|
Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Learning Technology (ISSN: 2306-0212) |
Authors:
Ahmad Sarji Abdul Hamed1, Su Luan Wong2
, Mohd Zariat Abdul Rani 3, Mas Nida Md Khambari4, Nur Aira Abd Rahim5 and Priscilla Moses6
Abstract:
This qualitative study explores the multifaceted challenges and strategic approaches related to integrating computational thinking (CT) into Malaysia’s national curriculum, with a particular focus on its alignment with STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. Despite ongoing efforts to embed CT within the educational framework, significant obstacles persist. These include widespread misconceptions among educators about the nature and scope of CT, a critical shortage of specialized expertise, and an overemphasis on theoretical instruction, often at the expense of practical application. These barriers hinder the effective integration of CT, undermining both instructional quality and student engagement in STEM subjects. To address these challenges, the study identifies key strategies that can enhance the integration of CT into STEM education. Central to these strategies is the implementation of early and continuous professional development programs for educators, aimed at fostering a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of CT. Additionally, the adoption of practical, project-based learning modules is essential to bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and real-world STEM applications. Such initiatives are expected to create a more dynamic and engaging learning environment, enabling students to apply CT principles across various STEM disciplines. Future research should further explore strategies for equitable resource allocation to ensure that CT education is accessible to all students, regardless of geographic or socioeconomic factors. By addressing these critical areas, this study aims to lay a solid foundation for the effective integration of CT into Malaysia’s STEM education system, ultimately preparing students to thrive in an increasingly digital and complex world.
Keywords: Computational Thinking (CT), STEM Education, Curriculum Integration, Challenges and Integration Strategies
I. INTRODUCTION
Education systems worldwide are undergoing transformative changes, driven by the integration of digital technologies and the increasing complexity of global challenges. At the forefront of this transformation is computational thinking (CT), a problem-solving approach rooted in computer science principles but applicable across disciplines. Computational thinking enables individuals to decompose complex problems, recognize patterns, abstract key elements, and devise logical, step-by-step solutions [1]. This skill set is vital not only in computer science but also in science, engineering, humanities, and social sciences [2].
Computational thinking is increasingly recognized as a cornerstone of modern education, fostering creativity, innovation, and analytical thinking. It equips students to address complex challenges and transition from passive technology users to active problem-solvers and innovators. As digital literacy becomes essential, computational thinking empowers learners to utilize technology meaningfully and effectively [3]. The relationship between computational thinking and STEM education is fundamental yet distinct.
While STEM encompasses disciplines requiring logical reasoning, systematic analysis, and innovative problem-solving, computational thinking provides a structured framework for approaching these challenges. The debate over whether CT is a subset of STEM or an essential enhancement to it is ongoing. Some scholars argue that computational thinking is an intrinsic component of STEM, particularly in engineering and computer science, where algorithmic problem-solving and modelling are central [4]. Others contend that CT extends beyond STEM, enhancing disciplines such as humanities and social sciences by promoting structured reasoning and analytical thinking [5]. Regardless, the integration of CT into STEM education strengthens students’ abilities to model complex systems, develop algorithms, and engage in data-driven decision-making, skills that are crucial for technological and scientific advancements [6].
Countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Singapore have embedded computational thinking into their STEM curricula, emphasizing its application beyond coding to foster broader problem-solving capabilities [7]. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in the United States, for example, explicitly incorporate computational thinking as a core practice in scientific inquiry and engineering design [8]. Similarly, Singapore’s education system integrates computational thinking into its national curriculum, ensuring students develop algorithmic reasoning and problem-solving skills from an early stage [9]. These global initiatives highlight the strategic importance of computational thinking in equipping students for a technology-driven future.
In Malaysia, the Ministry of Education has recognized computational thinking as a key enabler of the nation’s Vision 2020 and Vision 2030 strategies, which aim to build a knowledge-based economy through STEM education [10]. As outlined in the Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB) 2013–2025, efforts to embed computational thinking in the national curriculum have been initiated, particularly within STEM subjects [11]. However, significant challenges hinder its effective integration.
One of the primary barriers is insufficient teacher training. Many educators lack the necessary pedagogical and technical expertise to effectively teach computational thinking within STEM subjects [12]. This challenge is exacerbated by disparities in resources, particularly between urban and rural schools, which results in inequitable access to quality computational thinking education [13]. Additionally, resistance to pedagogical change among educators and administrators further slows adoption, as traditional teaching methods persist despite efforts to modernize curricula [14].
To address these challenges, Malaysia must adopt targeted strategies to ensure effective computational thinking integration within STEM education. Comprehensive professional development programs for educators are crucial, providing teachers with both content knowledge and pedagogical strategies to effectively incorporate CT into their teaching practices [14]. Additionally, curriculum redesigns that integrate computational thinking more cohesively into STEM subjects can facilitate its application in real-world problem-solving scenarios [15].
Project-based learning approaches have been identified as particularly effective in bridging the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. By engaging students in hands-on, computational thinking-based projects, educators can enhance student engagement and deepen their understanding of core STEM concepts [14]. Furthermore, increasing access to technology and digital resources in underserved areas can help mitigate urban-rural disparities, ensuring that all students benefit from computational thinking education [16].
By addressing these challenges and reinforcing the integration of computational thinking into STEM education, Malaysia can develop a more inclusive, future-ready education system. This alignment benefits not only individual learners but also supports the nation’s aspirations for a knowledge-based, innovative economy. Computational thinking thus serves as a critical enabler of national educational and economic objectives, ensuring that students are prepared to navigate and contribute to an increasingly complex global landscape. Strengthening theoretical foundations and strategic policy implementation will be key to realizing Malaysia’s vision of a digitally competent, problem-solving generation.
RQ1: What are the primary challenges in integrating computational thinking into the Malaysian national curriculum, as perceived by educational experts?
RQ2: What practical strategies do Malaysian educational experts recommend to address these challenges and enhance the integration of computational thinking into the educational system?
II. METHODOLOGY
This study employed a qualitative research approach to investigate the multifaceted dimensions of computational thinking (CT) within the context of Malaysian education. Qualitative methods were selected to capture in-depth, nuanced insights into the complexities surrounding the integration of CT, particularly as these methods are well-suited for exploring intricate phenomena in education [17].
Purposive sampling was employed to select participants with significant experience within the Malaysian education system. To ensure that the insights gathered were both relevant and grounded in substantial professional expertise, participants were required to meet multiple selection criteria beyond having at least 10 years of experience in the field. Specifically, they had to demonstrate expertise in computational thinking through one or more of the following: (1) active engagement in CT-related research, (2) involvement in teaching CT components at the primary, secondary, or tertiary levels, and (3) contributions to curriculum development focusing on CT integration. Participants were selected from diverse backgrounds, including educational technology, computer science education, STEM education, and pedagogy, ensuring a broad range of perspectives on CT implementation.
The sample size was determined by data saturation, defined as the point at which no new significant information emerged from the interviews, thereby ensuring comprehensive coverage of the topic [18; 19]. Given the complexity of CT integration in Malaysian education, the selection of experts from varied fields allowed for the inclusion of multiple viewpoints, capturing both macro-level policy considerations and micro-level classroom implementation challenges. This approach ensured that the study provided a holistic understanding of the topic, supporting the sufficiency of the sample size in representing diverse professional perspectives.
The primary data collection method was semi-structured interviews, chosen for their flexibility and depth in eliciting rich, detailed narratives from participants. The theoretical underpinning of semi-structured interviews aligns with interpretivist research paradigms, which emphasize understanding social phenomena through the subjective experiences of individuals [20]. This approach allowed for a dynamic and interactive exchange, facilitating a deeper exploration of the challenges and opportunities associated with CT integration in the Malaysian educational system.
To ensure consistency across interviews, the questions were developed through a rigorous process grounded in literature on computational thinking, qualitative research methodologies, and expert consultations. The interview protocol was designed to cover two key areas: (1) the challenges of integrating CT into the Malaysian educational system and (2) the practical strategies to address these challenges. Questions were formulated using an open-ended structure to allow participants to elaborate on their experiences and insights while also enabling the interviewer to probe further into emerging themes [20]. A pilot interview was conducted with an expert outside the participant pool to refine question clarity, coherence, and relevance.
To enhance the credibility and reliability of findings, several validation strategies were employed. First, triangulation was implemented by cross-referencing responses with existing literature and policy documents on CT integration. Second, member checking was conducted, wherein participants were given the opportunity to review and validate their interview transcripts to ensure accuracy in capturing their perspectives. Third, inter-coder reliability was established through multiple researchers independently coding the data and comparing interpretations to ensure consistency and minimize bias [20].
The data collected through these interviews were rigorously analyzed to identify recurring themes and patterns in the participants’ perspectives. To facilitate a systematic analysis, Burnard’s framework in Table I [21] was applied, which enabled a detailed documentation of the emerging themes and issues. This approach provided structure and organization to the data analysis process, ensuring the findings were thoroughly grounded in participants’ experiences and perspectives.
In conducting the analysis, we were mindful that “immaculate perception” is unattainable and that all research findings are subject to interpretation [22]. We acknowledge that the outcomes of this study could vary if conducted by different researchers, with different participants, in a different context, or at another time. This recognition reflects the inherent subjectivity of qualitative research, as emphasized by [23], who argue that there are multiple realities and interpretations of the same phenomena. Our analysis was therefore guided by an understanding that research findings are not absolute truths, but rather interpretations shaped by the context, the researchers, and the participants.
| Stage | Description |
|---|---|
| Data Familiarization | The interview transcripts were read multiple times to fully understand the content. |
| Open Coding | Significant phrases or sentences were identified and coded. |
| Category Formation | The codes were grouped into broader categories representing underlying themes. |
| Developing Themes | The refined categories were synthesized into overarching themes that captured the essence of the respondents’ perspectives. |
| Final Synthesis and Reporting | A coherent narrative was constructed, integrating the identified themes. |
III. RESULT
The interview protocol focused on investigating the challenges associated with integrating computational thinking into the Malaysian national curriculum from the perspective of educational experts. Table II provides details on the respondents interviewed for this study.
| Demography information | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | Male | Female | Female | Female |
| Years of service | 13 years | 18 years | 11 years | 13 years | 15 years |
| Expertise | Edu. Tech, CT, ICT | ICT, Edu. Tech | Software Quality, CT | Chemistry in Edu, Edu. Tech, CT | ICT, CT, Educational Design |
A. Primary challenges in integrating computational thinking.
Through the analysis, several challenges emerged as significant barriers to the effective integration of CT into the Malaysian national curriculum. These challenges were categorized into three main themes:
1) Lack of understanding and misconceptions.
A significant number of teachers do not fully understand what CT entails, leading to widespread misconceptions. Many educators equate CT solely with computer skills, neglecting its broader application in problem-solving and critical thinking across disciplines. Respondents highlighted that despite numerous training sessions, a large percentage of teachers remain unclear about CT, with misconceptions persisting across the educational system:
Respondent 1: “The challenge in integrating CT, in my opinion, is that teachers themselves do not understand what computational thinking is. I am currently conducting a study related to CT, and I was very surprised when I did the interview with the teachers, I can say 90% of the teachers do not know and understand what CT is until today. After so many trainings, this issue still becomes the main challenge in our educational system.”
Respondent 2: “Some of the teachers who are teaching do not fully understand and embrace CT, making it difficult to incorporate CT elements into the teaching process in schools. The lack of teachers who are truly proficient in CT is the main challenge in its integration.”
Respondent 3: “In Malaysia, we still face the biggest challenge, which is the misconception about CT among educators. Teachers in schools still think that CT only focuses on computer skills.”
Respondent 4: “Actually, the concept of CT is present in every course outline in every subject taught in schools, but teachers are not clear on how to incorporate the concept of CT into their subjects.”
Respondent 5: “The challenge of integrating CT into education in Malaysia is that the teachers themselves do not really understand what CT is. It’s not because the teachers in schools are not competent, but the main reason is that they have not been given good and continuous exposure to the concept and application of CT in the teaching and learning process in schools.”
2) Scarcity of expertise and resources.
There is a scarcity of experts in the field of CT, along with a lack of clear guidelines and reference materials for teachers. This shortage of resources makes it difficult to standardize the integration of CT across different subjects and schools. Respondents pointed out that the lack of experts in CT as reference sources exacerbates the problem, as teachers do not have adequate support when encountering difficulties in applying CT:
Respondent 2: “When we implement CT, the main problem is the lack of experts in the field of CT as a reference when we face situations or difficulties in integrating CT into the teaching and learning process in schools.”
Respondent 3: “We still have very few experts in the field of CT to spread the true concept of CT in teaching and learning to teachers in schools. There are no reference sources for teachers if they encounter problems in applying CT in the subjects they teach.”
Respondent 4: “When we talk about computational thinking, the biggest challenge for me is that we still do not have clear guidelines to measure CT. That is, we still do not have clear reference sources for teachers to use if they face problems when applying CT in their teaching.”
Respondent 5: “It’s not because the teachers in schools are not competent, but the main reason is that they have not been given good and continuous exposure to the concept and application of CT in the teaching and learning process in schools. This lack of exposure makes it difficult for them to integrate CT into the classroom.”
3) Overemphasis on theoretical knowledge.
The current integration of CT in schools is heavily skewed towards theoretical knowledge, with limited opportunities for practical, hands-on learning. This imbalance hinders students’ and teachers’ ability to fully grasp and apply CT concepts. Respondents expressed concern that CT is often taught at a theoretical level, with insufficient emphasis on project-based learning or practical activities that could enhance understanding and engagement:
Respondent 2: “The exposure to CT in school subjects at this time is seen only at the theoretical level, with less emphasis on training and practice. CT should be more about practicality, not just theory.”
Respondent 4: “Currently in schools, CT is only integrated theoretically into computer science subjects, and this becomes a challenge for us to integrate CT into all subjects across disciplines.”
B. Recommended strategies for enhancing integration.
The respondents offered several strategies to address the identified challenges, which were categorized into two main themes:
1) Early and continuous CT education for teachers.
To effectively integrate CT, respondents recommended that CT education should begin early in teacher training programs and continue throughout their careers. This approach would ensure that teachers are well-prepared to apply CT concepts in their classrooms. Respondents emphasized the importance of instilling CT concepts in teachers during their initial training, enabling them to confidently integrate CT into various subjects and mentor others:
Respondent 1: “To better and more comprehensively integrate CT, I believe that the concept of CT needs to be instilled in teachers from the time they are in training. Before they are posted, they need to understand all the concepts and applications of CT in their respective fields. It is very important so we can attack the problem from the beginning and the new generation of teachers can improve and implement their knowledge very well. Not only that, they can also become agents in spreading knowledge related to CT in their respective schools and help senior teachers integrate CT into teaching and learning.”
Respondent 3: “Additional training for current teachers and continuous training for prospective teachers is a good strategy to ensure the successful integration of CT. The practical implementation of CT concepts in school activities can also help teachers and students understand each com-ponent of CT more effectively.”
Respondent 4: “Continuous courses or training related to CT should be provided to school teachers. The government needs to produce experts in the field of CT to assist teachers in schools as a reference in the process of integrating CT into the curriculum.”
Respondent 5: “To integrate CT into the existing curriculum is actually not difficult and does not require a lot of funding. We can utilize existing teacher training centers such as IPG and universities that offer education courses. Teachers need to be educated to understand and apply CT starting at the training center, and then they will bring CT knowledge to the school level. From there, we can make alignments that are consistent with current needs.”
2) Development of Practical, Project-Based Learning Modules.
A shift from theoretical to practical learning was recommended to make CT more engaging and applicable for students. Project-based learning, game-based learning, and real-world problem-solving activities were identified as effective methods for teaching CT. Respondents called for the integration of practical activities in the curriculum that highlight CT values and make learning more dynamic and interactive:
Respondent 2: “The application of CT at the school level also needs attention, where activities and the integration of CT should not only be theoretical, but more project-based learning and practical activities should be implemented so that students can better understand and delve into the concept of CT.”
Respondent 3: “The practical implementation of CT concepts in school activities can also help teachers and students understand each component of CT more effectively. Teachers should not be afraid to practice CT in activities because engaging in real-world activities will make students more interested in and ultimately proficient in CT.”
The findings highlight significant barriers to effectively integrating CT into the Malaysian national curriculum. Teachers’ misunderstandings and misconceptions about CT, coupled with a shortage of expertise and resources, are key challenges that hinder its implementation. Moreover, the current focus on theoretical knowledge leaves little room for practical application, making it difficult for both teachers and students to truly engage with CT concepts. To overcome these hurdles, educational experts suggest that CT education should start early in teacher training and continue throughout their careers. They also advocate for a shift towards more hands-on, project-based learning, which would make CT more relata-ble and useful in real-world contexts. By addressing these issues, the goal is to build a stronger foundation for CT in the education system, enabling teachers and students alike to fully embrace and apply these skills across different subjects.
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The integration of CT into the Malaysian education system reflects global trends and challenges, particularly in the realm of STEM education. CT is increasingly recognized as a foundational 21st century skill critical for fostering analytical reasoning, problem-solving, and innovation. However, substantial barriers persist, including widespread misconceptions among educators, a lack of expertise and resources, and an overemphasis on theoretical instruction. Addressing these obstacles is essential to ensure CT’s effective integration into STEM education, where it can significantly enhance learning outcomes and equip students with the skills needed for a technology-driven world.
One of the primary obstacles to integrating CT into STEM education in Malaysia is the prevalent misunderstanding of CT among educators. Despite numerous training sessions aimed at introducing CT concepts, many teachers perceive it narrowly as a subset of computer skills rather than as a comprehensive framework for problem-solving and critical thinking. This limited perspective undermines CT’s potential to enrich STEM learning by enabling students to model, simulate, and analyze real-world phenomena.
Interview findings reveal a pattern of uncertainty among teachers regarding CT’s applicability beyond coding and programming. Many educators expressed the view that CT is synonymous with computer science rather than a broader set of cognitive skills applicable across disciplines. This aligns with findings from previous studies that highlight similar misconceptions among educators globally. For example, [4] emphasizes CT’s interdisciplinary nature, which extends beyond computer science to various domains, including STEM disciplines. Similarly, studies by [1] and [2] note that educators often fail to recognize CT’s broader relevance, thereby missing opportunities to effectively integrate it into STEM instruction.
The Malaysian context further exacerbates this issue due to a lack of clear policy direction on CT implementation in non-computer science subjects. Interview data indicate that while some educators recognize the potential of CT in subjects such as mathematics and science, they struggle to translate abstract CT concepts into tangible learning activities. This gap suggests a need for targeted professional development programs that explicitly connect CT principles to STEM pedagogy.
Another significant challenge is the scarcity of well-defined resources and guidelines for integrating CT into STEM education. Educators often struggle to align CT principles with STEM curricula due to a lack of instructional materials designed to bridge the two. This issue is highlighted as a global challenge [4], which is particularly relevant in Malaysia. Without clear frameworks and specialist support, educators are left to navigate the complex task of embedding CT into STEM lessons independently, leading to inconsistent application across schools.
Interview findings highlight disparities in access to CT resources between urban and rural schools. Teachers in well-funded schools reported having access to coding platforms, robotics kits, and interactive simulations, whereas those in rural areas cited a lack of basic digital infrastructure as a key barrier. This trend is consistent with studies by [13], which indicate that unequal access to resources exacerbates challenges for STEM educators, undermining efforts to provide equitable learning opportunities.
Addressing these disparities through targeted interventions, such as providing STEM teachers with CT toolkits, reference materials, and access to professional development, can significantly enhance the quality and consistency of CT integration within STEM education. Several interview participants suggested that national-level initiatives should prioritize funding for rural schools and offer mobile learning units to bridge digital divides. This aligns with recommendations in global studies that emphasize the importance of infrastructure investment to support STEM and CT education [12].
The current CT education framework in Malaysia often emphasizes theoretical knowledge, which limits its practical application within STEM contexts. While a strong theoretical foundation is essential, it is insufficient for fostering the advanced problem-solving and analytical skills required in STEM fields. This imbalance restricts students’ ability to connect CT concepts to real-world STEM challenges, thereby diminishing its impact on fostering innovation and critical thinking [4].
Interview data reveal a consensus among educators that the existing STEM curriculum lacks sufficient hands-on applications of CT. Many teachers expressed a desire for project-based learning approaches that allow students to apply CT principles to practical STEM problems. These findings corroborate research suggesting that students learn CT more effectively when engaged in active problem-solving rather than passive instruction [14].
For STEM education to fully leverage CT, students need opportunities to engage in hands-on activities that bridge theory and practice. These activities could involve using CT concepts to design and test engineering prototypes, analyze scientific data, or develop algorithms to solve mathematical problems. Embedding CT within STEM-focused project-based learning can significantly enhance students’ ability to apply theoretical insights in practical settings, fostering a deeper and more integrated understanding of both CT and STEM principles [14].
To overcome these challenges, targeted strategies must focus on improving teacher training, providing practical resources, and fostering experiential learning within STEM contexts. First, comprehensive STEM teacher training programs should embed CT training into both pre-service and in-service education [4]. These programs must focus on practical applications of CT in STEM contexts, such as using simulations to teach physics or analyzing environmental data in biology. By equipping educators with hands-on experiences and collaborative learning opportunities, these programs can empower them to integrate CT into their lessons effectively [14].
Second, developing interdisciplinary STEM learning modules that incorporate CT principles can bridge the gap between theory and application. For example, students could use programming to simulate chemical reactions or analyze large datasets in environmental studies. Such project-based activities enable students to explore STEM concepts dynamically, applying CT principles to solve real-world problems [12].
Third, ensuring equitable access to CT resources in STEM education is crucial. Targeted funding, access to STEM-focused CT materials, and mentorship programs can reduce disparities between rural and urban schools, ensuring all students benefit from CT integration. Finally, leveraging technology to enhance STEM-CT integration is essential. Tools such as robotics, coding platforms, and virtual labs can provide students with engaging opportunities to apply CT principles within STEM education. These technologies facilitate interactive learning and help students visualize abstract STEM concepts through computational models and simulations [15].
The integration of CT into Malaysian STEM education has immense potential to transform teaching and learning by fostering critical thinking, problem-solving, and innovation. However, addressing misconceptions among educators, bridging resource gaps, and balancing theoretical and practical instruction are critical to achieving this goal. By implementing targeted strategies such as comprehensive teacher training, interdisciplinary modules, equitable resource distribution, and technology integration, Malaysia can harness CT’s full potential to enhance STEM education and prepare students for a technology-driven future. Interview findings confirm the persistence of structural barriers but also highlight promising opportunities for reform. By aligning policy efforts with global best practices and leveraging insights from educators, Malaysia can build a sustainable model for CT integration in STEM education that benefits all learners.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This study is supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS) of the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (FRGS/1/2023/SSI07/UPM/01/1). The assistance of the Research Management Center (RMC) of Universiti Putra Malaysia in coordinating and distributing fund for this research is greatly appreciated.
Reference
[1] Saari, E. M. & Hopkins, G. (2020). Computational thinking: Essential and pervasive toolset. Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 23-31.https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol10.1.3.2020
[2] Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2017). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in k-12 classrooms. Techtrends, 6(60), 565-568.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
[3] Lilly, S., McAlister, A. M., Fick, S. J., Chiu, J. L., & McElhaney, K. M. (2022). Elementary teachers’ verbal supports of science and engineering practices in an NGSS‐aligned science, engineering, and computational thinking unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21751
[4] Angeli, C., & Giannakos, M. N. (2020). Computational thinking education: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106185
[5] Magana, A. J. & Coutinho, G. S. (2016). Modeling and simulation practices for a computational thinking‐enabled engineering workforce. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(1), 62-78.https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21779
[6] Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum (MOE), (2017), Kemahiran Pemikiran Komputasional (Computational Thinking) Salah Satu Pembelajaran Abad Ke-21 yang Perlu Dikuasai Oleh Semua. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia
[7] Akil, W. N. H. & Matore, M. E. M. (2023). Shocking truths about three factors that influenced computational thinking (I wish I learned earlier!). International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 12(2).
http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i2/17205
[8] NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. National Academies Press.
[9] Seow, P., Looi, CK., How, ML., Wadhwa, B., Wu, LK. (2019). Educational Policy and Implementation of Computational Thinking and Programming: Case Study of Singapore. In: Kong, SC., Abelson, H. (eds) Computational Thinking Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_19
[10] Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025.
[11] Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2020). Vision 2030: Transforming Education in Malaysia.
[12] Mensan, T., Osman, K., & Majid, N. A. A. (2020). Development and validation of unplugged activity of computational thinking in science module to integrate computational thinking in primary science education. Science Education International, 31(2), 142-149. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i2.2
[13] Anuar, N. H., Mohamad, F. S., & Minoi, J. (2021). Art-integration in computational thinking as an unplugged pedagogical approach at a rural Sarawak primary school. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(14). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v11-i14/8328.
[14] Saad, A. (2020). Students’ computational thinking skill through cooperative learning based on hands-on, inquiry-based, and student-centric learning approaches. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 290-296. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080135.
[15] Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J. et al. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Educ Inf Technol 20, 715–728.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6
[16] Miller, J. (2019). STEM education in the primary years to support mathematical thinking: Using coding to identify mathematical structures and patterns. ZDM, 51(6), 915-927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01096-y
[17] Dorussen, H., Lenz, H., & Blavoukos, S. (2005). Assessing the reliability and validity of expert interviews. European Union Politics, 6(3), 315-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116505054835
[18] Coyne, I. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; Merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26(3), 623-630. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.t01-25-00999.x.
[19] Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63-75.
[20] Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing And Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd Ed.). SAGE Publications.
[21] Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse education today, 11(6), 461-466. http://doi.org/10.1016/0260-6917(91)90009-y.
[22] Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of The Field: On Writing Ethnography. University of Chicago Press.
[23] Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.
All authors contributed equally to this work.
The interview recording can be found on the IEEE TCLT YouTube Channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3GqPQanHlI).
Authors
Ahmad Sarji Abdul Hamed
is a PhD candidate in Educational Technology at Universiti Putra Malaysia, where he builds upon his academic background, having earned a Master’s degree in Education (Science) from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Previously, he worked as a Senior Engineer at Samsung SDI Malaysia, applying his technical expertise to industry challenges. He is now actively contributing to educational research as a Research Assistant, while also serving as a private tutor.
Su Luan Wong
received her Ph.D. in Educational Technology from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) in 2003. Her current research interests include interest-driven learning. Recognized for her active role as a scholar, she has been an Executive Committee Member of the Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education (APSCE) since 2006. In 2011, she established the Special Interest Group on the Development of Information and Communication Technology in the Asia-Pacific Neighborhood under APSCE to bridge the research gap between scholars from developing and developed countries. Her dedication to serving the Asia-Pacific research community culminated in her presidency of APSCE from 2016 to 2017.
Mohd. Zariat Abdul Rani
is an Associate Professor in the Department of Malay Language, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia. His area of specialisation is Malay Literature. He obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Education, Master of Arts in Malay Letters and Doctor of Philosophy in Malay Literature. In 2021, he led a team to develop UPM’s Micro-credentials guidelines.
Mas Nida Md Khambari
is an Associate Professor in Instructional Technologies and Learning Design at Universiti Putra Malaysia. She earned her PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 2014 and has been an active member of the APSCE Executive Committee since then. Her involvement includes work on teacher professional development and ICT in education. Mas Nida has received numerous awards, including the Putra InnoCreative Award (2019), Vice Chancellor Fellowship Award (2020), Outstanding Supervision Award (2023), and Early Career Researcher Award (2024) from APSCE.
Nur Aira Abd Rahim
completed her Doctoral degree from North Carolina State University, USA in 2017. She is currently a faculty member in the Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Malaysia. Her area of specialization is in adult education and adult learning. Her key research approach is in qualitative research methodologies. Her research area is mostly focusing on technology in adult learning in various contexts. She is also a member of PUTRA Future Classroom (PFC) of Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Priscilla Moses
earned her Ph.D. in Educational Technology from Universiti Putra Malaysia. She is a member of the American Psychological Association for 2024. Her expertise includes Educational Technology, Teaching and Learning, and Structural Equation Modelling.