Prioritizing Learning Topics of Coding Curriculum for Elementary Students Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process


  • Dongkyun Lim
  • Ji Eun Lee
  • Dosik Moon
  • Gijun Um





Coding education, curriculum development, computational thinking, the 4th industrial revolution, AHP


As the world confronts the 4th industrial revolution era, there is a growing interest in coding education around the world to cultivate creative and convergent students who possess computational thinking and problem-solving skills. In order for coding education to be successful, the following questions are considered: 1.What should be taught first? 2. How should it be taught? This study aims to determine the priority of leaning topics in elementary school coding education. To do so, a focus group interview was conducted with four experts in the field of coding education, and 12 learning topics were identified. Based on the interview results, a questionnaire was administered to coding instructors. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was applied to derive priorities among the learning topics. The results showed that ‘procedural problem solving’ was found as the most important unit that the elementary school coding education needs to deal with. As for the learning topics, ‘problem definition and breakdown’, ‘block coding’, ‘implementation of algorithm’, ‘understanding of algorithm’ and ‘necessity for learning coding’ were found to be the top 5 priorities. Based on these results, this study presents four suggestions to consider for coding education to be carried out more effectively.




[1] J. Ock and S. Ahn, “Analysis of Competency-Based In-service Training Programs for Informatics Teachers,†The Journal of Korea Association of Computer Education, Vol. 21, pp. 43-50, January 2018.

[2] H. Kim, Implications for Educational Informatization in Korea through OECD PISA 2012, Korea Education & Research Information Service, 2014.

[3] H. C, Von Baeyer, Information: The new language of science. Harvard University Press, 2004.

[4] H. J, Yun, “Performative Writing of Coding Game,†Journal of Korea Game Society, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 51-62, February 2016.

[5] Ministry of Education, SW Education Guideline, 2015.

[6] M. Mohaghegh and M. McCauley, “Computational Thinking: The Skill Set of the 21st Century,†International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp.1524-1530, 2016.

[7] J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking,†in Microsoft Asia Faculty Summit, pp. 1-59, Oct. 26, 2012.

[8] J. Malyn-Smith, B. Coulter, J, Denner, L. Lee, J. Stiles and L. Werner, “Computational Thinking in K-12: Defining the Space,†In Proc. 22th Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, pp.3479-3484, March 2010.

[9] S. Kim, “Development of Scratch Code Analysis System for Assessment about Concepts of Computational Thinking,†The Journal of Korea Association of Computer Education, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 13-22, November 2015.

[10] H. J. Lee, “A Study on the Necessity of Convergence Approach in Coding Education through Case-study Interview with Individual Scratch learner,†Korean Society of Basic design & Art, Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 487-500, December 2017.

[11] S. Shin. and Y. Bae, “Review of Software Education based on the Coding in Finland,†Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 127-138, March 2015.

[12] U. Jung, S. Yim, S. Lim and C. Kim, “Bringing Kano`s perspective to AHP: The 2D-AHP decision model,†Management and Production Engineering Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 16-26, December 2015.

[13] J. Bentiez, X. Delgado-Galvan, J. Izquierdo and R. Perez-Garcia, “An Approach to AHP Decision in a Dynamic Context,†Decision Support Systems, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 499-506, June 2012.

View Full Article: