Advertisement

Assessing Malaysian Teachers’ Perception on Computational Thinking Concepts Using SEM

  • Ung L. LingEmail author
  • Tammie C. Saibin
  • Jane Labadin
  • Norazila Abdul Aziz
Conference paper

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) concepts are newly introduced concepts in the Malaysian curriculum. This study is therefore designed to investigate Malaysian teachers’ perception on the integration of computational thinking skills in their teaching and learning practices. A survey form was designed based on the Technological Acceptance Model (TAM) and was disseminated throughout Malaysia to gauge teachers’ perception on CT based on the perceived usefulness of CT, perceived ease of CT integration into teaching and learning practices, teachers’ attitude towards CT and their intention to use CT in their classrooms. A total of 166 primary school teachers participated in the survey and the data was analysed using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). This study managed to predict Malaysian teachers’ intention in integrating computational thinking skills in their classroom practices via two significant determinants, namely the perceived ease of integration and positive attitude towards computational thinking. This study is important because it highlights factors affecting teachers’ perception on the newly improvised curriculum, and is an effort to support CT delivery in Malaysian classrooms.

Keywords

Computational thinking Technological Acceptance Model (TAM) Primary school teachers Perception Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) 

References

  1. 1.
    Wing, J.M., Computational thinking, in Magazine Communications of the ACM - Self managed systems CACM March, 2006, ACM: New York, NY, USA. p. 33–35Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guzdial, M.: Education Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 51(8), 25–27 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Qualls, J.A., Sherrell, L.B.: Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 25(5), 66–71 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lu, J.J. and G.H. Fletcher. Thinking about computational thinking. in ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 2009. ACMGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buckley, S. The Role of Computational Thinking and Critical Thinking in Problem Solving in a Learning Environment. 2012. Kidmore End: Academic Conferences International LimitedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barr, D., Harrison, J., Conery, L.: Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology 38(6), 20–23 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams, T. 21st-Century Literacy Requires Computational Thinking. 2015Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahsa Mohaghegh, M.M., Computational Thinking: The Skill Set of the 21st Century. (IJCSIT) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 2016. 7(3): p. 1524–1530Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., Mavroudi, E.: Problem solving by 5-6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education 63, 87–97 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richards, J., Computational thinking: a discipline with uses outside the computer lab? Computer Weekly, 2007: p. 52Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    BERNAMA, Pemikiran komputasional, sains komputer akan diajar di sekolah tahun depan, in Utusan ONLINE2016, Utusan ONLINE: PutrajayaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chan, F.-M. ICT in Malaysian schools: Policy and strategies. in Workshop on the Promotion of ICT Education to Narrow the Digital Divide, Tokyo. 2002Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bell, G.: Satu keluarga, satu komputer (one home, one computer): Cultural accounts of ICTs in south and southeast Asia. Design issues 22(2), 35–55 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Israel, M., et al.: Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education 82, 263–279 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramli, R., Yunus, M.M., Ishak, N.M.: Robotic teaching for Malaysian gifted enrichment program. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 15, 2528–2532 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barr, V., Stephenson, C.: Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads 2(1), 48–54 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malaysia, K.P., Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah KSSR (SEMAKAN), 2016Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weller, M.P., E.Y.-L. Do, and M.D. Gross. Escape machine: teaching computational thinking with a tangible state machine game. in Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Interaction design and children. 2008. ACMGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koh, K.H., et al. Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. in Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2010 IEEE Symposium on. 2010. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berland, M., Lee, V.R.: Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning 1(2), 65 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kazimoglu, C., et al.: A Serious Game for Developing Computational Thinking and Learning Introductory Computer Programming. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47, 1991–1999 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koehler, M., Mishra, P.: What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 9(1), 60–70 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived Usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user accpatance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park, S.Y.: An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning. Educational technology & society 12(3), 150–162 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences 27, 451–481 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hox, J.J.B., T.M., An Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling. Family Science Review, 1998. 11(4): p. 354–373Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Teo, T., Wong, S.L., Chai, C.S.: A Cross-cultural Examination of the Intention to Use Technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service Teachers: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Educational Technology & Society 11(4), 265–280 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ung, L.L., Tammie, C. Saibin, Jane, Labadin and Norazila, Abdul Aziz Preliminary Investigation: Teachers’ Perception on Computational Thinking Concepts. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC) 2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ung L. Ling
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tammie C. Saibin
    • 1
  • Jane Labadin
    • 2
  • Norazila Abdul Aziz
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer and Mathematical SciencesUniversity Teknologi MARA (UiTM)Kota KinabaluMalaysia
  2. 2.Institute of Social Informatics and Technological Innovations (ISITI), Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS)Kota SamarahanMalaysia

Personalised recommendations