Abstract
Synergistic learning combining computational thinking (CT) and STEM has proven to be an effective method for advancing learning and understanding in a number of STEM domains and simultaneously helping students develop important CT concepts and practices. We adopt a design-based approach to develop, evaluate, and refine our Collaborative, Computational STEM (C2STEM) learning environment. The system adopts a novel paradigm that combines visual model building with a domain-specific modeling language (DSML) to scaffold learning of high school physics using a computational modeling approach. In this paper, we discuss the design principles that guided the development of our open-ended learning environment (OELE) using a learning-by-modeling and evidence-centered approach for curriculum and assessment design. Students learn by building models that describe the motion of objects, and their learning is supported by scaffolded tasks and embedded formative assessments that introduce them to physics and CT concepts. We have also developed preparation for future learning (PFL) assessments to study students’ abilities to generalize and apply CT and science concepts and practices across problem solving tasks and domains. We use mixed quantitative and qualitative analysis methods to analyze student learning during a semester-long study run in a high school physics classroom. We document some of the lessons learned from this study and discuss directions for future work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
At the time of the study, no students in either condition had received integral calculus instruction.
References
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53.
Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 1–35.
Biswas, G., Segedy, J. R., & Bunchongchit, K. (2016). From design to implementation to practice a learning by teaching system: Betty’s Brain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 350–364.
Bransford, J. D., Sherwood, R. D., Hasselbring, T. S., Kinzer, C. K., & Williams, S. M. (2012). Anchored instruction: Why we need it and how technology can help. In Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 129-156). Routledge.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–101. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001061.
Broll, B., Volgyesi, P., Sallai, J., & Ledeczi, A. (2016). NetsBlox: a visual language and web-based environment for teaching distributed programming (technical report). http://netsblox.org/NetsBloxWhitePaper.pdf.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.
Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. M., Cheng, B. H., Oppezzo, M. A., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Preparing students for future learning with Teachable Agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 649–669.
Cooper, S., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Teaching computer science in context. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 5–8.
diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (Eds.). (2000). Case study method: Key issues, key texts. London: Sage Publications.
Grover, S., & Basu, S. (2017). Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and Boolean logic. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 267-272). ACM.
Grover, S., Jackiw, N., & Lundh, P. (2017). Integrating Dynamic Mathematics to Advance Learning of Computing Concepts for Diverse Student Populations. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. TX: San Antonio.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come (p. 19). Computer Science Education: Perspectives on Teaching and Learning in School.
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2014). Expansive Framing and Preparation for Future Learning in Middle-School Computer Science. In In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. Boulder: CO.
Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 183–187.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.
Harris, C. J., Krajcik, J. S., Pellegrino, J. W., & McElhaney, K. W. (2016). Constructing assessment tasks that blend disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and science practices for classroom formative applications. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math. Presented at Future Directions in Computing Education Summit, Orlando, FL.
K–12 Computer Science Framework. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org.
Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005). Teaching complex dynamic systems to young students with StarLogo. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 157–178.
Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K–8 curriculum. ACM Inroads, 5(4), 64–71.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 141–159.
McCauley, R., Fitzgerald, S., Lewandowski, G., Murphy, L., Simon, B., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2008). Debugging: A review of the literature from an educational perspective. Computer Science Education, 18(2), 67–92.
McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 745–931.
Mislevy, R. J., Haertel, G., Riconscente, M., Rutstein, D. W., & Ziker, C. (2017). Evidence-Centered Assessment Design. In Assessing Model-Based Reasoning using Evidence-Centered Design (pp. 19–24). SpringerBriefs in Statistics. New York: Springer International Publishing.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 193–206). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: MUPPET. American Journal of Physics, 61(3), 222–232.
Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 265–269). New York: ACM.
Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.
Schnabel, R. B. (2011). Educating computing’s next generation. Communications of the ACM, 54(4), 5–5.
Schwartz, D. L., & Arena, D. (2013). Measuring what matters most: Choice- based assessments for the digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775.
Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Farris, A. V., Karan, A., Martin, D., & Wright, M. (2015). Programming in K-12 science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 58(11), 33–35.
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.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1–61.
Sherina, B., diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., & Sherin, B. L. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through the collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3, 91–118.
Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program? Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 21–25.
Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. ASCD.
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.
Wiggins, G. T., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Perspective to Making Sense of the World. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Wing, J. (2016, March). Computational thinking, 10 years later. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/computational-thinking-10-years-later/
Yoon, S. A., Goh, S. E., & Park, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K-12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285–325.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dan Schwartz, Brian Broll, Justin Montenegro, Christopher Harris, Naveed Mohammed, Asif Hasan, Carol Tate, Shannon Campe, and Jill Denner for their assistance on this project. This project is supported under National Science Foundation Award DRL-1640199.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hutchins, N.M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M. et al. C2STEM: a System for Synergistic Learning of Physics and Computational Thinking. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 83–100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9