Browse > Article

Development of a scoring rubric based on Computational Thinking for evaluating students' computational artifacts in programming course  

Kim, Minja (고려대학교 컴퓨터 교육학과)
Yoo, Gilsang (고려대학교 정보대학 컴퓨터학과)
Ki, Hyeoncheol (고려대학교 정보대학 컴퓨터학과)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Association of Computer Education / v.20, no.2, 2017 , pp. 1-11 More about this Journal
Abstract
The demands of computer science education for non-majors in higher education is increasing but relevant evaluation tools for the students' computational artifacts are lack. This research aims to develop a scoring rubric to assess student's computational artifacts in non-major programming course at Computational Thinking point of view. The rubric was developed based on 'CT Practice Design Pattern' as a framework. The rubric consists of 'domain, skills, evaluation, evaluating resources, and scales'. Domains are 'Design of abstract model', 'Design and application of creative artifacts', and 'Analysis of the artifacts'. Experts reviewed the rubric to ensure contents validity. The rubric is resulted in reliable for consistency. This rubric can be revised and applied to application environment accordingly.
Keywords
Scoring rubric; Computational Thinking; Computer Science Education for non-majors; Computational artifacts;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 우호성, 김자미, 이원규 (2017). 해외 고등정보 표준교육과정 기반의 국내 대학 교육과정 비교 분석, 한국컴퓨터교육학회 논문지, 20(1), 27-38.
2 김민자, 김현철 (2016). 정보 교과 경험 차이에 따른 대학 전공 선택 및 SW수업 학업성취 분석, 한국컴퓨터교육학회 논문지, 19(3), 1-9.
3 김자미, 이원규 (2014). 영국의 교육과정 개정으로 본 정보교과의 지식과 문제해결력에 대한 쟁점, 한국컴퓨터교육학회 논문지, 17(3), 53-62.
4 Department for Education (2014). The national curriculum in England: Framework document, Department for Education.
5 김한성, 정혜진, 이원규 (2010). 한국과 일본의 고등학교 정보교과 교육과정 비교 연구, 비교교육연구, 20(4), 129-151.
6 김자미, 이원규 (2014). 브루너 이론에 근거한 인도의 정보교육과정 고찰, 한국컴퓨터교육학회, 17(6), 59-69.
7 김경훈, 이은경, 김영애, 양재명, 이영준, 김현철, 김재현, 배정이, 한건우, 박소영, 박종훈 (2015). 정보과 교육과정 시안 개발 연구 (연구보고 CRC 2015-17). 서울: 한국교육과정평가원.
8 Malan, D. (2017년 1월 5일). CS50. Retrieved from http://cs50.harvard.edu
9 임현석 (2014년 12월 12일). [세종대학교] 인문-과학 통섭교양과목.토론식 수업으로 창의인재 육성, 동아일보, 출처: http://news.donga.com
10 National Science Foundation (2017, January 5). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Retrieved from http://nsf.gov
11 미래창조과학부, 정보통신산업진흥원 (2016년 11월 17일). 소프트웨어 중심대학. 소프트웨어 중심사회. 출처: https://software.kr
12 Qualls, J. & Sherrell, L. (2010). Why Computational Thinking should be integrated into the curriculum, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), 66-71.
13 Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking; National Research Council (2011). Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of Computational Thinking, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
14 Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking; National Research Council (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of Computational Thinking. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
15 Wing, J. (2006). Computational Thinking, Communications of the ACM, Viewpoint, 49(3), 33-35.
16 Wing, J. (2008). Computational Thinking and thinking about computing, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society A, 366, 3717-3725.   DOI
17 Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner., L. (2010). Computational thinking for youth in practice, ACM Inroads, 2(1), 33-37.
18 Computing at School Working Group (2012). Computer Science: A curriculum for schools, Computing at School.
19 Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). 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.   DOI
20 CSTA & ISTE (2011). Computational Thinking in K-12 education - teacher resources, 2nd edition, CSTA & ISTE.
21 이영준, 백성혜, 신재홍, 유헌창, 정인기, 안상진, 최정원, 전성균 (2014). 초중등 단계 Computational Thinking 도입을 위한 기초 연구, 한국과학창의재단.
22 Denning, P. & Martell, C. (2015). Great principles of computing, The MIT Press.
23 성태제 (2014). 문항제작 및 분석의 이론과 실제 (개정판). 서울: 학지사.
24 Josson, A. & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences, Educational Research Review, 2(2007), 130-144.   DOI
25 Reddy, Y. & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435-448.   DOI
26 Bienkowski, M., Snow, E., Rutstein, D., & Grover, S. (2015). Assessment design patterns for computational thinking practices in secondary computer science: A first look (SRI technical report). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
27 최형신 (2014). 로봇활용교육의 효과성 검증을 위한 평가도구 개발: 사회.문화적 맥락 및 컴퓨팅 사고 연계, 한국정보교육학회 논문지, 18(4), 541-548.
28 Brennan, K. & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking, Paper presented at annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
29 Bort, H. & Brylow, D. (2013). CS4Impact: Measuring Computationl Thinking concepts present in CS4HS participants lesson plans, Proceedings in SIGCSE 2013, March 6-9, Denver, Colorado, USA.
30 최형신 (2014). Computational Thinking 역량 개발을 위한 수업 설계 및 평가 루브릭 개발, 한국정보교육학회 논문지, 18(1), 57-64.
31 Sherman, M. & Martin, F. (2015). The assessment of mobile computational thinking, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 30(6), 53-59.
32 Josson, A. & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences, Educational Research Review, 2(2007), 130-144.   DOI
33 Moskal, B. & Leydens, K. (2000). Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability, Practical Assessment, Research & Education, 7(10), Retrieved September 19, 2016 from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=10.
34 Reddy, Y. & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(4), 435-448.   DOI
35 한건우, 이은경, 이재희, 이영준 (2006). 학습자 중심 루브릭을 적용한 수행평가가 학습동기와 학업성취도에 미치는 영향, 한국컴퓨터교육학회 논문지, 9(4), 1-8.