skip to main content

Explore Research Products in the NSF-PAR

Title: Demystifying computational thinking
This paper examines the growing field of computational thinking (CT) in education. A review of the relevant literature shows a diversity in definitions, interventions, assessments, and models. After synthesizing various approaches used to develop the construct in K-16 settings, we have created the following working definition of CT: The conceptual foundation required to solve problems effectively and efficiently (i.e., algorithmically, with or without the assistance of computers) with solutions that are reusable in different contexts. This definition highlights that CT is primarily a way of thinking and acting, which can be exhibited through the use particular skills, which then can become the basis for performance-based assessments of CT skills. Based on the literature, we categorized CT into six main facets: decomposition, abstraction, algorithm design, debugging, iteration, and generalization. This paper shows examples of CT definitions, interventions, assessments, and models across a variety of disciplines, with a call for more extensive research in this area.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1660859 1628937
NSF-PAR ID:
10054119
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Educational research review
Volume:
22
ISSN:
1747-938X
Page Range / eLocation ID:
142-158
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ( , ASEE Annual Conference)
    null (Ed.)
    This research paper presents a literature review of Computational Thinking (CT) frameworks and assessment practices. CT is a 21st century way of solving a problem. It refers specifically to the methods that are effective when trying to solve a problem with a machine or other computational tools. In the past few years, CT researchers and educationists' significant movement started to look for a formal definition and composition of CT in K-12 and higher education. From this effort, over 20 different definitions and frameworks for CT have emerged. Although the availability of literature on CT has been increasing over the last decade, there is limited research synthesis available on how to assess CT better. Besides, it is known that in higher education designing assessments for CT is challenging and one of the primary reasons is that the precise meaning of CT is still unknown. This research paper, therefore, presents a systematized literature review on CT frameworks and assessment practice. We search three different databases and review 19 journal articles that address the assessment of CT in higher education to answer the following two research questions: 1) What does the literature inform us about practices and types of assessments used to evaluate CT in higher education? 2) Which frameworks of CT are present in literature to support CT assessment in higher education? The critical components of this review focus on frameworks and assessment practices based on CT. We develop a synthesis of suggestions and explanations to answer the proposed questions based on literature from recent research in CT. Based on our initial synthesis, we found a disconnect between theory and practice. Specifically, neither the ideas within CT frameworks nor those from CT assessment research are being utilized by the other. Therefore, there is a dire need to connect the two for practical implementation and further research in CT in higher education. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ( , International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education)
    Research focusing on the integration of computational thinking (CT) into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education started to emerge. We conducted a semi-systematic literature review on 55 empirical studies on this topic. Our findings include: (a) the majority of the studies adopted domain-general definitions of CT and a few proposed domain-specific CT definitions in STEM education; (b) the most popular instructional model was problem-based instruction, and the most popular topic contexts included game design, robotics, and computational modelling; (c) while the assessments of student learning in integrated CT and STEM education targeted different objectives with different formats, about a third of them assessed integrated CT and STEM; (d) about a quarter of the studies reported differential learning processes and outcomes between groups, but very few of them investigated how pedagogical design could improve equity. Based on the findings, suggestions for future research and practice in this field are discussed in terms of operationalizing and assessing CT in STEM contexts, instructional strategies for integrating CT in STEM, and research for broadening participation in integrated CT and STEM education. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences)
    Background There is increased interest in using artificial intelligence (AI) to provide participation-focused pediatric re/habilitation. Existing reviews on the use of AI in participation-focused pediatric re/habilitation focus on interventions and do not screen articles based on their definition of participation. AI-based assessments may help reduce provider burden and can support operationalization of the construct under investigation. To extend knowledge of the landscape on AI use in participation-focused pediatric re/habilitation, a scoping review on AI-based participation-focused assessments is needed. Objective To understand how the construct of participation is captured and operationalized in pediatric re/habilitation using AI. Methods We conducted a scoping review of literature published in Pubmed, PsycInfo, ERIC, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, ProQuest Dissertation and Theses, ACL Anthology, AAAI Digital Library, and Google Scholar. Documents were screened by 2–3 independent researchers following a systematic procedure and using the following inclusion criteria: (1) focuses on capturing participation using AI; (2) includes data on children and/or youth with a congenital or acquired disability; and (3) published in English. Data from included studies were extracted [e.g., demographics, type(s) of AI used], summarized, and sorted into categories of participation-related constructs. Results Twenty one out of 3,406 documents were included. Included assessment approaches mainly captured participation through annotated observations ( n = 20; 95%), were administered in person ( n = 17; 81%), and applied machine learning ( n = 20; 95%) and computer vision ( n = 13; 62%). None integrated the child or youth perspective and only one included the caregiver perspective. All assessment approaches captured behavioral involvement, and none captured emotional or cognitive involvement or attendance. Additionally, 24% ( n = 5) of the assessment approaches captured participation-related constructs like activity competencies and 57% ( n = 12) captured aspects not included in contemporary frameworks of participation. Conclusions Main gaps for future research include lack of: (1) research reporting on common demographic factors and including samples representing the population of children and youth with a congenital or acquired disability; (2) AI-based participation assessment approaches integrating the child or youth perspective; (3) remotely administered AI-based assessment approaches capturing both child or youth attendance and involvement; and (4) AI-based assessment approaches aligning with contemporary definitions of participation. 
    more » « less
  4. ( , Proceedings of the 2021 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition)
    null (Ed.)
    While systems engineers rely on systems thinking skills in their work, given the increasing complexity of modern engineering problems, engineers across disciplines need to be able to engage in systems thinking, including what we term comprehensive systems thinking. Due to the inherent complexity of systems thinking, and more specifically comprehensive systems thinking, it is not easy to know how well students (and practitioners) are learning and leveraging systems thinking approaches. Thus, engineering managers and educators can benefit from systems thinking assessments. A variety of systems thinking assessments exist that are relevant to engineers, including some focused on the demonstration of systems thinking knowledge or skills and others measuring attitudes, interests, or values related to systems thinking. Starting with a collection of systems thinking assessments from a systematic literature review conducted by our team, we analyzed in-depth those behavior-based assessments that included the creation of a visual representation and were open-ended, i.e., it did not presuppose or provide answers. The findings from this in-depth analysis of systems thinking behavior-based assessments identified 1) six visualization types that were leveraged, 2) dimensions of systems thinking that were assessed and 3) tensions between the affordances of different assessments. In addition, we consider the ways assessments can be used. For example, using assessments to provide feedback to students or using assessments to determine which students are meeting defined learning goals. We draw on our findings to highlight opportunities for future comprehensive systems thinking behavior-based assessment development. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ( , International Journal of STEM Education)
    Abstract

    Contemporary science is a field that is becoming increasingly computational. Today’s scientists not only leverage computational tools to conduct their investigations, they often must contribute to the design of the computational tools for their specific research. From a science education perspective, for students to learn authentic science practices, students must learn to use the tools of the trade. This necessity in science education has shaped recent K–12 science standards including the Next Generation Science Standards, which explicitly mention the use of computational tools and simulations. These standards, in particular, have gone further and mandated thatcomputational thinkingbe taught and leveraged as a practice of science. While computational thinking is not a new term, its inclusion in K–12 science standards has led to confusion about what the term means in the context of science learning and to questions about how to differentiate computational thinking from other commonly taught cognitive skills in science like problem-solving, mathematical reasoning, and critical thinking. In this paper, we propose a definition ofcomputational thinking for science(CT-S) and a framework for its operationalization in K–12 science education. We situate our definition and framework in Activity Theory, from the learning sciences, in order to position computational thinking as an input to and outcome of science learning that is mediated by computational tools.

     
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email