Mesleki ve Teknik Anadolu Lisesi Bilişim Teknolojileri Alanı 2018 ve 2020 Çerçeve Öğretim Programında yer alan Programlama Temelleri Dersinin karşılaştırmalı içerik analizine tutulduğu bu çalışmada nitel araştırma yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Araştırma yöntemi olarak doküman inceleme yönteminin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada veri analizinde içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Programlama Temelleri Dersi, Bilişim Teknolojileri Alanında programlamayla ilk tanışma ve sonraki programlama öğrenimlerinde de önemli bir ders olarak görülmektedir. Analiz sonucunda 2018 öğretim programında yirmi kazanım olduğu görülürken 2020 öğretim programında ise yirmi dokuz kazanım olduğu görülmüştür. 2018 öğretim programında bilişim etiği ve bilgi güvenliği konuları yer alırken 2020 öğretim programında bu konulara yer verilmediği görülmüştür. Blok tabanlı programlama 2018 öğretim programında bulunmazken, 2020 öğretim programında yer aldığı görülmüştür. Yapılan değerlendirmeler sonucunda sonuç kısmında önerilere yer verilmiştir.
Keywords
Abstract
Qualitative research approach was adopted in this study, in which the Programming Primitives Course in the Vocational and Technical Anatolian High School Information Technologies Field 2018 and 2020 Framework Curriculum was subjected to comparative content analysis. In this study, in which document analysis method was used as a research method, content analysis was used in data analysis. Programming Fundamentals Course is seen as an important course in the first meeting with programming in the field of Information Technologies and in later programming learning. As a result of the analysis, it was seen that there were twenty acquisitions in the 2018 curriculum, while there were twenty-nine acquisitions in the 2020 curriculum. While IT ethics and information security issues were included in the 2018 curriculum, it was observed that these topics were not included in the 2020 curriculum. While block-based programming was not included in the 2018 curriculum, it was seen in the 2020 curriculum. As a result of the evaluations, suggestions are given in the conclusion part.
@article{2022,title={Bilişim Teknolojileri Alanının 2018 ve 2020 Çerçeve Öğretim Programındaki Programlama Temelleri Dersinin Karşılaştırmalı İçerik Analizi},abstractNode={
Mesleki ve Teknik Anadolu Lisesi Bilişim Teknolojileri Alanı 2018 ve 2020 Çerçeve Öğretim Programında yer alan Programlama Temelleri Dersinin karşılaştırmalı içerik analizine tutulduğu bu çalışmada nitel araştırma yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Araştırma yöntemi olarak doküman inceleme yönteminin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada veri analizinde içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Programlama Temelleri Dersi, Bilişim Teknolojileri Alanında programlamayla ilk tanışma ve sonraki programlama öğrenimlerinde de önemli bir ders olarak görülmektedir. Analiz sonucunda 2018 öğretim programında yirmi kazanım olduğu görülürken 2020 öğretim programında ise yirmi dokuz kazanım olduğu görülmüştür. 2018 öğretim programında bilişim etiği ve bilgi güvenliği konuları yer alırken 2020 öğretim programında bu konulara yer verilmediği görülmüştür. Blok tabanlı programlama 2018 öğretim programında bulunmazken, 2020 öğretim programında yer aldığı görülmüştür. Yapılan değerlendirmeler sonucunda sonuç kısmında önerilere yer verilmiştir.
1. Altın, R. (2021). Secondary school students’ programming and computational thinking skills: Traditional and interdisciplinary approaches to teaching programming Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi]. Ankara.
2. Altunçekiç, A., Yılmaz, Y., ve Üstündağ, M. (2017). Hayat boyu öğrenme kapsamında bilişim kurslarındaki kursiyerlerin eğilimleri. 11.Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Sempozyumu (ICITS 2017), Malatya.
3. Arawjo, I., Wang, C.-Y., Myers, A. C., Andersen, E., ve Guimbretière, F. (2017). Teaching programming with gamified semantics. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems,
4. Aydın, M. (2022). Programlama öğretimi için artırılmış gerçeklik tabanlı editörün geliştirilmesi, programlama ve transfer becerilerine etkisinin incelenmesi Trabzon Üniversitesi]. Trabzon.
5. Baldwin, L. P., ve Kuljis, J. (2001). Learning programming using program visualization techniques. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
6. Banerjee, D., Cronan, T. P., ve Jones, T. W. (1998). Modeling it ethics: A study in situational ethics. Mis Quarterly, 22(1), 31-60.
7. Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Visualization of programming (1. ed.) https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203078723-14/visualization-programmingmordechai-ben-ari
8. Bergin, T. J. (2007). A history of the history of programming languages. Communications of the ACM, 50(5), 69-74. https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/1230819.1230841
9. Beyer, C. (2019, 09.06.2022). A brief totally accurate history of programming languages. https://medium.com/commitlog/a-brief-totally-accurate-history-of-programming-languagesd2e2b09553f8
10. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal.
11. Burton, P. J., ve Bruhn, R. E. (2003). Teaching programming in the oop era. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(2), 111-114.
12. Busetto, L., Wick, W., ve Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and practice, 2(1), 1-10.
13. Busjahn, T., ve Schulte, C. (2013). The use of code reading in teaching programming. Proceedings of the 13th Koli Calling international conference on computing education research,
14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., ve Demirel, F. (2012). Örnekleme yöntemleri. In.
15. Camps, B. B. (2022, 17.07.2022). 11 most in-demand programming languages in 2022. https://bootcamp.berkeley.edu/blog/most-in-demand-programming-languages/
16. Čisar, S. M., Pinter, R., ve Radosav, D. (2011). Effectiveness of program visualization in learning java: A case study with jeliot 3. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 6(4), 668-680.
17. Costelloe, E. (2004). Teaching programming the state of the art. The Center for Research in IT in Education. Dept. of Computer Science Education. Dublin: Trinity College. Recuperado de http://www. scss. tcd. ie/disciplines/information_systems/crite/crite_web/publications/sources/programmingv1. pdf.
18. Çalışkan, B. (2019, 08.06.2022). Kısaca programlama dillerinin tarihi (yeniden paylaşım). https://blog.metu.edu.tr/e224336/2019/03/10/kisaca-programlama-dillerinin-tarihi-yeniden-paylasim/
19. Çamcan, A. (2019). Yazılım sektörünün ekonomiye katkısı: Türkiye örneği Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü].
20. Daly, T. (2011). Minimizing to maximize: An initial attempt at teaching introductory programming using alice. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 26(5), 23-30.
21. Dann, W. P., Cooper, S., ve Pausch, R. (2006). Learning to program with alice, brief edition. Prentice- Hall, Inc.
22. Darcan, E., ve Aydoğan, H. (2014). Bilişim etiği. In Siber etik (pp. 137-151). Adalet Yayınevi. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/EmirhanDarcan/publication/338533589_Cyber_Ethics/links/5e19ca5492851c8364c41ff9/Cyber-Ethics.pdf
23. Dasgupta, S. (2015). Block-based programming with scratch community data: A position paper. 2015 Ieee Blocks and Beyond Workshop (Blocks and Beyond), 97-98. ://WOS:000380879300024
24. Dasso, A., Funes, A., Riesco, D. E., Montejano, G. A., Peralta, M., ve Salgado, C. H. (2005). Teaching programming. I Jornadas de Educación en Informática y TICs en Argentina,
25. Demirer, V., ve Sak, N. (2016). Dünyada ve türkiye'de programlama eğitimi ve yeni yaklaşımlar. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(3), 521-546.
26. Ece, N. (2021, 09.06.2022). Programlama dili: İlk programlama dilleri ve tarihi. https://www.superprof.com.tr/blog/programlamanin-gecmisi-ve-dilleri/
27. Eddins, J. M. (1981). A brief history of computer-assisted instruction in music. College Music Symposium,
28. Ergashev, N. (2021). Methods of using visualized educational materials in teaching programming languages in technical universities. INNOVATION IN THE MODERN EDUCATION SYSTEM.
29. Ersoy, H., Madran, R. O., ve Gülbahar, Y. (2011). Programlama dilleri öğretimine bir model önerisi: Robot programlama. Akademik Bilişim, 11, 731-736.
30. Fidan, M. (2016). Bilişim etiği boyutlarına göre bilişim teknolojileri ve yazılım dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının incelenmesi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(4), 1641-1654.
31. Friedman, L. W. (1992). From babbage to babel and beyond: A brief history of programming languages. Computer Languages, 17(1), 1-17.
32. Günbayı, İ. (2019). Nitel araştırmada veri analizi: Tema analizi, betimsel analiz, İçerik analizi ve analitik genelleme. Retrieved 02.07.2022 from http://www.nirvanasosyal.com/h-392-nitel-arastirmada-verianalizi-tema-analizi-betimsel-analiz-icerik-analizi-ve-analitik-genelleme.html
33. Hermans, F., Stolee, K. T., ve Hoepelman, D. (2016). Smells in block-based programming languages. 2016 Ieee Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (Vl/Hcc), 68-72. ://WOS:000392158000012
34. Hohl, W., ve Hinds, C. (2014). Arm assembly language: Fundamentals and techniques. Crc Press.
35. Hyde, R. (2003). The art of assembly language (Vol. 75). No Starch Press San Francisco, CA, USA.
36. Irvine, K. R. (2003). Assembly language for intel-based computers. Citeseer.
37. Kabakcı, E. (2018, 08.06.2022). Programlama dillerinin tarihçesi ve gelişim süreci. https://emirhankabakci.com/programlama-dillerinin-tarihcesi/
38. Kak, A. (2009). Teaching programming. In.
39. Kalelioglu, F., ve Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners' perspective. Informatics in education, 13(1), 33-50.
40. Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to k-12 students: Code. Org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200-210.
41. Kieran, R., Garcia, D., Medina, M., Lewis, D., ve Herrera, L. (2020). Overcoming the lack of qualified computer programming teachers: A field experiment in belize. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 5(2), 1-9.
42. Kiesler, N. (2016). Teaching programming 201 with visual code blocks instead of vi, eclipse or visual studio - experiences and potential use cases for higher education. Edulearn16: 8th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, 3171-3179. ://WOS:000402955903032
43. Koracharkornradt, C. (2017). Tuk tuk: A block-based programming game. Proceedings of the 2017 Acm Conference on Interaction Design and Children (Idc 2017), 725-728. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3091990
44. Kukul, V., ve Gökçearslan, Ş. (2014). Scratch ile programlama eğitimi alan öğrencilerin problem çözme becerilerinin incelenmesi investigating the problem solving skills of students attended scratch programming course.
45. Kurihara, A., Sasaki, A., Wakita, K., ve Hosobe, H. (2015). A programming environment for visual block-based domain-specific languages. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Soft Computing and Software Engineering (Scse'15), 62, 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.452
46. Kyfonidis, C., Moumoutzis, N., ve Christodoulakis, S. (2017). Block-c: A block-based programming teaching tool to facilitate introductory c programming courses. Proceedings of 2017 Ieee Global Engineering Education Conference (Educon2017), 570-579. ://WOS:000405192300088
47. Kyfonidis, C., Moumoutzis, N., ve Christodoulakis, S. (2017). Block-c: A block-based programming teaching tool to facilitate introductory c programming courses. 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON),
48. Lahtinen, E. (2006). Integrating the use of visualizations to teaching programming. Proceedings of the conference Methods, Materials and Tools for Programming Education,
49. Lestal, J. (2020, 09.06.2022). History of programming languages. https://devskiller.com/history-of- programming-languages/
50. Lopez, J. M. S., ve Gutierrez, R. C. (2017). Computational thinking and visual programming through blocks in the elementary school classroom. Educar, 53(1), 129-146. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.841
51. Malkoç, B. (2012). Temel bilimler ve mühendislik eğitiminde programlama dili olarak python. XIV. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı Bildirileri, 201.
52. MEB. (2022a). Çerçeve öğretim programları. Retrieved 06.06.2022 from http://meslek.eba.gov.tr/?p=Ogretim-Programi&tur=mtal
53. MEB. (2022b). Ders bilgi formları. Retrieved 06.06.2022 from http://meslek.eba.gov.tr/?p=Ders-Bilgi- Formu&tur=mtal
54. Milne, I., ve Rowe, G. (2002). Difficulties in learning and teaching programming—views of students and tutors. Education and Information technologies, 7(1), 55-66.
55. Mladenović, M., Žanko, Ž., ve Aglić Čuvić, M. (2021). The impact of using program visualization techniques on learning basic programming concepts at the k–12 level. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 145-159.
56. Mohamad, S. N. H., Patel, A., Latih, R., Qassim, Q., Na, L., ve Tew, Y. (2011). Block-based programming approach: Challenges and benefits. Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics,
57. Moors, L., Luxton-Reilly, A., ve Denny, P. (2018). Transitioning from block-based to text-based programming languages. 2018 International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTICE),
58. Myers, B. A. (1986). Visual programming, programming by example, and program visualization: A taxonomy. ACM sigchi bulletin, 17(4), 59-66.
59. Namlı, N. A., ve Şahin, M. C. (2017). Algoritma eğitiminin problem çözme becerisi üzerine etkisi. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(5), 135-153.
60. O'Kelly, J., ve Gibson, J. P. (2006). Robocode & problem-based learning: A non-prescriptive approach to teaching programming. Proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education,
61. Özdemir, S. (2019). Lisans öğrencilerinin bilişim etiği konusundaki tutumlarının incelenmesi Ufuk Üniversitesi]. İstanbul.
62. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books, Inc.
63. Parlak, B. (2017). Dijital çağda eğitim: Olanaklar ve uygulamalar üzerine bir analiz. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(Kayfor 15 Özel Sayısı), 1741-1759.
64. Patel, K., Duval, M. A., Shipp, A. R., Knoll, A., ve Scott, P. H. (2010). Building blocks of cf: An education program for newly diagnosed cf patients and families. Pediatric Pulmonology, 457-457.
65. Price, T. W., ve Barnes, T. (2017). Position paper: Block-based programming should offer intelligent support for learners. 2017 Ieee Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B), 65-68.
66. Rafuls, S. E. (1997). Qualitative research methods. Research in counseling & therapy, 65-67.
67. Robins, A., Rountree, J., ve Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer science education, 13(2), 137-172.
68. Rudder, A., Bernard, M., ve Mohammed, S. (2007). Teaching programming using visualization. Proceedings of the Sixth IASTED International Conference on Web-Based Education,
69. Rusch, R. B. (1969). Computers: Their history and how they work. Simon & Schuster
70. Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M., ve Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in education, 10(1), 73-88.
72. Swacha, J., ve Muszyńska, K. (2011). Python and c#: A comparative analysis from students’ perspective. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio AI, Informatica, 11(1).
73. Sykes, E. R. (2007). Determining the effectiveness of the 3d alice programming environment at the computer science i level. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 223-244.
74. Technology, N. (2022). Top 10 programming languages in 2022. https://nexttechnology.io/top-10- programming-languages-for-2022/
75. thussong. (2015, 09.06.2022). Programming languages through the years. https://www.thesoftwareguild.com/blog/history-of-programming-languages/
76. Tillmann, N., Moskal, M., De Halleux, J., Fahndrich, M., Bishop, J., Samuel, A., ve Xie, T. (2012). The future of teaching programming is on mobile devices. Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education,
77. Turto, T. (2008). Building blocks for a web programming language. Proceedings of the 34th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, 310-317. https://doi.org/10.1109/Seaa.2008.15
78. Vihavainen, A., Paksula, M., ve Luukkainen, M. (2011). Extreme apprenticeship method in teaching programming for beginners. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education,
79. Wach, E., ve Ward, R. (2013). Learning about qualitative document analysis. Institute of Development Studies. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/2989
80. Wang, D. L., Zhang, Y., Gu, T. Y., He, L., ve Wang, H. A. (2012). E-block: A tangible programming tool for children. Adjunct Proceedings of the 25th Annual Acm Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, 71-72. ://WOS:000325072100028
81. Wang, T., Mei, W., Lin, S., Chiu, S., ve Lin, J. M. (2009, 18-21 Oct. 2009). Teaching programming concepts to high school students with alice. 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
82. War, I. (1996). History of programming languages. In.
83. Weintrop, D. (2019). Block-based programming in computer science education. Communications of the ACM, 62(8), 22-25.
84. Weintrop, D., ve Wilensky, U. (2017). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 1-25.
85. Weintrop, D., ve Wilensky, U. (2018). How block-based, text-based, and hybrid block/text modalities shape novice programming practices. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 17, 83-92.
86. Wyeth, P. (2008). How young children learn to program with sensor, action, and logic blocks. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 517-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802395069
87. Xu, Z., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Tian, F., ve Umapathy, K. (2019). Block-based versus text-based programming environments on novice student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis study. Computer science education, 29(2-3), 177-204.
88. Yıldırım, A., ve Şimsek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri Seçkin Yayıncılık.
89. Yıldız, M., Çiftçi, E., ve Karal, H. (2017). Bilişimsel düşünme ve programlama. Eğitim teknolojileri okumaları, 75-86.
90. Yıldız, M., ve Kaya, Z. (2013). Meslek liselerindeki programlama temelleri dersi programının değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 359-368.
91. Zhang, J. X., Liu, L., de Pablos, P. O., ve She, J. (2014). The auxiliary role of information technology in teaching: Enhancing programming course using alice. The International journal of engineering education, 30(3), 560-565.