Abstract
Computational thinking involves using computer science concepts to design systems, find solutions to problems, and understand human behavior. Recent reports recommend the addition of computational thinking into K-6 education, and computational thinking has been taught in different learning environments, including formal and informal environments, and has also been taught alongside engineering design thinking. The CDIO Initiative includes a Conceive-Design-Implement-Design process, which can be adapted for use in guiding computational thinking activities at the elementary (K-6) level. This chapter draws on a phenomenological approach to computational thinking to provide the justification and method for adapting the C-D-I-O design process for teaching K-6 computational thinking. It also describes the design requirements and methods for creating four scaffolded computational thinking activities, which are discussed in detail. For each design, the connection with computational thinking concepts and the proposed framework are provided. This chapter also includes a discussion of the scaffolding techniques between the activities, and how the fading of scaffolding was used to improve learning and confidence. By drawing upon a phenomenological approach to computational thinking, we can make rooms for different ways of knowing and representation in computational thinking education to better connect with students’ lived experiences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arnot, M., James, M., Gray, J., Rudduck, J., & Duveen, G. (1998). Recent research on gender and educational performance. London: The Stationery Office.
Azevedo, F. S. (2018). An inquiry into the structure of situational interests. Science Education, 102(1), 108–127.
Basu, S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (2015). A scaffolding framework to support learning of emergent phenomena using multi-agent-based simulation environments. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 293–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9424-z
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada, (2) (pp. 1–25). Retrieved from http://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf.
Bussiere, P., Cartwright, F., & Knighton, T. (2004). The performance of Canada’s youth in Mathematics, Reading, Science and problem solving: 2003 first findings for Canadians aged 15. Ottawa.
Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. Cleveland, NY: World Publishing Company.
CDIO. (2017a). CDIO syllabus 2.0—Worldwide CDIO initiative. Retrieved from http://cdio.org/benefits-cdio/cdio-syllabus/cdio-syllabus-topical-form
CDIO. (2017b). CDIO vision—Worldwide CDIO initiative. Retrieved from http://cdio.org/cdio-vision.
CDIO. (2017c). Member schools—Worldwide CDIO initiative. Retrieved from http://cdio.org/cdio-collaborators/school-profiles.
Crawley, E. F., Lucas, W. A., Malmqvist, J., & Brodeur, D. R. (2011). The CDIO syllabus v2.0 an updated statement of goals for engineering education. In Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO conference. Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark.
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Ă–stlund, S., & Brodeur, D. R. (2014). Rethinking engineering education (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05561-9
Danish, J. A. (2014). Applying an activity theory lens to designing instruction for learning about the structure, behavior, and function of a honeybee system. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(2), 100–148.
Farris, A. V., Dickes, A. C., & Sengupta, P. (2016). Development of disciplined interpretation using computational modeling in the elementary science classroom methods. In Proceedings of the 12th International conference of the learning sciences.
Farris, A. V., & Sengupta, P. (2016). Democratizing children’s computation: Learning computational science as aesthetic experience. Educational Theory, 66(1–2), 279–296.
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1049482940040101
Guzdial, M. (2009). Teaching computing to everyone. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/1506409.1506420
Hilton, A., & Bracy, A. (2015). All of programming. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Horn, M., Leong, Z. A., & Block, F. (2012). Of BATs and APEs: An interactive tabletop game for natural history museums. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2059–2068). https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208355
Hwang, S. W., & Roth, W. M. (2011). The (embodied) performance of physics concepts in lectures. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 461–477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9175-4
Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D., & Burke, Q. (2008). Entering the clubhouse: Case studies of young programmers joining the scratch community. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 22, 21–35. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2010101906
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., … Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 32–37.
Lee, V. R., & Wilkerson, M. (2018). Data use by middle and secondary students in the digital age: A status report and future prospects. Washington, DC.
Lehrer, R. (2009). Designing to develop disciplinary dispositions: Modeling natural systems. American Psychologist, 64(8), 759.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Marasco, E. (2013). Development of a CDIO-based creative cross-disciplinary curriculum and associated projects for elementary engineering education. Calgary, AB: University of Calgary.
Marasco, E., & Behjat, L. (2013). Integrating creativity into elementary electrical engineering education using CDIO and project-based learning. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Microelectronic Systems Education, MSE 2013 (pp. 44–47). https://doi.org/10.1109/MSE.2013.6566701
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with scratch. Computer Science Education, 233(03), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2013.832022
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Routledge.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/1174251
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Processing. (2017). Processing.org.
Reid, D. J., Zhang, J., & Chen, Q. (2003). Supporting scientific discovery learning in a simulation environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(1), 9–20.
Sáez-López, J.-M., Román-González, M., & Vázquez-Cano, E. (2016). Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education, 97, 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.003
Schmidt, D. C. (2006). Model-driven engineering. Computer, 39(2), 25–31.
Sengupta, P., & Farris, A. V. (2012). Learning Kinematics in elementary grades using agent-based Computational modeling: A Visual programming-based approach. In IDC’12 Proceedings of the 11th International conference on Interaction Design and Children. (pp. 78–87).
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A. C., & Farris, A. V. (2018). Toward a phenomenology of computational thinking in STEM education. In Computational thinking in STEM: Foundations and research highlights, (January) (pp. 49–72). Retrieved from http://doi.org/arXiv:1801.09258v1.
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A. C., Farris, A. V., Karan, A., Martin, D., & Wright, M. (2015). Programming in K-12 science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 58(11), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/2822517
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
Sengupta, P., & Shanahan, M.-C. (2017). Boundary play and pivots in public computation: New directions in STEM education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(3), 1124–1134.
Sherin, B., Reiser, B. J., & Edelson, D. (2004). Scaffolding analysis: Extending the scaffolding metaphor to learning artifacts. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 387–421. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_5
Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344–364.
Traff, P.-A., Wedel, M. K., Gustafsson, G., & Malmqvist, J. (2007). To rescue eggs; a design-build-test experience for children. In Proceedings of the 3rd International CDIO conference. Cambridge.
Vaca Cárdenas, L., Bertacchini, F., Tavernise, A., Gabriele, L., Pantano, P., Valenti, A., … Bilotta, E. (2015). Coding with Scratch: The design of an educational setting for Elementary pre-service teachers, (September) (pp. 1171–1177). Retrieved from http://doi.org/978-1-4799-8706-1.
Verner, I. M. (2015). Technology teacher education and outreach using the CDIO approach. In Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO conference. Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Wickman, P.-O. (2017). Back to the drawing board: Examining the philosophical foundations of educational research on aesthetics and emotions. In A. Bellocchi, C. Quigley, & K. Otrel-Cass (Eds.), Exploring emotions, aesthetics and wellbeing in science education research (Vol. 13, pp. 9–37). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43353-0
Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo (and NetLogo user manual). Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
Wilkerson-Jerde, M., Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Balancing curricular and pedagogical needs in computational construction kits: Lessons from the DeltaTick project. Science Education, 99(3), 465–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21157
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hladik, S., Behjat, L., Nygren, A. (2019). Development of a CDIO Framework for Elementary Computational Thinking. In: Sengupta, P., Shanahan, MC., Kim, B. (eds) Critical, Transdisciplinary and Embodied Approaches in STEM Education. Advances in STEM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29489-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29489-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29488-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29489-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)