Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education (정보교육학회논문지)

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

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Effect that Pair Programming Develope of Computational Thinking and Creativity in Elementary Software Education

초등학교 SW교육에서 동료 프로그래밍 교육 방법이 컴퓨팅 사고력과 창의성 신장에 미치는 효과 분석

  • Received : 2016.04.01
  • Accepted : 2016.04.22
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, It analyzed the effect of pair programming teaching methods in elementary software education. At first, for the development of SW educational programs it surveyed 162 elementary students and 34 teachers in J area. As a result, developed SW educational programs based on geometry in elementary mathematics and it was applied. For application SW programs it was constructed 22 students experimental group, 22 students comparison group of 44 students in 3, 4, 5th grade the winter break of ${\bigcirc}{\bigcirc}$ university education donation application. First, software education using pair programming will be more effective on the development of elementary school students' computational thinking. Second, software education using pair programming will be more effective on the development of elementary school students' creativity. Test results, pair programming is to show a significant difference on the development of computational thinking and creativity in elementary software education.

본 연구는 초등학교 SW교육에서 동료 프로그래밍 교육 방법에 대한 효과를 분석하고자 하였다. 먼저, SW교육 프로그램 개발을 위하여 J지역 내 초등학생 162명, 초등교사 34명을 대상으로 설문조사 후 분석한 결과를 토대로 초등수학 도형영역을 중심으로 한 소프트웨어교육 프로그램을 개발하여 적용하였다. SW교육 프로그램 적용을 위해 ${\bigcirc}{\bigcirc}$대학교 겨울방학 교육기부 신청자 3, 4, 5학년 학생 44명중 실험집단 22명, 비교집단 22명으로 구성하였다. 실험집단은 동료 프로그래밍 교육 방법을 중심으로 수업을 진행하였고, 비교집단은 일반적인 교육 방법인 강의 실습형태의 수업을 진행하였으며, 다음과 같은 2가지의 연구 가설을 검증하였다. 첫째, 동료 프로그래밍을 이용한 SW교육이 초등학생의 컴퓨팅 사고력 신장에 더 효과적일 것이다. 둘째, 동료 프로그래밍을 이용한 SW교육이 초등학생의 창의성 신장에 더 효과적일 것이다. 검증 결과 초등학교 SW교육에서 동료 프로그래밍 교육방법이 컴퓨팅 사고력과 창의성 신장에 유의미한 차이를 보이는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. CSTA (2011). CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards (Doctoral dissertation, Bowdoin College).
  2. Devlin, K. (203, September). Why universities require computer science students to take math. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 37-39.
  3. Entry Website (2016). www.play-entry.org/
  4. Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14, 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046827
  5. Han Keun Woo, Lee Eun Kyoung, Lee Young Jun (2006). The Effects of Pair Programming on Achievement and Motivated Strategies in Programming Course. The Journal of Korean association of computer education, 9(6), 11-28.
  6. Hazzan, O. (1999). Reducing abstraction level when learning abstract algebra concepts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 40(1), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003780613628
  7. Hong Sun Jeong (2006). Intelligence and creativity : Psychological inquiry For Human intelligence. Yangseowon : Seoul.
  8. Jeon So Eun (2009). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Pair Programming. Konkuk University of master's thesis.
  9. Kim Byeong Su (2014). Programming education program based on PPS to improve computational thinking ability, Jeju National University of Education doctoral dissertation.
  10. Kim Jin Kyoung (2010). Effects that Application of Pair Programming and Reflective Journal have on Self-regulated Learning and Programming Ability, Incheon National University of Education master's thesis.
  11. Kim Kyung Hee (2006a). Can we trust creativity tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of creative thinking(TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2
  12. Kim Kyung Hee (2006b). Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional? Analyses of the torrance tests of creative thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_2
  13. Kim Mi Ryang (2002). Alternative Instructional Methods and Strategies for Effective Computer Programming Education, The Journal of Korean association of computer education, 5(3), 1-8.
  14. Ko Il Jae (2006). The effect of pair programming on student achievement and Interest in programming class, Chung-ang University of Education master's thesis.
  15. Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing?. Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 36-42.
  16. Maslow, A. H., (1963). The creative attitude. Structurist, 3, 4-10.
  17. Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
  18. Ministry of Education(2015). Operating in structions for Software Education.
  19. Ministry of Education, Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (2015). Human Resource Development Plan for the SW-oriented society.
  20. Nam Seung Hyun, Jung Ha Qil, Kim Dong Hyun, Jang Myeong Ho, Kim Hee Ju, Kim Dong Jeong, Yu Heon Chang (2015). Software Education in Science Experiments Based on The Mini-Computer. The Journal of Korean association of computer education, 19(1), 51-55.
  21. Park Byeong Gi (1998). Based on creativity-education. Science of education : Seoul.
  22. Park Hyo Min (2014). Global software educational status and tools trends, Korea Internet & Security Agency Report focus 3.
  23. Rogers, C. (1962). Toward a theory of creativity. Ins. Parnes & H.
  24. Song Yoon Jeong (2005). Effects on improving academic achievement pair programming in programming practice curriculum, Korea University of Education master's thesis.
  25. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). Creating creative minds. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 608-614.
  26. Sung Jung Sook, Kim Hyeon Cheol (2015). Analysis on the International Comparison of Computer Education in Schools. The Journal of Korean association of computer education, 18(1), 45-54.
  27. Torrance, E. P. (1978). Giftedness in solving furture problems. Journal of Creative Behavior, 12(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1978.tb00162.x
  28. Torrance, E. P. (2010). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Directions manual and scoring guide(Figual test booklet A), Korean FPSP.
  29. Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Firestein, R. L. (1983). Theoretical perspectives on creative learning and its facilitation: An overview. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1983.tb00970.x
  30. Wikipedia (2016). https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%97%94%ED%8A%B8%EB%A6%AC
  31. Williams, L., Yang, K., Wiebe, E., Ferzli, M. & Miller, C. (2002). Pair Programming in an Introductory computer Science Course: Initial Results and Recommendations. ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, Seattle, Washington, USA, 20-27.
  32. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  33. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366, 3717-3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

Cited by

  1. 컴퓨팅 사고력 평가에 관한 시스템 매핑 기반 국내 문헌 고찰 vol.22, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.32431/kace.2019.22.6.003