data of the quantitative phase of the study. Qualitative data were gathered by using interview form, observation forms, and design thinking rubric. Two-Factor ANOVA Test, Bonferroni Adjustment Multiple Comparisons Test, and interaction graphs were used to analyze quantitative data while qualitative data were analyzed by content analysis. The quantitative results of the research showed that the instructional design was effective on students' computational thinking and creative thinking skills, but not on programming self-efficacy. Qualitative findings revealed that the instructional design helped the students learn the computational concepts, use computational applications, and develop computational-perspectives. Also, students improved their design thinking skills to a certain level and expressed that they enjoyed the design thinking process, learned the course content, and experienced some difficulties.
Keywords: Instructional design, computer programming, gifted and talented students, Science and Art Center (BILSEM)
References
Aflatoony, L., Wakkary, R., & Neustaedter, C. (2018). Becoming a design thinker: assessing the learning process of students in a secondary level design thinking course. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(3), 438-453.
Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the game-design and learning (GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72–81.
Askar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for java programming. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET January, 8(1), 26-32.
Atman Uslu, N., Mumcu, F., & Egin, F. (2018). Gorsel programlama etkinliklerinin ortaokul ogrencilerinin bilgi-islemsel dusunme becerilerine etkisi [The effect of visual programming activities on secondary school students’ computational thinking skills]. Ege Journal of Educational Technologies/Ege Egitim Teknolojileri Dergisi, 2(1), 19-31.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: a study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670.
Ayverdi, L. (2018). Usage of technology, engineering and mathematics in science education for gifted students: STEM approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Balikesir, Balikesir, Turkey.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J . C. (2012). Being creative inside and outside the classroom, how to boost your students’ creativity and your own. Sense Publishers.
Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future computer programming and coding priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. https://www.dzs.cz/file/3394/computing-our-future_final-pdf
Balanskat, A., Engelhardt, K., & Ferrari, A. (2017). The integration of computional thinking across school curcila in Europe. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC104188/jrc104188_computhinkreport.pdf
Begosso, L., & da Silva, P. (2013, October). Teaching computer programming: a practical review. Paper presented at IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Oklahoma City, USA.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education, 72, 145-157.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking in interactive media design. Paper presented at Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Bootcamp Bootleg D. School (2011). Design thinking. Institute of Design at Stanford, http://longevity3.stanford.edu/designchallenge2015/files/2013/09/Bootleg.pdf
Burke, Q. (2012). The Markings of a New Pencil: Introducing programming-as-writing in the middle school classroom. The National Association for Media Literacy Education’s Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(2), 121-135.
Buyukozturk, S. (2014). Deneysel desenler ontest-sontest kontrol grubu desen ve veri analizi [Experimental designs pre-test and post-test control group pattern and data analysis]. Pegem Akademi.
Carroll, M., Goldman, S., Britos, L., Koh, J., Royalty, A., & Hornstein, M. (2010). Destination, imagination and the fires within: design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 29(1), 37–53.
Carroll, M. (2014). Shoot for the moon! The mentors and the middle schoolers explore the intersection of design thinking and STEM. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 14-30.
Calao L. A., Moreno-Leon, J., Correa, H. E., & Robles, G. (2015). Developing mathematical thinking with scratch. an experiment with 6th grade students. In G. Conole, T, Klobucar, C. Rensing, J. Konert, & E. Lavoue (Eds.), Design for teaching and learning in a networked world (pp. 17-27). Springer International Publishing.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clements, D. H., & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programming on young children's cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051-1058.
Cakiroglu, U, Sari, E., & Akkan, Y. (2011, September,). The view of the teachers about the contribution of teaching programming to the gifted students in the problem solving. Paper presented at the 5th International Computer and Instructional Technologies Symposium, Elazig, Turkey.
Constantinou, V., & Ioannou, A. (2018, September). Development of computational thinking skills through educational robotics. Paper presented at 13th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Leeds, UK.
Colluoglu-Gulen, O. (2014). Analysis of gifted students’ interest areas using data mining techniques (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Davidson, K., Larzon, L., & Ljunggren, K. (2010). Self-efficacy in programming among STS students. Retrieved from http://www.it.uu.se.
Dukes, C., & Koch, K. (2012). Crafting a delightful experience: teaching interaction design to teens. Interactions, 19(2), 46-50.
Duman, B., & Kayali, D. (2017). Teknopedagojik ogretme yaklasiminin tasari odakli dusunme becerilerine etkisi [The effect of technopedagogical teaching approach on design thinking skills]. In B. Akkoyunlu, A. Isman, & H. F. Odabasi (Eds.), Egitimde Teknoloji Okumalari 2018 [Technology Readings in Education 2018] (pp.176-184). TOJET.
Durak, H. (2016). Design and development of an instructional program for teaching programming process to gifted students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Faber, H. H., Wierdsma, M. D., Doornbos, R. P., van der Ven, J. S., & de Vette, K. (2017). Teaching computational thinking to primary school students via unplugged programming lessons. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network, 12, 13-24.
Garcia-Valcarcel Munoz-Repiso, A., & Caballero-Gonzalez, Y. A. (2019). Robotics to develop computational thinking in early childhood education. Media Education Research Journal, 59(17), 63-72.
Geckil, A. (2012). Evaluation of laboratory qualifications and applications in science and art centers (BILSEM). (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013, March). Using a discourse-intensive pedagogy and android’s app inventor for introducing computational concepts to middle school students. Paper presented at SIGCSE’13, Colorado, USA.
Gulbahar, Y. (2018). Bilgi islemsel dusunme ve programlama konusunda degisim ve donusumler [Changes and transformations in computional thinking and programming]. In Y. Gulbahar (Ed.), Bilgi islemsel dusunmeden programlamaya [From computional thinking to programming] (pp.395-411). Pegem Akademi.
Gunbatar, M. S., & Karalar, H. (2018). Gender differences in middle school students’ attitudes and self-efficacy perceptions towards mBlock programming. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 925-933.
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: a creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153.
Hongwarittorrn, N., & Krairit, D. (2010, April). Effects of program visualization on students' performance and attitudes towards java programming. Paper presented at the International conference on Computing, Communication and Control Technologies, Orlando, Florida.
ISTE (2016). ISTE standarts for students. Iste Standards for Students. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-students
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mind tools for schools: engaging critical thinking. Prentice Hall.
Kahn, K., Sendova, E., Sacristan, A. I., & Noss, R. (2011). Young students exploring cardinality by constructing infinite processes. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(1), 3-34.
Kalelioglu, F., & Gulbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills: a discussion from learners' perspective. Informatics in Education, 13 (1), 33-50.
Kalelioglu, F. (2018). Turkiye’de programlama ogretimi [Programming teaching in Turkey]. In Y. Gulbahar, & H. Karal (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya programlama ogretimi [Theory-to-practice programming teaching] (pp.68-89). Pegem Akademi.
Kandemir, C. M. (2018). Metin tabanli programlama. [Text-based programming]. In Y. Gulbahar, & H. Karal (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya programlama ogretimi [Theory-to-practice programming teaching] (pp.299-336). Pegem Akademi.
Kaplan-Sayi, A. (2013). The effect of differentiated foreign language instruction on gifted students' achievement, critical thinking and creativity. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.
Karaman, S., & Kursun, E. (2018). Programlama ogretiminde degerlendirme yaklasimlari [Evaluation approaches in programming teaching]. In Y. Gulbahar, & H. Karal (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya programlama ogretimi [Theory-to-practice programming teaching] (pp.434-477). Pegem Akademi.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: unleashing the creative potential within us all. Random House Company.
Kert, S. B. (2018a). Bilgisayar bilimi egitimine giris [Introduction to computer science education]. In Y. Gulbahar (Ed.), Bilgi islemsel dusunmeden programlamaya [From computional thinking to programming] (pp. 1-20). Pegem Akademi.
Kert, S. B. (2018b). Programlama ogretimi icin pedagojik yaklasimlar [Pedagogical approaches for programming teaching]. In Y. Gulbahar, & H. Karal (Eds.), Kuramdan uygulamaya programlama ogretimi [Theory-to-practice programming teaching] (pp.93-130). Pegem Akademi.
Keskin, S. (2006). Gifted and talented and attitude towards computer and computer course (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Balikesir, Balikesir, Turkey.
Kircaburun, K, Bastug, I., and Bahtiyar, M. (2017). Modeling the psychological factors affecting computer programming self-efficacy. Anatolian Journal of Educational Leadership and Instruction, 5(1), 17-27.
Kim, S., Chung, K., & Yu, H. (2013). Enhancing digital fluency through a training program for creative problem solving using computer programming. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 171-199.
Kim, Y. M., & Kim, J. H. (2016). Application of a software education program developed to improve computational thinking in elementary school girls. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(44), 1-9.
Kobsiripat, W. (2015). Effects of the media to promote the Scratch programming capabilities creativity of elementary school students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 227-232.
Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H. (2015). Design thinking for education: conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Springer.
Kong, S. C. (2017). Development and validation of a programming self-efficacy scale for senior primary school learners. In S. C. Kong, J. Sheldon, & K. Y. Li (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (pp. 97–102). The Education University of Hong Kong.
Kong, S. C. (2019). Components and methods of evaluating computational thinking for fostering creative problem-solvers in senior primary school education. In: Kong SC., & Abelson H. (Eds.), Computational Thinking Education (pp.119-141). Springer.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research, Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15, 155–163.
Korkmaz, O., Cakir, R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2015). Bilgisayarca dusunme beceri duzeyleri olceginin ortaokul duzeyine uyarlanmasi [Computational thinking levels scale adaptation for secondary school level]. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences/Gazi Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), 67-86.
Korkmaz, O. (2016). The effect of lego mindstorms EV3 based design activities on students’ attitudes towards learning computer programming, self-efficacy beliefs and levels of academic achievement. Baltic J. Modern Computing, 4(4), 994-1007.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. handbook II: affective domain. McKay.
Kukul, V., Gokcearslan, S., & Gunbatar, M. S. (2017). Computer programming self-efficacy scale for secondary school students: Development, validation and reliability. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 7(1), 158-179.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. International Biometric Society, 33(1), 159-174.
Lin, J. M.-C., & Liu, S.-F. (2012). An investigation into parent-child collaboration in learning computer programming. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 162–173.
Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2017). Computational thinking in education: Where does it fit? a systematic literary review. Cornel University. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07659
Lor, R. R. (2017, May). Design thinking in education: a critical review of literature. Paper presented at Asian Conference on Education & Psychology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Lye, S. Z., & 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.
McGuinness, C., & O’Hare, L. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: new perspectives on developing and assessing thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(2), 75–77.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
Ministry of National Education (2016). Science and art centers directive. Ministry of National Education. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2016_10/07031350_BILSEM_yonergesi.pdf
Ministry of National Education (2017). Science and art center information technologies and software course framework program. Retrieved from http://BILSEM.meb.gov.tr/login.aspx
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2001). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley.
Noel, L., & Liub, T. (2017). Using design thinking to create a new education paradigm for elementary level children for higher student engagement and success. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 1(22), 501–512.
Orhon, G. (2014). Yaraticilik, norofizyolojik, felsefi ve egitsel temeller [Creativity, neurophysiological, philosophical and educational foundations]. Pegem A.
Ortiz, M., Chiluiza, K, & Valcke, M. (2017, October). Gamification in computer programming: effects on learning, engagement, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Paper presented at 11th European Conference on Games Based Learning, Graz, Austria.
Ongoz, S., & Sozel, H. K. (2018). Ustun yeteneklilerin egitiminde teknoloji kullanimi[Use of technology in gifted education]. In H. F. Odabasi (Ed.), Ozel egitim ve egitim teknolojisi [Special education and educational technology] (pp.91-114). Pegem Akademi.
Ozcelik, A., & Akgunduz, D. (2018). Ustun/ozel yetenekli ogrencilerle yapilan okul disi STEM egitiminin degerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of gifted/talented students’ out-of-school STEM education]. Trakya Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 8(2), 334-351.
Painter, D. (2018). Using design thinking in mathematics for middle school students: a multiple case study of teacher perspectives. (Unpublished master thesis). Concordia University, Portland, USA.
Park, I., Kim, D., Oh, J., Jang, Y., & Lim, K. (2015). Learning effects of pedagogical robots with programming in elementary school environments in Korea. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(26), 1-5.
Pardamean, B., Evelin, E., & Honni, H. (2011, December). The effect of Logo programming language for creativity and problem solving. Paper presented at 10th WSEAS International Conference on EActivities, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Plucker, J. A., & Callahan C. M. (2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390-406.
Ramalingam, V., & Wiedenbeck, S. (1998). Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self-efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 367-381.
Rauth, I., Koppen, E., Jobst, B, & Meinel, C. (November, 2010). Design thinking: an educational model towards creative confidence. Paper presented at 1st International Conference on Design Creativity, Kobe, Japan.
Repenning, R., Webb, D.C., Koh, K.H., Nickerson, N., Miller, B., Brand, S. B., & Repenning, N. (2015). Scalable game design: a strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. Trantions on Computing Education, 15(2), 1-31.
Retna, K. S. (2016). Thinking about design thinking: a study of teacher experiences. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 5-19.
Rodrigez, B. R. (2017). Assessing computational thinking in computer science unplugged activities. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Colorado School of Mines, USA.
Roman-Gonzalez, M., Moreno-Leon, J., & Robles, G. (2019). Combining assessment tools for a comprehensive evaluation of computational thinking interventions. In S. C. Kog, & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp.79-98). Springer Open Access.
Romero, M., Laferriere, T., & Power, T. M. (2016). The move is on! from the passive multimedia learner to the engaged co-creator. eLearn Magazine, 3, 1-6.
Romero, M., Lepage, A., & Lille, B. (2017). Computational thinking development through creative programming in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(42), 1-15.
Saez-Lopez, J.M., Roman-Gonzalez, M., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: a two year case study using scratch in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141.
Santos Ordonez, A., Gonzalez Lema, C., & Mino Puga, M. F. (2017, July). Design thinking as a methodology for solving problems: contributions from academia to society. Paper presented at 15th LACCEI International Multi-Conference for Engineering, Education, and Technology, Boca Raton FL, USA.
Saritepeci, M. (2017, October). Computational thinking skill level in secondary education in terms of various variables. Paper presented at 5th International Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education Symposium, Izmir, Turkey.
Shin, S., Park, P, & Bae, Y. (2013). The effects of an information-technology gifted program on friendship using scratch programming language and clutter. International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering, 2(3), 246-249.
Siegle, D. (2004). Identifying students with gifts and talents in technology. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 30-34.
Simsek, A. (2017). Ogretim tasarimi [Instructional design]. Nobel Academic Publication.
Soykan, F., & Kanbul, S. (2018). Analysing K12 Students’ self-efficacy regarding coding education, TEM Journal, 7(1), 182-187.
Starko, A. J. (2014). Creativity in the classroom schools of curious delight. Routledge.
Tyler-Wood, T. L., Mortenson, M., Putney, D., & Cass, M. A. (2000). An effective mathematics and science curriculum option for secondary gifted education. Roeper Review, 22(4), 266-269.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42(4), 200-211.
Wang, H. Y., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2014, August). Effects of an integrated Scratch and project-based learning approach on the learning achievements of gifted students in computer courses. In 2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics (pp. 382-387). IEEE.
Weese, J. L., & Feldhausen, R. (2017, June). STEM outreach: assessing computational thinking and problem solving. Paper presented at ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Columbus, Ohio.
Wing, J. M. (2011). Computational thinking: What and why. Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why
Yildiz-Durak, Karaoglan Yilmaz, F. G., & Yilmaz, R. (2019). Computational thinking, programming self-efficacy, problem solving and experiences in the programming process conducted with robotic activities. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(2), 173-197.