INTEGRATING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING WITH K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION - A Theoretical Framework

Pratim Sengupta, John S. Kinnebrew, Gautam Biswas, Douglas Clark

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) draws on concepts that are fundamental to computing and computer science, however, as an approach, it includes practices, such as problem representation, abstraction, decomposition, simulation, verification, and prediction that are also central to modelling, reasoning, and problem solving in many scientific and mathematical disciplines. Recently, arguments have been made in favour of integrating programming and CT with K-12 curricula. In this paper, we present a theoretical investigation of key issues that need to be considered for integrating CT with K-12 science. We identify the synergies between pro-gramming and CT on one hand, and scientific expertise on the other. We then present a critical review of literature on educational computing, and propose a set of guidelines for designing learning environments in science that can jointly foster the development of computational thinking with scientific expertise. Finally, we describe the design of a learning environment that supports CT through modelling and simulation to help middle school students learn physics and biology.

References

  1. ACM K-12 Taskforce (2003). A Model Curriculum for K12 Computer Science: Final Report of the ACM K-12 Task Force Curriculum Committee, CSTA, New York, NY.
  2. Baumgartner, E. and Reiser, B. J., (1998). Strategies for supporting student inquiry in design tasks. Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 13, 1998.
  3. Blikstein P. and Wilensky, U., (2009). An Atom is Known by the Company it Keeps: A Constructionist Learning Environment for Materials Science Using AgentBased Modeling. Int J Comput Math Learning, 14:81- 119.
  4. Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., and deJong, T., (2006). Modeling and Simulation in Inquiry Learning: Checking Solutions and Giving Advice. Simulation, 82(11), 769-784.
  5. Chi, M. T. H., (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14: 161-199.
  6. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D. and de Leeuw, N., (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4: 27-43.
  7. Chinn, C. A., and Brewer, W. F., (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
  8. Conway, M., (1997). Alice: Easy to Learn 3D Scripting for Novices, Technical Report, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
  9. diSessa, A. A., (1986). BOXER: A Reconstructible Computational Medium. Communications of ACM, 29(9): 859-868.
  10. diSessa, A. A., (2000). Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Dickes, A., and Sengupta, P., (2011). Learning Natural Selection in 4th Grade With Multi-Agent-Based Computational Models. In Sengupta, P. (Chair), and Hall, R. (Discussant). Models, Modeling, and Naïve Intuitive Knowledge in Science Learning. Symposium presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Berkeley, CA.
  12. Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J., (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
  13. Duschl, R. A., and Osborne, J., (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
  14. Guzdial M., (1995) Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1). 1-44.
  15. Guzdial, M., 2008. “Paving the way for computational thinking.” Education Column. Communications of the ACM, 51(8)
  16. Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., and Hosking, A. L., (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE 7809). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 183-187.
  17. Harel, I. and Papert, S., (1991). "Software design as a learning environment". Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. pp. 51-52. ISBN 0-89391-785-0.
  18. Hegedus, S. J. and Kaput, J. J., (2004). An Introduction to the Profound Potential of Connected Algebra Activities: Issues of Representation, Engagement, and Pedagogy, Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 129-136.
  19. Hundhausen, C. D., Brown, J. L., (2007). What You See Is What You Code: A “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 18: 22-47.
  20. Kafai, Y., and Soloway, E., (1994). Computational Gifts for the Barney Generation. Commun. ACM, 37(9): 19- 22.
  21. Kahn, K., (1996). ToonTalk: An Animated Programming Environment for Children, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing.
  22. Kaput, J., (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old routes. In Schoenfeld, A. (ed.), Mathematical Thinking and Problem Solving, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 77-156.
  23. Kelleher, C. and Pausch, R., (2005) Lowering the barriers to programming: a taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. (37) 83-137.
  24. Klahr, D., Dunbar, K., and Fay, A. L., (1990). Designing good experiments to test bad hypotheses. In J. Shrager and P. Langley (Eds.), Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation (pp. 355-401). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.
  25. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S. and Um, T., (2005). Teaching Complex Dynamic Systems to Young Students with StarLogo. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching; 24(2): 157-178.
  26. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., and Ryan, M., (2003). Problem-Based Learning meets Case-Based Reasoning in the Middle-School Science Classroom: Putting Learning by Design into Practice. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(4) 495-547.
  27. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L. and Reiser, B., (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1- 32.
  28. Kramer, J., (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Commun. ACM 50, 4 (April 2007), 36-42.
  29. Kynigos, C., (2007). Using half-baked microworlds to challenge teacher educators' knowing, Journal of Computers for Math Learning, 12(2), 87-111.
  30. Kynigos, C., (2001). E-slate Logo as a basis for constructing microworlds with mathematics teachers. Proceedings of the Ninth Eurologo Conference, Lintz, Austria, 65-74.
  31. Lehrer and Romberg (1996). Exploring Children's Data Modeling, Cognition and Instruction, 14(1): 69-108.
  32. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., and Lucas, D., (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23 (4), 512-529.
  33. Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., and Resnick, M., (2004) Scratch: A Sneak Preview. In Proc. of Creating, Connecting, and Collaborating through Computing, 104-109.
  34. NRC (2010). Report of a Workshop on The Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking.
  35. Oshima, Y., (2005). Kedama: A GUI-based Interactive Massively Parallel Particle Programming System. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC'05).
  36. Papert, S., (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc. New York, NY.
  37. Papert, S., (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel and S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
  38. Pea, R. D., (1986). Language-independent conceptual bugs in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1), 25-36.
  39. Perkins, D. N., (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  40. Perkins, D. N. and Simmons, R., (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303-326.
  41. Redish, E. F. and Wilson, J. M., (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: M.U.P.P.E.T. Am. J. Phys. 61: 222-232.
  42. Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., and Resnick, L. B., (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.
  43. Repenning, A., (1993). Agentsheets: A tool for building domain-oriented visual programming, Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 142-143.
  44. Resnick, M., (1994). Turtles, Termites, and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively Parallel Microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  45. Roschelle, J., Digiano, C., Pea, R. D. and Kaput, J., (1999). Educational Software Components of Tomorrow (ESCOT), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics/Science Education and Technology (M/SET), March 1-4, 1999. San Antonio, USA.
  46. Sandoval, W. A., and Millwood, K., (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
  47. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., and Raghavan, K., (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 28, 859-882.
  48. Sengupta, P., (2011). Design Principles for a Visual Programming Language to Integrate Agent-based modeling in K-12 Science. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Complex Systems (ICCS 2011), pp 1636 - 1637.
  49. Sengupta, P. and Wilensky, U., (2011). Lowering the Learning Threshold: Multi-agent-Based Models and Learning Electricity. In Khine, M.S., and Saleh, I.M (Eds.). Dynamic Modeling: Cognitive Tool for Scientific Inquiry, pp 141 - 171. Springer, New York, NY.
  50. Sherin, B., (2000). How students invent representations of motion: A genetic account. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 399-441.
  51. Sherin, B., (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning: 6, 1-61.
  52. Smith, D., Cypher, A., and Tesler, L., (2000). Programming by example: novice programming comes of age. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 75-81.
  53. Soloway, E., (1993). Should We Teach Students to Program? Commun. ACM 36(10): 21-24
  54. Stewart, I. and Golubitsky, M. (1992). Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
  55. Tan, J., and Biswas, G., (2007). Simulation-based game learning environments: Building and sustaining a fish tank. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp. 73-80). Jhongli, Taiwan.
  56. Tanimoto, S. L., (1990) VIVA: a visual language for image processing. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing. 1, 127-139.
  57. White, B. Y., and Frederiksen, J. R., (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42(1):99-157.
  58. Wilensky, U., (1999). NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  59. Wilensky, U., and Resnick, M., (1999). Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Perspective to Making Sense of the World. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1).
  60. Wilensky, U., and Reisman, K., (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories - An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
  61. Wing, J. M., (2006) Computational Thinking CACM, Viewpoint, vol. 49, no.3 March 2006, pp. 33-35.
  62. Wing, J. M., (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, vol. 366, pp.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Sengupta P., S. Kinnebrew J., Biswas G. and Clark D. (2012). INTEGRATING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING WITH K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION - A Theoretical Framework . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-8565-07-5, pages 40-49. DOI: 10.5220/0003915500400049


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu12,
author={Pratim Sengupta and John S. Kinnebrew and Gautam Biswas and Douglas Clark},
title={INTEGRATING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING WITH K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION - A Theoretical Framework},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,},
year={2012},
pages={40-49},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003915500400049},
isbn={978-989-8565-07-5},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: CSEDU,
TI - INTEGRATING COMPUTATIONAL THINKING WITH K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION - A Theoretical Framework
SN - 978-989-8565-07-5
AU - Sengupta P.
AU - S. Kinnebrew J.
AU - Biswas G.
AU - Clark D.
PY - 2012
SP - 40
EP - 49
DO - 10.5220/0003915500400049