Advertisement

A Computational Thinking Curriculum and Teacher Professional Development in South Korea

  • Soohwan Kim
  • Hae Young Kim
Chapter

Abstract

Changes in industry caused by the development of information and communication technology (ICT) have affected all areas of society, including educational environments. In this age of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (Schwab 2016), new technologies continue to integrate the physical, digital and biological worlds, thereby changing the economy, the demands of the workplace, and the educational needs of our youth. In Korea as elsewhere, educational policymakers have come to see that sofeware and computing education are no longer options but basic competencies that students must learn in order to succed in twenty-first century. Many nations (e.g., Korea, United Kingdom, United States, China, Japan, France) have prioritized computational thinking education, that is, education that teaches coding, algorithm, or digital literacy for K-12 students (Bocconi et al. 2016; ISTE and CSTA 2011; NRC 2010; Naace 2014; KICE 2015). As Corporate Vice-President of Microsoft Research Jeanette Wing noted, “Everyone can benefit from thinking computationally. My grand vision is that computational thinking will be a fundamental skill—just like reading, writing, and arithmetic—used by everyone by the middle of the 21st Century.” (Wing 2008). The changes in computing education in Korea from 2005 to 2015 reflect the government’s recognition of the importance of computing education. Accordingly, it has continuously pursued measures designed to give students the ability to apply technology in their daily lives and use it to make a better future for society (code.org 2018; KICE 2015; MoE 2015; MoE et al. 2016; P21 2011).

Keywords

Curriculum reform Concern-Based Adaptation Model Computational thinking Computing education Pre-service teacher 

Abstract

The 2015 Korean curriculum reform mandated that all elementary through high school students learn computing education by 2018. One of the primary aims of teaching computing education is to develop students’ computational thinking (CT) in order to equip them with skills that will help them gain success in a technology-based society. Yet, two important tasks must be accomplished before this goal can be achieved: curriculum development and teacher professional development. In considering these needs, we first provide a brief background to computing education and recent curriculum changes in South Korea. Next, using the framework of the Concern-Based Adaptation Model we provide findi and stagengs from our study of teacher perceptions of computing education as well as issues related to teacher professional development. Finally, we provide insights into the current needs of teachers and suggestions for the design of effective professional development for computing education.

References

  1. Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education-implications for policy and practice (No. JRC104188). Seville: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
  2. Choi, S., Kim, H., Sung, J., Seo, Y., & Choi, Y. (2016). A study of activating Gyeonggido SW education. Korea: Gyeonggido institute of education.Google Scholar
  3. Code.org. (2018, June 1). Nine policy ideas to make computer science fundamental to K-12 education. Retrieved June 1, 2018 from https://code.org/files/Making_CS_Fundamental.pdf
  4. Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226.Google Scholar
  5. George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring implementation in schools: The stages of concern questionnaire. Austin: SEDL Retrieved June 1, 2018, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/cbam17.html.Google Scholar
  6. Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas.Google Scholar
  7. Ishido, N. (2014). Children’s creativity switch! Children’s fort to play & learn – CANVAS’s practice. Tokyo: Film Art, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. ISTE & CSTA. (2011). Computational thinking in K-12 Education teacher resources (2nd ed.). ISTE.Google Scholar
  9. Jeong, Y. (2016). Needs analysis of software education curriculum at National Universities of Education for the 2015 revised natioanl curriculum. Journal of The Korea Association of Information Education, 20(1), 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kim, H. Y., & Kim, S. H. (2016). Stages of concern of Korean teachers about software education and the relationship with teacher characteristics. Journal of the Korean Association of Information Education, 20(4), 387–400.Google Scholar
  11. Kim, S., Kim, H., Kim, S., & Song, S. (2017). A study of innovative method for future informatics education in digital innovation age. Report 2016–56. Korea.Google Scholar
  12. Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation (KICE). (2015). A study for the improvement of Korean Computer Information Literacy Education based on Result of ICILS 2013. Research Resource ORM 2015–58. Korea.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, T. U., & Choi, H. J. (2015). Informatics education. HANBIT Academy: Seoul.Google Scholar
  14. Ministry of Education. (2014). Activation plan for SW education in K-12. Korea.Google Scholar
  15. Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 Revision Curriculum –Middle school information (1). Korea.Google Scholar
  16. Ministry of Education (MoE), Ministry of Science ICT and Future Planning (MSIFP), & KERIS. (2016). Resources of support group for 2016 SW education leading schools. Korea.Google Scholar
  17. Ministry of Science and ICT (MSI). (2018, March). SW University. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from http://www.software.kr/um/um02/um0207/um020701.do
  18. Naace, Havering Education service, and Computing at School (Nacce). (2014). Switched on computing year1. London: Rising Star UK Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21). (2011, March). Framewokr for 21st century learning, Retrived June 1, 2018 from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf
  21. Schwab, K. (2015, December 12). The fourth industrial revolution. Retrieved June 1, 2018, from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-12-12/fourth-industrial-revolution
  22. Toyama, K. (2015). Geek Heresy. New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  23. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society, 366, 3717–3725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soohwan Kim
    • 1
  • Hae Young Kim
    • 2
  1. 1.Chongshin UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Independent Research ConsultantSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations