Skip to main content

Enhancing computational thinking skills in informatics in secondary education: the case of South Korea

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the teaching–learning process of informatics education in South Korea, where an informatics education initiative was recently announced for K-12 education. Based on this initiative, this study aimed to investigate the effect of academic self-efficacy, teacher support, and a deep approach to learning computational thinking. The participants were 84 freshman students at a lower secondary school enrolled in a regular informatics class during Spring 2018. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to analyze the data. The key findings were as follows: first, academic self-efficacy and teacher support had a significant influence on a deep approach to learning. Second, academic self-efficacy and a deep approach to learning had a significant influence on computational thinking. This study suggests implications for enhancing computational thinking skills in informatics in secondary education.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Data availability

Research data were gathered through a questionnaire. Participation was voluntary and participants had the option to abort at any time. Data were anonymized prior to data analysis and storage. The data can be obtained by sending a request e-mail to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2002). Introduction to research in education (6th ed.). Wadsworth Group.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Avcu, Y. E., & Ayverdi, L. (2020). Examination of the computer programming self-efficacy’s prediction towards the computational thinking skills of the gifted and talented students. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 6(2), 259–270.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243–260.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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? Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Biggs, J. B. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73–85.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Biggs, J. (1994). Student learning research and theory: Where do we currently stand. Improving student learning: Theory and practice, pp. 1–19.

  10. Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. The Society for research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 133–149.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (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 (Vol. 1, p. 25).

  14. Bowen, J. A. (2012). Teaching naked: How moving technology out of your college classroom will improve student learning. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chan, K. W. (2010). The Role of Epistemological Beliefs in Hong Kong Pre-service Teachers’ Learning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 115–159.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

  20. Cybinski, P., & Selvanathan, S. (2005). Learning experience and learning effectiveness in undergraduate statistics: Modeling performance in traditional and flexible learning environments. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(2), 251–271.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dagiene, V., & Stupuriene, G. (2016). Informatics concepts and computational thinking in K-12 education: A Lithuanian perspective. Journal of Information Processing, 24(4), 732–739.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent Partial Least Squares Path Modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Diseth, Å. (2002). The relationship between intelligence, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(2), 219–230.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gutiérrez, M., Tomás, J. M., Romero, I., & Barrica, J. M. (2017). Perceived social support, school engagement and satisfaction with school. Revista De Psicodidáctica (english Ed.), 22(2), 111–117.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hair, J. F., Hult, T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. Thousand Oakes.

  29. Hendrickx, M. M., Mainhard, M. T., Boor-Klip, H. J., Cillessen, A. H., & Brekelmans, M. (2016). Social dynamics in the classroom: Teacher support and conflict and the peer ecology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 53, 30–40.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson, D. (2006). Software abstractions: Logic, language, and analysis. MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jackson, D. (2012b). Software abstractions: Logic, language, and analysis, 2nd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Joo, Y. J., & Ko, K. Y. (2016). The effects of achievement motivation, quality of teaching and learning, students’ approaches to learning and peer interaction on outcomes of collaborative learning. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(3), 85–103.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kafai, Y., Searle, K., Martinez, C., & Brayboy, B. (2014). Ethnocomputing with electronic textiles: Culturally responsive open design to broaden participation in computing in American indian youth and communities. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 241–246). ACM.

  35. Karagiannopoulou, E., & Milienos, F. S. (2015). Testing two path models to explore relationships between students’ experiences of the teaching-learning environment, approaches to learning and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 35(1), 26–52.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ketenci, T., Calandra, B., Margulieux, L., & Cohen, J. (2019). The Relationship Between Learner Characteristics and Student Outcomes in a Middle School Computing Course: An Exploratory Analysis Using Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(1), 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261–279.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kim, J., Chung, H., & Lee, W. (2010). A Comparative study of high school informatics curriculum between Korea and Japan. Korean Journal of Comparative Education, 20(4), 129–151.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 757–765.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students’ epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 243–256.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kumar, N. (2005). LEGO robots and AI. Annual Joint Conference Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education.

  44. Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014 on innovation & technology in computer science education conference (pp. 1–29). ACM.

  45. McShannon, J., & Hynes, P. (2005). Student achievement and retention: Can professional development programs help faculty GRASP it? The Journal of Faculty Development, 20(2), 87–93.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Miller, L. D., Soh, L. K., Chiriacescu, V., Ingraham, E., Shell, D. F., Ramsay, S., & Hazley, M. P. (2013). Improving learning of computational thinking using creative thinking exercises in CS-1 computer science courses. In 2013 IEEE Frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 1426–1432). IEEE.

  47. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  48. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Executive summary. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Peterson, P. L., Swing, S. R., Braverman, M. T., & Buss, R. R. (1982). Students’ aptitudes and their reports of cognitive processes during direct instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 535.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Papinczak, T., Young, L., Groves, M., & Haynes, M. (2008). Effects of a metacognitive intervention on students’ approaches to learning and self-efficacy in a first year medical course. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 13(2), 213–232.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). The implications of learning theories to assessment and instructional scaffolding techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Resnick, M. (2007). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning & Leading with Technology, 35(4), 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sarıtepeci, M., & Durak, H. (2017). Analyzing the effect of block and robotic coding activities on computational thinking in programming education. Educational research and practice, 490–501.

  54. Shell, D. F., Brooks, D. W., Trainin, G., Wilson, K. M., Kauffman, D. F., & Herr, L. M. (2010). The unified learning model. The unified learning model (pp. 1–4). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 207–231.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sysło, M. M., & Kwiatkowska, A. B. (2013). Informatics for all high school students. International conference on informatics in schools: Situation, evolution, and perspectives (pp. 43–56). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  57. The Korea Ministry of Education. (2015). The revised of 2015 standards for informatics education. The Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Thomas, C. R., & Gadbois, S. A. (2007). Academic self-handicapping: The role of self-concept clarity and students’ learning strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Torsheim, T., Wold, B., & Samdal, O. (2000). The teacher and classmate support scale: Factor structure, test-retest reliability and validity in samples of 13-and 15-year-old adolescents. School Psychology International, 21(2), 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tort, F., & Drot-Delange, B. (2013). Informatics in the French secondary curricula: Recent moves and perspectives. International conference on informatics in schools: situation, evolution, and perspectives (pp. 31–42). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Villalba-Condori, K. O., Cuba-Sayco, S. E. C., Chávez, E. P. G., Deco, C., & Bender, C. (2018). Approaches of learning and computational thinking in students that get into the computer sciences career. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on technological ecosystems for enhancing multiculturality (pp. 36–40).

  62. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Yıldırım, S. (2012). Teacher support, motivation, learning strategy use, and achievement: A multilevel mediation model. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(2), 150–172.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeongmin Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this work.

Ethical approval

No approval was required from the institution ethics committee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, M., Lee, J. Enhancing computational thinking skills in informatics in secondary education: the case of South Korea. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 2869–2893 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10035-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Informatics education
  • 3P model
  • Computational thinking
  • Teacher support
  • Academic self-efficacy
  • Deep approach to learning