Advertisement

Mapping Computational Thinking for a Transformative Pedagogy

  • Michael Vallance
  • Phillip A. Towndrow
Chapter

Abstract

The chapter presents learners’ understanding of Computational Thinking concepts through illustrative flowcharts. Undergraduate university students design, build, and program LEGO Mindstorms EV3 robots to solve problems set as robotic tasks in a symbolic disaster scenario. Post-task flowcharts representing mental models of Computational Thinking are drawn as students reflect upon their problem-solving processes. The flowcharts are then compared with the semiotic representation of the programmed solutions. It was ascertained that students were able to express recognition of the Computational Thinking concepts of modularity, decomposition, and algorithmic logic but had difficulty expressing explicit recognition of generalization and abstraction. Subsequent implications for teaching and learning are then addressed at length in terms of task design and pedagogy.

Keywords

Computational thinking Design Education Japan Learning Mindstorms Pedagogy Programming Seymour Papert Robots Tasks 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research is supported by JAIST kakenhi [grant number 15K01080]. Many thanks to students in the iVERG lab at Future University Hakodate, Japan.

References

  1. Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2014, July 18). How to support students’ computational thinking skills in educational robotics activities. In Proceedings of 4th International workshop teaching robotics, teaching with robotics & 5th International conference robotics in education, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, S. B., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an informal learning environment. Journal of Research in Technology and Education, 39(3), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle 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. Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlin, I. (1974). The divorce between the sciences and the humanities. The second Tykociner memorial lecture, University of Illinois. Available from http://berlin.wolf.ox.ac.uk/published_works/ac/divorce.pdf. Accessed 28 January, 2016.
  7. Blumenfeld, P. C., Mergendollar, J., & Swarthout, D. (1987). Task as a heuristic for understanding student learning and motivation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). Using artifact-based interviews to study the development of computational thinking in interactive media design. Paper presented at annual American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  9. Catlin, D., & Blamires, M. (2010) The principles of educational robotic applications (ERA). In Constructionism 2010: Constructionist approaches to creative learning, thinking and education: Lessons for the 21st century, proceedings for constructionism 2010: The 12th EuroLogo conference, Paris.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2002). Resources, instruction, and research. In F. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 80–119). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  11. Computational Thinking for All. (2017, February 27). Symposium for information education. The University of Tokyo Graduate School of Information Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  12. Dede, C., Mishra, P. and Voogt, J. (2013). Working group 6: Advancing computational thinking in 21st century learning. Available from http://www.curtin.edu.au/edusummit/local/docs/Advancing_computational_thinking_in_21st_century_learning.pdf. Accessed 28 February, 2015.
  13. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Educational Researcher, 53(2), 159–199.Google Scholar
  14. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lew, M. W., Horton, T. B., & Sherriff, M. S. (2010). Using LEGO MINDSTORMS NXT and LEJOS in an Advanced Software Engineering Course. In 23rd IEEE Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T), Pittsburgh, pp. 121–128.Google Scholar
  16. Liukas, L. (2015). Hello ruby. Adventures in coding. Indiana: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Lui, A. K., Ng, S. C., Cheung, H. Y., & Gurung, P. (2010). Facilitating independent leaning with LEGO Mindstorms robots. ACM Inroads, 1(4), 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. NAACE. (2014). Computing in the national curriculum. Available from http://www.computingatschool.org.uk/data/uploads/cas_secondary.pdf Accessed October 20, 2014.
  19. Nakashima, H. (2015, June). Computational thinking. Japanese Translation, 56(6), Available from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wing/www/ct-japanese.pdf. Accessed December 29, 2015.
  20. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Popelka, M., & Nožička, J. (2014). Lego Mindstorms as a simulation of robotic systems. International Journal of Computer, Control, Quantum and Information Engineering, 8(7).Google Scholar
  22. Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  23. Rith, C., & Dubberly, H. (2007). Why Horst W. J. Rittel matters. Design Issues, 23(1), 72–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schrader, P. G. (2008). Learning in technology: Re-conceptualizing immersive environments. AACE Journal, 16(4), 457–475.Google Scholar
  25. Seedhouse, P. (2005). “Task” as research construct. Language Learning, 55(3), 533–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. The Royal Society. (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  27. Toikkanan, T. (2015). Coding in school: Finland takes lead in Europe. Available from http://legroup.aalto.fi/2015/11/coding-in-school-finland-takes-lead-in-europe/ Accessed January 31, 2017.
  28. Towndrow, P. A. (2005). Teachers as digital task designers: An agenda for research and professional development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 507–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Towndrow, P. A. (2007). Task design, implementation and assessment: Integrating information and communication technology in English language teaching and learning. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Towndrow, P. A., & Vallance, M. (2004). Using IT in the language classroom: A guide for teachers and students in Asia (3rd ed.). Singapore: Longman.Google Scholar
  31. Turner, S. J., & Hill, G. (2008). Robotics within the teaching of problem-solving. ITALICS Innovations in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences, 7(108).Google Scholar
  32. Vallance, M., & Goto, Y. (2015, September 20–24). Learning by TKF to promote computational participation in Japanese education. In Proceedings of the 43rd International conference on engineering pedagogy. World Engineering Education Forum. Florence, Italy.Google Scholar
  33. Vallance, M., & Towndrow, P. A. (2016). Pedagogic transformation, student-directed design and computational thinking. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 11(3).Google Scholar
  34. Vallance, M., Martin, S., & Naamani, C. (2015). A situation that we had never imagined: Post-Fukushima virtual collaborations for determining robot task metrics. International Journal of Learning Technology, 10(1), 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  36. Wing, J. M. (2006, March). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3).Google Scholar
  37. Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Vallance
    • 1
  • Phillip A. Towndrow
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Media ArchitectureFuture University HakodateHokkaidoJapan
  2. 2.National Institute of EducationNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations