Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 127–147 | Cite as

Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms

  • David WeintropEmail author
  • Elham Beheshti
  • Michael Horn
  • Kai Orton
  • Kemi Jona
  • Laura Trouille
  • Uri Wilensky


Science and mathematics are becoming computational endeavors. This fact is reflected in the recently released Next Generation Science Standards and the decision to include “computational thinking” as a core scientific practice. With this addition, and the increased presence of computation in mathematics and scientific contexts, a new urgency has come to the challenge of defining computational thinking and providing a theoretical grounding for what form it should take in school science and mathematics classrooms. This paper presents a response to this challenge by proposing a definition of computational thinking for mathematics and science in the form of a taxonomy consisting of four main categories: data practices, modeling and simulation practices, computational problem solving practices, and systems thinking practices. In formulating this taxonomy, we draw on the existing computational thinking literature, interviews with mathematicians and scientists, and exemplary computational thinking instructional materials. This work was undertaken as part of a larger effort to infuse computational thinking into high school science and mathematics curricular materials. In this paper, we argue for the approach of embedding computational thinking in mathematics and science contexts, present the taxonomy, and discuss how we envision the taxonomy being used to bring current educational efforts in line with the increasingly computational nature of modern science and mathematics.


Computational thinking High school mathematics and science education STEM education Scientific practices Systems thinking Modeling and simulation Computational problem solving 



This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF Grant CNS-1138461. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.


  1. Abrahamson D, Wilensky U (2005) ProbLab goes to school: design, teaching, and learning of probability with multi-agent interactive computer models. In: Proceedings of the fourth conference of the European Society for research in mathematics education. San Feliu de GixolsGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrahamson D, Janusz RM, Wilensky U (2006) There once was a 9-block: a middle-school design for probability and statistics. J Stat Educ 14(1).
  3. Adams WK, Reid S, LeMaster R, McKagan SB, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Wieman CE (2008a) A study of educational simulations part I: engagement and Learning. J Interact Learn Res 19(3):367–419Google Scholar
  4. Adams WK, Reid S, LeMaster R, McKagan SB, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Wieman CE (2008b) A study of educational simulations part II: interface design. J Interact Learn Res 19(4):551–557Google Scholar
  5. Anderson MP, Srolovitz DJ, Grest GS, Sahni PS (1984) Computer simulation of grain growth—I: kinetics. Acta Metall 32(5):783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Assaraf OB-Z, Orion N (2005) Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. J Res Sci Teach 42(5):518–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Astrachan O, Briggs A (2012) The CS principles project. CM Inroads 3(2):38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Augustine NR (2005) Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Bailey D, Borwein JM (2011) Exploratory experimentation and computation. Not Am Math Soc 58(10):1410–1419Google Scholar
  10. Barab S, Thomas M, Dodge T, Carteaux R, Tuzun H (2005) Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educ Technol Res Dev 53(1):86–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bar-Yam Y (2003) Dynamics of complex systems. Perseus Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Beheshti E, Weintrop D, Horn MS, Orton K, Jona K, Wilensky U (In Preparation) Computational thinking in the wild: how scientists and mathematicians use computational thinking in their work.Google Scholar
  14. Blikstein P (2013) Digital fabrication and “making” in education: the democratization of invention. In: Walter-Herrmann J, Büching C (eds) FabLabs: of machines, makers and inventors, Transcript Publishers, Bielefeld, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  15. 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. Int J Comput Math Learn 14(2):81–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borner K (2015) Atlas of knowledge: anyone can map. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Box GE, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Brady C, Holbert N, Soylu F, Novak M, Wilensky U (2015) Sandboxes for model-based inquiry. J Sci Educ Technol 24(2):265–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brown D (2013) Tracker: video analysis and modeling tool (Version 4.82).
  20. Brennan K, Resnick M (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Presented at the American Education Researcher Association, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Bryan J (2006) Technology for physics instruction. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 6(2):230Google Scholar
  22. Buckley BC, Gobert JD, Kindfield ACH, Horwitz P, Tinker RF, Gerlits B et al (2004) Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogicaTM: what do they learn? how do they learn? how do we know? J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):23–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Buechley L, Eisenberg M, Catchen J, Crockett A (2008) The LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 423–432Google Scholar
  24. Chinn CA, Malhotra BA (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 86(2):175–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clements DH, Gullo DF (1984) Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. J Educ Psychol 76(6):1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Computer Science Teachers Association (2011) K-12 computer science standards.
  27. Confrey J (1993) The role of technology in reconceptualizing functions and algebra. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, AsilomarGoogle Scholar
  28. Cooper S, Dann W, Pausch R (2000) Alice: a 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. J Comput Sci Coll 15(5):107–116Google Scholar
  29. Dijkstra HA (2013) Nonlinear climate dynamics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. diSessa AA (2000) Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. diSessa AA (2004) Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cogn Instr 22(3):293–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Driscoll DP (2013) Technology and engineering literacy framework for the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress. US Department of Education, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Duschl RA, Bismack AS (2013) Standards for science education: quantitative reasoning and modeling concepts. In: Duschl RA, Bismack AS (eds) Reconceptualizing STEM education: the central role of practices. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WYGoogle Scholar
  34. Duschl RA, Schweingruber HA, Shouse AW (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Edelson DC, Gordin DN, Pea RD (1999) Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. J Learn Sci 8(3/4):391–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eisenberg M (2002) Output devices, computation, and the future of mathematical crafts. Int J Comput Math Learn 7(1):1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Epstein J, Axtell R (1996) Growing artifical societies: social science from the bottom up. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  38. Feurzeig W, Papert S, Lawler B (2011) Programming-languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. Interact Learn Environ 19(5):487–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Finzer W, Erickson T, Binker J (2001) Fathom [computer software]. KCP Technologies, EmeryvilleGoogle Scholar
  40. Forrester JW (1968) Principles of systems. Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MAGoogle Scholar
  41. Foster I (2006) 2020 computing: a two-way street to science’s future. Nature 440(7083):419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Furber S (2012) Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. Technical report, The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Gardner DP (1983) A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Gilbert JK (2004) Models and modelling: routes to more authentic science education. Int J Sci Math Educ 2(2):115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Goldstone RL, Wilensky U (2008) Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. J Learn Sci 17(4):465–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Google: Exploring Computational Thinking. (n.d.). Retrieved 25 Oct 2010.
  47. Grimm Volker, Revilla Eloy, Berger Uta, Jeltsch Florian, Mooij Wolf M, Railsback Steven F, Thulke Hans-Hermann, Weiner Jacob, Wiegand Thorsten, DeAngelis Donald L (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Grover S, Pea R (2013) Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res 42(1):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Guzdial M (1994) Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interact Learn Environ 4(1):001–044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Guzdial M (2008) Paving the way for computational thinking. Commun ACM 51(8):25–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Guzdial M, Soloway E (2003) Computer science is more important than calculus: the challenge of living up to our potential. SIGCSE Bull 35(2):5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hambrusch S, Hoffmann C, Korb JT, Haugan M, Hosking AL (2009) A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In: ACM SIGCSE bulletin, vol 41, pp 183–187Google Scholar
  53. Hancock C, Kaput JJ, Goldsmith LT (1992) Authentic inquiry with data: critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educ Psychol 27(3):337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000) A typology of school science models. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):1011–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Henderson PB, Cortina TJ, Wing JM (2007) Computational thinking. In: ACM SIGCSE bulletin, vol 39. ACM, pp 195–196Google Scholar
  56. Hmelo CE, Holton DL, Kolodner JL (2000) Designing to learn about complex systems. J Learn Sci 9(3):247–298. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Horn MS, Brady C, Hjorth A, Wagh A, Wilensky U (2014) Frog pond: a code-first learning environment on evolution and natural selection. ACM Press, New York, pp 357–360Google Scholar
  58. Horwitz P, Schwartz J, Kindfield ACH, Yessis LM, Hickey DT, Heidenberg A, Wolfe EW (1998) Implementation and evaluation of the GenScope™ learning environment: issues, solutions, and results. In: Guzdial M, Kolodner J, Bruckman A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd annual international conference of the learning sciences. Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education, CharlottesvilleGoogle Scholar
  59. Jackson SL, Stratford SJ, Krajcik J, Soloway E (1994) Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interact Learn Environ 4(3):233–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jacobson MJ, Wilensky U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1):11–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jona K, Vondracek M (2013) A remote radioactivity experiment. Phys Teach 51(1):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jona K, Wilensky U, Trouille L, Horn MS, Orton K, Weintrop D, Beheshti E (2014) Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Presented at the Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  63. Kaput JJ (1998) Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: a kaleidoscope of windows. J Math Behav 17(2):265–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kay A, Goldberg A (1977) Personal dynamic media. Computer 10(3):31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Keeling MJ, Grenfell BT (1997) Disease extinction and community size: modeling the persistence of measles. Sci 275(5296):65–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Klopfer E (2003) Technologies to support the creation of complex systems models: using StarLogo software with students. Biosystems 71(1–2):111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kohn W (2003) Nobel lectures, chemistry 1996–2000. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 213Google Scholar
  68. Konold C, Miller CD (2005) TinkerPlots: dynamic data exploration. Computer software. Key Curriculum Press, Emeryville, CAGoogle Scholar
  69. Lander ES, Schork NJ (1994) Genetic dissection of complex traits. Sci 265(5181):2037–2048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Laszlo E (1996) The systems view of the world: a holistic vision for our time, 2nd edn. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJGoogle Scholar
  71. Lehrer R, Giles N, Schauble L (2002) Data modeling. In: Lehrer R, Schauble L (eds) Investigating real data in the classroom: expanding children’s understanding of mathematics and science. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  72. Lehrer R, Romberg T (1996) Exploring children’s data modeling. Cognition Instruct 14(1):69–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lubchenco J, Olson AM, Brubaker LB, Carpenter SR, Holland MM, Hubbell SP et al (1991) The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda: a report from the Ecological Society of America. Ecology 72(2):371–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2006) Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 371–388Google Scholar
  75. Levy ST, Wilensky U (2008) Inventing a “Mid Level” to make ends meet: reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cogn Instr 26(1):1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Levy ST, Wilensky U (2009) Crossing levels and representations: the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum. J Sci Educ Technol 18(3):224–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lin CC, Zhang M, Beck B, Olsen G (2009) Embedding computer science concepts in K-12 science curricula. In: Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 539–543Google Scholar
  78. Linn MC, Clark D, Slotta JD (2003) WISE design for knowledge integration. Sci Educ 87(4):517–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Louca LT, Zacharia ZC (2012) Modeling-based learning in science education: cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educ Rev 64(4):471–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Manabe S, Stouffer RJ (1988) Two stable equilibria of a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. J Clim 1:841–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Margolis J (2008) Stuck in the shallow end: education, race, and computing. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  82. Margolis J, Fisher A (2003) Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  83. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010) Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  84. National Research Council (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  85. National Research Council (2010) Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  86. National Research Council (2011a) Learning science through computer games and simulations. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  87. National Research Council (2011b) Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  88. National Research Council (2012a) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  89. National Research Council (2012b) Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  90. National Research Council (2012c) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  91. Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving, vol 104. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  92. NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  93. Olsen LF, Schaffer WM (1990) Chaos versus noisy periodicity: alternative hypotheses for childhood epidemics. Sci 249(4968):499–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Palumbo DB (1990) Programming language/problem solving research: a review of relevant issues. Rev Educ Res 60(1):65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Papert S (1972) Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 3(3):249–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  97. Papert S (1996) An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. Int J Comput Math Learn 1(1):138–142Google Scholar
  98. Parnafes O (2007) What does “fast” mean? understanding the physical world through computational representations. J Learn Sci 16(3):415–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Penner DE (2000) Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Rev Res Educ 25:1Google Scholar
  100. Perkins K, Adams W, Dubson M, Finkelstein N, Reid S, Wieman C, LeMaster R (2006) PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. Phys Teach 44(1):18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Perlis A (1962) The computer in the university. In: Greenberger M (ed) Computers and the world of the future. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 180–219Google Scholar
  102. Pople J (2003) Nobel lectures, chemistry 1996–2000. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 246Google Scholar
  103. Redish EF, Wilson JM (1993) Student programming in the introductory physics course: mUPPET. Am J Phys 61:222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 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 265–269Google Scholar
  105. Resnick M, Silverman B, Kafai Y, Maloney J, Monroy-Hernández A, Rusk N et al (2009) Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM 52(11):60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Richmond B, Peterson S, Vescuso P, Maville N (1987) An Academic user’s guide to Stella Software. High Performance Systems, Inc, Lyme, NHGoogle Scholar
  107. Roschelle J, Kaput J, Stroup W (2000) SimCalc: accelerating student engagement with the mathematics of change. In: Learning the sciences of the 21st century: research, design, and implementing advanced technology learning environments. pp 47–75Google Scholar
  108. Rubin A, Nemirovsky R (1991) Cars, computers, and air pumps: thoughts on the roles of physical and computer models in learning the central concepts of calculus. In Underhill RG (ed) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education—North American Chapter Conference, Virginia, pp 168–174Google Scholar
  109. Ryoo JJ, Margolis J, Lee CH, Sandoval CD, Goode J (2013) Democratizing computer science knowledge: transforming the face of computer science through public high school education. Learn Media Technol 38(2):161–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Schwarz CV, Meyer K, Sharma A (2007) Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. J Sci Teach Educ 18(2):243–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Sengupta P, Kinnebrew JS, Basu S, Biswas G, Clark D (2013) Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: a theoretical framework. Educ Inf Technol 18(2):351–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Settle A, Franke B, Hansen R, Spaltro F, Jurisson C, Rennert-May C, Wildeman B (2012) Infusing computational thinking into the middle- and high-school curriculum. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 22–27Google Scholar
  113. Settle A, Goldberg DS, Barr V (2013) Beyond computer science: computational thinking across disciplines. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 311–312Google Scholar
  114. Shaughnessy JM (2007) Research on statistics learning. In: Lester FK (ed) Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp 957–1009.Google Scholar
  115. Sherin BL (2001) A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. Int J Comput Math Learn 6(1):1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Sherin BL, diSessa AA, Hammer D (1993) Dynaturtle revisited: learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interact Learn Environ 3(2):91–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Srolovitz DJ, Anderson MP, Sahni PS, Grest GS (1984) Computer simulation of grain growth—II: grain size distribution, topology, and local dynamics. Acta Metall 32(5):793–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  119. Stieff M, Wilensky U (2003) Connected chemistry: incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 12(3):285–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Taub R, Armoni M, Bagno E, Ben-Ari M (2015) The effect of computer science on physics learning in a computational science environment. Comput Educ 87:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Tinker RF, Xie Q (2008) Applying computational science to education: the molecular workbench paradigm. Comput Sci Eng 10(5):24–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Turelli M, Barton NH (1994) Genetic and statistical analyses of strong selection on polygenic traits: what, me normal? Genetics 138(3):913–941Google Scholar
  123. Vogelsberger M, Genel S, Springel V, Torrey P, Sijacki D, Xu D et al (2014) Introducing the illustris project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe. Mon Not R Astron Soc 444(2):1518–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. von Neumann J (1955) Method in the physical sciences. In: Bródy F, Vámos T (eds) The Neumann compendium: world series in 20th century mathematics, vol 1. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 628Google Scholar
  125. Wagh A, Wilensky U (2014) Seeing patterns of change: supporting student noticing in building models of natural selection. In: Proceedings of 2014 constructionism. Vienna, 19–23 AugGoogle Scholar
  126. Weintrop D, Wilensky U (2013) RoboBuilder: a computational thinking game. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, Denver, pp 736–736Google Scholar
  127. White BY (1993) ThinkerTools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cogn Instr 10(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. White BY, Frederiksen JR (1998) Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cogn Instr 16(1):3–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Wilensky U (1995) Paradox, programming, and learning probability: a case study in a connected mathematics framework. J Math Behav 14(2):253–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Wilensky U (1997) What is normal anyway? therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educ Stud Math 33(2):171–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Wilensky U (1999a) GasLab: an extensible modeling toolkit for exploring statistical mechanics. In: Roberts N, Feurzeig W, Hunter B (eds) Computer modeling and simulation in science education. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Wilensky U (1999b) NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston.
  133. Wilensky U (2001) Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. In: Proceedings of EuroLogo. Linz, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  134. Wilensky U (2003) Statistical mechanics for secondary school: the GasLab multi-agent modeling toolkit. Int J Comput Math Learn 8(1):1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Wilensky U, Novak M (2010) Teaching and learning evolution as an emergent process: the BEAGLE project. In: Taylor R, Ferrari M (eds) Epistemology and science education: understanding the evolution versus intelligent design controversy. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  136. Wilensky U, Papert S (2010) Restructurations: reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In: Clayson J, Kalas I (eds) Proceedings of the constructionism 2010 conference. Paris. 10–14 Aug, p 97Google Scholar
  137. Wilensky U, Rand W (2015) An introduction to agent-based modeling: modeling natural, social and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  138. 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. Cogn Instr 24(2):171–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Wilensky U, Resnick M (1999) Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. J Sci Educ Technol 8(1):3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Wilensky U, Brady C, Horn M (2014) Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Commun ACM 57(8):17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Wilkerson-Jerde MH (2014) Construction, categorization, and consensus: student generated computational artifacts as a context for disciplinary reflection. Educ Technol Res Dev 62(1):99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Wilkerson-Jerde MH, Wilensky U (2015) Patterns, probabilities, and people: making sense of quantitative change in complex systems. J Learn Sci 24(2):204–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Wilkerson-Jerde MH, Gravel BE, Macrander CA (2015) Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. J Sci Educ Technol 24(2–3):396–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Wolfram S (2002) A new kind of science, 1st edn. Wolfram Media, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  146. Yadav A, Zhou N, Mayfield C, Hambrusch S, Korb JT (2011) Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM, pp 465–470Google Scholar
  147. Zuckerman O, Resnick M (2003) System blocks: a physical interface for system dynamics learning. In: Proceedings of the 21st international system dynamics conference. Citeseer, pp 810–811.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Weintrop
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Elham Beheshti
    • 3
  • Michael Horn
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kai Orton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kemi Jona
    • 2
    • 3
  • Laura Trouille
    • 5
    • 6
  • Uri Wilensky
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based ModelingNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Learning SciencesNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  3. 3.Computer ScienceNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  4. 4.Northwestern Institute on Complex SystemsEvanstonUSA
  5. 5.The Adler PlanetariumChicagoUSA
  6. 6.Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA)Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations