Advertisement

Practicing Formative Assessment for Computational Thinking in Making Environments

  • Roxana HadadEmail author
  • Kate Thomas
  • Mila Kachovska
  • Yue Yin
Article

Abstract

Making activities and environments have been shown to foster the development of computational thinking (CT) skills for students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) subject areas. To properly cultivate CT skills and the related dispositions, educators must understand students’ needs and build awareness of how CT informs a deeper understanding of the academic content area. “Assessing Computational Thinking in Maker Activities” (ACTMA) is a design-based research study that developed a curricular unit around physics, making, and CT. The project in this paper studied how instructors could use formative assessment to uncover students’ prior knowledge and improve their use of CT. This study aims to provide a qualitative analysis of one lesson in the unit implementation of an informal makerspace environment that strived to be culturally responsive. The study examined “moments of notice,” or instances where formative assessment could guide students’ understanding of CT. We found elements in the establishment of a classroom culture that can generate a continual use of informal formative assessment between instructors and students. This culture includes using materials in conjunction with the promotion of CT concepts and dispositions, focusing on drawing for understanding, the practice of debugging, and fluidity of roles in the learning space.

Keywords

Computational thinking Physics Engineering STEM k12 Assessment Formative assessment Makerspaces Maker movement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the students and mentors who participated in the study for the time and effort they dedicated.

Funding Information

Research on this project was developed with support from the National Science Foundation (1543124). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

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.

References

  1. Basawapatna, A. R., Koh, K. H., & Repenning, A. (2010). Using scalable game design to teach computer science from middle school to graduate school. Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education - ITiCSE 10.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822154
  2. Bell, A. W., & Purdy, D. (1985). Diagnostic teaching: Some problems of directionality. Nottingham: Shell Centre for Mathematical Education, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  3. Bell, B., Bell, N., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education (Vol. 12). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors (pp. 1–21). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Brady, C., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Anton, G., Rodriguez, S., & Wilensky, U. (2016). All Roads Lead to Computing: Making, Participatory Simulations, and Social Computing as Pathways to Computer Science. IEEE Transactions on Education, 60, 1.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, K. & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Retrieved August 12, 2016, from http://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf.
  9. Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Duran, R., Reed, B. S., & Webb, D. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663–689.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1163353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bruner, J. S. (1981). The social context of language acquisition. Language & Communication. Google Scholar
  12. Cavalcanti, G. (2013). Is it a Hackerspace, Makerspace, TechShop, or FabLab? Make Magazine (May 22, 2013). Available from: http://makerzine.com/2013/05/22/the-difference-between-hackerpaces-makerspaces-techshops-and-fablabls/.
  13. Chávez, V., & Soep, E. (2005). Youth radio and the pedagogy of collegiality. Harvard Education Review, 75(4), 409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collins, A., & Ferguson, W. (1993). Epistemic forms and epistemic games: Structures and strategies to guide inquiry. Educational Psychologist, 28, 25–42.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2801_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  16. Cowie, B., & Bell, B. (1999). A model of formative assessment in science education. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 6(1), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woolard, J. (2015) Computational thinking - A guide for teachers. Retrieved from http://community.computingatschoo.org.uk.resources/2324.
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. C. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the funds of knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Beechum, N. O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of non-cognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium of Chicago School Research.Google Scholar
  22. Fields, D. A., & King, W. L. (2014). “So, I think I'm a programmer now.” Developing connected learning for adults in a university craft technologies course. In J. L. Polman et al. (Eds.), Learning and Becoming in Practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2014 (Vol. 1, pp. 927–936). Boulder: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Fields, D. A., Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Deconstruction kits for learning: Students’ collaborative debugging of electronic textile designs. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (pp. 82–85). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Furtak, E. M., & Ruiz-Primo, M. A. (2007) Studying the effectiveness of four types of formative assessment prompts in providing information about students’ understanding in writing and discussions. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  25. Greeno, J. G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for research in mathematics education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harel, I. E., & Papert, S. E. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Henderson, P. B., Cortina, T. J., & Wing, J. M. (2007). Computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 195–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we losing an opportunity? Paper prepared for the Council of Chief State School Officers. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2010/Formative_Assessment_Next_Generation_2010.pdf.
  30. Herold, B. (2016). The maker movement in K-12 education: A guide to emerging research. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2016/04/maker_movement_in_k-12_education_research.html.
  31. Hudesman, J., Crosby, S., Flugman, B., Issac, S., Everson, H., & Clay, D. B. (2013). Using formative assessment and metacognition to improve student achievement. Journal of Developmental Education, 37(1), 2.Google Scholar
  32. International Society for Technology in Education & Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational Definition of Computational Thinking for K-12 Education. Retrieved from http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf.
  33. Johnson, A. M., Butcher, K. R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2014). Introductory circuit analysis learning from abstract and contextualized circuit representations: Effects of diagram labels. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57(3), 160–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kazimoglu, C., Kiernan, M., Bacon, L., & Mackinnon, L. (2012). A serious game for developing computational thinking and learning introductory computer programming. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1991–1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by designTM into practice. Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491 Retrieved from http://aer.sagepub.com/content/32/3/465.full.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coutler, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., Malyn-Smith, J., & Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking of youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lister, R., Adams, E. S., Fitzgerald, S., Fone, W., Hamer, J., Lindholm, M., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Sanders, K., Seppälä, O., & Simon, B. (2004). A multi-national study of reading and tracing skills in novice programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(4), 119–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Litts, B. (2015). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments Retrieved from http://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/Litts_2015_Dissertation_Published.pdf.
  41. Ma, A., & Norwich, B. (2007). Triangulation and Theoretical Understanding. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(3), 211–226.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701541878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin, F. (2018). Rethinking Computational Thinking. Retrieved April 13, 2018, from http://advocate.csteachers.org/2018/02/17/rethinking-computational-thinking/.
  43. Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2013). Invent to learn. Torrance: Constructing modern knowledge press.Google Scholar
  44. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into practice, 31(2), 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moreno, R., Reisslein, M., & Ozogul, G. (2009). Pre-college electrical engineering instruction: Do abstract or contextualized representations promote better learning?. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2009. FIE'09. 39th IEEE (pp. 1-6). IEEE.Google Scholar
  46. Moreno, R., Ozogul, G., & Reisslein, M. (2011). Teaching with concrete and abstract visual representations: Effects on students' problem solving, problem representations, and learning perceptions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. National Research Council. (2004). Computer Science: Reflections on the Field, Reflections from the Field. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  49. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States (NGSS). (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 11, 47–87.Google Scholar
  52. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into practice, 41(4), 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, S., & Alibali, M. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics (Reprint). Journal of Education, 196(2), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shavelson, R. J., Yin, Y., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Ayala, C. C. (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: National Science Teachers Association Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., & Hadad, R. (2018). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of the literature. Poster presented at the 2018 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New York, NY.Google Scholar
  61. Tarkan, S., Sazawal, V., Druin, A., Golub, E., Bonsignore, E. M., Walsh, G., & Atrash, Z. (2010, April). 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). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  62. Tierney, J. (2015). The Dilemmas of maker culture. Thinking through the consequences of the proliferation of powerful tools and technologies. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/04/the-dilemmas-of-maker-culture/390891/.
  63. 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). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  64. Vélez-Ibáñez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1992). Formation and transformation of funds of knowledge among U.S.-Mexican Households. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 23(4), 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolz, U., Pearson, K., Pulimood, M., Stone, M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school: A novel approach to broadening participation in computing. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(2), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Northeastern Illinois UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Become, Inc.ChicagoUSA
  4. 4.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations