Why Korean Education need to apply Project-Based Learning in Coding Class
“Korea is the one of the top countries in PISA test, but ironically, they ranked the lowest for happiness at school” (PISA, 2012)
The Korean government announced that all elementary schools would have mandatory coding classes since 2018. Middle-schools and high-schools will follow the mandatory coding class after 2019. The purpose of the educational policy is very ideal. The Korean government foresaw that IT would be a powerful weapon for children in the future. The government emphasized that the coding classes will help students’ creativity and critical thinking. In other words, they used the slogan ‘be ready for a futuristic talented person.' In perspective of the government, they believe the coding classes would make students happier, resulting in a more successful future.
However, there are three major problems why this policy cannot make students being happy. First, the Korean students are having too much pressure on university entry exam. The Korean society is very competitive to enter a good university because they strongly believe entering good university is guaranteed a higher salary and happier life for the entire life. That is why many parents and teachers push students to study harder and get a good grade to prepare for university entry exam. Thus, most of the K-12 education is focusing on how they can enter the good university. It causes very stress and anxiety for students. The Korean students interviewed and confessed the seriousness of how the Korean society gives students pressure on a grade, “we are very anxious to achieve good grades and an impressive transcript” (Sovic, 2008). Thus, it demonstrates how the Korean education system is focusing on a good grade rather than how the students enjoy studying.
Second, it is unnecessary for students to study coding class since they already have general computer science course. Even though the purpose of the Korean coding class is to learn more practical way to know the computer science and increase students’ motivation on computer science, it is just repetitive class. The students do not think being futurist is enough reason to study coding. In the student’s perspective, it may be one more burden.
Third, the current Korean education system is rote learning, which is more like passive learning. The teacher addresses a lecture and students listen to the lecture. During the lecture, the class usually does not have question and answer section or group activities to discuss the lecture topic. However, I do not think if the Korean society teaches coding like rote learning, it would not be succeeded for students. According to the Korean education article, the author surveyed Korean and U.S. students and compared two countries. Regarding the question, ‘what is the reason for distracting the creativity?’, the most Korean students answered with reasons as, (1) economical difficulty, (2) learning by rote, and (3) entering university exam centers (Eun-Hyun et al., 2011). It shows partially how the Korean students think about the Korean education system negatively.
Regardless of these problems, how about the happiness for Korean students? According to PISA test, Korea is one of the top countries in PISA test, but ironically, Korea ranked the lowest for happiness at school among 65 countries (OECD, 2012). It seems the fatal problem for Korean students and demonstrates how much they are struggling to study. Finding the way to increase the students’ motivation and enjoyment seems fundamentally more important than making a mandatory coding class. John Dewey emphasized that the experience of learning could influence student’s future learning. If there is a good memory of study, it will connect to future experience. Even though the Korean government insists coding classes will make students happier, paradoxically, under the current Korean education system, Korean students may have an unpleasant experience with coding. Thus, for a long-term, we should change the teaching approach and strategy.
One of the viable solutions is project-based learning (PBL). PBL is learning by making together with other students. The concept of PBL was originated from constructionism. Learning through design is the big part of project-based learning and based on a constructionist model which the students learn something while they are designing the products (Harel, 1991; Harel & Papert, 1990; Kafai, 2005). Constructionism works for students not only to gain knowledge together by learners but also to occur most felicitously when they are engaged to construct an artifact or shareable product. In addition, Hay and Barab (2001) took an experiment to measure the learning effectiveness of constructionism. They compared constructionism and apprenticeship learning frameworks. The result showed the apprenticeship learning was much weaker of inventive, critical or executive skills and understanding of scientific endeavor than constructionism. Thus, applying PBL to coding class seems reasonable choice to make better learning environment.
PBL associated with constructionism has many benefits to applying the coding class such as increasing motivation, creativity and engagement since constructionism allows learners to develop their reasoned interpretations of their interactions with the world (Papert, 1980). If the students participate in the coding class based on project-based learning (PBL), the students will have the ownership to lead the project. Particularly, PBL is student-centered learning which teacher takes a facilitator role. Cynthia (2008) proved how the project-based learning could influence students’ ownership. They reported that all students who are in project-based learning ended up a high degree of ownership over their simulation ideas. The ownership takes an important role to increase motivation and develop the learning process. The more ownership of the project they have, the higher motivation they will have. Therefore, if the new coding class in Korea changes to project-based learning, many Korean students will enjoy coding while developing the coding project together with their classmates.
Second, PBL is more active learning which is different than rote learning. The coding skills require creativity since the students need to understand the computer language and create the computational logic flow. However, the passive learning cannot help increasing creativity. It is more fit on the memorizing or reading subject. However, coding is something you should logically and critically think to make the program. Passive learning is not a right method to teach coding. On the other hand, constructionism can make students active learner (Papert, 1991). The active learning can help students engaging, motiving and enjoying while learning together with other students. Constructionism builds on constructivism in that it distinguishes itself from more traditional instruction, in part, by the degree of active learner engagement as well as the assumption that learners have the ability to create meaning, understanding, and knowledge (Papert, 1980). Thus, active learning is an important element to consider choosing a right method for the coding class.
Third, PBL is collaborative learning. The coding class needs to have the collaborative learning so that the students can have more engagement with the peers. While rote learning is more passive learning which teacher is sender and students are the receiver the knowledge, the collaborative learning is more like active learning to help students each other. Chang et al. (2008) define engagement as “students-faculty interaction, peer-to-peer collaboration, and active learning….” Working with a group is an important way to help students gain experience in collaboration and develop important kills of critical thinking. Also, Papert (1993) mentioned that people learn most effectively when they collaboratively construct understandings and skills through the construction of artifacts intended for a real-world audience. Thus, if the students have a strong engagement in class, they will use much more time to concentrate on the coding class.
In conclusion, project-based learning will help the Korean coding course more interactive, engaged, creative. Figure 1 represents how PBL will work to solve the problems of coding class. If the Korean government implements the coding course to elementary school without considering the problems above I mentioned, they will never succeed the policy and students will not be satisfied with it. The coding class will cause one more burden and pain for students. The rote learning should not be used in coding class since it has substantially different elements than other regular subjects. Thus, PBL can be a solution to make students satisfy coding education and release the pressures. The Korean government should carefully consider how they can approach the teaching system for the vulnerable students. Lastly, it is important for the younger ages to have an enjoyable experience as John Dewey mentioned that the experience will be connected from the past to the future.
Reference
Chang, C. K., Chen, G. D., & Li, L. Y. (2008). Constructing a community of practice to improve coursework activity. Computers & Education, 50(1), 235-247.
Ching, C. C., & Kafai, Y. B. (2008). Peer pedagogy: Student collaboration and reflection in a learning-through-design project. Teachers College Record, 110(12), 2601-2632.
Eun-Hyun Sung & YunYoung Han (2011), Implicit thought of Korean and the US students about components promoting or hindering creativity development, Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 25(4), 2011.12, 927-944
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive
Learning Environments, 1, 1–32.
Harel, I. (1991). Children designers. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hay, K., & Barab, S. (2001). Constructivism in practice: A comparison and contrast of apprenticeship and constructionist learning environments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 281–322.
Kafai, Y. B. (2005). The classroom as living laboratory: Design-based research for understanding, comparing, and evaluating learning science through design. Educational Technology, 45, 28–33.
OCED (2012), PISA 2012 Results in Focus, retrieved from www.oecd.org
Sovic, S. (2008). Coping with stress: the perspective of international students. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6(3), 145-158.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel& S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 5-23). Nonvood, NJ: Ablex.
Papert, S. (1993). The Children's Machine: Rethinking School in the Age of the Computer. New York: Basic Books.
Comments