Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 351–380 | Cite as

Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework

  • Pratim Sengupta
  • John S. Kinnebrew
  • Satabdi Basu
  • Gautam Biswas
  • Douglas Clark
Article

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) draws on concepts and practices that are fundamental to computing and computer science. It includes epistemic and representational practices, such as problem representation, abstraction, decomposition, simulation, verification, and prediction. However, these practices are also central to the development of expertise in scientific and mathematical disciplines. Recently, arguments have been made in favour of integrating CT and programming into the K-12 STEM curricula. In this paper, we first present a theoretical investigation of key issues that need to be considered for integrating CT into K-12 science topics by identifying the synergies between CT and scientific expertise using a particular genre of computation: agent-based computation. We then present a critical review of the literature in educational computing, and propose a set of guidelines for designing learning environments on science topics that can jointly foster the development of computational thinking with scientific expertise. This is followed by the description of a learning environment that supports CT through modeling and simulation to help middle school students learn physics and biology. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our system by discussing the results of a small study conducted in a middle school science classroom. Finally, we discuss the implications of our work for future research on developing CT-based science learning environments.

Keywords

Computational thinking Agent-based modeling and simulation Visual programming Multi-agent systems Learning by design Computational modeling Science education Physics education Biology education 

References

  1. ACM K-12 Taskforce. (2003). A Model Curriculum for K-12 Computer Science: Final Report of the ACM K-12 Task Force Curriculum Committee. New York, NY: CSTA.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle (350 BCE/2002) Nichomachean ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Basu, S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (In Review). A scaffolding framework to support learning in multi-agent based simulation environments. Research in Science Education.Google Scholar
  4. 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, Singapore.Google Scholar
  5. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using Agent-Based Modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 81–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., & deJong, T. (2006). Modeling and simulation in inquiry learning: Checking solutions and giving advice. Simulation, 82(11), 769–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.Google Scholar
  10. Conway, M. (1997). Alice: Easy to Learn 3D Scripting for Novices, Technical Report, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.Google Scholar
  11. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (RR-63). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  12. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickes, A., & Sengupta, P. (2012). Learning Natural Selection in 4th Grade with Multi Agent-Based Computational Models. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9293-2.
  14. diSessa, A. A. (1985). A principled design for an integrated computational environment. Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2/3), 105–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). BOXER: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of ACM, 29(9), 859–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. diSessa, A. A., Abelson, H., & Ploger, D. (1991a). An overview of boxer. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
  21. diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991b). Inventing graphing: Children’s meta-representational expertise. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117–160.Google Scholar
  22. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. In J. Green, A. Luke, & G. Kelly (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 32, pp. 268–291). Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  24. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dykstra, D. I., Jr., & 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
  26. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Elby, A. (2000). What students’ learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ford, M. J. (2003). Representing and meaning in history and in classrooms: Developing symbols and conceptual organizations of free-fall motion. Science & Education, 12(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guzdial, M. (1995). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guzdial, M. (2008). Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM: Education Column. 51(8).Google Scholar
  32. Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 183–187.Google Scholar
  34. Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97–127.Google Scholar
  35. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. pp. 51–52. ISBN 0-89391-785-0.Google Scholar
  36. Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). An Introduction to the Profound Potential of Connected Algebra Activities: Issues of Representation, Engagement, and Pedagogy. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 129–136.Google Scholar
  37. Ho, C. H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2007). What You See Is What You Code: A “live” algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 18, 22–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kahn, K. (1996). ToonTalk: An animated programming environment for children. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing.Google Scholar
  41. Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old routes. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005) Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. (37) 83–137.Google Scholar
  43. Klahr, D., Dunbar, K., & Fay, A. L. (1990). Designing good experiments to test bad hypotheses. In J. Shrager & P. Langley (Eds.), Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation (pp. 355–401). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  44. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005). Teaching complex dynamic systems to young students with StarLogo. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 157–178.Google Scholar
  45. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 36–42. April 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kynigos, C. (2001). E-slate Logo as a basis for constructing microworlds with mathematics teachers (pp. 65–74). Lintz, Austria: Proceedings of the Ninth Eurologo Conference.Google Scholar
  48. Kynigos, C. (2007). Using half-baked microworlds to challenge teacher educators’ knowing. Journal of Computers for Math Learning, 12(2), 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371–388). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1–64.Google Scholar
  53. Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a “mid-level” to make ends meet: Reasoning through the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Locke, J. (1690/1979). An essay concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004) Scratch: A sneak preview. In Proceedings of Creating, Connecting, and Collaborating through Computing, 104109.Google Scholar
  56. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. National Research Council. (2008). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  58. National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  59. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3–45). MN: University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  60. Oshima, Y. (2005). Kedama: A GUI-based interactive massively parallel particle programming system. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC’05). Google Scholar
  61. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  63. Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 429–449.Google Scholar
  64. Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303–326.Google Scholar
  65. Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: M.U.P.P.E.T. American Journal of Physics, 61, 222–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Repenning, A. (1993). Agentsheets: A tool for building domain-oriented visual programming. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 142–143.Google Scholar
  68. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1994). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. NATO ASI Series F Computer and Systems Sciences, 128, 69–69.Google Scholar
  70. Roschelle, J., Digiano, C., Pea, R. D., & Kaput, J. (1999). Educational Software Components of Tomorrow (ESCOT), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics/Science Education & Technology (M/SET), March 1–4, 1999. San Antonio, USA.Google Scholar
  71. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schmidt, D. C. (2006). Guest editor’s introduction: Model-driven engineering. Computer, 39(2), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Segedy, J. R., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Biswas, G. (2012). Promoting metacognitive learning behaviors using conversational agents in a learning by teaching environment. Educational Technology Research & Development.Google Scholar
  75. Sengupta, P. (2011). Design Principles for a Visual Programming Language to Integrate Agent-based modeling in K-12 Science. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Complex Systems (ICCS 2011), pp 1636–1637.Google Scholar
  76. Sengupta, P., & Farris, A. V. (2012). Learning Kinematics in Elementary Grades Using Agent-based Computational Modeling: A Visual Programming Based Approach. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design & Children, pp 78–87.Google Scholar
  77. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21–50.Google Scholar
  78. Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Lowering the learning threshold: Multi-agent-based models and learning electricity. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Dynamic modeling: Cognitive tool for scientific inquiry (pp. 141–171). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Sengupta, P., Farris, A. V., & Wright, M. (2012). From agents to aggregation via aesthetics: Learning mechanics with visual agent-based computational modeling. Technology, Knowledge & Learning, 17(1–2), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sherin, B. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning:, 6, 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. M. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith, D., Cypher, A., & Tesler, L. (2000). Programming by example: Novice programming comes of age. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program? Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tan, J., & Biswas, G. (2007). Simulation-based game learning environments: Building and sustaining a fish tank. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp. 73–80). Jhongli, Taiwan.Google Scholar
  86. Tanimoto, S. L. (1990). VIVA: A visual language for image processing. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Von Glaserfeld, E. (1991). Abstraction, re-presentation, and reflection: An interpretation of experience and of Piaget’s approach. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 45–67). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42(1), 99–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  90. Wilensky, U., & Novak, M. (2010). Understanding evolution as an emergent process: Learning with agent-based models of evolutionary dynamics. In R. S. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. Intelligent design controversy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  91. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Cognition & Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1).Google Scholar
  93. Wing, J. M. (2006) Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no.3 March 2006, pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
  94. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366, 3717–3725.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pratim Sengupta
    • 1
    • 2
  • John S. Kinnebrew
    • 3
  • Satabdi Basu
    • 3
  • Gautam Biswas
    • 3
  • Douglas Clark
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Mind, Matter & Media LabVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teaching & Learning, Peabody CollegeVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of EECS/ISISVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA
  4. 4.Learning, Environment & Design LabVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations