Using Model-Based Learning to Promote Computational Thinking Education

  • Hong P. LiuEmail author
  • Sirani M. Perera
  • Jerry W. Klein
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)


Digital technology in the twenty-first century is characterized by omnipresent smart devices and ubiquitous computing that enable computation to occur almost anytime and anywhere. This contributes to increased complexity, rapidly changing technologies, and big data challenges to professionals in most every disciplinary field. In this environment, computational thinking (CT) becomes a fundamental skill to empower our next generation of the American workforce. Consequently, CT education across all disciplines and grade levels is being advocated by academic institutions, governmental agencies, and private industrial corporations. However, existing academic programs in K-12 schools and small teaching universities are inadequately structured to prepare students with the needed computational thinking skills and knowledge. In addition, there is a scarcity in research on learning CT to guide development of CT curriculum and instructional practices across all grade levels. To mitigate this problem, we propose several model-based learning programs that the authors have been exploring since 2012 to promote active learning of CT for students of different age groups. Most of the programs were designed to exploit out-of-school time education and hands-on team research projects to advance CT education from K6 to K16 students. Under the CT context, the proposed and existing programs emphasize cultivating student problem solving ability through problem-based learning (PBL) in which students learn computational thinking by completing team projects. We also illustrate how small universities and K-12 schools can cost-effectively offer CT education by forming coalitions, leveraging emerging cyberlearning technology, and sharing educational resources.


Computational thinking Model-based learning Informal learning Learning-on-demand Problem-based learning 



The cyberlearning project for CSE and summer REU workshops described in section “Coalition for Undergraduate CSE Education” was sponsored by the NSF TUES grant (1244967), and the Eco-Dolphin project described in “Eco-Dolphin Project” was partially sponsored by the Air Force Research Lab under award FA8750-15-1-0143.


  1. ACE. (2016). Instructional Software and Materials. Retrieved from: Scholar
  2. Alfieri, L., Higashi, R., Shoop, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Case Study of a robot-based game to shape interests and home proportional reasoning skills. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(4). doi: 10.1186/s40594-015-0017-9.
  3. Andrew, V. (1998). The purpose of mathematical models is insight, not numbers. Decision Line, 29(1), 20–21.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Bifocal modeling: a framework for combining computer modeling, robotics and real-world sensing. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2007), Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  7. Blikstein, P., Fuhrmann, T., Greene, D., & Salehi, S. (2012). Bifocal modeling: mixing real and virtual labs for advanced science learning. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ‘12) (pp. 296–299). ACM: New York.Google Scholar
  8. Borgman, C. L., Abelson, H., Drinks, L., Johnson, R., Koedinger, K. R., Linn, M. C., & Szalay, A. (2008). Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity and Challenge. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  9. Bryan, K., & Leise, T. (2006). The $25,000,000,000 eigenvector: the linear algebra behind google. SIAM Review, 48(3), 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carnegie Foundation. (2016). Using improvement science to accelerate learning and address problems of practice. Downloaded 04/14/2016 from
  11. Carnegie Mellon Robotics Academy. (2016).
  12. Chai, J., Friedler, L. M., Wolff, E. F., Li, J., & Rhea, K. (2014). A cross-national study of calculus. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(4), 481–494. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2014.990531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J.M. (2010). Demystifying Computational Thinking for Noncomputer Scientists. Unpublished manuscript in progress. Retrieved from:
  14. Eseryel, D., & Law, V. (2012). Effect of cognitive regulation in understanding complex science systems during simulation-based inquiry learning. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9, 111–132.Google Scholar
  15. Finegold, D., & Notabartolo, A. S. (2011). 21st Competencies and Impact. Retrieved from Scholar
  16. Fuhrmann, T., Salehi, S., & Blikstein, P. (2013). Meta-modeling knowledge: Comparing model construction and model interaction in bifocal modeling. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’13) (pp. 483–486). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2485760.2485810Google Scholar
  17. GUTS. (2016). Computer Science in Science. Retrieved from: Scholar
  18. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Joint Mathematical Meetings. (2015). Transforming Post-Secondary Education in Mathematics., San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  20. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lesh, R., Post, T., & Behr, M. (1988). Proportional reasoning. In J. Hiebert & M. Behr (Eds.), Number Concepts and Operations in the Middle Grades (pp. 93–118). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  22. Liu, L., & Ludu, A. (2012). ACE – a model centered reu program standing on the three legs of cse: analysis, computation and experiment. In H. Ali, Y. Shi, D. Khazanchi, M. Lee, G. D. van Albada, J. Dongarra, et al. (Eds.), Proceeding of the ICCS 2012, Omaha, NE. Procedia Computer Science (Vol. 9, pp. 1773–1782).Google Scholar
  23. Liu, H., & Klein, J. (2013). Using REU project and crowdsourcing to facilitate learning on demand. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on Cognition and Explorative Learning at Digit Ages (pp. 251–258). Fort Worth, TX: International Assn for Development of the Information Society.Google Scholar
  24. Liu, H., Ludu, M., & Holton, D. (2015a). Can K-12 math teachers train students to make sound logic reasoning? – A question affecting 21st century skills. In X. Ge, M. Spector, & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education (pp. 331–353). Switzerland: Springers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu, H., & Raghavan, J. (2009). A mathematical modeling module with system engineering approach for teaching undergraduate students to conquer complexity. In The Proceedings of the Conference ICCS 09, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, Part II, LNCS5545 (pp. 93–102).Google Scholar
  26. Liu, H., Shi, X., Shao, J., Zhou, Q., Joseph-Ellison, S., Jaworski, J., & Wen, C. (2015b). The mechatronic system of eco-dolphin – a fleet of autonomous underwater vehicles. In Proceeding of the International Conference of Advanced Mechatronics System 2015 (pp. 108–113). Beijing, China: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ICAMechS.2015.7287138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGivney-Burelle, J., & Xue, F. (2015). Flipping Calculus. PRIMUS, Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 23(5), 477–486. doi: 10.1080/10511970.2012.757571.Google Scholar
  28. ModelSim Project. (2016). Enabling Modeling and Simulation-Based Science in the Classroom. Retrieved from: Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2010). Report of a Workshop on the Scope and Nature of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12840.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Report of a Workshop of Pedagogical Aspects of Computational Thinking. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Scholar
  32. Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramsey, S., & Kuhn, D. (2012). Developing multivariable. Cognitive Development, 35, 92–110.Google Scholar
  34. Robertson, E. F. (1968). Short Biograph of Richard W. Hamming, For His Work on Numerical Methods, Automatic Coding Systems, and Error-detecting and Error-correcting Codes. Retrieved from:
  35. Sabelli, N. (2008). Applying What We Know to Improve Teaching and Learning, the Carnegie/IAS Commission on Math Science Education. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  36. Schoenfeld, A. H. S. (1995). A brief biography of calculus reform. UME Trends: News and Reports on Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 6(6), 3–5.Google Scholar
  37. Seel, N. M., & Blumschein, P. (2009). Modeling and Simulation in Learning and Instruction: A Theoretical Perspective, “Model-based Approaches to Learning: Using Systems Models and Simulations to Improve Understanding and Problem Solving in Complex Domains”. In P. Blumschein, W. Hung, D. Jonassen, & J. Strobel (Eds.), Modeling and Simulations for Learning and Instruction, 4. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. (2015). Modeling across the curriculum II. Philadelphia, PA: 2nd SIAM-NSF Workshop. Retrieved from: Scholar
  39. Spector, M. (2009). Foreword, “Model-based approaches to learning: using systems models and simulations to improve understanding and problem solving in complex domains”. In P. Blumschein, W. Hung, D. Jonassen, & J. Strobel (Eds.), Modeling and Simulations for Learning and Instruction, 4. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Turner, P., & Petzold, L. (2011). Undergraduate computational science and engineering education. SIAM Review, 53(3), 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Turner, P., Levy, R., & Fowler, K. (2015). Collaboration in the Mathematical Sciences Community on Mathematical Modeling Across the Curriculum, Chance, Using Data to Advance Science, Education, and Society. Retrieved from: Scholar
  42. Vollstedt, A. M., Robinson, M., & Wang, E. (2007). Using robotics to enhance science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curricula. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Pacific Southwest Annual Conference, Honolulu, HIGoogle Scholar
  43. Wing, J. M. (2006). A vision for the 21st century: computational thinking. Communication of ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zorn, P., Bailer, J., Braddy, L., Carpenter, J., Jaco, W., & Turner, P. (2014). The INGenIOuS project-mathematics, statistics, and preparing the 21st century workforce. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America. Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on Educational Sciences, (WCES-2015), 05–07 February 2015, Novotel Athens Convention Center, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong P. Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sirani M. Perera
    • 1
  • Jerry W. Klein
    • 2
  1. 1.Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityDaytona BeachUSA
  2. 2.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations