Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Cyber Weapon: Decomposing Puzzles in Unplugged Computational Thinking Practices with Computational Objects

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article contributes empirically to an ongoing discussion in the cross-section between computer science and the learning sciences. It takes on the question of how pupils can approach basic concepts of computer science and computational thinking skills through problem-solving activities in school. By responding to propositions from researchers within the field suggesting that broader perspectives on integrating computational thinking in subjects should be investigated, examples from an empirical study are given. The study examines a design for learning computational thinking using an unplugged approach, highlighting tangible computational objects as mediators for problem-solving. Three groups of 8th-grade pupils were followed and observed as they set out to collaborate on solving the escape puzzle: The Cyber Weapon, by manipulating computational objects and retrieving a code to stop a virus from spreading. The article highlights how pupils move from open trial-and-error approaches to systematic and iterative decomposing strategies. The article further discusses the implications of tangible computational objects framing problem-solving activities. This is done from a subject-didactical approach, highlighting the interrelatedness between problems, people, and tools as well as how designs like The Cyber Weapon reflect an alternative way to teach pupils basic concepts of computational thinking.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Borrego C, Fernández C, Blanes I, Robles S (2017) Room escape at class: escape games activities to facilitate the motivation and learning in computer science. J Technol Sci Educ 7(2):162–171. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Caeli EN, Bundsgaard J (2019) Computational thinking in compulsory education: a survey study on initiatives and conceptions. Educ Tech Res Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09694-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caeli EN, Yadav A (2019) Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: a historical perspective. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00410-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Feurzeig W, Papert SA, Lawler B (2011) Programming-languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. Interact Learn Environ 19(5):487–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820903520040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Greenberger M (ed) (1962) Management and the computer of the future. The MIT Press and Wiley, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Grover S, Pea R (2013) Computational thinking in K–12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res 42(1):38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gundem BB, Hopmann S (Eds.) (1998) Didaktik and/or curriculum: an international dialogue. P. Lang

  8. Hultman G, Löfgren R, Schoultz J (2012) Subject didactics in practice—hidden in the process: a study of teaching logics and classroom cultures. Educ Inq 3(1):3–18. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v3i1.22010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kafai YB, Proctor C, Lui D (2020) From theory bias to theory dialogue embracing cognitive, situated and critical framings of computational thinking in K-12 CS education. ACM Inroads 11(1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kopcha TJ, Ocak C, Qian Y (2020) Analyzing children’s computational thinking through embodied interaction with technology: a multimodal perspective. Educ Tech Res Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09832-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Krogh E, Qvortrup A, Christensen T (2016) Almendidaktik og fagdidaktik (general didactics and Subject-didactics). Frydenlund

  12. Lu JJ, Fletcher GHL (2009) Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bull 41(1):260–264. https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Naur P (1965) The place of programming in a world of problem, tools and people. Inf Process 1965:195–199

    Google Scholar 

  14. Naur P (1967) Datamaskinerne og samfundet (the data machines and society). Munksgaard, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nicholson S (2015) Peeking behind the locked door: a survey of escape room facilities. White Paper available at http://scottnicholson.com/pubs/erfacwhite.pdf

  16. Ohlsson S (2012) The problems with problem solving: reflections on the rise, current status, and possible future of a cognitive research paradigm. J Probl Solving. https://doi.org/10.7771/1932-6246.1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Reed SK (2016) The structure of ill-structured (and well-structured) problems revisited. Educ Psychol Rev 28(4):691–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9343-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rich PJ, Egan G, Ellsworth J (2019) A framework for decomposition in computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, pp. 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319793

  20. Shute VJ, Sun C, Asbell-Clarke J (2017) Demystifying computational thinking. Educ Res Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Stevens G, Boden A, von Rekowski T (2013) Objects-to-think-with-together. Dittrich IY, Burnett M, Mørch A, Redmiles D (Eds). End-user development, vol. 7897. Springer, Berlin, pp. 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38706-7_17

  22. Tang X, Yin Y, Lin Q, Hadad R, Zhai X (2020) Assessing computational thinking: a systematic review of empirical studies. Comput Educ 148:103798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tedre M, Denning PJ (2016) The long quest for computational thinking. Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling international conference on computing education research, pp. 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999542

  24. Tuhkala A, Wagner M-L, Iversen OS, Kärkkäinen T (2019) Technology comprehension—combining computing, design, and societal reflection as a national subject. Int J Child Comput Interact 20:54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Veldkamp A, Daemen J, Teekens S, Koelewijn S, Knippels MPJ, Joolingen WR (2020) Escape boxes: bringing escape room experience into the classroom. Br J Edu Technol 51(4):1220–1239. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Weller MP, Do EY-L, Gross MD (2008) Escape machine: Teaching computational thinking with a tangible state machine game. Proceedings of the 7th international conference on interaction design and children—IDC ’08, 282. https://doi.org/10.1145/1463689.1463767

  27. Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Lars Beck Johannsen, head and teacher at Fablab Skanderborg and Fablearn Fellow of Columbia University. Letting me follow his design experiments in practice and for providing access to the design itself was immensely helpful. For further contact, Lars can be found at lars.beck.johannsen@skanderborg.dk

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark

    Roland Hachmann

Authors
  1. Roland Hachmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland Hachmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hachmann, R. The Cyber Weapon: Decomposing Puzzles in Unplugged Computational Thinking Practices with Computational Objects. Künstl Intell 36, 59–68 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-022-00756-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-022-00756-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation