Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Multiple Representations in Computational Thinking Tasks: A Clinical Study of Second-Grade Students

Abstract

Computational thinking requires high cognitive load as students work to manage multiple tasks in their problem-solving environment. Through research in K-2 classrooms on computational thinking, we noticed that students lack the representational fluency needed to move from one form to another—such as moving from physical to more abstract representations. Therefore, the following research question was studied: How do second-grade students use and translate among representations to solve computational thinking tasks using the robot mouse game? To address this, we employed a task-based interview approach with three second-grade students who were engaged in four computational thinking tasks using the Code and Go Robot Mouse Coding Activity Set developed by Learning Resources. Through four clinical tasks involving the robot mouse, students solved puzzles set up to force them to make particular representational translations. Each translation involved a level of cognitive complexity the students needed to manage to successfully complete the task. We found that students translated between many different representations using concrete representations to ease translations, language as a scaffold between translations, and embodied movements as representations or to assist with translation. Furthermore, the levels of representational maturity showed by the students varied with the difficulty of the task, and the spatial orientation was particularly difficult for them. These results provide important insights into how learners may develop their ability to engage with abstract representations that will be part of future practices associated with activities in science, mathematics, engineering, and computational thinking.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001.

  2. Alarcón-Rubio, D., Sánchez-Medina, J. A., & Prieto-García, J. R. (2014). Executive function and verbal self-regulation in childhood: developmental linkages between partially internalized private speech and cognitive flexibility. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.11.002.

  3. Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: evidence from learners’ and teachers’ gestures. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.611446.

  4. Aurigemma, J., Chandrasekharan, S., Nersessian, N. J., & Newstetter, W. (2013). Turning experiments into objects: the cognitive process involved in the design of a lab-on-a-chip device. Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20003.

  5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905.

  6. Bers, M. U. (2010). The tangible K robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research and Practice. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.

  7. Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early classroom. New York: Routledge.

  8. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association Retrieved from https://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf

  9. Bruce, C. D., & Hawes, Z. (2015). The role of 2D and 3D mental rotation in mathematics for young children: what is it? Why does it matter? And what can we do about it? ZDM. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0637-4.

  10. Bruner, J. S. (1966). On cognitive growth. In J. S. Bruner, R. R. Olver, & P. M. Greenfield (Eds.), Studies in cognitive growth: A collaboration at the center for cognitive studies (pp. 1–29). New York: Wiley.

  11. Byers, J. A., & Walker, C. (1995). Refining the motor training hypothesis for the evolution of play. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/285785.

  12. Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundation and model viability. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  13. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  14. Dienes, Z. P. (1960). Building up mathematics. London: Hutchinson Educational.

  15. Ebersbach, M., & Hagedorn, H. (2011). The role of cognitive flexibility in the spatial representation of children’s drawings. Journal of Cognition and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2011.539526.

  16. Feng, J., Spence, I., & Pratt, J. (2007). Playing an action video game reduces gender differences in spatial cognition. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society / APS. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01990.x.

  17. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: a case study. Computers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016.

  18. Ginsburg, H. (1981). The clinical interview in psychological research on mathematical thinking: aims, rationales, techniques. For the Learning of Mathematics, 1(3), 4–11.

  19. Goldin, G. A. (2000). A scientific perspective on structured, task-based interviews in mathematics education research. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 309–325). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

  20. Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S. D., & Wagner, S. (2001). Explaining math: gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00395.

  21. Greenes, C., & Findell, C. (1999). Developing students’ algebraic reasoning abilities. In L. V. Stiff & F. R. Curico (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12, 1999 yearbook (pp. 127–137). Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  22. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.

  23. Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Beilock, S. L., & Levine, S. C. (2012). The relation between spatial skill and early number knowledge: the role of the linear number line. Developmental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027433.

  24. Harwood, D., & Usher, M. (1999). Assessing progression in primary children’s map drawing skills. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382049908667613.

  25. Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.495.

  26. Hunting, R. P. (1997). Clinical interview methods in mathematics education research and practice. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(97)90023-7.

  27. Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00007.x.

  28. Kalelioglu, F., Gulbahar, Y., & Kukul, V. (2016). A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(3), 583–596.

  29. Kinach, B. M. (2015). Fostering spatial vs. metric understanding in geometry. The Mathematics Teacher, 105(7), 534–540.

  30. Kita, S., Alibali, M. W., & Chu, M. (2017). How do gestures influence thinking and speaking? The gesture-for-conceptualization hypothesis. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000059.

  31. Learning Resources. (n.d.). Code & Go™ robot mouse activity set. https://www.learningresources.com/code-gor-robot-mouse-activity-set Accessed 9 July 2019.

  32. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Foundations of a models and modeling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching (pp. 3–34). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

  33. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

  34. Macedonia, M., & von Kriegstein, K. (2012). Gestures enhance foreign language learning. Biolinguistics, 6(3–4), 393–416.

  35. Maher, C. A., & Sigley, R. (2014). Task-based interviews in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.

  36. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus one: some limits on our capacity for processing musical information. Psychological Review. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158.

  37. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801.

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

  39. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  40. Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paint brush: Technology, play, and the creative society. In D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 192–208). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  41. Resnick, M. (2007). All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. In proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition (pp. 1-6). ACM.

  42. Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047.

  43. Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Scientific investigations, metaphorical gestures, and the emergence of abstract scientific concepts. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00023-8.

  44. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003.

  45. Stieff, M., Scopelitis, S., Lira, M. E., & Desutter, D. (2016). Improving representational competence with concrete models. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21203.

  46. Stull, A. T., Hegarty, M., Dixon, B., & Stieff, M. (2012). Representational translation with concrete models in organic chemistry. Cognition and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2012.719956.

  47. Suh, J., & Moyer, P. S. (2007). Developing students’ representational fluency using virtual and physical algebra balances. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 155 Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewFullText&paper_id=22799.

  48. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

  49. Thomas, M. O. J., Wilson, A. J., Corballis, M. C., Lim, V. K., & Yoon, C. (2010). Evidence from cognitive neuroscience for the role of graphical and algebraic representations in understanding function. ZDM, 42(6), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0272-7.

  50. Thommen, E., Avelar, S., Sapin, V. Z., Perrenoud, S., & Malatesta, D. (2010). Mapping the journey from home to school: A study on children’s representation of space. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2010.496975.

  51. Thurnham, A. J., & Pine, K. J. (2006). The effects of single and dual representations on children’s gesture production. Cognitive Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.09.005.

  52. Uttal, D. H., Miller, D. I., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). Exploring and enhancing spatial thinking: Links to achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics? Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413484756.

  53. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Education & Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127.

  54. Wellsby, M., & Pexman, P. M. (2014). The influence of bodily experience on children’s language processing. Topics in Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12092.

  55. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.

  56. Wing, J. M. (2010). Computational thinking: What and why? Unpublished manuscript. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf.

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1543175. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Correspondence to Tamara J. Moore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moore, T.J., Brophy, S.P., Tank, K.M. et al. Multiple Representations in Computational Thinking Tasks: A Clinical Study of Second-Grade Students. J Sci Educ Technol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09812-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Computational thinking
  • representations
  • representational fluency
  • early elementary