Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Computational Thinking from a Disciplinary Perspective: Integrating Computational Thinking in K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

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

Abstract

This article provides an introduction for the special issue of the Journal of Science Education and Technology focused on computational thinking (CT) from a disciplinary perspective. The special issue connects earlier research on what K-12 students can learn and be able to do using CT with the CT skills and habits of mind needed to productively participate in professional CT-integrated STEM fields. In this context, the phrase “disciplinary perspective” simultaneously holds two meanings: it refers to and aims to make connections between established K-12 STEM subject areas (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and newer CT-integrated disciplines such as computational sciences. The special issue presents a framework for CT integration and includes articles that illuminate what CT looks like from a disciplinary perspective, the challenges inherent in integrating CT into K-12 STEM education, and new ways of measuring CT aligned more closely with disciplinary practices. The aim of this special issue is to offer research-based and practitioner-grounded insights into recent work in CT integration and provoke new ways of thinking about CT integration from researchers, practitioners, and research-practitioner partnerships.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aho, A. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55, 832–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074 https://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1922682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arastoopour, G., Shaffer, D., Swiecki, Z., Ruis, A. R., & Chesler, N. C. (2016). Teaching and assessing engineering design thinking with virtual internships and epistemic network analysis. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32(3B), 1492–1501.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benakli, N., Kostadinov, B., Satyanarayana, A., & Singh, S. (2016). Introducing computational thinking through hands-on projects using R with applications to calculus, probability and data analysis. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(3), 393–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2016.1254296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekharan, S., & Nersessian, N. (2015). Building cognition: the construction of computational representations for scientific discovery. Cognitive Science A Multidisciplinary Journal, 39(8), 1727–1763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuny, J., Snyder, L., and Wing, J. (2010). Computational thinking: a definition. Retrieved from www.cs.cmu.edu › ~CompThink › resources › TheLinkWing on 10-14-19.

  • Dennett, D. C. (1989). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmott, S. & Rison, S. (2006). Towards 2020 science. Microsoft Research. Downloaded at http://research.microsoft.com/towards2020science/downloads/T2020S_Report.pdf>. Accessed 11/19.

  • Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01990.x.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaible, E. and Burns, M. (2005). Using technology to train teachers [Online]. Available from infoDEV: http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.13.html (Accessed 4/12).

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

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: a competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, E. Barendsen, & S. Carsten (Eds.), Computer science education: perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–37). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassel, E. (1999). Professional development: learning from the best. Oak Brook, Illinois: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & MacKinnon, L. (2012). Learning programming at the computational thinking level via digital game-play. Procedia Computer Science, 9, 522–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ketelhut, D. J., Mills, K., Hestness, E., Cabrera, L., Plane, J., & McGinnis, R. (2019). Teacher Change Following a Professional Development Experience in Integrating Computational Thinking into Elementary Science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09798-4.

  • Latour, B. (1993). Pasteur on lactic acid yeast: a partial semiotic analysis. In Configurations, 1.1 (pp. 129–146). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2016). Reclaiming the roots of CT. CSTA Voice-Special Issue on Computational Thinking, 12(1), 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., & Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form and substance: modeling material kind. Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress, 39–74.

  • Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Portland, OR, USA.

  • Malyn-Smith, J., Lee, I. A., Martin, F., Grover, S., Evans, M. A., & Pillai, S. (2018). Developing a framework for computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education 2018. Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.

  • Martin, F. (2018). Rethinking computational thinking. CSTA - The Advocate., (Feb. 17, 2018).

  • Moursund, D. (2009). Computational thinking. IAE-pedia. Available online at <http://iaepedia.org/Computational_Thinking >. Accessed August 8, 2010.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: for states, 793 by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Bringing computational thinking into high school mathematics and science classrooms. Proceedings of ICLS 2016 (pp. 705–712). Singapore. Retrieved from http://ccl.northwestern.edu/2016/Orton_et_al_ICLS_2016.pdf

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, A.E., Brady, C.E. & Clark, D.B. (2019). Balancing the Environment: Computational Models as Interactive Participants in a STEM Classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09797-5.

  • President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC). (2005). Computational science: insuring America’s competitiveness. Washington, DC: National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development. Retrieved from https://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/reports/20050609_computational/computational.pdf

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seehorn, D., Carey, S., Fuschetto, B., Lee, I., Moix, D., O'Grady-Cunniff, D., Owens, B. B., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2011). CSTA K–12 computer science standards: revised 2011. ACM, New York, NY, USA: Technical Report.

    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, 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., & Ruis, A. R. (2017). Epistemic network analysis: a worked example of theory-based learning analytics. In Handbook of learning analytics and educational data mining.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E. A., et al. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: a prototype for 21st century assessment of learning. The International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011434026437.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, J., Goldsmith, L., Adrion, W. R., Dunton, S., Hendrickson, K. A., Peterfreund, A., Yongpradit, P., Zarch, R., & Zinth, J. D. (2017). State of the states landscape report: state-level policies supporting equitable K–12 computer science education. Waltham, MA: Education Development Center, Inc. http://www.edc.org/state-states-landscape-report-state-level-policies-supporting-equitable-k-12-computer-science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarkan, S., Sazawal, V., Druin, A., Golub, E., Bonsignore, E. M., Walsh, G., & Atrash, Z. (2010). Toque: designing a cooking-based programming language for and with children. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2417–2426). ACM.

  • Touretzky, D. S., Marghitu, D., Ludi, S., Bernstein, D., & Ni, L. (2013, March). Accelerating K-12 computational thinking using scaffolding, staging, and abstraction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 609–614). ACM.

  • Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484756.

  • Uzzo, S., & Chen, R. (2015). Integrating computational thinking and environmental science: design based research on using simulated ecosystems to improve students understanding of complex system behavior. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1543144

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson, M., & Fenwick, M. (2016). The practice of using mathematics and computational thinking. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers’ Association Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Good, J., Voogt, J., & Fisser, P. (2017). Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Competence-based vocational and professional education (pp. 1051–1067). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA

    Irene Lee

  2. Looking Glass Ventures/Stanford University, Stanford, USA

    Shuchi Grover

  3. University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, USA

    Fred Martin

  4. Education Development Center, Waltham, USA

    Sarita Pillai & Joyce Malyn-Smith

Authors
  1. Irene Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shuchi Grover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fred Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarita Pillai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joyce Malyn-Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Lee, I., Grover, S., Martin, F. et al. Computational Thinking from a Disciplinary Perspective: Integrating Computational Thinking in K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 1–8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09803-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09803-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation