Search for: All records

With the increased demand for introducing computational thinking (CT) in K-12 classrooms, educational researchers are developing integrated lesson plans that can teach CT fundamentals in non- computing specific classrooms. Although these lessons reach more students through the core curriculum, proper evaluation methods are needed to ensure the quality of the design and integration. As part of a research practice partnership, we work to infuse research- backed curricula into science courses. We find a three-pronged approach of evaluation can help us make better decisions on how to improve experimental curricula for active classrooms. This CEO model uses three data sources (student code traces, exit ticket responses, and field observations) as a triangulated approach that can be used to identify programming behavior among novice developers, preferred task ordering for the assignment, and scaffolding recommendations to teachers. This approach allows us to evaluate the practical implementations of our initiative and create a focused approach for designing more effective lessons. 

Computational Thinking (CT) is being infused into curricula in a variety of core K-12 STEM courses. As these topics are being introduced to students without prior programming experience and are potentially taught by instructors unfamiliar with programming and CT, appropriate lesson design might help support both students and teachers. “Use-Modify-Create" (UMC), a CT lesson progression, has students ease into CT topics by first “Using" a given artifact, “Modifying" an existing one, and then eventually “Creating" new ones. While studies have presented lessons adopting and adapting this progression and advocating for its use, few have focused on evaluating UMC’s pedagogical effectiveness and claims. We present a comparison study between two CT lesson progressions for middle school science classes. Students participated in a 4-day activity focused on developing an agent-based simulation in a block-based programming environment. While some classrooms had students develop code on days 2-4, others used a scaffolded lesson plan modeled after the UMC framework. Through analyzing student’s exit tickets, classroom observations, and teacher interviews, we illustrate differences in perception of assignment difficulty from both the students and teachers, as well as student perception of artifact “ownership" between conditions. 

As computing skills become necessary for 21st-century students, infused computational thinking (CT) lessons must be created for core courses to truly provide computing education for all. This will bring challenges as students will have widely varying experience and programming ability. Additionally, STEM teachers might have little experience teaching CT and instructing using unfamiliar technology might create discomfort. We present a design pattern for infused CT assignments that scaffold students and teachers into block-based programming environments. Beginning with existing code, students and teachers work together 'Using' and comprehending code before 'Modifying' it together to fix their programs. The activity ends with students 'Choosing' their own extensions from a pre-set list. We present a comparison of two implementations of a simulation activity, one ending with student choosing how to extend their models and one having all students create the same option. Through triangulating data from classroom observations, student feedback, teacher interviews, and programming interaction logs, we present support for student and teacher preference of the 'Student-Choice' model. We end with recommended strategies for developing curricula that follow our design model.