Promoting computational thinking of both sciences- and humanities-oriented students: an instructional and motivational design perspective

Author:

Katai Zoltan

Abstract

AbstractWe proposed to investigate whether properly calibrated e-learning environments can efficiently promote computational thinking of both sciences- and humanities-oriented people. We invited two groups of students (sciences- vs. humanities-oriented members) to participate in a six-stage learning session: to watch a folk-dance illustration (s1) and an animation (s2) of the bubble-sort algorithm; to reconstruct the algorithm on the same input (s3); to orchestrate the algorithm on a random input stored in a white(s4)/black(s5) array (visible/invisible sequence) and to watch a parallel simulation of several sorting algorithms as they work side-by-side on different color-scale bars (s6). To assess the current motivation of students we created nine specific questionnaires (Q1–9). The experiment we conducted included the following task sequence: Q1–2, s1, Q3, s2, Q4, s3, Q5, s4, Q6, s5, Q7, s6, Q8–9. We focused on assessing the motivational contributions of the generated (situational factors) emotions, challenge and active involvement during the e-learning experience. Research results revealed that there are no unbridgeable differences in the way these two groups relate to e-learning processes that aim to promote computational thinking. Although sciences-oriented students’ motivational-scores were consistently superior to their humanities-oriented colleagues, there was strong correlation between them; furthermore, differences diminished as both groups advanced with their learning tasks.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Education

Reference85 articles.

1. Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (1999). Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 777.

2. Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.

3. AlgoRythmics. (2019). Retrieved May 13, 2019, from https://www.youtube.com/user/AlgoRythmics.

4. Barger, A., & Byrd, K. (2011). Motivation and computer-based instructional design. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 4(1), 1–9.

5. Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The essential difference: Men, women and the extreme male brain. London: Penguin.

Cited by 17 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3