A Pedagogical Framework for Computational Thinking

Abstract

Our goal in this paper is to propose a Computational Thinking Pedagogical Framework (CTPF), developed from constructionism and social-constructivism theories. CTPF includes four pedagogical experiences: (1) unplugged, (2) tinkering, (3) making, and (4) remixing. Unplugged experiences focus on activities implemented without the use of computers. Tinkering experiences primarily involve activities that take things apart and engaging in changes and/or modifications to existing objects. Making experiences involve activities where constructing new objects is the primary focus. Remixing refers to those experiences that involve the appropriation of objects or components of objects for use in other objects or for other purposes. Objects can be digital, tangible, or even conceptual. These experiences reflect distinct yet overlapping CT experiences which are all proposed to be necessary in order for students to fully experience CT. In some cases, particularly for novices and depending on the concepts under exploration, a sequential approach to these experiences may be helpful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Image 1
Image 2
Image 3

References

  1. Arduino (2016). Arduino. Retrieved August 14, 2016, from https://www.arduino.cc/.

  2. 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), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berry, M. (2013). Computing in the national curriculum. A guide for primary teachers. Bedford: Computing at School.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bers, M. U., & Horn, M. S. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood. In R. Berson & M. J. Berson (Eds.), High tech tots: Childhood in a digital world (pp. 49–69). Charlotte: IAP.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bowler, L. (2014). Creativity through "maker" experiences and design thinking in the education of librarians. Knowledge Quest, 42(5), 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Canada: British Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  7. British Columbia Government. (2016). $6 million to help connect students with coding, new curriculum and computers. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2016PREM0065-000994.

  8. Statistics Canada. (2013). Canadian internet use survey, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2015, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/131126/dq131126d-eng.htm.

  9. Colton, J. S. (2016). Revisiting digital sampling rhetorics with an ethics of care. Computers and Composition, 40, 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Corral, J. M. R., Balcells, A. C., Estévez, A. M., Moreno, G. J., & Ramos, M. J. F. (2014). A game-based approach to the teaching of object-oriented programming languages. Computers & Education, 73(83–92).

  11. Curzon, P. (2013). cs4fn and computational thinking unplugged. WiPSE ‘13 Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 47–50.

  12. Curzon, P., McOwan, P., Plant, N., & Meagher, L. (2014). Introducing teachers to computational thinking using unplugged storytelling. WiPSCE’14 Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 89–92.

  13. Dasgupta, S., Hale, W., Monroy-Hernandez, A., & Hill, B. M. (2016). Remixing as a pathway to computational thinking. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing.

  14. Davis, B. (2014). Toward a more power-full school mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 34(1), 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Farr, W., Yuill, N., & Raffle, H. (2010). Social benefits of a tangible user interface for children with autistic spectrum conditions. Autism, 14(3), 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Freiberger, M. (2016). Primes without 7 [Electronic Version]. +plus magazine. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from https://plus.maths.org/content/missing-7s.

  18. Gadanidis, G. (2015). Coding as a Trojan horse for mathematics education reform. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(2), 155–173.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gadanidis, G., Hughes, J. M., Minniti, L., & White, B. J. G. (2016). Computational thinking, grade 1 students and the binomial theorem [electronic version]. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s40751-016-0019-3.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Govender, I., & Grayson, D. J. (2008). Pre-service and in-service teachers' experiences of learning to program in an object-oriented language. Computers & Education, 51(2), 874–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Government of England. (2013). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Retrieved June 29, 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study.

  22. Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2012). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for a hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (2015). Revisiting programming to enhance mathematics learning, Math + Coding Symposium. Western University: Western University. London.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hughes, J., Gadanidis, G., & Yiu, C. (2016). Digital making in elementary mathematics education [electronic version]. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s40751-016-0020-x.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Connected code: A new agenda for K-12 programming in classrooms, clubs, and communities. Paper presented at the Math + Coding Symposium: Western University, London.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2013). Computer programming goes back to school. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(1), 61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kazakoff, E. R., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kwon, D.-Y., Kim, H.-S., Shim, J.-K., & Lee, W.-G. (2012). Algorithmic bricks: A tangible robot programming tool for elementary school students. IEEE Transactions on Education 55, 4(11), 474–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lamagna, E. (2015). Algorithmic thinking unplugged. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 30(6), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lambert, L., & Guiffre, H. (2009). Computer science outreach in an elementary school. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 24(3), 118–124.

    Google Scholar 

  31. LeMay, S., Costantino, T., O’Connor, S., & ContePitcher, E. (2014). Screen time for children. IDC’14 Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interaction design and children, 217–220.

  32. Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. (2016). Scratch. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from https://scratch.mit.edu/.

  33. Liu, C., Liu, K., Wang, P., Chen, G., & Su, M. (2012). Applying tangible story avatars to enhance children's collaborative storytelling. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lovell, E., & Buechley, L. (2011). LilyPond: An online community for sharing e-textile projects. New York: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and Cognition.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Matos, J. (1990). The historical development of the concept of angle. The Mathematics Educator, 1(1), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Matos, J. (1991). The historical development of the concept of angle (2). The Mathematics Educator, 2(1), 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Namukasa, I. K., Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Weber, J., Kafai, Y. B., Khan, S., et al. (2015). From computational thinking to computational participation: Towards achieving excellence through coding in elementary schools. In G. Gadanidis (Ed.), Math + coding symposium. London: Western University.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Nishida, T., Kanemune, S., Idosaka, Y., Namiki, M., Bell, T., & Kuno, Y. (2009). A CS unplugged design pattern. SIGCSE, 41(1), 231–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. O'Sullivan, D., & Igoe, T. (2004). Physical computing: Sensing and controlling the physical world with computers. Boston: Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  42. Papert, S. (1987). Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. Retrieved August 1, 2016, 2016, from http://nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=8751190.

  43. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism: Ablex publishing corporation.

  44. Parker, T. (2012). ALICE in the real world. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 17(7), 410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pierce, M. (2013). Coding for middle schoolers: Next-generation programming languages for children are taking up where Logo left off and teaching young students how to code to learn. T H E Journal [Technological Horizons In Education], 40(5), 20+.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Province of Nova Scotia. (2015). Minister announces coding as a priority during education day. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from http://novascotia.ca/news/release/?id=20151021002.

  47. Przybylla, M., & Romeike, R. (2014). Physical computing and its scope - towards a constructionist computer science curriculum with physical computing. Informatics in Education, 13(2), 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T., et al. (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. Washington DC: National Science Foundation workshop on Creativity Support Tools.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Scarlatos, L. L. (2006). Tangible math. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(4), 293–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Shodiev, H. (2013). Computational thinking and simulation in teaching science and mathematics. Toronto: Paper presented at the Association for Computer Studies Educators Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  52. SITRA. (2014). Future will be built by those who know how to code. Retrieved June 29, 2015, from http://www.sitra.fi/en/artikkelit/well-being/future-will-be-built-those-who-know-how-code.

  53. Smith, C. P., & Neumann, M. D. (2014). Scratch it out! Enhancing geometrical understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, 21(3), 185–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sneider, C., Stephenson, C., Schafer, B., & Flick, L. (2014). Exploring the science framework and NGSS: Computational thinking in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 38(3), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sphero. (2016). Retrieved August 11, 2016, from http://www.sphero.com/about.

  56. Strawhacker, A., & Bers, M. U. (2015). "I want my robot to look for food": Comparing kindergartner's programming comprehension using tangible, graphic, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 293–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sullivan, A., Kazakoff, E. R., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The wheels on the bot go round and round: Robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 203–219.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Taub, T., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2012). CS unplugged and middle-wchool students’ views, attitudes, and intentions regarding CS. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(2), 8.

    Google Scholar 

  59. The White House. (2016). Computer science for all. Retrieved August 11, 2016, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all

  60. Thies, R., & Vahrenhold, J. (2013). On plugging “unplugged” into CS classes. SIGCSE ‘13 Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 365–270.

  61. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Watters, A. (2011a). Scratch: Teaching the difference between creating and remixing [Electronic Version]. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2011/08/11/scratch-teaching-kids-about-programming-teaching-kids-about-remixing/.

  63. Watters, A. (2011b). Scratch: Teaching the difference between creating and remixing 2015, from http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2011/08/11/scratch-teaching-kids-about-programming-teaching-kids-about-remixing/.

  64. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., et al. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wilkerson-Jerde, M. (2014). Construction, categorization, and consensus: Student generated computational artifacts as a context for disciplinary reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Communications of the ACM, 49, 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366, 3717–3725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. SIGCSE, 11, 465–470.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Yiu, C. (2016). Using an Arduino - coding a bicolour LED grid to create math patterns [electronic version] (p. 1). Math + Coding 'Zine: Exploring Math Through Code Retrieved August 16, 2016, from http://researchideas.ca/mc/article-1-title-recent-issue/arduino-math-patterns-on-an-led-matrix/.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was based on the Namukasa et al. (2015) working group report from the Math + Coding Symposium, Western University, London, Canada. We would like to acknowledge the early contributions of Yasmin B. Kafai and Laura Morrison, and the feedback from George Gadanidis. This research was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant to George Gadanidis, Donna Kotsopoulos, and Immaculate Kizito Namukasa.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donna Kotsopoulos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S. et al. A Pedagogical Framework for Computational Thinking. Digit Exp Math Educ 3, 154–171 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0031-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Computational thinking
  • Experiences
  • Mathematics
  • Making
  • Pedagogical
  • Remixing
  • Tinkering
  • Unplugged