Sign of the Times
An Analysis of Computational Thinking in Norwegian, Finnish and Danish Curricula
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.5744Keywords:
curricula, problem-solving practices, computational thinking, transversal practices, algorithm practicesAbstract
This paper discusses the significance of school curricula in reflecting societal priorities and needs, focusing on the incorporation of computational thinking (CT) in Nordic national curricula. Our point of departure is that the preparedness of future generations for a digitally driven society can be determined by analysing how CT is either explicitly or implicitly framed in school curricula. Accordingly, this study examined the school curricula of Denmark, Finland, and Norway in terms of their similarities and differences in how they framed CT, as these countries have different approaches to the inclusion of CT. A framework for analysis that was grounded in influential works on CT in education was developed, focusing on problem-solving, algorithmic and transversal practices. National-level curricula were examined using a content analysis. Despite the differences in the approaches used in these countries, our findings indicate similarities across all three curricula, with an emphasis on how CT was framed.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Andersen, R., Frågåt, T., Boğar, Y., Jensen, J. J., & Mifsud, L. (2023). Representations of Computational Thinking in Policy Documents in an Educational Context: The Cases of Denmark, Finland, and Norway. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-ICLS 2023, pp. 35-42. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Autio, T. (2013). The internationalization of curriculum research. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 17–31). Routledge.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E., Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). Springer.
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Kampylis, P., Dagienė, V., Wastiau, P., Engelhardt, K., Earp, J., Horvath, M., Jasutė, E., & Malagoli, C. (2022). Reviewing computational thinking in compulsory education: State of play and practices from computing education. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/126955
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Care, E., Kim, H., Vista, A., & Anderson, K. (2018). Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment. Center for Universal Education at The Brookings Institution.
Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 216–247). Macmillan.
Finnish National Board of Education [FNBE] (2014). The national core curriculum for basic education.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12463051
Hansen, S. B., Hachmann, R., & Dohn, N. B. (2024). Computational thinking beyond computer science. In S. H. Klausen & N. Mård (Eds.), Developing a didactic framework across and beyond school (pp. 232–242). Routledge.
Haseski, H. İ., İlic, U., & Tuğtekin, U. (2018). Defining a new 21st century skill-computational thinking: Concepts and trends. International Education Studies, 11(4), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n4p29
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Iversen, O. S., Smith, R. C., & Dindler, C. (2018). From computational thinking to computational empowerment: A 21st century PD agenda. Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference (Volume 1). https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210592
Kácovský, P., Jedličková, T., Kuba, R., Snětinová, M., Surynková, P., Vrhel, M., & Urválková, E. S. (2022). Lower secondary intended curricula of science subjects and mathematics: A comparison of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland and Slovenia. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1978557
Kafai, Y. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K–12 education. Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114
Kleinheksel, A., Rockich-Winston, N., Tawfik, H., & Wyatt, T. R. (2020). Demystifying content analysis. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7113
Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2021). Computational thinking, between Papert and Wing. Science & Education, 30(4), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
McGarr, O., & Engen, B. K. (2024). Justifications for the study of computers on the curriculum: Neo‐vocational ideology veiled in progressive educational discourse. European Journal of Education, 59(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12630
Ministry of Education (2018a). Læseplan for forsøgsfaget teknologiforståelse [Curriculum for experimental subject technology comprehension]. https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/aktuelt/pdf18/181221-laeseplan-teknologiforstaaelse.pdf
Ministry of Education (2018b). Teknologiforståelse—Måloversigt [Technology comprehension—Objective overview]. https://emu.dk/sites/default/files/2019-02/GSK.%20F%C3%A6lles%20M%C3%A5l.%20Tilg%C3%A6ngelig.%20Teknologiforst%C3%A5else.pdf
Ministry of Children and Education (MoCE) (2023). Forsøg med teknologiforståelse i folkeskolens obligatoriskeundervisning slutevaluering [Experiments with technology comprehension in the primary school's compulsory education final evaluation]. https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/aktuelt/pdf21/okt/211004-slutevaluering-teknologoforstaaelse.pdf
Ministry of Children and Education (MoCE) (2024). Aftale mellem regeringen (Socialdemokratiet, Venstre og Moderaterne) og Liberal Alliance, Det Konservative Folkeparti, Radikale Venstr og Dansk Folkeparti om folkeskolens kvalitetsprogram – frihed og fordybelse. (Agreement between the Government (the Social Democrats, the Liberal Party and the Moderate Party) and the Liberal Alliance, the Conservative People's Party, the Social Liberal Party and the Danish People's Party on the quality programme for primary and lower secondary schools – freedom and immersion). https://www.uvm.dk/-/media/filer/uvm/aktuelt/pdf24/mar/240320-aftale-om-folkeskolens-kvalitetsprogram-%E2%80%93-frihed-og-fordybelse.pdf
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (NDET). (2020a). Curriculum for art and crafts (KHV01 02). https://www.udir.no/lk20/khv01-02?lang=eng
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (NDET) (2020b). Curriculum for mathematics years 1–10 (MAT01 05). https://www.udir.no/lk20/mat01-05?lang=eng
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (NDET) (2020c). Curriculum for music (MUS01 02). https://www.udir.no/lk20/mus01-02?lang=eng
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (NDET) (2020d). Curriculum for natural science (NAT01 04). https://www.udir.no/lk20/nat01-04?lang=eng
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Pears, A., Tedre, M., Valtonen, T and Vartiainen, H. (2021). What makes computational thinking so troublesome? 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Lincoln, NE, USA (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637416
Ross, A. (2003). Curriculum: Construction and critique. Routledge.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
Vinnervik, P. (2023). An in-depth analysis of programming in the Swedish school curriculum—Rationale, knowledge content and teacher guidance. Journal of Computers in Education, 10(2), 237–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00230-2
Vinnervik, P., & Bungum, B. (2022). Computational thinking as part of compulsory education: How is it represented in Swedish and Norwegian curricula? Nordic Studies in Science Education, 18(3), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.9296
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K–9. Computers & Education, 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103607
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Katarina Pajchel, Louise Mifsud, Thomas Frågåt, Mads Middelboe Rehder, Kalle Juuti, Yurdagül Bogar, Jari Lavonen, Vibeke Schrøder, Siv G. Aalbergsjø, André Rognes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Declaration on copyright
- The author/s will keep their copyright and right of reproduction of their own manuscript, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, but give the journal a permanent right to 1) present the manuscript to the public in the original form in which it was digitally published and 2) to be registered and cited as the first publication of the manuscript.
- The author itself must manage its financial reproduction rights in relation to any third-parties.
- The journal does not provide any financial or other remuneration for contributions submitted.
- Readers of the journal may print the manuscripts presented under the same conditions that apply to reproduction of a physical copy. This means that mass reproduction of physical copies or production of copies for commercial purposes is not permitted without the agreement of the author/s.
