C2STEM: a System for Synergistic Learning of Physics and Computational Thinking
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.
KeywordsSTEM+CT Synergistic learning Learning-by-modeling Computational thinking Evidence-centered design Open-ended learning environment
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.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.
- diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (Eds.). (2000). Case study method: Key issues, key texts. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, 2, 141–159.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K–12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 193–206). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. ASCD.Google Scholar
- Wiggins, G. T., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
- Wing, J. (2016, March). Computational thinking, 10 years later. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/computational-thinking-10-years-later/