Advance Search
You have access

Computational Thinking Guiding Change in Online Education

Cite this:
Quinn, B. J. (2017). Computational Thinking Guiding Change in Online Education. Journal of Medical Biomedical and Applied Sciences, 3(12). https://doi.org/10.15520/.v3i12.28
Copyright @ 2022 Interactive Protocols
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Article Views
297
Altmetric
1
Citations
-
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
PDF (English)  

Abstract

As a result of instant access to data, information and knowledge anywhere, anytime, today’s students have rapidly acquired educational opportunities. Online education continues to grow at a pace much faster than face to face enrollments. There is a need for faculty development and training who can teach with technology, design and develop online courses in order to meet the increasing student demand. Faculty barriers to online education include loss of interpersonal student relationships, technology challenges, pedagogical concerns, institutional policy problems and unidentified support or compensation for all associated processes. At the crossroads of problem identification, strategy, and adoption of innovation, Computation Thinking (CT) offers a logical, exploratory, expandable and collaborative way of solving a complex problem in a state of change. This paper aims to summarize and synthesize the literature on both CT and faculty barriers to adoption of online education. A further aim is to offer suggestions for collaborative faculty design and development opportunities in exploring their own experience with online education using CT as a framework for problem-solving.

KEYWORDS:

 Additional Information

##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##

##plugins.generic.usageStats.noStats##

##plugins.generic.articleMetricsGraph.articlePageHeading##

Chart Graph | Range Graph

Content

Section

参考

  1. Ali, N. S., Hodson-Carlton, K., Ryan, M., Flowers, J., Rose, M. A., & Wayda, V. (2005). Online education: needs assessment for faculty development. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36(1), 32-38.
  2. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Babson Survey Research, G., & Inside Higher, E. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and Online Education, 2012. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED535214&site=ehost-live
  3. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Sloan, C., Babson Survey Research, G., & Pearson, F. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States (978-0-9840-2883-2). Retrieved fromhttp://ezproxy.library.arizona.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED541571&site=ehost-live
  4. Alsofyani, M. M., bin Aris, B., & Eynon, R. (2013). A preliminary evaluation of a short online training workshop for TPACK development. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(1), 118-128.
  5. Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational Thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
  6. Berland, M, & Duncan, S. (2016). Computational thinking in the wild: Uncovering complex collaborative thinking through gameplay. Educational Technology, 56(3), 29-35.
  7. Czerkawski, B., & Lyman, E. (2015). Exploring issues about CT in higher education. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 59(2), 57-65. doi:10.1007/s11528-015-0840-3
  8. Czerkawski, B. C. (2014). Designing Deeper Learning Experiences for Online Instruction. Journal Of Interactive Online Learning, 13(2), 26-40.
  9. DeSchryver, M. D., & Yadav, A. (2015). Creative and CT in the context of new literacies: working with teachers to scaffold complex technology-mediated approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 411-431.
  10. Ewald, F. (1991). Insurance and risk. In G. Burchell, C.Gordon and P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in governmentality. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  11. Gardner, L. (2012). From novice to expert: Benner's legacy for nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 32(4), 339-340 2p. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2011.11.011
  12. Guzdial, M. (2008). Education: Paving the way for CT. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25-27.
  13. Hoffmann, R. L., & Dudjak, L. A. (2012). From onsite to online: Lessons learned from faculty pioneers. Journal of Professional Nursing, 28(4), 255-258. doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.11.015
  14. Johnson, T., Wisniewski, M. A., Kuhlemeyer, G., Isaacs, G., & Krzykowski, J. (2012). Technology adoption in higher education: Overcoming anxiety through faculty boot camp. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 63-72.
  15. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem-solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63-85. doi:10.1007/BF02300500
  16. Kaminski, J. (2011). Diffusion of innovation theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 6(2). Theory in Nursing Informatics Column. http://cjni.net/journal/?p=1444
  17. Komenda, M., Víta, M., Vaitsis, C., Schwarz, D., Pokorná, A., Zary, N., & Dušek, L. (2015). Curriculum mapping with academic analytics in medical and healthcare education. PLoS ONE, 10(12), 1-18. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143748
  18. Kostadinov, B. (2013). Simulation insights using "R". PRIMUS, 23(3), 208-223.
  19. Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty perceived barriers in online education. MERLOT Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 1-12. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol8no1/lloyd_0312.pdf
  20. Masterman, E., Walker, S., & Bower, M. (2013). Computational support for teachers' design thinking: Its feasibility and acceptability to practitioners and institutions. Educational Media International, 50(1), 12-23.
  21. Miller, C. S., & Settle, A. (2011). When practice doesn't make perfect: Effects of task goals on learning computing concepts. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11(4), 1-16
  22. Moldoveanu, M. (2009). Thinking strategically about thinking strategically: the computational structure and dynamics of managerial problem selection and formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 30(7), 737-763.
  23. Ortagus, J. C., & Stedrak, L. J. (2013). Online education and contingent faculty: An exploratory analysis of issues and challenges for higher education administrators. Educational Considerations, 40(3), 30-33.
  24. Papert, S. (2006). Minding change. Human Development, 49(4), 239-247. doi:10.1159/000094373
  25. Picciano, A. G. (2015). Planning for online education: A systems model. Online Learning, 19(5), 142-158.
  26. Rienties, B., Brouwer, N., Bohle Carbonell, K., Townsend, D., Rozendal, A.-P., van der Loo, J.,. Lygo-Baker, S. (2013). Online training of TPACK skills of higher education scholars: a cross-institutional impact study. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 480-495. doi:10.1080/02619768.2013.801073
  27. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press.
  28. Sharpe, R., Benfield, G., & Francis, R. (2006). Implementing a university e-learning strategy: Levers for change within academic schools. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 14(2), 135-151.
  29. Silber, K. H. (2007). A principle-based model of instructional design: A new way of thinking about and teaching ID. Educational Technology, 47(5), 5-19.
  30. Smidt, E., McDyre, B., Bunk, J., Li, R., & Gatenby, T. (2014). Faculty attitudes about distance education. IAFOR Journal of Education, 2(2), 181-209.
  31. Soh, L., Shell, D. F., Ingraham, E., Ramsay, S., & Moore, B. (2015). Learning through computational creativity. Communications of the ACM, 58(8), 33-35. doi:10.1145/2699391
  32. Teachingonline.ca. (2012). A new pedagogy is emerging... and online learning is a key contributing factor. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/28W6nkf.
  33. Wing, J. M. (2006). CT. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215
  34. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725. doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

Source

Indexing and Abstracting

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Google Scholar Url for the Journal is not available