Computational Thinking Equity in Elementary Classrooms: What Third-Grade Students Know and Can Do

Abstract

The Computer Science Teachers Association has asserted that computational thinking equips students with essential critical thinking which allows them to conceptualize, analyze, and solve more complex problems. These skills are applicable to all content area as students learn to use strategies, ideas, and technological practices more effectively as digital natives. This research examined over 200 elementary students’ pre- and posttest changes in computational thinking from a 10-week coding program using adapted lessons from code.org’s Blockly programming language and CSUnplugged that were delivered as part of the regular school day. Participants benefited from early access to computer science (CS) lessons with increases in computational thinking and applying coding concepts to the real world. Interviews from participants included examples of CS connections to everyday life and interdisciplinary studies at school. Thus, the study highlights the importance of leveraging CS access in diverse elementary classrooms to promote young students’ computational thinking; motivation in CS topics; and the learning of essential soft-skills such as collaboration, persistence, abstraction, and creativity to succeed in today’s digital world.

Keywords

computational thinking elementary students diverse learners

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andersen

(2005) Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender and Society 19(4): 437–455.

Australian Curriculum Assessment & Reporting Authority. (2010). Digital technologies in the Australian curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/.

Barr

Stephenson

(2011) Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science community? ACM Inroads 2(1): 48–54.

Basawapatna, A. R., Repenning, A., Koh, K. H., & Savignano, M. (2014, March). The consume-create spectrum: Balancing convenience and computational thinking in STEM learning. In Proceedings of SIGCSE 2014 conference (pp. 658–664). New York, NY: ACM.

Bell, T., Witten, I., & Fellows, M. (2011). Computer science unplugged. Retrieved from http://csunplugged.org/books/.

Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.

Bers

Horn

(2010) Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. In: Berson

Berson

(eds) High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 49–70.

Bers

M. U.

Flannery

Kazakoff

E. R.

Sullivan

(2014) Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education 72: 145–157.

Bloom

(1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives book 1: Cognitive domain, New York, NY: Longman.

10.

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.

11.

Brown, N., & Kolling, M. (2012, July). Position paper: Programming can deepen understanding across disciplines [DRAFT]. In IFIP working conference-addressing educational challenges: The role of ICT. Manchester, England: Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved from http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/nccb/position_paper.pdf.

12.

Bundy

(2007) Computational thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical Computing 1 2: 67–69.

13.

Bybee

R. W.

(2009) K-12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers. Workshop on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

14.

Calder

(2010) Using Scratch: An integrated problem-solving approach to mathematical thinking. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom 15(4): 9–14.

15.

Campbell, G., Denes, R., & Morrison, C. (Eds.). (2000). Access denied. Race, ethnicity, and the scientific enterprise. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

16.

Common Core State Standards http://www.corestandards.org/ (accessed 15 November 2017).

17.

Clements

D. H.

(1987) Longitudinal study of the effects of logo programming on cognitive abilities and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research 3: 73–94.

18.

Clements, D. H., Battista, M.T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 10, I–177.

19.

Cooper

Cunningham

(2010) Teaching computer science in context. ACM Inroads 1: 5–8.

20.

Creswell

J. W.

(2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

CSTA. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CompThinking.html.

22.

DeJarnette

N. K.

(2012) America's children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education 133(1): 77–84.

23.

Denning

P. J.

(2009) The profession of IT beyond computational thinking. Communications of ACM 52(6): 28–30.

24.

Fessakis

Gouli

Mavroudi

(2013) Problem solving by 5-6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education 63: 87–97.

25.

Freeman

Eddy

S. L.

McDonough

Smith

M. K.

Okoroafor

Jordt

Wenderoth

M. P.

(2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 8410–8415.

26.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

(1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, New York, NY: Aldine.

27.

Good

(2011) Learners at the wheel: Novice programming environments come to age. International Journal of People-Oriented Programming 1(1): 1–24.

28.

Grover

Pea

(2013) Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher 42(1): 38–43.

29.

Horn

M. S.

Crouser

R. J.

Bers

M. U.

(2011) Tangible interaction and learning: The case for hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16(4): 379–389.

30.

International Society for Technology in Education & the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

31.

Israel

Pearson

J. N.

Tapia

Wherfel

Q. M.

Reese

(2015) Supporting all learners in school wide computational thinking: A cross case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education 82: 263–279.

32.

Johnson, H., & Cotterman, M. (2013, November). Collaborative efforts to put the ‘E’ back in STEM (p. 3). Arlington, VA: NSTA.

33.

Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M. S., 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, FL.

34.

Kafai, Y.B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected Code: Why children Need to Learn Programming. MIT Press.

35.

Kazakoff

Sullivan

Bers

M. U.

(2013) The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and Programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal 41(4): 245–255.

36.

Koh, K. H., Basawapatna, A., Bennett, V. & Reppening, A. (2010, September). Towards the automatic recognition of computational thinking for adaptive visual language learning. In 2010 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human centric computing (pp. 59–66). New York, NY: IEEE.

37.

Kolb

(1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

38.

Kolb

(1999) The Kolb Learning Style Inventory, Version 3, Boston, MA: Hay Group.

39.

Lee

Y. J.

(2011) Scratch: Multimedia programming environment for young gifted Learners. Gifted Child Today 34(2): 26–31.

40.

Lee

Martin

Denner

Coulter

Allan

Erickson

Werner

(2011) Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads 2: 32–37.

41.

Lewis

C. M.

(2011) Is pair programming more effective than other forms of collaboration for young students? Computer Science Education 21(2): 105–134.

42.

Lewis

Smith

(1993) Defining higher order thinking. Theory Into Practice 32: 131–137.

43.

Liao

Y. K.

Bright

(1991) Effects of computer-assisted instruction and computer programming on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research 7(3): 251–268.

44.

Metz, S. S. (2007). Attracting the engineering of 2020 today. In R. Burke, M. Mattis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Upping the Numbers (pp. 184–209). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

45.

Mioduser

Levy

Talis

(2009) Episodes to scripts to rules: Concrete abstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behaviors. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 19(1): 15–36.

46.

Moomaw

(2012) STEM begins in the early years. School Science and Mathematics 112(2): 57–58.

47.

Next Generation Science Standards https://www.nextgenscience.org/ (accessed 15 November 2017).

48.

National Academy of Sciences (2007) Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

49.

National Academy of Sciences (2010) Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

50.

National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

51.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/schooling-redesigned_9789264245914.

52.

Oregon Department of Education. (2015). School and district report cards. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/reports.aspx.

53.

Papert

(1991) Situative constructionism. In: Harel

Paper

(eds) Constructionism, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 1–11.

54.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

55.

Reppening

Webb

Ioannidou

(2010, March) Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In: Proceedings of the 41st SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE’ 10), New York, NY: ACM Press, pp. 265–269.

56.

Resnick

Maloney

Monroy-Hernandez

Rusk

Eastmond

Brennan

Kafai

(2009) Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM 52(11): 60–67.

57.

Rushkoff

(2010) Program to be programmed: Ten commands for a digital age, New York, NY: O/R Books.

58.

Scaffidi

Chambers

(2012) Skill progression demonstrated by users in the Scratch animation environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 28(6): 383–398.

59.

Sengupta

Kinnebrew

J. S.

Basu

Biswas

Clark

(2013) Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based Computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies 18: 351–380.

60.

Strauss

(1992) What makes Tony run? Schemas as motive reconsideration. In: D’Andrade

Strauss

(eds) Human Motives and Cultural Models, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–224.

61.

Strauss

Quinn

(1997) A cognitive theory of cultural meaning, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

62.

Weintrop

Beheshti

Horn

M. S.

Orton

Joan

Trouille

Wilensky

(2014, April) Defining computational thinking for science, technology, engineering, and math, Philadelphia, PA: Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association, PA.

63.

Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012, February). The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 215–220). New York, NY: ACM.

64.

Wing

(2006) Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49(3): 33–35.

65.

Yadav

Stephenson

Hong

(2017) Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM 60(4): 55–62.