ISSN: 2222-6990
Open access
The purpose of this study was to examine the teachers’ concern towards applying computational thinking skills in their teaching and learning. This study used Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) to identify the Stages of Concern (SoC) of the respondents. The questionnaires used were 35 items that were measured using a Likert scale of 7 points. Questionnaires were distributed to all the teachers in a district in Sarawak, Malaysia. A total of 564 responds were collected in this study. The findings indicated that the respondents were at the Unconcerned Stage (Stage 0) with highest percentile score of 94%, followed by Informational Stage (Stage 1) and Management Stage (Stage 3). The findings also indicated that the respondents showed minimal concern but are interested and need more information on how to apply computational thinking skills in teaching and learning. The findings of this study are expected to assist the concern and the ministry to improve the delivery of information concerning computational thinking skills in teaching and learning to the teachers.
Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: implications for teacher knowledge. Educational Technology & Society 19(3):47–57.
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking in compulsory education – Implications for policy and practice; EUR 28295 EN; doi:10.2792/792158
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research. Edisi ke-4. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2013). Measuring implementation in schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Grover, S. & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res 42(1):38-43.
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C., & Dossett, W. F. (1973). A Developmental Conceptualization of the Adoption Process Within Educational Institutions. Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
Holloway, K. (2003). A Measure of Concern. Dlm. Holloway, K. (pnyt.). Tools For Schools. hlm. 1-8. Ohio: National Staff Development Council.
Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M. & Reese, G. (2014). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: a cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education 82:263-279.
Loucks, S. F. (1983). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): Series Paper (Number 2). North Carolina: Technical Assistance Development System (TADS).
Matar, N. (2015). Evaluating e-learning system use by CBAM-stages of concern methodology in Jordanian universities. World of Computer Science and Information Technology Journal 5(5):75-81.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2016). Panduan Pelaksanaan Modul Teknologi Maklumat dan Komunikasi. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2017). Kempen Hour of Code. Putrajaya: Bahagian Teknologi Pendidikan.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2018). Kempen Hour of Code. Putrajaya: Bahagian Teknologi Pendidikan.
Mohaghegh, M. & McCauley, M. (2016). Computational thinking: the skill set of 21st century. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies 7(3):1524-1530.
Roselita Ali@Yusof, Jamaludin Badusah, Aliza Alias & Roshdi Said. (2017). Keprihatinan guru terhadap pendekatan belajar melalui bermain dalam pengajaran bahasa Malaysia berdasarkan model penerimaan berasaskan keprihatinan. Journal of Advanced Research in Social and Behavioural Sciences 6(1):31-40.
Sharifah Nor Puteh, Nor Adibah Ghazali, Mohd Mahzan Tamyis & Aliza Ali. (2012). Keprihatinan guru Bahasa Melayu dalam melaksanakan kemahiran berfikir secara kritis dan kreatif. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Melayu 2(2):19-31.
Sultana, N. (2015). Application of Concern Based Adoption Model (CBAM) for launching the information technology based teacher education programme at AIOU. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities 4(3):153-166.
Tan, Y. L. & Lee, L. W. (2015). Profil tahap keprihatinan guru terhadap inovasi Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Rendah (KSSR) berdasarkan model Concern-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik 3(3):1-21.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P. & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: towards an agenda for research and practice. Educ Inf Technol 20:715-728.
Wang, W. (2014). Teachers’ stages of concern and levels of use of a curriculum inovation in China: a case study. International Journal of English Language Teaching 1(1):22-31.
Wientrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. J Sci Educ Technol 25(1):127-147.
Wing, J. M. (2017). Computational thinking’s in?uence on research and education for all.
Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 7-14. doi: 10.17471/2499-
In-Text Citation: (Senin & Nasri, 2019)
To Cite this Article: Senin, S., & Nasri, N. M. (2019). Teachers’ Concern towards Applying Computational Thinking Skills in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(1), 296–310.
Copyright: © 2018 The Author(s)
Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode