PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(4) 142-156

Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) Model Approach for Teaching Programming Skills

Zafer Güney

pp. 142 - 156   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.203.11   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1905-17-0004

Published online: August 02, 2019  |   Number of Views: 40  |  Number of Download: 54


Abstract

The need for methods, techniques and approaches that we can develop high-level thinking skills in important activities increases day by day in order to achieve effective use of technology and change in information and communication technologies. In particular, the diversity, complexity of technical skills and to gain technical skills required to be learned in schools and through applications in industry is important. Teaching the programming as a technical skill during instructional design process (ID) and how effective and meaningful teaching can be taught is an important problem. Thus, instructional design models have been developed for the solution of learning problems in systemic, systematic and appropriate learning conditions and especially for the development of technical skills (van Merriënboer (1997). The instructional design model (4C/ID) activity mentioned here can be used for teaching the importance of instructional and technological stages by combining and supporting another multimedia project design, development and evaluation model. This study presents technical skills only by pointing to the future developers and designers of programming that an instructional design approach can be used to develop other programming skills. In addition, through ten steps proposed for complex learning (van Merriënboer & Kirschner 2007) and steps in achieving complex cognitive, high-level, algorithm based limited  coding, technical skills, it is to provide a new different approach to program developers, instructors and designers by planning and discussing the design of the process within a basic frame as to be in four stages (van Merriënboer & Kirschner 2007). The purpose of this study is to adapt the principles of the model for teaching technical skills by using four-component instructional design model (4C/ID) within software programming. In this study, theoretical framework for teaching complex technical skills, learning theories and problem solving in programming are given. The relationships between components of 4C/ID model presented for teaching programming skills. At the end of study, the ID model components and their applications for future programming skills were indicated.

Keywords: Instructional Design, Programming, Learning Technical Skills


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Guney, Z. (2019). Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) Model Approach for Teaching Programming Skills . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(4), 142-156. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.203.11

Harvard
Guney, Z. (2019). Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) Model Approach for Teaching Programming Skills . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(4), pp. 142-156.

Chicago 16th edition
Guney, Zafer (2019). "Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) Model Approach for Teaching Programming Skills ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (4):142-156. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.203.11.

References
  1. Akçay, A., & Çoklar, A. N. (2016). Bilişsel becerilerin gelişimine yönelik bir öneri: Programlama eğitimi. Eğitim Teknolojieri Okumaları. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akpınar, Y. & Altun, A. (2014). Bilgi toplumu okullarında programlama eğitimi gereksinimi. Elementary Education Online, 13(1), 1-4. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ambrosio, A. P., Costa, F. M., Almeida, L., Franco, A., & Macedo, J. (2011). Identifying cognitive abilities to improve CS1 outcome. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2011. [Google Scholar]
  4. Amorim, C. (2005).  Beyond Algorithmic Thinking: An Old New Challenge for Science Education, Eighth International History, Philosophy, Sociology & Science Teaching Conference, July 15 to July 18, 2005, University of Leeds, England [Google Scholar]
  5. Branch, R. M.& Dousay, T. A. (2015). Survey of instructional design models, Fifth edition, Indiana, AECT. [Google Scholar]
  6. Byrne, P. & Lyons, G. (2001). The effect of student attributes on success in programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(3), 49-52. [Google Scholar]
  7. Clements, D. H. & Gullo, D. F. (1984). Effects of computer programmimg on young children’s cognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1051-1058. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th Ed.). New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.. [Google Scholar]
  9. Doğanay, A. (2007). Üst Düzey Düşünme Becerilerinin Öğretimi, A. Doğanay (Ed.) Öğretim İlke ve Yöntemleri, Ankara, Pegem Akademi. Yayı. [Google Scholar]
  10. Driscoll, M. & Dick, W. (1999). New research paradigm in instructional technology: An inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 17-18. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 179-186. [Google Scholar]
  12. Erdoğan, B. (2005). Programlama başarısı ile akademik başarı, genel yetenek, bilgisayara karşı tutum, cinsiyet ve lise türü arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ertürk, S. (1972) Eğitimde Program Geliştirme. Ankara, Yelkentepe Yay. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gülmez, I. (2009). Programlama öğretiminde görselleştirme araçlarının kullanımının öğrenci başarı ve motivasyonuna etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hostetler, T. R. (1983). Predicting student success in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 15(3), 40-43. [Google Scholar]
  17. İpek, İ. (2001). Bilgisayarla öğretim: Tasarım, geliştirme ve Yöntemler. Ankara: Tıp ve Teknik Kitapevi Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  18. İpek, İ. (2002). Öğretim Tasarımı Sistemlerinde Gelişmeler, Yaklaşımlar ve Öğretim Teknolojisinde İlerlemeler. XI. Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresi, 23-26 Ekim 2002 Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi, Lefkoşa, KKTC. [Google Scholar]
  19. İpek, İ. (2004). Karmaşık Bilişsel Teknik Becerilerin Öğretilmesi Sürecinde Öğretim Programı Tasarımı: Dört Ögeli-Öğretim Tasarım Modeli. IV. International Educational Technologies Symposium. 24-26 November, 2004. Sakarya University. Sakarya.  [Google Scholar]
  20. Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (2008a). Educational Technology, “A definition with Commentary”, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  21. Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (2008b). Definition. In A.Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational Technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism vs. Constructivism. Do we need a philisophical paradigm shift? Educational Technology Research  and Development. 39(3),5-14. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 75–86. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kirschner, P. A. & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Ten steps to complex learning: A new approach to instruction and instructional design. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference handbook (pp. 244-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage http://web.mit.edu/xtalks/TenStepsToComplexLearning-Kirschner-Van Merriënboer.pdf)   [Google Scholar]
  25. Lau, W. W. F. & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Modeling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner characteristics. Computers & Education, 571(1), 1202-1213. [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nelson.T.O. (1999). Cognition Versus Metacognition, in;P.J. Sternberg(Ed), The Nature of Cognition, 625-641, Cambridge,MaA:MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Morrison, G. R. Ross S. M. & Kemp, J. E. (2001), Designing Effective Instruction. Michigan University, Wiley/Jossey-Bass education,  [Google Scholar]
  29. Newsted, P. R. (1975). Grade and ability predictions in an introductory programming course. ACM SIGCSE  Bulletin, 7(2), 87-91. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nowaczyk, R. H. (1983). Cognitive skills needed in computer programming. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 236466). [Google Scholar]
  31. Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional design (vol.2). Mahvah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  32. Robins, A. Rountree, J. & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137-172. [Google Scholar]
  33. Saygılı, G. (2010). Öğretim teknolojilerinin fen ve teknoloji dersinde kullanımının ilköğretim Öğrencilerinin problem çözme becerilerine öğrenme ve ders çalışma stratejilerine üst düzey düşünme becerilerine fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik tutumlarına ve ders başarısına etkisinin incelenmesi. Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir [Google Scholar]
  34. Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  35. Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sleeman, D., Putham, R. Baxter, J. & Kuspa, L. (1984). Pascal and high-school students: A study of  misconceptions. Technology panel study of stanford and the schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED258552). [Google Scholar]
  37. Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.  [Google Scholar]
  38. Smith P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  39. Türk Dil Kurumu, (2018) (Turkish Language Society) Türkçe Sözlük. Retrieved January 2018, fromhttp://tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_bilimsanat&view=bilimsanat&kategoriget=terim&kelimeget=d%C3%BC%C5%9F%C3%BCnme&hngget=md [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., and Paas, F. G. W. C. (1990). Automation and schema acquisition in learning elementary compute programming: Implications for the design of practice. Computers in human behavior 6.3  273-289. [Google Scholar]
  41. van Meriénboer, J.J.G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. [Google Scholar]
  42. van Meriénboer, J. J. G. ,Clarck, R. E. ve de Crook, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-Model. Educational Technology Research and Development.50(2), 39-64. [Google Scholar]
  43. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load of a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13. [Google Scholar]
  44. van Merriënboer, J. J. G. & Kirschner, P. A. K. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,  [Google Scholar]
  45. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147–177. [Google Scholar]
  46. Whipkey, K. L. (1984). Identifying predictors of programming skill. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 16(4), 36-42.  [Google Scholar]
  47. Winslow, L. E. (1996). Programming pedagogy – A psychological overview. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28(3), 17-22. [Google Scholar]