Page 80 - JURNAL PENYELIDIKAN AKADEMIK

J u r n a l P e n y e l i d i k a n A k a d e m i k I P G M J i l i d 5 / 2 0 2 0 | 73

1. Background
a. Introduction to Scratch/ Micro: bit robotic: How did you find out about Scratch/
Micro: bit robotic? What is Scratch/ Micro: bit robotic?
b. Current practices: Where do you use Scratch/ Micro: bit robotic? What do you
do with it? Do other people help you? Do you help other people?

2. Project Creation
a. Project framing: How did you get the idea for your project?
b. Project process: How did you get started making your project? What happened
when you got stuck?

3. Online Community
a. Introduction to the online community: What do you do in the online community?
What is the Scratch/ Micro: bit online community?
b. Other people, other projects: How do you find interesting people and interesting
projects? How do you interact with other Scratchers/ Micro: bit users?

4. Looking Forward
a. Scratch/ Micro: bit What do you dis/like about Scratch/ Micro: bit? What would
you keep, add, change?
b. Technology: What are other tech-related things you like to do?
c. Beyond technology: What are other non-tech-related things you like to do?

A combination of the assessment approach is recommended for evaluating CT
RBT products since the limitations of one approach can complement the others. Time
factor will be the main challenge to do this type of assessment for CT RBT participants.
Despite of that, the computational thinking development and assessment framework
of Brennan and Reinseck (2012) can definitely be used as a formal guide for the
implementation of CT RBT training at IPGs.

CONCLUSION

This paper has successfully documented the evaluation of CT RBT training conducted
at an IPG in Sarawak. The evaluation data shows that the training is successful and it
benefits those teachers attended the four days training. However, this finding cannot
be generalized to other IPGs since it has only 15 participants. It can be used as a pilot
testing data which could be expanded to cover more IPGs for the evaluation in future.
The findings from mapping of CT RBT training to computational thinking development
and assessment framework of Brennan and Reinseck (2012) shows that CT RBT
training can be mapped to the three dimensions of the framework. Based on the
framework, a formalized assessment can be used to evaluate Scratch and Micro: bit
robotic projects produced during the training. The main challenge of implementing
product assessment for the training will be the shortage of time. Despite of that, the