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

Exploring Force and Motion Concepts in Middle Grades Using Computational Modeling: a Classroom Intervention Study

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) and modeling are authentic practices that scientists and engineers use frequently in their daily work. Advances in computing technologies have further emphasized the centrality of modeling in science by making computationally enabled model use and construction more accessible to scientists. As such, it is important for all students to get exposed to these practices in K-12 science classrooms. This study investigated how a week-long intervention in a regular middle school science classroom that introduced CT and simulation-based model building through block-based programming influenced students’ learning of CT and force and motion concepts. Eighty-two seventh-grade students from a public middle school participated in the study. Quantitative data sources included pre- and post-assessments of students’ understanding of force and motion concepts and CT abilities. Qualitative data sources included classroom observation notes, student interviews, and students’ reflection statements. During the intervention, students were introduced to CT using block-based programming and engaged in constructing simulation-based computational models of physical phenomena. The findings of the study indicated that engaging in building computational models resulted in significant conceptual learning gains for the sample of this study. The affordances of the dynamic nature of computational models let students both observe and interact with the target phenomenon in real time while the generative dimension of model construction promoted a rich classroom discourse facilitating conceptual learning. This study contributes to the nascent literature on integrating CT into K-12 science curricula by emphasizing the affordances and generative dimension of model construction through block-based programming.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2003). When scientific models represent. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 17(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(13), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Kinnebrew, J., Dickes, A., Farris, A. V., Sengupta, P., Winger, J., & Biswas, G. (2012). A science learning environment using a computational thinking approach. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computers in Education (pp. 722-729).

  • Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK Robotics program: applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 12(2). Retrieved November 12, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ910910.pdf

  • Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, W. J., Townsend, J. S., & Staver, J. (2011). Using Rasch theory to guide the practice of survey development and survey data analysis in science education and to inform science reform efforts: an exemplar utilizing STEBI self-efficacy data. Science Education, 95(2), 258–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulter, C. J., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In Developing models in science education (pp. 41-57). Springer Netherlands.

  • 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, Canada.

  • Broll, B., Zare, H., & Ledeczi, A. (2017). Creating engaging science projects with netsblox. Paper presented at the 2017 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B).

  • Casey, P. J. (1997). Computer programming: a medium for teaching problem solving. Computers in the Schools, 13(1-2), 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Technology and learning—supports for subject matter learning. In International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 197–203). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58(1), 240–249.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dykstra Jr., D. I., & Sweet, D. R. (2009). Conceptual development about motion and force in elementary and middle school students. American Journal of Physics, 77(5), 468–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futschek, G. (2006). Algorithmic thinking: the key for understanding computer science. In In International Conference on Informatics in Secondary Schools - Evolution and Perspectives (pp. 159–168). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73–79.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Cooper, S., & Pea, R. (2014). Assessing computational learning in K-12. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 57-62). ACM.

  • Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2016). Factors influencing computer science learning in middle school. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 552-557). ACM.

  • Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming environments for novices. In S. A. Fincher & M. Petre (Eds.), Computer science education research (pp. 127–154). London: Taylor & Francis Group, PLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056–1065.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '09) (pp. 183–187). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Modelling in science lessons: are there better ways to learn with models? School Science and Mathematics, 98(8), 420–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D. (2007). Modeling theory for math and science education. In Paper presented at the ICTMA13: The International Community of Teachers of Mathematical Modelling and Applications. Indiana: IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meanings of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. T. (1983). Investigation of students’ understanding of speed, velocity and acceleration. Research in Science Education, 13(1), 95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. (2016). K–12 computer science framework. Retrieved November 12, 2019, from https://www.k12cs.org

  • Kozhevnikov, M., & Thornton, R. (2006). Real-time data display, spatial visualization ability, and learning force and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leenaars, F. A., van Joolingen, W. R., & Bollen, L. (2013). Using self-made drawings to support modelling in science education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 82–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre, J. M. (2018). Winsteps Rasch measurement computer program. Beaverton: Winsteps.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, J., & Mooney, A. (2018). Developing a Computational Thinking Test using Bebras problems. Paper presented at the Joint Proceedings of the CC-TEL 2018 and TACKLE 2018 Workshops, co-located with 13th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2018).

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 10(4), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2010). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

  • Neumann, I., Fulmer, G. W., & Liang, L. L. (2013). Analyzing the FCI based on a force and motion learning progression. Science Education Review Letters, 2013:8-14.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2012). Learning through constructing representations in science: a framework of representational construction affordances. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2751–2773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: a commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., ... & Kafai, Y. B. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.

  • Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: a review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2016). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2018). Can computational talent be detected? Predictive validity of the Computational Thinking Test. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenquist, M. L., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). A conceptual approach to teaching kinematics. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 407–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., ... & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.

  • Sengupta, P., Farris, A. V., & Wright, M. (2012). From agents to continuous change via aesthetics: learning mechanics with visual agent-based computational modeling. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 17(1-2), 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sequeira, M., & Leite, L. (1991). Alternate conceptions and history of science in physics teacher education. Science Education, 75(1), 45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Exploring the science framework and NGSS: computational thinking in the science classroom. Science Scope, 38(3), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasar, M. F. (2010). What part of the concept of acceleration is difficult to understand: the mathematics, the physics, or both? ZDM, 42(5), 469–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tisue, S., & Wilensky, U. (2004, May). Netlogo: a simple environment for modeling complexity. In International conference on complex systems, 21, 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, A., Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Moix, D., Fuschetto, B., .... & Verno, A. (2011). CSTA K-12 computer science standards. CSTA Standards Task Force. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from http://www.education2020.ca/Content/K-12ModelCurrRevEd.pdf

  • Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagh, A., Cook-Whitt, K., & Wilensky, U. (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), 615–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2015). To block or not to block, that is the question: students’ perceptions of blocks-based programming. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 199-208). ACM.

  • Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Comparing block-based and text-based programming in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., Brady, C. E., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H., Gravel, B. E., & Macrander, C. A. (2015). Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2-3), 396–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, H. K., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(6), 754–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuruk, N., Beeth, M. E., & Andersen, C. (2009). Analyzing the effect of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ understanding of force and motion concepts. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 449–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zur-Bargury, I., Parv, B., & Lanzberg, D. (2013). A nationwide exam as a tool for improving a new curriculum. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 267-272). ACM.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dhahran Ahliyya Schools, PO Box 39333, Dhahran, 31942, Saudi Arabia

    Osman Aksit

  2. Department of STEM Education, North Carolina State University, Box 7801, 326 Poe Hall, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Eric N. Wiebe

Authors
  1. Osman Aksit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric N. Wiebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Osman Aksit.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study 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. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aksit, O., Wiebe, E.N. Exploring Force and Motion Concepts in Middle Grades Using Computational Modeling: a Classroom Intervention Study. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 65–82 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation