Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Improving and Assessing Computational Thinking in Maker Activities: the Integration with Physics and Engineering Learning

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

A Correction to this article was published on 03 April 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) is believed to be a critical factor to facilitate STEM learning, and a vital learning objective itself. Therefore, researchers are continuing to explore effective ways to improve and assess it. Makerspaces feature various hands-on activities, which can attract students with diverse interests from different backgrounds. If well designed, scaffolded maker activities have the potential to improve students’ CT skills and STEM learning. In this study, we explore ways to improve and assess physics and engineering integrated CT skills through developing maker activities and assessments, which are applicable in both informal and formal educational settings. Our paper presents our work on improving and assessing CT in maker activities with two primary goals. First, it introduces the maker activities and instruments we developed to improve and assess CT that are integrated in physics and engineering learning. Second, it presents the students’ CT skill and disposition change from pretest to posttest in two summer academies with CT enhanced maker activities, which was respectively led by after school educators and formal educators in a public library.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 03 April 2020

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes.

References

  • Albert, J. (2016). Adding computational thinking to your science lesson: what should it look like? Reno, Nevada: Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. C., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2016). The makerspace movement: sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record.

  • 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 Pratice in Techology Enhanced Learning, 11(13), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learninger modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2014). Digital fabrication and ‘making’in education: the democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: of machines, makers and inventors. Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Wood, L. N., Lai, J. W. M., Howe, C., Lister, R., Mason, R., … Veal, J. (2017). Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 53–72.

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver.

  • Buechley, L., Peppler, K., Eisenberg, M., & Kafai, Y. (2013). Textile messages: dispatches from the world of E-textiles and education. New York, NY: Peter Lang Inc., International Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burge, J. E., Gannod, G. C., Doyle, M., & Davis, K. C. (2013). Girls on the go: a CS summer camp to attract and inspire female high school students. Paper presented at the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education.

  • Cartelli, A., Dagiene, V., & Futschek, G. (2012). Bebras contest and digital competence assessment: analysis of frameworks. Current trends and future practices for digital literacy and competence (pp. 35–46). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers in Education, 109, 162–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSTA (2018) Computational thinking teacher resources. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-teacher-resources_2ed-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=2

  • Dagienė, V., & Futschek, G. (2008). Bebras international contest on informatics and computer literacy: criteria for good tasks. Paper presented at the 3rd international conference on informatics in secondary schools - evolution and perspectives: Informatics education - supporting computational thinking Torun, Poland.

  • Garneli, V., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). Programming video games and simulations in science education: exploring computational thinking through code analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(3), 386–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, A., & Levin, L. (2019). Computational thinking and constructionism: creating difference equations in spreadsheets. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 50(5), 779–787.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J., & Buechley, L. (2013). Codeable objects: computational design and digital fabrication for novice programmers. Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

  • Kafai, Y., Peppler, K., & Chapman, R. (2009). The computer clubhouse: constructionism and creativity in youth communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y., Fields, D., & Searle, K. (2014). Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 532–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2011). Assessing youth’s computational thinking in the context of modeling & simulation, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  • Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K-8 curriculum. Acm Inroads, 5(4), 64–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, J., Barnes-Johnson, J., Mitchell, M., Unertl, A., Stubbe, C. R., & Ingraham, L. (2017). Developing teachers’ computational thinking beliefs and engineering practices through game design and robotics. North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

  • Lin, Q., Yin, Y., Tang, X., & Hadad, R. (2018). A systematic review of empirical research on maker activity assessment. New York: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malyn-Smith, J., & Lee, I. (2012). Application of the occupational analysis of computational thinking-enabled STEM professionals as a program assessment tool. Journal of Computational Science Education, 3(1), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L., & Dixon, C. (2013). Youth conceptions of making and the maker movement. New York: Paper presented at the Interaction Design and Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn: making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouza, C., Yang, H., Pan, Y.-C., Ozden, S. Y., & Pollock, L. (2017). Resetting educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: a computational thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3), 61–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS. (2013). Appendix F - Science and engineering practices in the NGSS. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20F%20%20Science%20and%20Engineering%20Practices%20in%20the%20NGSS%20-%20FINAL%20060513.pdf

  • Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: a literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas: basic books. Inc.

  • Peppler, K., & Glosson, D. (2013). Stitching circuits: Learning about circuitry through e-textile materials. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 751–763.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Rivas, L. (2014). Creating a classroom makerspace. Educational Horizons, 93(1), 25–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. (2007). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry: exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(3 & 4), 205–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sáez-López, J.-M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: a two year case study using “scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Boys’ needlework: understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. Omaha, Nebraska: Paper presented at the international computing education research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition. Paper presented at the special interest group on computer science education (SIGCSE).

  • 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 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Yin, Y., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Ayala, C. C., Young, B., … Pottenger, F. M. (2008). On the role and impact of formative assessment on science inquiry teaching and learning. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing science learning: perspectives from research and practice (pp. 21–36). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

  • Shell, D. F., & Soh, L.-K. (2013). Profiles of motivated self-regulation in college computer science courses: differences in major versus required non-major courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 899–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, K., Clark, K., & Williams, A. (2013). Designing games, designing roles: a study of youth agency in an urban informal education program. Urban Education, 48(5), 734–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, M., & Martin, F. (2015). The assessment of mobile computational thinking. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 30(6), 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, J., Rosenbaum, E., & Shaw, D. (2012). Makey Makey improvising tangible and nature-based user interfaces. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Paper presented at the ACM tangible embedded and embodied interaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., & Hadad, R. (2018). Assessing computational thinking: a systematic review of the literature. New York: Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Education Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, A., Gray, J., Corley, J., & Wolber, D. (2013). Using app inventor in a K-12 summer camp. Paper presented at the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education, Denver, CO.

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Trouille, L., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2014). Interactive assessment tools for computational thinking in high school STEM classrooms. Chicago, IL: Paper presented at the INTETAIN.

    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 

  • Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: measuring computational thinking in middle school. New York: Paper presented at the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., Brady, C., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde, M. H. (2014). Construction, categorization, and consensus: student generated computational artifacts as a context for disciplinary reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 99–121.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pulimood, S. M., & Pearson, K. (2010). Computational thinking via interactive journalism in middle school. Paper presented at the the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education, Milwaukee, WI.

  • Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11(2), 9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under grant with an ID of xxxxxxx. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We would also like to acknowledge the great contribution of the activity development team, including educators, teachers, and students, and the xxx Public Library. The work cannot be accomplished without their time and effort.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (grant number 1543124).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yue Yin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Identifying Information

Author identifying information is on the title page that is separate from the manuscript:

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. 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.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1. Internal CT integrated achievement tests

figure afigure afigure a

4. Arduino/Programming

figure b

Appendix 2. Items on self-report survey

Computational thinking disposition: Please indicate to what degree you agree with each of the following statement about your attitudes toward problem solving. (Options: Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly agree)

  1. 1.

    I have high confidence in dealing with complex problems.

  2. 2.

    I can handle complex problems if I keep trying.

  3. 3.

    I can solve complex problems if I have enough time.

  4. 4.

    I have high persistence in working with difficult problems.

  5. 5.

    I try as hard as I can when I face difficult problems.

  6. 6.

    I am willing to spend extra time and effort when solving difficult problems.

  7. 7.

    I have a great ability to deal with open ended problems (problems that do not have one single solution).

  8. 8.

    I am able to handle the problems that do not have one single answer.

  9. 9.

    I have a great tolerance of ambiguity (uncertainty and clarity) during problem solving.

  10. 10.

    I have a great ability to communicate and work with others to achieve a common goal or solution.

  11. 11.

    I am a great team player when working in teams.

  12. 12.

    I can work in teams productively.

Frequency of using computational thinking skills. Please indicate the frequency of your taking each of the following actions when solving problems. (Options: Almost never, About 1/4 of the time, About 1/2 of the time, About 3/4 of the time, Almost all the time)

  1. 1.

    I break down a complex problem or system into smaller parts that are more manageable and easier to understand.

  2. 2.

    I organize resources to work out a possible solution through the most efficient and effective steps.

  3. 3.

    When facing a complex problem (phenomena), I gather the general characteristics and filter out unimportant details to solve the problem.

  4. 4.

    I find the similarities or patterns within and among problems to find a solution.

  5. 5.

    I reduce complexity and find the main idea through models.

  6. 6.

    To solve many problems I develop step-by-step solutions or rules to follow.

  7. 7.

    After solving a problem, I think about how the solution could be improved.

  8. 8.

    After figuring out a solution, I examine whether the solution properly solved the problem and if it did so efficiently.

  9. 9.

    I compare the pros and cons of multiple possible solutions to a problem and pick the best solution.

Self-evaluation of maker activity related knowledge and CT skills. Please check your CURRENT knowledge about each of the following topics on a scale of 0 (No knowledge at all) to 10 (Very knowledgeable).

  1. 1.

    Electric circuits

  2. 2.

    E-textiles

  3. 3.

    Makey Makeys

  4. 4.

    Arduinos

  5. 5.

    Breadboard

  6. 6.

    Makerspace activities

  7. 7.

    Overall computational thinking

  8. 8.

    Computational Thinking (CT): Decomposition

  9. 9.

    CT: Abstraction

  10. 10.

    CT: Algorithm design

  11. 11.

    CT: Pattern generalization

Appendix 3. Appendix C. Scoring rubrics for CT achievement test

Part A. Background knowledge

1 What do you know about electric circuits? How do they work? Where might you see them in your life? (8 points)

 

What do you know? How does it work?

Where did you see?

0

Nothing, I do not know, or completely wrong

Nothing, I do not know, or completely wrong

1

One correct

One example

2

Two correct

Two example

3

Three correct

Three example

4

Four or above correct

Multiple or general correct, or two or above example etc.

Possible answers:

  • Parallel

  • Series

  • How parallel circuit work

  • How series circuit work

  • circuit transfer electricity/conductive path

  • power source or provide power

  • complete loop

  • Energy transfer

  • battery negative and positive

  • simple circuits and complex circuits

  • explain simple

  • explain complex

Part A 2. What do you know about Makey Makeys? How do they work? (4 points)

 

What do you know? How does it work?

0

Nothing, I do not know, or completely wrong

1

One correct

2

Two correct

3

Three correct

4

Four or above correct

Possible answers:

  • board connected to a computer/power source

  • use alligator/wire/circuits

  • ground connection

  • arrow connection /e.g., up, down, left, right, space, and click

  • control a program/work as keys

  • Use fruits

  • use body

  • Any conductive material (worth 2 points)

Part A 3. What do you know about Arduinos? How do they work? (4 points)

Points

What do you know? How does it work?

0

Nothing, I do not know, or completely wrong

1

One correct

2

Two correct

3

Three correct

4

Four or above correct

Possible answers:

  • Uno board/hardware connect with a computer

  • Breadboard for compartments/circuits

  • Code in computer/use C++

  • Computer control the board by program/software

  • Work without connecting to the computer/Like a mini computer /microcontroller

  • Device

  • Sense light

  • LED glow

  • Speakers

  • Buzzers

Part A 4. What is computational thinking? Provide several specific computational thinking skills and explain each. (8 points)

Points

What is CT? CT components

Explanation of each component

0

Nothing, I do not know, or completely wrong

Nothing, I do not know, or completely wrong

1

One correct

One correct

2

Two correct

Two correct

3

Three correct or above

Three correct or above

4

Four or above correct

Four or above correct

Part A 5. Please give example(s) for how you use computational thinking in life and/or study. (4 points)

Points

How do you use computational thinking in life and/or study?

0

Nothing, I do not know, or completely wrong

1

One correct

2

Two correct

3

Three correct

4

Four or above correct

Part B. Maker activity questions

1. Please design and draw a circuit diagram for each of the following scenarios. When you draw the circuit diagram, feel free to use the provided symbols to make your drawing easier if you’d like

Part B 1(1) Design and draw a circuit with one light bulb and one switch, the light bulb lights up. (6 points)

 

Symbols

Function

0

Nothing, I do not know

Nothing

1

Something but incorrect, e.g., just draw a light bulb symbol without anything else.

Working but not appropriate, wrong design, e.g., use a series circuit

2

drawing, not use symbols correctly, use mixed drawing and symbol, e.g., use both light picture and light symbols; use the LED light but in the wrong direction; use a battery symbol but put it in the wrong way.

Working partially appropriate, correct design, but not completely right. e.g., use a parallel circuit but without a switch.

3

Correctly use symbols,

Working completely appropriate, e.g., use a parallel circuit with a switch in the main route.

Part B 1(2) A student builds a circuit described in (1), but the light bulb does not light up. What would you suggest him to do to fix his circuit? (4 points)

Points

Criterion

0

Nothing, I do not know, or completely wrong

1

One correct

2

Two correct

3

Three correct

4

Four or above correct

Part B 1 (3) Make a circuit which contains 2 light bulbs and one switch. The switch controls both light bulbs. If either light bulb breaks, the other light bulb will not light up. (6 points)

 

Symbols

Function

0

Nothing, I do not know

Nothing

1

Something but incorrect, e.g., just draw a light bulb symbol without anything else.

Working but not appropriate, wrong design, e.g., use a series circuit

2

Drawing, not use symbols correctly, use mixed drawing and symbol, e.g., use both light picture and light symbols; use the LED light but in the wrong direction; use a battery symbol but put it in the wrong way.

Working partially appropriate, correct design, but not completely right. e.g., use a parallel circuit but without a switch.

3

Correctly use symbols,

Working completely appropriate, e.g., use a parallel circuit with a switch in the main route.

Part B 1 (4) Make a circuit which contains 2 light bulbs and one switch. The switch controls both light bulbs. If either of the light bulbs breaks, the other light bulb will still light up. (6 points)

 

Symbols

Function

0

Nothing, I do not know

Nothing

1

Something but incorrect, e.g., just draw a light bulb symbol without anything else.

Working but not appropriate, wrong design, e.g., use a series circuit

2

drawing, not use symbols correctly, use mixed drawing and symbol, e.g., use both light picture and light symbols; use the LED light but in the wrong direction; use a battery symbol but put it in the wrong way.

Working partially appropriate, correct design, but not completely right. e.g., use a parallel circuit but without a switch.

3

Correctly use symbols,

Working completely appropriate, e.g., use a parallel circuit with a switch in the main route.

Part B. 2 (1) E-textiles: A fashion designer wants to decorate a hat by sewing 5 LED lights that require a 3 V battery. Draw a diagram to reflect your design. You may use the following symbols or any other ones to make your drawing easier if you’d like. (8 points)

 

E-textile components

Step

0

Nothing

Nothing

1

One component

Mentioned one of the four major steps

2

Two components

Mentioned two of the major steps

3

Three components

Mentioned three of the major steps

4

Four components and more

Mentioned four or more steps

B2(2) Please list necessary steps to make the E-Texile above, so that the fashion designer can follow your instruction to finish the decoration. (6 points)

 

Symbols

Function

0

Nothing, I do not know

Nothing

1

Something but incorrect, e.g., just draw a light bulb symbol without anything else.

Working but not appropriate, wrong design, e.g., use a series circuit

2

drawing, not use symbols correctly, use mixed drawing and symbol, e.g., use both light picture and light symbols; use the LED light but in the wrong direction; use a battery symbol but put it in the wrong way. .

Working partially appropriate, correct design, but not completely right. e.g., use a parallel circuit but without a switch.

3

Correctly use symbols.

Working completely appropriate, e.g., use a parallel circuit with a switch in the main route.

3. Makey Makey. Miguel sets up a Makey Makey as pictured below. It is connected to a computer and all the connections work well. Miguel wants to use the fruits to trigger the space key on his computer, what should he do? (2 points)

Score

Step

0

Nothing is mentioned or something wrong

1

Touch or move banana 5, or talking about holding ground.

2

Connect banana 5 with orange

B4. Please draw a circuit diagram for it. Feel free to use the following symbols to make your drawing easier. (6 points)

 

Symbols

Function

0

Nothing, I do not know

Nothing

1

Something but incorrect, e.g., just draw a light bulb symbol without anything else.

Working but not appropriate, wrong design, e.g., use a series circuit

2

drawing, not use symbols correctly, use mixed drawing and symbol, e.g., use both light picture and light symbols; use the LED light but in the wrong direction; use a battery symbol but put it in the wrong way.

Working partially appropriate, correct design, but not completely right, e.g., use a parallel circuit but without a switch.

3

Correctly use symbols.

Working completely appropriate, e.g., use a parallel circuit with a switch in the main route.

6. Arduino/Programming

Look at the lines of code from the “Blink” sketch for Arduino. (4 points)

 

13

Twice the other one

0

Neither blank has 13.

Did not figure out the twice relationship, or simply double 1000 to 2000 or divide 1000 to 500

1

One blank has 13

Used the twice relationship but in the wrong way.

2

Both blanks have 13

Use the twice relationship correctly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X. et al. Improving and Assessing Computational Thinking in Maker Activities: the Integration with Physics and Engineering Learning. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 189–214 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8

Keywords

Navigation