4/2021 vol. 17
Stats
CC-BY 4.0
Get citation
RESEARCH PAPER
Impact of the Plugged-in and Unplugged Chemistry Computational Thinking Modules on Achievement in Chemistry
Samri Chongo 1
,
 
Kamisah Osman 1
,
 
Nazrul Anuar Nayan 1
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, MALAYSIA
 
 
Publication date: 2021-03-19
 
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2021;17(4):em1953
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/10789
 
 
Article (PDF)
References (103)
 
KEYWORDS
computational thinking
plugged-in
unplugged
problem solving
chemistry learning
 
ABSTRACT
Computational thinking (CT) is one of the systematic tools in problem solving and widely accepted as an important skill in the 21st century. This study aimed to identify the effectiveness of the Chemistry Computational Thinking (CT-CHEM) Module on achievement in chemistry. This study also employed a quasi-experimental design with the participation of 85 form four students in Malaysia. The three types of teaching approaches, namely CT-CHEM Module Plugged-in (CTMP), CT-CHEM Module Unplugged + Plugged-in (CTMUP) and conventional method (CM), were systematically designed and implemented. The achievement of students was measured using an achievement test, where validity and reliability were justified and two-way ANCOVA was used to analyse the data. Findings confirmed that the achievement of students in chemistry is significantly higher in the CTMP group as compared with the CTMUP and CM groups. Instead, gender had no significant effect on students’ chemistry achievement. This study concludes that when students were exposed to teaching and learning strategies by integrated CT through plugged-in strategy more effective than a combination of plugged-in and unplugged. Plugged-in visualisation activities are more effective in increasing the understanding and achievement of students compared with the combination of plugged-in and unplugged activities. Plugged-in through visualisation activities is more effective than the combination of plugged-in and unplugged. This is because, the abstract concept in electrochemistry is easier to understand by students through the visualisation activity approach using a computer in explaining the important concepts in the topic and because the whole content is interrelated.
 
REFERENCES (103)
1.
Adesoji, F. A, & Omilani, N. A. (2012). A Comparison of Secondary Schools Students’ Levels of Conception of Qualitative and Quantitative Inorganic Analysis. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 3(2), 56-61.
Google Scholar
 
 
2.
Adesoji, F. A., Omilani, N. A., & Dada, S. O. (2017). A Comparison of Perceived and Actual; Students’ Learning Difficulties in Physical Chemistry. International Journal of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, 6(1), 1-8.
Google Scholar
 
 
3.
Alice, K., et al. (2008). Teori Kognitif Dan Implikasi Dalam Pengajaran Dan Pembelajaran [Cognitive Theory and Implications in Teaching and Learning]. In A. M. Yosof, et al. (Eds.), Pengetahuan Pedagogi Guru (pp. 101-1013). Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Google Scholar
 
 
4.
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone. Learning and Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
Google Scholar
 
 
5.
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. https://doi.org/10.1145/192988....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
6.
Basawapatna, A., Repenning, A., Koh, K. H., & Nickerson, H. (2013). The Zones of Proximal Flow: Guiding Students Through a Space of Computational Thinking Skills and Challenges. In ICER '13: Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research (pp. 67–74). https://doi.org/10.1145/249339....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
7.
Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner Modeling for Adaptive Scaffolding in a Computational Thinking-Based Science Learning Environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5-53.
Google Scholar
 
 
8.
Beecher, K. (2017). Computational Thinking: A Beginner’s Guide to Problem Solving and Programming. United Kingdom: BCS Learning & Development Ltd.
Google Scholar
 
 
9.
Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding and Computational Thinking in Early Childhood: The Impact of ScratchJr in Europe. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 8.
Google Scholar
 
 
10.
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational Thinking and Tinkering: Exploration of an Early Childhood Robotics Curriculum. Computer & Education, 72, 145–157.
Google Scholar
 
 
11.
Bicer, A., et al. (2015). STEM Schools vs. Non-STEM Schools: Comparing Students’ Mathematics Growth Rate on High-Stakes Test Performance. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(1), 138-150.
Google Scholar
 
 
12.
Brackmann, C. P., et al. (2017). Development of Computational Thinking Skills through Unplugged Activities in Primary School. In WiPSCE '17: Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 65-72).
Google Scholar
 
 
13.
Brand, B. R. (2020). Integrating Science and Engineering Practices: Outcomes from a Collaborative Professional Development. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
14.
Chang, R. (2010). Chemistry (10th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Google Scholar
 
 
15.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publication, Inc.
Google Scholar
 
 
16.
Csizmadia, A., et al. (2015). Computational Thinking: A Guide for Teachers. United Kingdom: Computing At School.
Google Scholar
 
 
17.
Curzon, P., McOwan, P. W., Cutts, Q. I., & Bell, T. (2009). Enthusing & Inspiring with Reusable Kinaesthetic Activities. In Proceedings of the Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, ITiCSE (pp. 94-98).
Google Scholar
 
 
18.
Faber, H. H., Wierdsma, M. D. M., Doornbos, R. P., & Van der Ven, J. S. (2017). Teaching Computational Thinking to Primary School Students via Unplugged Programming Lessons. Journal of the European Teacher Education Network, 12, 13-24.
Google Scholar
 
 
19.
Farhana, F., & Khan, F. (2020). Hanya 19 Peratus Pilih Aliran Sains [Only 19 Percent Select Science Stream]. Berita Harian.
Google Scholar
 
 
20.
Fouh, E., Akbar, M., & Shaffer, C. A. (2012). The Role of Visualization in Computer Science Education. Computer in the school, 29(1-2), 95-117.
Google Scholar
 
 
21.
French Academy of Sciences. (2013). Teaching Computer Science in France.Tomorrow Can’t Wait -. Retrieved from http://www.academie-sciences.f....
Google Scholar
 
 
22.
Gambari, I. A., Gbodi, B. E., Olakanmi, E. U., & Abalaka, E. N. (2016). 7 Contemporary educational technology Promoting Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation among Chemistry Students Using Computer-Assisted Instruction. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/full....
Google Scholar
 
 
23.
Gao, X., Li, P., Shen, J., & Sun, H. (2020). Reviewing Assessment of Student Learning in Interdisciplinary STEM Education. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(24), 1-14.
Google Scholar
 
 
24.
García Peñalvo, G., et al. (2016). An Overview of the Most Relevant Literature on Coding and Computational Thinking with Emphasis on the Relevant Issues for Teachers. Belgium: TACCLE3 Consortium. Retrieved from https://repositorio.grial.eu/b....
Google Scholar
 
 
25.
Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992a). Conceptual Difficulties Experienced by Senior High School Students of Electrochemistry: Electric Circuits and Oxidation- Reduction Equations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.36....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
26.
Garnett, P. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1992b). Conceptual Difficulties Experienced by Senior High School Students of Electrochemistry: Electrochemical (Galvanic) and Electrolytic Cells. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(10), 1079-1099.
Google Scholar
 
 
27.
Gilbert, J.K. & Treagust, D.F. 2009. Introduction: Macro, submicro and symbolic representations and the relationship between them: Key models in chemical education. In J. K. Gilberth & D. Treagust (eds.). Multiple Representations in Chemical Education (Vol. 4 pp. 1-10). Netherland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
28.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the State of the Field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. https://doi.org/10.3102/001318....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
29.
Gulacar, O., & Bowman, C. R. (2014). Determining What Our Students Need Most: Exploring Student Perceptions and Comparing Difficulty Ratings of Students and Faculty. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15, 587-593. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
30.
Gulacar, O., Milkey, A., & McLane, S. (2019). Exploring the Effect of Prior Knowledge and Gender on Undergraduate Students’ Knowledge Structures in Chemistry. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), em1726. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
31.
Halimaton, H. (2017). Kongres Kebangsaan STEM. Towards Dignifying National Science And Technology.
Google Scholar
 
 
32.
Haseski, H. I., Ilic, U., & Tugtekin, U. (2018). Defining a New 21st Century Skill-Computational Thinking: Concepts and Trends. International Education Studies, 11(4), 29. http://www.ccsenet.org/journal....
Google Scholar
 
 
33.
Hundhausen, C. D., Douglas, S. A., & Stasko, J. T. (2002). A Meta-Study of Algorithm Visualization Effectiveness. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, (13), 259-290.
Google Scholar
 
 
34.
ISTE, & CSTA. 2011. Computational Thinking: Teacher Resources (2nd Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-do....
Google Scholar
 
 
35.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2013). The Impact of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning Environments on Academic Achievement. In J. Hattie, & E. Anderman (Eds.), International handbook of student achievement.
Google Scholar
 
 
36.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative Learning: Improving University Instruction by Basing Practice on Validated Theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(3&4), 85-118.
Google Scholar
 
 
37.
Johnson, D. W., Qin, Z., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus Competitive Efforts and Problem Solving. American Educational Research Association and SAGE, 65(2), 129-143.
Google Scholar
 
 
38.
Jong, O. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). The Teaching and Learning of Electtrochemistry. In J. K. Gilbert et al. (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards Research-Based Practice (pp.317-337). New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Google Scholar
 
 
39.
Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, 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.
Google Scholar
 
 
40.
Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2017). Pre-service kindergarten teachers acceptance of “scratchjr” as a tool for learning and teaching computational thinking and science education. Retrieved from https://keynote.conference-ser....
Google Scholar
 
 
41.
Kamisah, O., & Lay, A. N. (2020). MyKimDG Module: An Interactive Platform towards Development of Twenty-First Century Skills and Improvement of Students’ Knowledge in Chemistry. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–14. Published online: 26 Feb 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/104948....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
42.
Kamisah, O., & Lee, T. T. (2013). Impact of Interactive Multimedia Module with Pedagogical Agents on Students’ Understanding and Motivation in the Learning of Electrochemistry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(2), 395-421.
Google Scholar
 
 
43.
Lambert, L., & Guiffre, H. (2009). Computer Science Outreach in an Elementary School. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 24(3), 118-124.
Google Scholar
 
 
44.
Lay, A. N., & Kamisah, O. (2017). Developing 21st Century Skills through a Constructivist-Constructionist Learning Environment. K-12 STEM Education, 3(2), 205-216.
Google Scholar
 
 
45.
Leon, J. M., & Robles, G. (2015). Analyze Your Scratch Projects with Dr. Scratch and Assess Your Computational Thinking Skills. Retrieved from http://jemole.me/replication/2....
Google Scholar
 
 
46.
Levy Nahum, T., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Bar-Dov, Z. (2004). Research report (empirical study) can final examinations amplify students’ misconceptions in chemistry? Chemistry education: research and practice, 5(3), 301-325.
Google Scholar
 
 
47.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
48.
Maloney, J., et al. (2010). The Scratch Programming Language and Environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 16. https://doi.org/10.1145/186835....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
49.
Mann, A., & DiPrete, T. A. (2013). Trends in Gender Segregation in the Choice of Science and Engineering Majors. Social Science Research, 42(6), 1519-1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssre....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
50.
Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational Thinking in K-9 Education. In ITiCSE-WGR '14: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (pp. 1-29). https://doi.org/10.1145/271360....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
51.
Martin, L. (2002). Defining Inquiry: Exploring the Many Types of Inquiry in the Science Classroom. The Science Teacher, 69, 34-37.
Google Scholar
 
 
52.
Mellström, U. (2009). The Intersection of Gender, Race and Cultural Boundaries, or Why Is Computer Science in Malaysia Dominated by Women? Social Studies of Science, 39(6), 885-907.
Google Scholar
 
 
53.
Meng, C. C., Idris, N., & Eu, L. K. (2014). Secondary Students' Perceptions of Assessments in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(3), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.12973/euras....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
54.
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2012). Integrated Curriculum for Secondary Schools Curriculum: Specifications Chemistry Form 4. Putrajaya: Curriculum Development Centre.
Google Scholar
 
 
55.
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2016a). Basics Computer Science: Standard Curriculum and Assessment Document. Putrajaya.
Google Scholar
 
 
56.
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2016b). PISA 2015: Programme for International Student Assesment. Putrajaya: Educational Planning and Research Division (EPRD).
Google Scholar
 
 
57.
Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & González, M. R. (2015). Dr. Scratch: Automatic Analysis of Scratch Projects to Assess and Foster Computational Thinking. RED-Revista de Educación a Distancia. Número, 46, 1-23.
Google Scholar
 
 
58.
Nelson, T. H., et al. (2015). Supporting Middle School Teachers’ Implementation of STEM Design Challenges. School Science and Mathematics, 116(4), 177-188.
Google Scholar
 
 
59.
Novrita Mulya, R. (2012). Pengaruh Sikap Pada Mata Pelajaran Kimia Dan Konsep Diri Terhadap Prestasi Belajar Kimia. Jurnal Formatif, 2(3), 218-226.
Google Scholar
 
 
60.
Olabe, J. C., et al. (2014). Solving Math and Science Problems in the Real World with a Computational Mind. New approaches in education research, 3(2), 75-82.
Google Scholar
 
 
61.
Orlich, D., et al. (2010). Teaching Trategies: A Guide to Effective Instruction (9th Ed.). Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Google Scholar
 
 
62.
Papadakis, S. J., Kalogiannakis, M., Zaranis, N., & Papadakis, S. (2016). Developing Fundamental Programming Concepts and Computational Thinking with ScratchJr in Preschool Education: A Case Study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3), 187-202.
Google Scholar
 
 
63.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Google Scholar
 
 
64.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21 St Century. Washington, USA: The National Academies of Press.
Google Scholar
 
 
65.
Psycharis, S. (2018). Steam in Education: A Literature Review on the Role of Computational Thinking, Engineering Epistemology and Computational Science. Computational STEAM Pedagogy (Csp). S. Psycharis Scientific Culture, 4(2), 51-72.
Google Scholar
 
 
66.
Psycharis, S., & Kotzampasaki, E. (2019). The Impact of a STEM Inquiry Game Learning Scenario on Computational Thinking and Computer Self-confidence. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(4), em1689. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
67.
Qin, H. (2009). Teaching Computational Thinking through Bioinformatics to Biology Students. In SIGCSE’09 - Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 188-191).
Google Scholar
 
 
68.
Reddy, L. (2020). An Evaluation of Undergraduate South African Physics Students’ Epistemological Beliefs When Solving Physics Problems. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(5), em1844. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
69.
Reichert, J. T., Couto Barone, D. A., & Kist, M. (2020). Computational Thinking in K-12: An analysis with Mathematics Teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(6), em1847. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
70.
Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B. & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60-67.
Google Scholar
 
 
71.
Rodriguez, B., Kennicutt, S., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2017). Assessing Computational Thinking in CS Unplugged Activities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’17 (pp. 501-506). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
Google Scholar
 
 
72.
Rodriguez, B., Rader, C., & Camp, T. (2016). Using Student Performance to Assess CS Unplugged Activities in a Classroom Environment. In ITiCSE '16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 95-100). https://doi.org/10.1145/289941....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
73.
Roziah, A. (2005). Pembangunan Dan Keberkesanan Pakej Multimedia Kemahiran Berfikir Bagi Mata Pelajaran Kimia [Development and Effectiveness of Thinking Skills Multimedia Package for Chemistry Subjects] (PhD Thesis), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Google Scholar
 
 
74.
Rubiah, M. (2016). Implementation of Problem Based Learning Model in Concept Learning Mushroom as a Result of Student Learning Improvement Efforts Guidelines for Teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(22), 26-30.
Google Scholar
 
 
75.
Salihuddin, Md S., et al. (2016). Enhancing Student’s Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) through the Socratic Method Approach with Technology. In 1st ICRIL-International Conference on Innovation in Science and Technology, Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala.
Google Scholar
 
 
76.
Saltan, F., & Kara, M. (2016). ICT Teachers’ Acceptance of “Scratch” as Algorithm Visualization Software. Higher Education Studies, 6(4), 146-155. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
77.
Samri, C., Kamisah, O., & Anuar, N. N. (2020). Level of Computational Thinking Skills among Secondary Science Student: Variation across Gender and Mathematics Achievement. International Council of Association for Science Education, 31(2), 159-163.
Google Scholar
 
 
78.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of Problem-Based Learning: Definitions and Distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Google Scholar
 
 
79.
Schmidth, H.-J., Marohn, A., & Harrison, A. G. (2007). Factors That Prevent Learning in Electrochemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 258-283.
Google Scholar
 
 
80.
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories an Educational Perspective (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Google Scholar
 
 
81.
Shakhman, L., & Barak, M. (2019). The Physics Problem-Solving Taxonomy (PPST): Development and Application for Evaluating Student Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(11), em1764. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
82.
Shirey, K. L. (2017). Teacher Productive Resources for Engineering Design Integration in High School Physics Nstruction (Fundamental). In Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference, Columbus.
Google Scholar
 
 
83.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Clarke, J. A. (2017). Demystifying Computational Thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edur....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
84.
Smit, K., De Brabander, C. J., & Martens, R. L. (2016). Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research Student-Centred and Teacher-Centred Learning Environment in Pre-Vocational Secondary Education: Psychological Needs, and Motivation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(6), 695-712.
Google Scholar
 
 
85.
Smith, S., & Burrow, L. E. (2016). Programming Multimedia Stories in Scratch to Integrate Computational Thinking and Writing with Elementary Students. Journal of Mathematics Education, 9(2), 119-131.
Google Scholar
 
 
86.
Sridaran, R., & Shailaja, J. (2015). Computational Thinking, the Intellectual Thinking for the 21st Century. International Journal of Advanced Networking Applications (IJANA), 39-46.
Google Scholar
 
 
87.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on Students’ Achievement, Attitudes, and Social Relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321-351. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
88.
Su, A. Y. S., et al. (2014). Investigating the Role of Computer-Supported Annotation in Problem-Solving-Based Teaching: An Empirical Study of a Scratch Programming Pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 647-665.
Google Scholar
 
 
89.
Sustekova, E., Kubiatko, M., & Usak, M. (2019). Validation of Critical Thinking Test on Slovak Conditions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(12), em1798. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
90.
Swaid, S. I. (2015). Bringing Computational Thinking to STEM Education. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 3657-3662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prom....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
91.
Tanujaya, B., Mumu, J., & Margono, G. (2017). The Relationship between Higher Order Thinking Skills and Academic Performance of Student in Mathematics Instruction. International Education Studies, 10(11), 78.
Google Scholar
 
 
92.
Telegina, N. V., Drovosekov, S. E., Vasbieva, D. G., & Zakharova, V. L. (2019). The Use of Project Activity in Teaching Mathematics. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(8), em1738. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmst....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
93.
Thies, R., & Vahrenhold, J. (2013). On Plugging ‘Unplugged’ into CS Classes. In SIGCSE 2013 - Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 365-370).
Google Scholar
 
 
94.
Tsarava, K., et al. (2017). Training Computational Thinking: Game-Based Unplugged and Plugged-in Activities in Primary School. In Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Game-Based Learning ECGBL 2017 (pp. 687-695).
Google Scholar
 
 
95.
Vitores, A., & Gil-juárez, A. (2016). The Trouble with ‘Women in Computing’: A Critical Examination of the Deployment of Research on the Gender Gap in Computer Science. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(6), 666-680. https://doi.org/10.1080/095892....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
96.
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2013). Challenges to Learning and Schooling in the Digital Networked World of the 21st Century. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 403-413.
Google Scholar
 
 
97.
Voogt, J., et al. (2015). Computational Thinking in Compulsory Education: Towards an Agenda for Research and Practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20, 715-728.
Google Scholar
 
 
98.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. J. Steiner, & S. Ellen, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
 
 
99.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
Google Scholar
 
 
100.
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, 565-568.
Google Scholar
 
 
101.
Yasar, O., Veronesi, P., Maliekal, J., Little, L. J., Vattana, S. E., & Yeter, I. H. (2016). Computational Pedagogy: Fostering a New Method of Teaching. Computer in Education Journal, 16(3), 51-72.
Google Scholar
 
 
102.
Yochum, S. M., & Luoma, J. R. (1995). Augmenting a Classical Electrochemical Demonstration. Journal of Chemistry Education, 72(1), 55-56. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed072p....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
103.
You, S. (2013). Gender and Ethnic Differences in Precollege Mathematics Coursework Related to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Pathways. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 24(1), 64-86.
Google Scholar
 
 
Share
Send by email
RELATED ARTICLE
Research trends of computational thinking in mathematics learning: A bibliometric analysis from 2009 to 2023
A Study of the Impact of Arduino and Visual Programming In Self-Efficacy, Motivation, Computational Thinking and 5th Grade Students’ Perceptions on Electricity
Preservice Teachers’ Use of Computational Thinking to Facilitate Inquiry-based Practical Work in Multiple-deprived Classrooms
The State of South African Mathematics Education: Situating the Hidden Promise of Multiple-solution Tasks
Reciprocal Learning in Mathematics Problem Posing and Problem Solving: An Interactive Study between Canadian and Chinese Elementary School Students
Indexes
 
Keywords index
Topics index
Authors index
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215
Journals System - logo
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Scroll to top