Analyzing Elementary Student Experience on Software Education: Based on Computational Thinking Framework

컴퓨팅사고 프레임워크 기반 초등 소프트웨어교육 경험 분석

  • Received : 2019.07.23
  • Accepted : 2019.09.04
  • Published : 2019.10.31


The purpose of this study is to analyse of elementary student experience in software education based on computational thinking framework. A total of 27 students (5th grade) were interviewed who took software education during 4 months in A elementary school which located in Seoul. The findings revealed were as follows: First, the elementary learners were able to perform scratch projects and learn basic concepts for computing thinking. elementary students' studied basic concepts for computational thinking by the process of carrying out their Scratch project. Second, elementary learners were able to confirm the execution of computing accidents in the process of implementing scratch projects. Third, elementary students had change in creative expression and interactive connectivity in terms of learners' computing thinking. The result of this study is meaningful in that it analyzes the educational experience of elementary school students qualitatively and suggests the direction of software education for enhancing computing thinking ability.

본 연구에서는 초등학생의 소프트웨어교육 경험을 Brennan과 Resnick(2012)이 제안한 컴퓨팅사고 프레임워크를 토대로 개념, 수행, 관점 측면에서 체계적으로 분석하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 서울시 소재 A 초등학교 5학년 전체 학생을 대상으로 1학기 동안 스크래치를 활용한 소프트웨어교육을 실시하고, 소프트웨어교육 경험에 대한 인터뷰를 실시하였다. 인터뷰에는 총 27명의 학생이 자발적으로 참여하였으며, 그 내용을 분석한 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 초등 소프트웨어교육에서 학습자들은 직접 스크래치 프로젝트를 수행하며 컴퓨팅사고를 위한 기본적인 개념을 학습하는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 둘째, 초등 소프트웨어교육에서 학습자들은 스크래치 프로젝트를 구현하는 과정에서 컴퓨팅사고의 실행이 일어나는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 셋째, 초등 소프트웨어교육에서 스크래치 프로젝트를 통해 학습자들의 컴퓨팅사고 관점에서 창의적인 표현성과 상호작용적인 연결성의 변화가 있었음을 확인할 수 있었다. 본 연구의 결과는 초등학생의 소프트웨어교육 경험을 질적으로 분석하고 이를 통해 컴퓨팅사고력 증진을 위한 소프트웨어교육 방향을 제시하였다는 점에서 의의가 있다.



  1. Yoon, I. (2009). An Analysis of Logical thinking in Programing Education Based on Elementary Student Scratch Tasks. The Journal of Creative Informatics & Computing Education, 3(1), 1-7.
  2. The Korean ministry of Education (2015). General and Curriculum in Elementary and Secondary Education. Seoul: the ministry of Education.
  3. Seo, S. (2018). Analysis the status and effectiveness of Computer Science Education School in 2018. Seoul: KERIS.
  4. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
  5. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking in interactive media design. In annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
  6. Syslo, M. M., & Kwiatkowska, A. B. (2013, February). Informatics for all high school students. In International conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives (pp. 43-56). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  7. Choi, H. (2018). Domestic Literature Review on Computational Thinking Development through Software Programming Education. Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 734-774.
  8. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming : What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61.
  9. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38-43.
  10. Jeon, S. J. & Han, S. K. (2016). Descriptive Assessment Tool for Computational Thinking Competencies. The Journal of Creative Informatics & Computing Education, 20(3), 255-26
  11. Choi, H., Jeong, I., & So, H. (2014). Computational Thinking Framework-based Analysis of Afterschool Scratch Team Project Experiences. The Journal of Creative Informatics & Computing Education, 18(4), 549-558.
  12. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
  13. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. CA: Jossey-Bass.
  14. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191-215.