Computational Thinking Process of Prospective Mathematics Teachers in Solving PISA Model Problems
Abstract
Abstract: The research outlines the computational thinking process that prospective mathematics teachers use to solve PISA model problems. The Department of Mathematics Education conducted the research on 32 students in the Basic Mathematics course. This qualitative approach research used research instrument such as a computational thinking skill test and interview guidelines. The researchers grouped students into low, medium, and high ability categories based on previous tests. The researchers took as many informants as possible from each category using purposive sampling techniques. The applied technical data analysis included data reduction, presentation, and conclusions. The computational thinking process consisted of orientation, abstraction, decomposition, algorithms, and evaluation. The study provided several results, including high- and medium-category students being able to write information at the orientation and algorithm stages. The difference between the computational thinking processes of low- and medium-category students lies in the orientation stage and algorithms. Low-category students had to be more detailed in recording every step of the problem-solving process, as they could not write down all the primary information and problems. Those three lied in the orientation stage, the process of identifying information, and the key problems at the orientation stage as an early and important aspect of the computational thinking process. This research facilitates teachers improve students' computational thinking in solving high-level problems.
Keywords: computational thinking process, PISA model problems, problem-solving
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v25i2.pp961-971
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ahyan, S., Zulkardi, Z., & Darmawijoyo, D. (2014). Developing mathematics problems based on PISA level of change and relationships content. Journal on Mathematics Education, 5(1), 47-56. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.5.1.1448.47-56
Aminah, N., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., Wardono, W., & Cahyono, A. N. (2022). Computational thinking process of prospective mathematics teacher in solving Diophantine linear equation problems. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 1495-1507. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.11.3.1495
Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian [Research procedure]. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta
De Lange, J. (2003). Mathematics for literacy. Quantitative Literacy: Why Numeracy Matters For Schools And Colleges, 80, 75-89.
Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., Lemay, D. J., Saxena, A., & Basnet, R. B. (2017). Algorithmic thinking, cooperativity, creativity, critical thinking, and problem solving: exploring the relationship between computational thinking skills and academic performance. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0090-9
Gravemeijer, K. (2011). How concrete is concrete?. Journal on Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.2.1.780.1-14
Harangus, K. (2018). Examining computational thinking through logic tasks. Turkish Online, 176.
Hartnett, J. (2015). Teaching computation in primary school without traditional written
algorithms. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of The Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 285–292.
Hee, O.C., Ping, L.L., Rizal, A.M., Kowang, T.O., & Fei, G.C. (2019). Exploring lifelong learning outcomes among adult learners via goal orientation and information literacy self-efficacy. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 8(4), 616. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v8i4.20304
ISTE (2015). CT leadership toolkit. Available online at: https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/2020-10/ISTE_CT_Leadership_Toolkit_booklet.pdf (accessed August 5, 2021).
Jailani, J., Retnawati, H., Wulandari, N.F., & Djidu. (2020). Mathematical literacy proficiency development based on content, context, and process. Problems of Education In The 21st Century, 78(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/20.78.80
Jan Cuny, Larry Snyder, and Jeannette M. Wing. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for noncomputer scientists. Work in progress
Jurnaidi, J., & Zulkardi, Z. (2014). Pengembangan soal model PISA pada konten change and relationship untuk mengetahui kemampuan penalaran matematis siswa sekolah menengah pertama [Development of PISA model questions on changes in content and relationships to determine the mathematical reasoning abilities of junior high school students]. Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 8(1), 25-42. https://doi.org/10.22342/jpm.8.1.1860.25-42
Kalelioglu, F., Gulbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596.
Kallia, M., van Borkulo, S. P., Drijvers, P., Barendsen, E., & Tolboom, J. (2021). Characterising computational thinking in mathematics education: a literature-informed Delphi study. Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 159-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/14794802.2020.1852104
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.
OECD. (2018). OECD science, technology and innovation Outlook 2018. OECD Publishing.
Paf, M., & Dincer, B. (2021). A study of the relationship between secondary school students' computational thinking skills and creative problem-solving skills. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 20(4), 1-15.
Qualls, J. A., & Sherrell, L. B. (2010). Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), 66-71.
Repenning, A., Basawapatna, A. R., & Escherle, N. A. (2017). Principles of Computational Thinking Tools. Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking, 291–305. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_18
Rich, K. M., Binkowski, T. A., Strickland, C., & Franklin, D. (2018). Decomposition: A K-8 computational thinking learning trajectory. In A. Korhonen, L. Malmi, R. McCartney (Ed.), ICER 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (p.124–132). ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/3230977.3230979
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. University of Southampton. Retrieved from https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev. 2017.09.003
Sitorus, J. (2016). Students’ creative thinking process stages: Implementation of realistic mathematics education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 22, 111-120.
Snalune, P. (2015). The benefits of computational thinking. ITNOW, 57(4), 58–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/itnow/bwv111
Stillman, G. A. (2015). Applications and modelling research in secondary classrooms: What have we learnt? In Selected Regular Lectures From The 12th International Congress On Mathematical Education (Pp. 791-805). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_44
Sugiyono. (2015). Memahami penelitian kualitatif [Understanding qualitative research]. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sukestiyarno, Y. L. (2020). Metode penelitian pendidikan [Educational research methods]. Semarang: UNNES Press.
Suntaryati, F., Sari, C. K., & Yuliana, I. (2023, June). Students’ computational thinking skills in solving PISA-like problems on space and shape content. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 2727, No. 1). AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0141891
Supiarmo, M. G., Hadi, H. S., & Tarmuzi, T. (2022). Student’s computational thinking process in solving pisa questions in terms of problem-solving abilities. (JIML) Journal of Innovative Mathematics Learning, 5(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.22460/ jiml.v5i1.p01-11
Voskoglou, M. G., & Buckley, S. (2012). Problem solving and computers in a learning environment. Egyptian Computer Science Journal, 36(4), 28–46.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Worthen, M., Veale, A., McKay, S., & Wessells, M. (2019). The transformative and emancipatory potential of participatory evaluation: Reflections from a participatory action research study with war-affected young mothers. Oxford Development Studies, 47(2), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600818.2019.1584282
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, 14(1), 1–16. http://doi.org/10.1145/2576872
Zulkardi, Z., & Kohar, A. W. (2018). Designing PISA-like mathematics tasks in Indonesia: Experiences and challenges. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 947, No. 1, p. 012015). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/947/1/012015
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright is reserved to The Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA that is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.