The Computational Thinking in Elementary School in the Indonesia New Curriculum: A Teacher's Perspective
Keywords:
Computational thinking, elementary school, curriculum in IndonesiaAbstract
In the 21st century, thinking is a very important ability, one of which is computational thinking. The purpose of this research is to explain a teacher’s perspective on computational thinking (CT) in elementary school in the Indonesian New Curriculum. The qualitative method was used with a case study. The participant is Bandung's fourth-grade teacher. All teachers received questionnaires. A number of teachers were interviewed. Researchers use data collection tools as their primary tools. The supporting instruments are documentation studies, interviews, and field notes. The results show that teachers know about CT but are still confused about how to teach it in elementary school. They agree that CT is one of the most important skills in the 21st century. They do not understand all CT indicators, and they are unable to formulate CT queries or connect CT with technology. There should be training for teachers on how to integrate learning, technology, and CT.
References
Ali, D., MZ, Z. A., Kusnadi, K., & Vebrianto, R. (2021). Literature Review: Mathematical Creative Thinking Ability, and Students’ Self Regulated Learning to Use an Open-Ended Approach. Malikussaleh Journal of Mathematics Learning (MJML), 4(1), 52-61.
Angeli, C., & Giannakos, M. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106185.
Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., & Marshall, K. S. (2011, March). Recognizing computational thinking patterns. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 245-250).
Berk, R. A. (2011). Research on PowerPoint: From Basic Features to Multimedia. International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning, 7(1).
Bernard, M., & Chotimah, S. (2018, September). Improve student mathematical reasoning ability with open-ended approach using VBA for PowerPoint. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 020013). AIP Publishing LLC.
Damayanti, H. T., & Sumardi, S. (2018). Mathematical creative thinking ability of junior high school students in solving open-ended problem. JRAMathEdu (Journal of Research and Advances in Mathematics Education), 3(1), 36-45.
Denning, P. J., & Tedre, M. (2019). Computational thinking. Mit Press.
Epstein, D., & Miller, R. T. (2011). Slow off the Mark: Elementary School Teachers and the Crisis in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education. Center for American Progress.
Furner, J. M. (2016). Every student can be an Einstein: Addressing math anxiety in today’s classrooms. Transformations, 2(2), 22-45.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2013). Educational research: An introduction. Longman Publishing.
Hendricks, K. S. (2016). The sources of self-efficacy: Educational research and implications for music. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35(1), 32-38.
Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296-310.
Huang, C. (2013). Gender differences in academic self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. European journal of psychology of education, 28(1), 1-35.
Hutajulu, M., Wijaya, T. T., & Hidayat, W. (2019). The effect of mathematical disposition and learning motivation on problem solving: an analysis. Infinity Journal, 8(2), 229-238.
Isseks, M. (2011). How PowerPoint is killing education. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 74-76.
Kong, S. C., & Abelson, H. (2019). Computational thinking education (p. 382). Springer Nature.
Kusmaryono, I., Suyitno, H., Dwijanto, D., & Dwidayati, N. (2019). The Effect of Mathematical Disposition on Mathematical Power Formation: Review of Dispositional Mental Functions. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 343-356.
Leszczynski, E., Monahan, C., Munakata, M., & Vaidya, A. (2017). The Windwalker Project: An Open-Ended Approach. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(6).
Maddux, J. E., & Gosselin, J. T. (2012). Self-efficacy. The Guilford Press.
Mazzocco, M. M., Hanich, L. B., & Noeder, M. M. (2012). Primary school age students' spontaneous comments about math reveal emerging dispositions linked to later mathematics achievement. Child Development Research, 2012.
McCoy, C. (2010). Perceived self-efficacy and technology proficiency in undergraduate college students. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1614-1617.
Miles, C. L., Pincus, T., Carnes, D., Taylor, S. J., & Underwood, M. (2011). Measuring pain self-efficacy. The Clinical journal of pain, 27(5), 461-470.
Munafiah, S., Rochmad, R., & Dwijanto, D. (2021). Mathematical Creative Thinking Ability in terms of Mathematical Disposition in Creative Problem-Solving Learning with an Open-Ended Approach. Unnes Journal of Mathematics Education Research, 10(A), 30-37.
Munroe, L. (2015). The open-ended approach framework. European Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 97-104.
National Research Council. (2011). Report of a workshop on the pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. National Academies Press.
Nurkaeti, N., Turmudi, T., & Karso, K. (2019, February). How to use metacognitive strategy in the open-ended approach?. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1157, No. 2, p. 022119). IOP Publishing.
Penciner, R. (2013). Does PowerPoint enhance learning?. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 15(2), 109-112.
Romli, S., & Riyadi, B. (2018). Designing students’ worksheet based on open-ended approach to foster students’ creative thinking skills. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 948, No. 1, p. 012050). IOP Publishing.
Sabrina, R. R., Iswari, M., & Yerizon, Y. (2018). The Influence of Open-Ended Approach to Mathematical Creative Thinking Ability of 5th Grade Students Elementary School in Padang.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2011). Assessing self-efficacy for self-regulated learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance, 282-297.
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition.
Surya, Y. F., Marta, R., & Wijaya, T. T. (2020, August). The development of open-ended math questions on grade v students of elementary school. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1613, No. 1, p. 012081). IOP Publishing.
Tran, C., Smith, B., & Buschkuehl, M. (2017). Support of mathematical thinking through embodied cognition: Nondigital and digital approaches. In Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (Vol. 2, Issue 1). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0053-8
Wang, C. H., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 302-323.
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.
