Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 127-147

  Weintrop, David ^a   Beheshti, Elham ^b   Horn, Michael ^a,b   Orton, Kai ^a   Jona, Kemi ^a,b   Trouille, Laura ^a,c   Wilensky, Uri ^a,b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Northwestern University   (United States)

^c ADLER PLANETARIUM   (United States)

Author keywords

Computational problem solving; Computational thinking; High school mathematics and science education; Modeling and simulation; Scientific practices; STEM education; Systems thinking

Indexed keywords

EID: 84955175626     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5     Document Type: Article

References (147)

1. Abrahamson D, Wilensky U (2005) ProbLab goes to school: design, teaching, and learning of probability with multi-agent interactive computer models. In: Proceedings of the fourth conference of the European Society for research in mathematics education. San Feliu de Gixols
2. Abrahamson D, Janusz RM, Wilensky U (2006) There once was a 9-block: a middle-school design for probability and statistics. J Stat Educ 14(1). http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v14n1/abrahamson.html
3. Adams WK, Reid S, LeMaster R, McKagan SB, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Wieman CE (2008a) A study of educational simulations part I: engagement and Learning. J Interact Learn Res 19(3):367–419
4. Adams WK, Reid S, LeMaster R, McKagan SB, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Wieman CE (2008b) A study of educational simulations part II: interface design. J Interact Learn Res 19(4):551–557
5. Anderson MP, Srolovitz DJ, Grest GS, Sahni PS (1984) Computer simulation of grain growth—I: kinetics. Acta Metall 32(5):783–791
6. Assaraf OB-Z, Orion N (2005) Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. J Res Sci Teach 42(5):518–560
7. Astrachan O, Briggs A (2012) The CS principles project. CM Inroads 3(2):38–42
8. Augustine NR (2005) Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
9. Bailey D, Borwein JM (2011) Exploratory experimentation and computation. Not Am Math Soc 58(10):1410–1419
10. Barab S, Thomas M, Dodge T, Carteaux R, Tuzun H (2005) Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educ Technol Res Dev 53(1):86–107
11. 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
12. Bar-Yam Y (2003) Dynamics of complex systems. Perseus Publishing, New York
13. Beheshti E, Weintrop D, Horn MS, Orton K, Jona K, Wilensky U (In Preparation) Computational thinking in the wild: how scientists and mathematicians use computational thinking in their work.
14. Blikstein P (2013) Digital fabrication and “making” in education: the democratization of invention. In: Walter-Herrmann J, Büching C (eds) FabLabs: of machines, makers and inventors, Transcript Publishers, Bielefeld, pp 1–21
15. Blikstein P, Wilensky U (2009) An atom is known by the company it keeps: a constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. Int J Comput Math Learn 14(2):81–119
16. Borner K (2015) Atlas of knowledge: anyone can map. MIT Press, Cambridge
17. Box GE, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New York
18. Brady C, Holbert N, Soylu F, Novak M, Wilensky U (2015) Sandboxes for model-based inquiry. J Sci Educ Technol 24(2):265–286
19. Brown D (2013) Tracker: video analysis and modeling tool (Version 4.82). http://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker
20. Brennan K, Resnick M (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Presented at the American Education Researcher Association, Vancouver, Canada.
21. Bryan J (2006) Technology for physics instruction. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 6(2):230
22. TM: what do they learn? how do they learn? how do we know? J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):23–41
23. Buechley L, Eisenberg M, Catchen J, Crockett A (2008) The LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 423–432
24. Chinn CA, Malhotra BA (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 86(2):175–218
25. Clements DH, Gullo DF (1984) Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. J Educ Psychol 76(6):1051
26. Computer Science Teachers Association (2011) K-12 computer science standards. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/K12Standards.html
27. Confrey J (1993) The role of technology in reconceptualizing functions and algebra. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Asilomar
28. Cooper S, Dann W, Pausch R (2000) Alice: a 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. J Comput Sci Coll 15(5):107–116
29. Dijkstra HA (2013) Nonlinear climate dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
30. diSessa AA (2000) Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. MIT Press, Cambridge
31. diSessa AA (2004) Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cogn Instr 22(3):293–331
32. Driscoll DP (2013) Technology and engineering literacy framework for the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress. US Department of Education, Washington DC
33. Duschl RA, Bismack AS (2013) Standards for science education: quantitative reasoning and modeling concepts. In: Duschl RA, Bismack AS (eds) Reconceptualizing STEM education: the central role of practices. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
34. Duschl RA, Schweingruber HA, Shouse AW (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
35. Edelson DC, Gordin DN, Pea RD (1999) Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. J Learn Sci 8(3/4):391–450
36. Eisenberg M (2002) Output devices, computation, and the future of mathematical crafts. Int J Comput Math Learn 7(1):1–44
37. Epstein J, Axtell R (1996) Growing artifical societies: social science from the bottom up. Brookings Institution Press, Washington
38. Feurzeig W, Papert S, Lawler B (2011) Programming-languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. Interact Learn Environ 19(5):487–501
39. Finzer W, Erickson T, Binker J (2001) Fathom [computer software]. KCP Technologies, Emeryville
40. Forrester JW (1968) Principles of systems. Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA
41. Foster I (2006) 2020 computing: a two-way street to science’s future. Nature 440(7083):419
42. Furber S (2012) Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. Technical report, The Royal Society, London
43. Gardner DP (1983) A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC
44. Gilbert JK (2004) Models and modelling: routes to more authentic science education. Int J Sci Math Educ 2(2):115–130
45. Goldstone RL, Wilensky U (2008) Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. J Learn Sci 17(4):465–516
46. Google: Exploring Computational Thinking. (n.d.). Retrieved 25 Oct 2010. http://www.google.com/edu/computational-thinking/index.html
47. Grimm Volker, Revilla Eloy, Berger Uta, Jeltsch Florian, Mooij Wolf M, Railsback Steven F, Thulke Hans-Hermann, Weiner Jacob, Wiegand Thorsten, DeAngelis Donald L (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991
48. Grover S, Pea R (2013) Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res 42(1):38–43
49. Guzdial M (1994) Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interact Learn Environ 4(1):001–044
50. Guzdial M (2008) Paving the way for computational thinking. Commun ACM 51(8):25–27
51. Guzdial M, Soloway E (2003) Computer science is more important than calculus: the challenge of living up to our potential. SIGCSE Bull 35(2):5–8
52. Hambrusch S, Hoffmann C, Korb JT, Haugan M, Hosking AL (2009) A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In: ACM SIGCSE bulletin, vol 41, pp 183–187
53. Hancock C, Kaput JJ, Goldsmith LT (1992) Authentic inquiry with data: critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educ Psychol 27(3):337
54. Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000) A typology of school science models. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):1011–1026
55. Henderson PB, Cortina TJ, Wing JM (2007) Computational thinking. In: ACM SIGCSE bulletin, vol 39. ACM, pp 195–196
56. Hmelo CE, Holton DL, Kolodner JL (2000) Designing to learn about complex systems. J Learn Sci 9(3):247–298. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2
57. Horn MS, Brady C, Hjorth A, Wagh A, Wilensky U (2014) Frog pond: a code-first learning environment on evolution and natural selection. ACM Press, New York, pp 357–360
58. Horwitz P, Schwartz J, Kindfield ACH, Yessis LM, Hickey DT, Heidenberg A, Wolfe EW (1998) Implementation and evaluation of the GenScope™ learning environment: issues, solutions, and results. In: Guzdial M, Kolodner J, Bruckman A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd annual international conference of the learning sciences. Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education, Charlottesville
59. Jackson SL, Stratford SJ, Krajcik J, Soloway E (1994) Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interact Learn Environ 4(3):233–257
60. Jacobson MJ, Wilensky U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1):11–34
61. Jona K, Vondracek M (2013) A remote radioactivity experiment. Phys Teach 51(1):25
62. Jona K, Wilensky U, Trouille L, Horn MS, Orton K, Weintrop D, Beheshti E (2014) Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Presented at the Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting, Orlando
63. Kaput JJ (1998) Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: a kaleidoscope of windows. J Math Behav 17(2):265–281
64. Kay A, Goldberg A (1977) Personal dynamic media. Computer 10(3):31–41
65. Keeling MJ, Grenfell BT (1997) Disease extinction and community size: modeling the persistence of measles. Sci 275(5296):65–67
66. Klopfer E (2003) Technologies to support the creation of complex systems models: using StarLogo software with students. Biosystems 71(1–2):111–122
67. Kohn W (2003) Nobel lectures, chemistry 1996–2000. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 213
68. Konold C, Miller CD (2005) TinkerPlots: dynamic data exploration. Computer software. Key Curriculum Press, Emeryville, CA
69. Lander ES, Schork NJ (1994) Genetic dissection of complex traits. Sci 265(5181):2037–2048
70. Laszlo E (1996) The systems view of the world: a holistic vision for our time, 2nd edn. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ
71. Lehrer R, Giles N, Schauble L (2002) Data modeling. In: Lehrer R, Schauble L (eds) Investigating real data in the classroom: expanding children’s understanding of mathematics and science. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 1–26
72. Lehrer R, Romberg T (1996) Exploring children’s data modeling. Cognition Instruct 14(1):69–108
73. Lubchenco J, Olson AM, Brubaker LB, Carpenter SR, Holland MM, Hubbell SP et al (1991) The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda: a report from the Ecological Society of America. Ecology 72(2):371–412
74. Lehrer R, Schauble L (2006) Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 371–388
75. Levy ST, Wilensky U (2008) Inventing a “Mid Level” to make ends meet: reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cogn Instr 26(1):1–47
76. Levy ST, Wilensky U (2009) Crossing levels and representations: the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum. J Sci Educ Technol 18(3):224–242
77. Lin CC, Zhang M, Beck B, Olsen G (2009) Embedding computer science concepts in K-12 science curricula. In: Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 539–543
78. Linn MC, Clark D, Slotta JD (2003) WISE design for knowledge integration. Sci Educ 87(4):517–538
79. Louca LT, Zacharia ZC (2012) Modeling-based learning in science education: cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educ Rev 64(4):471–492
80. Manabe S, Stouffer RJ (1988) Two stable equilibria of a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. J Clim 1:841–866
81. Margolis J (2008) Stuck in the shallow end: education, race, and computing. The MIT Press, Cambridge
82. Margolis J, Fisher A (2003) Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. The MIT Press, Cambridge
83. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010) Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC
84. National Research Council (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
85. National Research Council (2010) Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
86. National Research Council (2011a) Learning science through computer games and simulations. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
87. National Research Council (2011b) Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
88. National Research Council (2012a) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
89. National Research Council (2012b) Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
90. National Research Council (2012c) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
91. Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving, vol 104. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
92. NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
93. Olsen LF, Schaffer WM (1990) Chaos versus noisy periodicity: alternative hypotheses for childhood epidemics. Sci 249(4968):499–504
94. Palumbo DB (1990) Programming language/problem solving research: a review of relevant issues. Rev Educ Res 60(1):65–89
95. Papert S (1972) Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 3(3):249–262
96. Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books, New York
97. Papert S (1996) An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. Int J Comput Math Learn 1(1):138–142
98. Parnafes O (2007) What does “fast” mean? understanding the physical world through computational representations. J Learn Sci 16(3):415–450
99. Penner DE (2000) Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Rev Res Educ 25:1
100. Perkins K, Adams W, Dubson M, Finkelstein N, Reid S, Wieman C, LeMaster R (2006) PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. Phys Teach 44(1):18
101. Perlis A (1962) The computer in the university. In: Greenberger M (ed) Computers and the world of the future. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 180–219
102. Pople J (2003) Nobel lectures, chemistry 1996–2000. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 246
103. Redish EF, Wilson JM (1993) Student programming in the introductory physics course: mUPPET. Am J Phys 61:222–232
104. 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
105. Resnick M, Silverman B, Kafai Y, Maloney J, Monroy-Hernández A, Rusk N et al (2009) Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM 52(11):60
106. Richmond B, Peterson S, Vescuso P, Maville N (1987) An Academic user’s guide to Stella Software. High Performance Systems, Inc, Lyme, NH
107. Roschelle J, Kaput J, Stroup W (2000) SimCalc: accelerating student engagement with the mathematics of change. In: Learning the sciences of the 21st century: research, design, and implementing advanced technology learning environments. pp 47–75
108. Rubin A, Nemirovsky R (1991) Cars, computers, and air pumps: thoughts on the roles of physical and computer models in learning the central concepts of calculus. In Underhill RG (ed) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education—North American Chapter Conference, Virginia, pp 168–174
109. Ryoo JJ, Margolis J, Lee CH, Sandoval CD, Goode J (2013) Democratizing computer science knowledge: transforming the face of computer science through public high school education. Learn Media Technol 38(2):161–181
110. Schwarz CV, Meyer K, Sharma A (2007) Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. J Sci Teach Educ 18(2):243–269
111. Sengupta P, Kinnebrew JS, Basu S, Biswas G, Clark D (2013) Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: a theoretical framework. Educ Inf Technol 18(2):351–380
112. Settle A, Franke B, Hansen R, Spaltro F, Jurisson C, Rennert-May C, Wildeman B (2012) Infusing computational thinking into the middle- and high-school curriculum. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 22–27
113. Settle A, Goldberg DS, Barr V (2013) Beyond computer science: computational thinking across disciplines. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 311–312
114. Shaughnessy JM (2007) Research on statistics learning. In: Lester FK (ed) Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp 957–1009.
115. Sherin BL (2001) A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. Int J Comput Math Learn 6(1):1–61
116. Sherin BL, diSessa AA, Hammer D (1993) Dynaturtle revisited: learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interact Learn Environ 3(2):91–118
117. Srolovitz DJ, Anderson MP, Sahni PS, Grest GS (1984) Computer simulation of grain growth—II: grain size distribution, topology, and local dynamics. Acta Metall 32(5):793–802
118. Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York
119. Stieff M, Wilensky U (2003) Connected chemistry: incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 12(3):285–302
120. Taub R, Armoni M, Bagno E, Ben-Ari M (2015) The effect of computer science on physics learning in a computational science environment. Comput Educ 87:10–23
121. Tinker RF, Xie Q (2008) Applying computational science to education: the molecular workbench paradigm. Comput Sci Eng 10(5):24–27
122. Turelli M, Barton NH (1994) Genetic and statistical analyses of strong selection on polygenic traits: what, me normal? Genetics 138(3):913–941
123. Vogelsberger M, Genel S, Springel V, Torrey P, Sijacki D, Xu D et al (2014) Introducing the illustris project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe. Mon Not R Astron Soc 444(2):1518–1547
124. von Neumann J (1955) Method in the physical sciences. In: Bródy F, Vámos T (eds) The Neumann compendium: world series in 20th century mathematics, vol 1. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 628
125. Wagh A, Wilensky U (2014) Seeing patterns of change: supporting student noticing in building models of natural selection. In: Proceedings of 2014 constructionism. Vienna, 19–23 Aug
126. Weintrop D, Wilensky U (2013) RoboBuilder: a computational thinking game. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, Denver, pp 736–736
127. White BY (1993) ThinkerTools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cogn Instr 10(1):1
128. White BY, Frederiksen JR (1998) Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cogn Instr 16(1):3–118
129. Wilensky U (1995) Paradox, programming, and learning probability: a case study in a connected mathematics framework. J Math Behav 14(2):253–280
130. Wilensky U (1997) What is normal anyway? therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educ Stud Math 33(2):171–202
131. Wilensky U (1999a) GasLab: an extensible modeling toolkit for exploring statistical mechanics. In: Roberts N, Feurzeig W, Hunter B (eds) Computer modeling and simulation in science education. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–178
132. Wilensky U (1999b) NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo
133. Wilensky U (2001) Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. In: Proceedings of EuroLogo. Linz, pp 1–6
134. Wilensky U (2003) Statistical mechanics for secondary school: the GasLab multi-agent modeling toolkit. Int J Comput Math Learn 8(1):1–41
135. Wilensky U, Novak M (2010) Teaching and learning evolution as an emergent process: the BEAGLE project. In: Taylor R, Ferrari M (eds) Epistemology and science education: understanding the evolution versus intelligent design controversy. Routledge, New York
136. Wilensky U, Papert S (2010) Restructurations: reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In: Clayson J, Kalas I (eds) Proceedings of the constructionism 2010 conference. Paris. 10–14 Aug, p 97
137. Wilensky U, Rand W (2015) An introduction to agent-based modeling: modeling natural, social and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. MIT Press, Cambridge
138. Wilensky U, Reisman K (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cogn Instr 24(2):171–209
139. Wilensky U, Resnick M (1999) Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. J Sci Educ Technol 8(1):3–19
140. Wilensky U, Brady C, Horn M (2014) Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Commun ACM 57(8):17–21
141. Wilkerson-Jerde MH (2014) Construction, categorization, and consensus: student generated computational artifacts as a context for disciplinary reflection. Educ Technol Res Dev 62(1):99–121
142. Wilkerson-Jerde MH, Wilensky U (2015) Patterns, probabilities, and people: making sense of quantitative change in complex systems. J Learn Sci 24(2):204–251
143. Wilkerson-Jerde MH, Gravel BE, Macrander CA (2015) Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. J Sci Educ Technol 24(2–3):396–415
144. Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35
145. Wolfram S (2002) A new kind of science, 1st edn. Wolfram Media, Tokyo
146. Yadav A, Zhou N, Mayfield C, Hambrusch S, Korb JT (2011) Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM, pp 465–470
147. Zuckerman O, Resnick M (2003) System blocks: a physical interface for system dynamics learning. In: Proceedings of the 21st international system dynamics conference. Citeseer, pp 810–811.