[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Log in

Interpreting and Navigating Multiple Representations for Computational Thinking in a Robotics Programming Environment

  • Published:
Journal for STEM Education Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although researchers have proposed different definitions for Computational Thinking (CT), one commonality across these definitions is the emphasis on having students formulate and solve problems in various learning environments, including programming. The continuing attention to CT highlights the need for studies that examine students’, especially elementary students, problem-solving processes. The current study investigates how fifth graders engaged in CT problem-solving activities in a programming environment. Focusing on multiple representations embedded in the CT problem-solving processes, we analyze data of fifth graders who were engaged in a pair-programming robotics interview. In the interview, students navigate multiple representations, such as task instructions, a coding window, and outputs, and in the case of robotics programming activities, a physical robot. The results show that as students were participating in a variety of coding and problem-solving practices, they were interpreting and navigating information within the code window, across the code window and task instructions, across the code window and physical robot, and across all three representations. Informed by these findings, we propose a framework to conceptualize how elementary students interpret and navigate multiple representations in CT problem-solving processes, which could guide future studies in analyzing problem-solving processes in similar contexts. Implications on the importance of multiple representations in programming may apply to other CT learning environments as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The class had access to one robot. During class time students would test their code on the robotics simulation, and then, if working properly, and if time allowed, were able to test it on the physical robot (Figure 2). Differently, during the interview, the student’s computer was connected to the robot and students did not use the simulation and always tested their code on the physical robot.

  2. In the NAO platform, when running code, a green dot moves across the boxes in real-time. If an error occurs, the green dot will stop moving to facilitate debugging.

  3. https://codecombat.com

References

  • Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832e835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Authors. (2017).

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is Involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? Acm Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., & Marshall, K. S. (2011). Recognizing computational thinking patterns. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 245–250). ACM.

  • Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2), n2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2012). Bifocal modeling: a study on the learning outcomes of comparing physical and computational models linked in real time. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimodal interaction (pp. 257–264). ACM.

  • Blikstein, P., Fuhrmann, T., Greene, D., & Salehi, S. (2012). Bifocal modeling: mixing real and virtual labs for advanced science learning. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on interaction design and children(pp. 296–299). ACM.

  • Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’in education: The democratization of invention. FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, 4, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Bifocal modeling: a framework for combining computer modeling, robotics and real-world sensing. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2007), Chicago.

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver (pp. 1–25).

  • Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2012). The role of self-monitoring in learning chemistry with dynamic visualizations. In Metacognition in science education (pp. 133–163). Springer, Dordrecht.

  • College Board. (2014). AP Computer Science Principles Curriculum Framework. New York: College Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSM). (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards. Accessed 30 October 2018.

  • Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) (2011). Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K–12 Education. Accessed from: https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=152&category=Solutions&article=Computational-thinking-for-all

  • de Souza, C., Garcia, A., Slaviero, C., Pinto, H., & Repenning, A. (2011). Semiotic traces of computational thinking acquisition. End-User Development, 155–170.

  • Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 277–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learner’s classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, A.V., & Sengupta, P. (2014). Perspectival Computational Thinking for Learning Physics: A Case Study of Collaborative Agent-based Modeling. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. (ICLS 2014), pp 1102–1107.

  • Francis, K., Khan, S., & Davis, B. (2016). Enactivism, spatial reasoning and coding. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 2(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, H. (1997). Entering the child's mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge University Press.

  • Gorinova, M. I., Sarkar, A., Blackwell, A. F., & Syme, D. (2016). A live, multiple-representation probabilistic programming environment for novices. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2533–2537). ACM.

  • Greeno, J. G., & Van De Sande, C. (2007). Perspectival understanding of conceptions and conceptual growth in interaction. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: the case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaput, J. J. (1994). The representational roles of technology in connecting mathematics with authentic experience. Didactics of Mathematics as a Scientific Discipline, 379-397.

  • Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V., & Repenning, A. (2010). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 2010 IEEE Symposium on (pp. 59–66). IEEE.

  • Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., et al. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louca, L. T., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2008). The use of computer-based programming environments as computer modelling tools in early science education: The cases of textual and graphical program languages. International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 287–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004). Scratch: a sneak preview [education]. In Creating, connecting and collaborating through computing, 2004. Proceedings. Second International Conference on (pp. 104–109). IEEE.

  • Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014 on innovation & technology in computer science education conference (pp. 1–29). ACM.

  • National Research Council. (2008). Ready, Set, SCIENCE!: Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 10.17226/11882.

  • National Research Council. (2010). Report of a Workshop on the Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 10.17226/12840.

  • National Research Council. (2011). Report of a Workshop on the Pedagogical Aspects of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 10.17226/13170.

  • Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generational Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.

  • Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 138–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnafes, O. (2007). What does “fast” mean? Understanding the physical world through computational representations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 415–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7–30.

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Moix, D., O’Grady-Cunniff, D., … & Verno, A. (2011). CSTA K--12 Computer Science Standards: Revised 2011.

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching Experiment Methodology: Underlying Principles and Essential Elements. In R. Lesh & A. Kelly (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methodologies for Science and Mathematics Education (pp. 267–206). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virk, S., Clark, D., & Sengupta, P. (2015). Digital games as multirepresentational environments for science learning: Implications for theory, research, and design. Educational Psychologist, 50(4), 284–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, H., & Rosson, M. B. (2012). Using Scaffolded Activities to Teach Computational Thinking to Middle School Girls. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS) (p. 1). The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp).

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. Evanston.

  • Wilson, C., Sudol, L. A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik, M. (2010). Running on empty: The failure to teach K-12 computer science in the digital age. New York: The Association for Computing Machinery and the Computer Science Teachers Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, C. (2013). Molecular Workbench. http://mw.concord.org/modeler/index.html the Concord Consortium. Concord.

  • Zhang, Z. H., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Can generating representations enhance learning with dynamic visualizations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1177–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to all the students, teachers, and the principal at the school who made this research possible. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation, Grant # 1523010.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren A. Barth-Cohen.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest Statement

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Table of frequency counts of the various ways in which students navigate and interpret represented information while coding and debugging.

One representation (coding window)

Frequency

 Processing textual information

35

 Processing numerical data

12

 Interpreting and confusing the function of boxes

12

 Interpreting the structure of the entire code

11

 Debugging: Adding a new box based on the boxes function and syntax

39

 Debugging: Changing the structure of the code

26

 Debugging: Generalizing the structure of boxes

4

Relating the Code and Physical Robot

 Navigating coding window and physical robot

17

 Debugging: Misunderstanding the syntax

1

 Debugging: Watching the code run in real time

5

 Debugging: Misunderstanding a boxes function

7

Relating the Code and Task Instructions

 Navigating task instructions and coding window

41

 Debugging: Adding new boxes based on comparison of task instructions with the code

4

Relating the Code, Task Instructions, and Physical Robot

 Navigating task instructions, coding window, and physical robot

7

 Navigating all three representations to spur debugging with the addition of a new box

1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barth-Cohen, L.A., Jiang, S., Shen, J. et al. Interpreting and Navigating Multiple Representations for Computational Thinking in a Robotics Programming Environment. Journal for STEM Educ Res 1, 119–147 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0006-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0006-2

Keywords

Navigation