Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

C2STEM: a System for Synergistic Learning of Physics and Computational Thinking

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

Abstract

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At the time of the study, no students in either condition had received integral calculus instruction.

References

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a computational thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, G., Segedy, J. R., & Bunchongchit, K. (2016). From design to implementation to practice a learning by teaching system: Betty’s Brain. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 350–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–101. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001061.

    Article  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.

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, D. B., Dohmen, I. M., Cheng, B. H., Oppezzo, M. A., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2010). Preparing students for future learning with Teachable Agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 649–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, S., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Teaching computer science in context. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 183–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.

    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 

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.

    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.

  • 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 

  • Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K–8 curriculum. ACM Inroads, 5(4), 64–71.

    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 

  • McCauley, R., Fitzgerald, S., Lewandowski, G., Murphy, L., Simon, B., Thomas, L., & Zander, C. (2008). Debugging: A review of the literature from an educational perspective. Computer Science Education, 18(2), 67–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElhaney, K. W., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Investigations of a complex, realistic task: Intentional, unsystematic, and exhaustive experimenters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 745–931.

    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.

  • 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 

  • Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: MUPPET. American Journal of Physics, 61(3), 222–232.

    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 

  • Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnabel, R. B. (2011). Educating computing’s next generation. Communications of the ACM, 54(4), 5–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Arena, D. (2013). Measuring what matters most: Choice- based assessments for the digital age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Farris, A. V., Karan, A., Martin, D., & Wright, M. (2015). Programming in K-12 science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 58(11), 33–35.

    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(2), 351–380.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherina, B., diSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., & Sherin, B. L. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through the collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3, 91–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program? Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. ASCD.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. T., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 3–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    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/

  • Yoon, S. A., Goh, S. E., & Park, M. (2018). Teaching and learning about complex systems in K-12 science education: A review of empirical studies 1995–2015. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 285–325.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Nicole M. Hutchins, Gautam Biswas, Miklós Maróti & Ákos Lédeczi

  2. Looking Glass Ventures, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Shuchi Grover

  3. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Rachel Wolf, Kristen Pilner Blair & Doris Chin

  4. Salem State University, Salem, MA, USA

    Luke Conlin

  5. SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, USA

    Satabdi Basu & Kevin McElhaney

Authors
  1. Nicole M. Hutchins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gautam Biswas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Miklós Maróti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ákos Lédeczi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuchi Grover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rachel Wolf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kristen Pilner Blair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Doris Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Luke Conlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Satabdi Basu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kevin McElhaney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole M. Hutchins.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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.

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

Hutchins, N.M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M. et al. C2STEM: a System for Synergistic Learning of Physics and Computational Thinking. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 83–100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation