Abstract
Previous research proved that teaching spreadsheeting from a programming perspective is much more effective than the widely accepted tool-centered surface approach methods. Spreadsheeting as an introductory programming approach allows students to build up schemata leading to contextualized, concept-based problem-solving. Furthermore, it provides tools for real-world problem-solving in other disciplines, and supports knowledge-transfer to database management and “serious” programming. The present study provides the details of a nationwide testing of Grades 7–10 students on how they evaluate their spreadsheet knowledge, which classroom activities form their self-assessment values, and the results of three spreadsheet tasks evaluated by the SOLO categories of understanding. The comparison reveals that most students’ spreadsheet knowledge is pre-structural. On the other hand, they assess themselves much higher, which is primarily based on the number of activities carried out in classes. Traces of conscious problem-solving and knowledge-transfer within the scope of spreadsheeting are hardly detectable, while knowledge brought from mathematics is recognizable. In general, we found proof that the pieces of knowledge remain unconnected, not allowing students to reach the relational level of understanding and build up long-lasting knowledge.
Highlights
IntroductionVarious names and numbers of classes (from 2009) have been assigned to the subject in the meantime (Table 1) [4,5,6,7], with only minor changes in the content, detailed in the frame curricula
Without schemata built up in the long-term memory, fast and slow thinking [64] cannot be applied effectively [81], which leads to erroneous spreadsheet documents [81,84], and to serious financial losses, both in human and machine resources [85]
The present study provides the details of the spreadsheet section of a nationwide testing of Grades 7–10 students in Hungary
Summary
Various names and numbers of classes (from 2009) have been assigned to the subject in the meantime (Table 1) [4,5,6,7], with only minor changes in the content, detailed in the frame curricula. A thorough analysis of the 2013 issues [8,9] revealed, on the one hand, that the same material should be taught regardless of the name of the school subject, while on the other hand, that the same amount of material should be taught regardless of the number of classes [10,11,12,13,14] assigned to the subject. The research revealed that the content of the frame curricula [8,9] is (1) oversized, even in the case of the largest number of classes, (2) loaded with a high number of ambiguous terms, (3) tool-centered, and (4) strictly divided into distinct subthemes. The research found that problem-solving is restricted to programming
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
