A Template for Teaching Computational Modelling in High School
Article No.: 11, Pages 1 - 10
Abstract
Computing education is becoming increasingly important in high schools. Computational modelling is important in computing and many sciences, but there is a lack of research on how teachers should teach computational modelling in high schools. This study was a design-based research study with 86 teachers teaching 12 different subjects at 44 Danish high schools. The study aimed to develop a template to help design and classify didactical questions on computational modelling. Teachers participated in one of two courses on computational modelling. The intervention group (Prog+) included an introduction to agent-based modelling and programming in NetLogo. The comparison group (Prog-) included a general introduction to agent-based modelling. A template consisting of 16 modelling parameters was developed with teachers. Results showed that the template was helpful for teachers to design didactical questions and for the research team to classify the taxonomical levels of these questions. A total of 51 teaching activities were developed by teachers and didactical questions were derived. The strength of this design based research study was that it included a control group and inspired teachers to design and evaluate didactical questions in computational modelling in a wide range of high school subjects. Future studies are needed to evaluate the validity of the template.
References
[1]
Sasha Barab and Kurt Squire. 2004. Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The journal of the learning sciences 13, 1 (2004), 1–14.
[2]
Todd K BenDor and Jürgen Scheffran. 2018. Agent-based modeling of environmental conflict and cooperation. CRC Press.
[3]
John Biggs. 1999. What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher education research & development 18, 1 (1999), 57–75.
[4]
John B Biggs and Kevin F Collis. 2014. Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press.
[5]
Paulo Blikstein, Dor Abrahamson, and Uri Wilensky. 2005. Netlogo: Where we are, where we’re going. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of Interaction Design and Children, Press, Vol. 23.
[6]
Paulo Blikstein and Uri Wilensky. 2009. An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 14 (2009), 81–119.
[7]
Whitney Wall Bortz, Aakash Gautam, Kemper Lipscomb, and Deborah Tatar. 2019. Integration Computational Thinking into Middle School Science: A search for Synergistic Pedagogy. In ASEE Southeastern Section Conference.
[8]
Sanjay Chandrasekharan and Nancy J Nersessian. 2015. Building cognition: The construction of computational representations for scientific discovery. Cognitive science 39, 8 (2015), 1727–1763.
[9]
John Clement. 2008. Six levels of organization for curriculum design and teaching. Model based learning and instruction in science (2008), 255–272.
[10]
Design-Based Research Collective. 2003. Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational researcher 32, 1 (2003), 5–8.
[11]
Allan Collins, Diana Joseph, and Katerine Bielaczyc. 2004. Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the learning sciences 13, 1 (2004), 15–42.
[12]
Barbara A Crawford and Michael J Cullin. 2004. Supporting prospective teachers’ conceptions of modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education 26, 11 (2004), 1379–1401.
[13]
Damian Dalle Nogare and Ajay B Chitnis. 2020. NetLogo agent-based models as tools for understanding the self-organization of cell fate, morphogenesis and collective migration of the zebrafish posterior Lateral Line primordium. In Seminars in cell & developmental biology, Vol. 100. Elsevier, 186–198.
[14]
Peter J Denning. 2017. Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Commun. ACM 60, 6 (2017), 33–39.
[15]
Peter J Denning and Matti Tedre. 2019. Computational thinking. Mit Press.
[16]
Rachele Dominguez and Benjamin Huff. 2015. The role of computational physics in the liberal arts curriculum. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 640. IOP Publishing, 012061.
[17]
Dedre Gentner and Albert L Stevens. 2014. Mental models. Psychology Press.
[18]
Ronald N Giere. 1992. Cognitive models of science. Vol. 15. U of Minnesota Press.
[19]
Julia Gouvea and Cynthia Passmore. 2017. ‘Models of’versus ‘Models for’ Toward an Agent-Based Conception of Modeling in the Science Classroom. Science & Education 26 (2017), 49–63.
[20]
Lorraine Grosslight, Christopher Unger, Eileen Jay, and Carol L Smith. 1991. Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science teaching 28, 9 (1991), 799–822.
[21]
Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2018. Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school 19, 1 (2018), 19–38.
[22]
Mark Guzdial, Alan Kay, Cathie Norris, and Elliot Soloway. 2019. Computational thinking should just be good thinking. Commun. ACM 62, 11 (2019), 28–30.
[23]
Jan Herrington and Thomas C Reeves. 2011. Using design principles to improve pedagogical practice and promote student engagement. (2011).
[24]
David Hestenes. 2013. Modeling theory for math and science education. Modeling Students’ Mathematical Modeling Competencies: ICTMA 13 (2013), 13–41.
[25]
Nicole M Hutchins, Gautam Biswas, Miklós Maróti, Ákos Lédeczi, Shuchi Grover, Rachel Wolf, Kristen Pilner Blair, Doris Chin, Luke Conlin, Satabdi Basu, 2020. C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology 29 (2020), 83–100.
[26]
Jane Jackson, Larry Dukerich, and David Hestenes. 2008. Modeling Instruction: An Effective Model for Science Education.Science Educator 17, 1 (2008), 10–17.
[27]
Michael J Jacobson, Beaumie Kim, Suneeta Pathak, and BaoHui Zhang. 2015. To guide or not to guide: issues in the sequencing of pedagogical structure in computational model-based learning. Interactive Learning Environments 23, 6 (2015), 715–730.
[28]
Michael J Jacobson, James A Levin, and Manu Kapur. 2019. Education as a complex system: Conceptual and methodological implications. Educational researcher 48, 2 (2019), 112–119.
[29]
Dennis Kafura, Austin Cory Bart, and Bushra Chowdhury. 2015. Design and preliminary results from a computational thinking course. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 63–68.
[30]
Moritz Krell, Annette Upmeier zu Belzen, and Dirk Krüger. 2014. Students’ levels of understanding models and modelling in biology: Global or aspect-dependent?Research in science education 44 (2014), 109–132.
[31]
Mark J Lattery. 2016. Deep Learning in Introductory Physics: Exploratory Studies of Model? Based Reasoning. IAP.
[32]
Irene Lee, Shuchi Grover, Fred Martin, Sarita Pillai, and Joyce Malyn-Smith. 2020. Computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective: Integrating computational thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology 29 (2020), 1–8.
[33]
Irene Lee, Fred Martin, Jill Denner, Bob Coulter, Walter Allan, Jeri Erickson, Joyce Malyn-Smith, and Linda Werner. 2011. Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads 2, 1 (2011), 32–37.
[34]
Richard Lehrer and Leona Schauble. 2006. Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education.Cambridge University Press.
[35]
Richard Lehrer and Leona Schauble. 2013. Modeling in mathematics and science. In Advances in instructional psychology. Routledge, 101–159.
[36]
Yeping Li, Alan H Schoenfeld, Andrea A diSessa, Arthur C Graesser, Lisa C Benson, Lyn D English, and Richard A Duschl. 2020. Computational thinking is more about thinking than computing., 18 pages.
[37]
Lauren E Margulieux, Brian Dorn, and Kristin A Searle. 2019. Learning sciences for computing education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[38]
André Menolli and João Coelho Neto. 2022. Computational thinking in computer science teacher training courses in Brazil: A survey and a research roadmap. Education and Information Technologies 27, 2 (2022), 2099–2135.
[39]
Prabhaker Mishra, Chandra M Pandey, Uttam Singh, Anshul Gupta, Chinmoy Sahu, and Amit Keshri. 2019. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of cardiac anaesthesia 22, 1 (2019), 67.
[40]
Mary S Morgan and Margaret Morrison. 1999. Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Number 52. Cambridge University Press.
[41]
Line Have Musaeus and Peter Musaeus. 2019. Computational thinking in the Danish high school: Learning coding, modeling, and content knowledge with NetLogo. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. 913–919.
[42]
Line Have Musaeus and Peter Musaeus. 2021. Computing and gestures in high school biology education. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1. 533–539.
[43]
Line Have Musaeus, Deborah Tatar, and Peter Musaeus. 2022. Computational Modelling in High School Biology: A Teaching Intervention. Journal of Biological Education (2022), 1–17.
[44]
Palle Nowack and Michael E Caspersen. 2014. Model-based thinking and practice: A top-down approach to computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 14th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. 147–151.
[45]
Cynthia M Passmore and Julia Svoboda. 2012. Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education 34, 10 (2012), 1535–1554.
[46]
Richard Paul and Linda Elder. 2007. Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning. Journal of developmental education 31, 1 (2007), 36.
[47]
Thomas Reeves. 2006. Design research from a technology perspective. In Educational design research. Routledge, 64–78.
[48]
Christina V Schwarz and Barbara Y White. 2005. Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and instruction 23, 2 (2005), 165–205.
[49]
Emily E Scott, Mary Pat Wenderoth, and Jennifer H Doherty. 2020. Design-based research: a methodology to extend and enrich biology education research. CBE—Life Sciences Education 19, 2 (2020), es11.
[50]
Pratim Sengupta, John S Kinnebrew, Satabdi Basu, Gautam Biswas, and Douglas Clark. 2013. Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies 18 (2013), 351–380.
[51]
Pratim Sengupta and Uri Wilensky. 2009. Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning 14 (2009), 21–50.
[52]
Sue Sentance and Andrew Csizmadia. 2017. Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies 22 (2017), 469–495.
[53]
Patrick HM Sins, Elwin R Savelsbergh, and Wouter R van Joolingen. 2005. The Difficult Process of Scientific Modelling: An analysis of novices’ reasoning during computer-based modelling. International Journal of Science Education 27, 14 (2005), 1695–1721.
[54]
Yanlong Sun, Wendy Newstetter, and Nancy J Nersessian. 2006. Promoting model-based reasoning in problem-based learning. Trabajo presentado en la reunión anual de la Cognitive Science Society, Vancouver, Canadá (2006).
[55]
Julia Svoboda and Cynthia Passmore. 2013. The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education 22 (2013), 119–142.
[56]
Xiaodan Tang, Yue Yin, Qiao Lin, Roxana Hadad, and Xiaoming Zhai. 2020. Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education 148 (2020), 103798.
[57]
Jan Van den Akker. 1999. Principles and methods of development research. Design approaches and tools in education and training (1999), 1–14.
[58]
Joke Voogt, Petra Fisser, Jon Good, Punya Mishra, and Aman Yadav. 2015. Computational thinking in compulsory education: Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies 20 (2015), 715–728.
[59]
Aditi Wagh, Kate Cook-Whitt, and Uri Wilensky. 2017. Bridging inquiry-based science and constructionism: Exploring the alignment between students tinkering with code of computational models and goals of inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 54, 5 (2017), 615–641.
[60]
Chia-Yu Wang and Lloyd H Barrow. 2011. Characteristics and levels of sophistication: An analysis of chemistry students’ ability to think with mental models. Research in Science Education 41 (2011), 561–586.
[61]
Shiang-Kwei Wang, Hui-Yin Hsu, Thomas C Reeves, and Daniel C Coster. 2014. Professional development to enhance teachers’ practices in using information and communication technologies (ICTs) as cognitive tools: Lessons learned from a design-based research study. Computers & Education 79 (2014), 101–115.
[62]
Melissa Warr and Punya Mishra. 2021. Integrating the discourse on teachers and design: An analysis of ten years of scholarship. Teaching and Teacher Education 99 (2021), 103274.
[63]
Mary Webb, Niki Davis, Tim Bell, Yaacov J Katz, Nicholas Reynolds, Dianne P Chambers, and Maciej M Sysło. 2017. Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when?Education and Information Technologies 22 (2017), 445–468.
[64]
David Weintrop, Elham Beheshti, Michael Horn, Kai Orton, Kemi Jona, Laura Trouille, and Uri Wilensky. 2016. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of science education and technology 25 (2016), 127–147.
[65]
Uri Wilensky. 1999. NetLogo. http://ccl. northwestern. edu/netlogo/
[66]
Uri Wilensky and William Rand. 2015. An introduction to agent-based modeling: modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Mit Press.
[67]
Uri Wilensky and Kenneth Reisman. 2006. Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and instruction 24, 2 (2006), 171–209.
[68]
Aman Yadav, Elisa Nadire Caeli, Ceren Ocak, and Victoria Macann. 2022. Teacher Education and Computational Thinking: Measuring Pre-service Teacher Conceptions and Attitudes. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1. 547–553.
[69]
Doron Zinger, Ashley Naranjo, Isabel Amador, Nicole Gilbertson, and Mark Warschauer. 2017. A design-based research approach to improving professional development and teacher knowledge: The case of the Smithsonian learning lab. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 17, 3 (2017), 388–410.
Index Terms
- A Template for Teaching Computational Modelling in High School
Recommendations
Teaching how to teach computational thinking
ITiCSE 2018: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science EducationComputational Thinking is argued to be an essential skill for the workforce of the 21st century. As a skill, Computational Thinking should be taught in all schools, employing computational ideas integrated into other disciplines. Up until now, questions ...
Computational thinking in high school courses
SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science educationThe number of undergraduates entering computer science has declined in recent years. This is paralleled by a drop in the number of high school students taking the CS AP exam and the number of high schools offering computer science courses. The declines ...
Teacher development in integrated STEM education: Design of lesson plans through the lens of computational thinking
AbstractIn recent years, the integration of STEM disciplines has been increasingly advocated. It is crucial to prepare and support teachers for integrated STEM education. However, few studies in the literature explore collaborating with teachers from ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
September 2023
173 pages
Copyright © 2023 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 27 September 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
- The Velux Foundations
Conference
WiPSCE '23
WiPSCE '23: The 18th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research
September 27 - 29, 2023
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 104 of 279 submissions, 37%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 98Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)69
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 17 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format