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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
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.
References
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832e835.
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2), 131–152.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.
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.
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.
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.
Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466.
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.
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.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260–264.
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.
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.
Ochs, E., Jacoby, S., & Gonzales, P. (1994). Interpretive journeys: How physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations, 2(1), 151–171.
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.
Parnafes, O. (2007). What does “fast” mean? Understanding the physical world through computational representations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 415–450.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
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.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
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.
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.
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
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0006-2