Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
Mazkur maqola umumta’lim maktablarida dasturlashni o‘qitish masalasiga oid mavjud ilmiy tadqiqotlarni kompleks va tizimli ravishda tahlil qilishga qaratilgan. Tadqiqotda sifatli kontent tahlili metodologiyasi asosida dasturlash mashg‘ulotlarini rejalashtirish, loyihalash va samarali tashkil etishning pedagogik yondashuvlari aniqlashtiriladi hamda tizimlashtiriladi. Tahlil natijalari shuni ko‘rsatadiki, so‘nggi yillarda umumta’lim darajasida dasturlash ta’limiga bag‘ishlangan ilmiy ishlar soni sezilarli darajada oshgan bo‘lib, ularning asosiy qismi empirik tadqiqot dizayniga asoslangan. Mavjud izlanishlarning katta qismi 6-sinf o‘quvchilari bilan olib borilgan bo‘lib, ma’lumot to‘plash jarayonida asosan anketalar, so‘rovnomalar va standartlashtirilgan testlardan foydalanilgan.
Dasturlash vositalari tahlili Scratch platformasining eng keng tarqalgan o‘quv muhiti ekanligini ko‘rsatadi, bu esa vizual va blokli dasturlash yondashuvlarining maktab yoshidagi o‘quvchilar uchun metodik jihatdan maqbulligini tasdiqlaydi. Shu bilan birga, dasturlash darslarining kontekstual va fanlararo integratsion jihatlarini o‘rganuvchi tadqiqotlar nisbatan cheklanganligi aniqlandi. Ayrim ilmiy ishlarda dasturlash matematika, tabiiy fanlar, tillar, yozma nutq va ijtimoiy fanlarni o‘qitishda vositaviy metod sifatida qo‘llanilgan bo‘lsa-da, bu yo‘nalish hali yetarlicha tizimlashtirilmagan.
Umuman olganda, mazkur tadqiqot dasturlash ta’limining zamonaviy holatini konseptual jihatdan umumlashtirib, metodik yondashuvlarni integratsiyalash hamda kelgusida kompleks va uzoq muddatli empirik tadqiqotlar o‘tkazish zaruratini asoslaydi.
References
1. Akhtar, N., Syakir Ishak, M. I., Bhawani, S. A., & Umar, K. (2021). Various natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for water quality degradation: A review. Water, 13(19), 2660-2670.
2. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779
3. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363
4. 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
5. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
6. Kalelioğlu, F. (2015). A new way of teaching programming skills to K–12 students: Code.org. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.027
7. O. V. Semenykhina & Y. O. Rudenko (2018). Problems of educating students in programming and ways to overcome them. Vol. 66 No. 4
8. Ali Kürşat Erümit, Ali İhsan Benzer, & Güven Şahin (2020). A Framework for Studying Programming Teaching in Secondary Education. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v22i2.3560
9. Hatice Yildiz Durak & Tolga Guyer (2019). Programming with Scratch in primary school, indicators related to the effectiveness of the education process and analysis of these indicators in terms of various variables. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429419854223
10. Xolmatov, A. A. (2020). Improving the methodology of teaching computer science in general education schools. Pedagogical Education Journal, 3(2), 45–50.
11. Abdullaev, S., & Rakhimova, R. (2020). Methodology of teaching programming to secondary school students. Pedagogy and Innovation, 4(2), 15–22.
12. Karimova, N. R. (2021). The role of programming in developing students’ digital competencies. Modern Education, 4, 62–67.
13. O. E. Holo, E. N. Kveim, M. S. Lysne, L. H. Taraldsen, & F. O. Haara (2022). A review of research on teaching computer programming in primary school mathematics: Moving towards sustainable classroom action. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2022.2072575
14. Sang Joon Lee, Gregory M. Francom, & Jeremiah Nuatomue (2022). Computer science education and K-12 students’ computational thinking: A systematic review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.102008
15. Aljameel, I. H. (2022). Exploring the compelling rationale to include programming in the K-12 curriculum. https://doi.org/10.18844/ijire.v9i2.8460
16. K. M. Kolos (2025). Teaching programming in Russian schools at the level of general secondary education: Approaches and development directions. DOI: 10.22363/2312-8631-2025-22-4-498-510
17. Gülnura Gulamova & Mehmet Arif Özerbaş (2025). Pedagogical Approaches for Programming Instruction: The Kyrgyzstan Example, Issue 6:1, 96–114, 01.07.2025
18. Sun, & Liu (2025). Comparative study of CodeCombat-based Python and Scratch programming effects on sixth graders’ computational thinking. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.101852
19. L. M. van der Lubbe, S. P. van Borkulo, & J. T. Jeuring (2025). A Systematic Literature Review of Computer Science MOOCs for K-12 Education. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.18986
20. Tira Nur Fitria (2025). Teaching Coding Using Scratch to Elementary Students: Exploration of Benefits for Students. https://doi.org/10.33830/jciee.v3i1.10719
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.