More Like this

1. Promoting Computational Thinking in Integrated Engineering Design and Physics Labs

   Lopez-Parra, R. D.; Subramaniam, R. C.; Morphew, J. W. (January 2023, ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings)

   Computational thinking has widely been recognized as a crucial skill for engineers engaged in problem-solving. Multidisciplinary learning environments such as integrated STEM courses are powerful spaces where computational thinking skills can be cultivated. However, it is not clear the best ways to integrate computational thinking instruction or how students develop computational thinking in those spaces. Thus, we wonder: To what extent does engaging students in integrated engineering design and physics labs impact their development of computational thinking? We have incorporated engineering design within a traditional introductory calculus-based physics lab to promote students’ conceptual understanding of physics while fostering scientific inquiry, mathematical modeling, engineering design, and computational thinking. Using a generic qualitative research approach, we explored the development of computational thinking for six teams when completing an engineering design challenge to propose an algorithm to remotely control an autonomous guided vehicle throughout a warehouse. Across five consecutive lab sessions, teams represented their algorithms using a flowchart, completing four iterations of their initial flowchart. 24 flowcharts were open coded for evidence of four computational thinking facets: decomposition, abstraction, algorithms, and debugging. Our results suggest that students’ initial flowcharts focused on decomposing the problem and abstracting aspects that teams initially found to be more relevant. After each iteration, teams refined their flowcharts using pattern recognition, algorithm design, efficiency, and debugging. The teams would benefit from having more feedback about their understanding of the problem, the relevant physics concepts, and the logic and efficiency of the flowcharts 

   more » « less
2. Rethinking Debugging as Productive Failure for CS Education

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287333  

   Kafai, Yasmin B.; DeLiema, David; Fields, Deborah A.; Lewandowski, Gary; Colleen, Colleen (January 2019, SIGCSE '19 Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education)

   Computational thinking has become the calling card for re-introducing coding into schools. While much attention has focused on how students engage in designing systems, applications, and other computational artifacts as a measure of success for computational thinking, far fewer efforts have focused on what goes into remediating problems in designing systems and interactions because learners invariably make mistakes that need fixing-or debugging. In this panel, we examine the often overlooked practice of debugging that presents significant learning challenges (and opportunities) to students in completing assignments and instructional challenges to teachers in helping students to succeed in their classrooms. The panel participants will review what we know and don't know about debugging, discuss ways to conceptualize and study debugging, and present instructional approaches for helping teachers and students to engage productively in debugging situations. 

   more » « less
3. Student views of what counts as doing physics in the lab

   https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Stump  

   Stump, Emily M.; Holmes, N. G. (September 2022, 2022 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings)

   Frank, Brian W.; Jones, Dyan L.; Ryan, and Qing (Ed.)

   Numerous studies have identified gender inequity in how students divide roles in lab courses. Few studies, however, have probed how these inequities impact women's experimental physics identity development. In this work, we used closed-response surveys to investigate which lab tasks students view as part of "doing physics" and how these designations varied by gender. In both courses, we found that most students viewed working with the experimental apparatus, taking lab notes, doing data analysis, and thinking about the physics theory behind the experiment as part of doing physics. Only 50% of students, however, viewed managing the group progress as part of doing physics. While men and women's views did not vary in the first-semester lab course, in the third-semester course women were more likely to view notes and managing as part of doing physics than were men. Given that previous research has indicated that women are more likely to take on managing and note-taking roles than men, our results suggest that women may be receiving less recognition as physicists from their peers, which may hinder their experimental physics identity development. 

   more » « less
4. MAADS: Mixed-Methods Approach for the Analysis of Debugging Sequences of Beginner Programmers

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366824  

   Jemmali, C. (February 2020, SIGCSE bulletin)

   Debugging is a cornerstone of programming and has been shown to be especially problematic for beginners. While there has been some work trying to understand the difficulties that beginners face with debugging, investigating common mistakes or specific error types they struggle with, there is little work that focuses on in-depth analysis of how novice programmers approach debugging, and how it changes over time. In this paper, we present MAADS (MixedMethods Approach for the Analysis of Debugging Sequences), a scalable and generalizable approach that combines quantitative and qualitative methods by using a state/action representation and visualization to gain knowledge about the debugging process through a step by step analysis. To demonstrate the utility of MAADS, we analyzed the debugging processes of middle school students who developed code within May’s Journey, a game designed to teach basic programming principles. The approach showed great utility in identifying differences in students’ debugging techniques and learning paths. 

   more » « less
5. Defining and Assessing Systems Thinking in Diverse Engineering Populations

   Mosyjowski, E.A.; Daly, S.R.; Lattuca, L. (January 2019, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference)

   Engineers are called to play an important role in addressing the complex problems of our global society, such as climate change and global health care. In order to adequately address these complex problems, engineers must be able to identify and incorporate into their decision making relevant aspects of systems in which their work is contextualized, a skill often referred to as systems thinking. However, within engineering, research on systems thinking tends to emphasize the ability to recognize potentially relevant constituent elements and parts of an engineering problem, rather than how these constituent elements and parts are embedded in broader economic, sociocultural, and temporal contexts and how all of these must inform decision making about problems and solutions. Additionally, some elements of systems thinking, such as an awareness of a particular sociocultural context or the coordination of work among members of a cross-disciplinary team, are not always recognized as core engineering skills, which alienates those whose strengths and passions are related to, for example, engineering systems that consider and impact social change. Studies show that women and minorities, groups underrepresented within engineering, are drawn to engineering in part for its potential to address important social issues. Emphasizing the importance of systems thinking and developing a more comprehensive definition of systems thinking that includes both constituent parts and contextual elements of a system will help students recognize the relevance and value of these other elements of engineering work and support full participation in engineering by a diverse group of students. We provide an overview of our study, in which we are examining systems thinking across a range of expertise to develop a scenario-based assessment tool that educators and researchers can use to evaluate engineering students’ systems thinking competence. Consistent with the aforementioned need to define and study systems thinking in a comprehensive, inclusive manner, we begin with a definition of systems thinking as a holistic approach to problem solving in which linkages and interactions of the immediate work with constituent parts, the larger sociocultural context, and potential impacts over time are identified and incorporated into decision making. In our study, we seek to address two key questions: 1) How do engineers of different levels of education and experience approach problems that require systems thinking? and 2) How do different types of life, educational, and work experiences relate to individuals’ demonstrated level of expertise in solving systems thinking problems? Our study is comprised of three phases. The first two phases include a semi-structured interview with engineering students and professionals about their experiences solving a problem requiring systems thinking and a think-aloud interview in which participants are asked to talk through how they would approach a given engineering scenario and later reflect on the experiences that inform their thinking. Data from these two phases will be used to develop a written assessment tool, which we will test by administering the written instrument to undergraduate and graduate engineering students in our third study phase. Our paper describes our study design and framing and includes preliminary findings from the first phase of our study. 

   more » « less