Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

Living Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Computer-Based Learning, Computational Thinking, and Constructionist Approaches

  • Grizioti Marianthi
  • Kynigos ChronisEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_75-1

Synonyms

Introduction

This entry explores computer-based learning (CBL) designs that are informed by the learning theory of constructionism. First, it discusses different definitions and types of CBL and explores the pedagogical approaches that underpin CBL designs through a brief history of CBL in education. Next, it elaborates on the role of the constructionist paradigm in CBL and presents different CBL designs that are based on constructionism. Then it focuses especially on the use of constructionist CBL approaches for supporting students to cultivate their computational thinking. The final part discusses the educational challenges and the near future of constructionist CBL.

What Is Computer-Based Learning?

Computer-based learning (CBL) is a term that is used to describe “any use of computer software for the purposes of supporting the process of learning” (Adams 2004). Similarly, the term...

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

References

  1. Ackermann E (2001) Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: what’s the difference. Future Learn Group Publication 5(3):438Google Scholar
  2. Adams AM (2004) Pedagogical underpinnings of computer-based learning. J Adv Nurs 46(1):5–12MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balacheff N, Kaput J (1997) Computer-based learning environment in mathematics. In: Bischop A (ed) International handbook of mathematics education. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 469–501Google Scholar
  4. Benton L, Hoyles C, Kalas I, Noss R (2017) Bridging primary programming and mathematics: some findings of design research in England. Digit Exp Math Educ 3(2):115–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borba MC, Villarreal ME (2006) Humans-with-media and the reorganization of mathematical thinking: information and communication technologies, modeling, visualization and experimentation, vol 39. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan K, Resnick M (2012) New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  7. Grizioti M, Kynigos C (2018) Game modding for computational thinking: an integrated design approach. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on interaction design and children. ACM, New York, pp 687–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grover S (2017) Assessing algorithmic and computational thinking in K-12: lessons from a middle school classroom. In: Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. Springer, Cham, pp 269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hackbarth S (1996) The educational technology handbook: a comprehensive guide: process and products for learning. Educational Technology, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  11. Healy L, Kynigos C (2010) Charting the microworld territory over time: design and construction in mathematics education. ZDM 42(1):63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ioannidou A, Repenning A, Webb D (2009) AgentCubes: incremental 3D end-user development. J Vis Lang Comput 20:236–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kafai YB, Burke Q, Resnick M (2014) Connected code: why children need to learn programming. MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kynigos C (1995) Programming as a means of expressing and exploring ideas in a directive educational system: three case studies. In: diSessa A, Hoyles C, Noss R (eds) Computers and exploratory learning. NATO ASI series. Springer, Berlin, pp 399–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kynigos C (2007) Half-baked Logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Inform Educ 6(2):1–24Google Scholar
  16. Kynigos C (2015) Constructionism: theory of learning or theory of design? In: Cho SJ (ed) Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 417–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kynigos C, Grizioti M (2018) Programming approaches to computational thinking: integrating turtle geometry, dynamic manipulation and 3D space. Inform Educ 17(2):321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee I, Martin F, Denner J et al (2011) Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads 2(1): 32–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moos DC, Azevedo R (2009) Learning with computer-based learning environments: a literature review of computer self-efficacy. Rev Educ Res 79(2):576–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Noss R, Clayson J (2015) Reconstructing constructionism. Constr Found 10(3):285–288Google Scholar
  21. Noss R, Hoyles C (1996) Windows on mathematical meanings. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Resnick M (1997) Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: explorations in massively parallel microworlds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Resnick M, Maloney J, Monroy-Hernández A et al (2009) Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM 52(11):60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salen K (2007) Gaming literacies: a game design study in action. J Educ Multimedia Hypermedia 16(3):301–322Google Scholar
  26. Serin O (2011) The effects of the computer-based instruction on the achievement and problem solving skills of the science and technology students. Turk Online J Educ Technol 10(1):183–201Google Scholar
  27. Valdez G, McNabb M, Foertsch M, Anderson M, Hawkes M, Raack L (1999) Computer-based technology and learning: evolving uses and expectations. NCREL, Oak BrookGoogle Scholar
  28. Weintrop D, Wilensky U (2014) Situating programming abstractions in a constructionist video game. Inform Educ 13(2):307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Werner L, Denner J, Campe S, Kawamoto DC (2012) The fairy performance assessment: measuring computational thinking in middle school. In: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 215–220Google Scholar
  30. Wilensky U, Papert S (2010) Restructurations: reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In: Proceedings of the constructionism 2010 conference, Paris, France, p 97Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Technology Lab, Department of Secondary Education, School of PhilosophyNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA)AthensGreece
  2. 2.Educational Technology Lab, Department of Secondary EducationSchool of Philosophy, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (NKUA)Athens, Greece and CeLeKT, Linnaeus UniversitySweden

Section editors and affiliations

  • Don Passey
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning, Department of Educational ResearchLancaster UniversityLancasterUK