Abstractive-Based Programming Approach to Computational Thinking: Discover,Extract,Create,and Assemble

Abstract

Most studies suggest that students develop computational thinking (CT) through learning programming. However, when the target of CT is decoupled from programming, emerging evidence challenges the assertion of CT transferability from programming. In this study, CT was operationalized in everyday problem-solving contexts in a learning experiment (n = 59) that investigated whether learning programming enhances students’ CT skills. Specifically, this study examined the influence of a novel, systematic and micro instructional strategy that is grounded in abstraction and comprised of four independent but related processes – discover, extract, create, and assemble (DECA) towards simplification of problem-solving. Subsidiary questions explored the effects of students’ age, gender, computer proficiency, and prior programming experience on the development of CT. No significant difference was found between the CT skill and programming knowledge of the groups at the posttest. However, within-group paired t-tests showed that the experimental group that integrated DECA had significant improvement in CT but not in the control group across the pretest-posttest axis. Implications of the inconclusive finding about the transfer of programming skills to CT are emphasized and the arguments for disentangling CT from programming are highlighted.

Keywords

computational thinking problem-solving programming abstraction constructionism

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akcaoglu

(2014). Learning problem-solving through making games at the game design and learning summer program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 583–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9347-4

Baek

Wang

Yang

Ching

Swanson

Chittoori

(2019). Revisiting second graders' robotics with an understand/use-modify-create (U²MC) strategy. European Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), Article 07. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/5772

Barr

Harrison

Conery

(2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23. https://www.learningandleading-digital.com/learning_leading/20110304?pm=2&pg=22#pg22

Barr

Stephenson

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

Bers

M. U.

Flannery

Kazakoff

E. R.

Sullivan

(2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72(C), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020

Brennan

Resnick

(2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1, 1–25. http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf

Chen

Shen

Barth-Cohen

Jiang

Huang

Eltoukhy

(2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001

Colburn

Shute

(2007). Abstraction in computer science. Minds and Machines, 17(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-007-9061-7

Csizmadia

Curzon

Dorling

Humphreys

Selby

(2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/424545/

10.

Dagienė

Sentance

(2016). It’s computational thinking! Bebras tasks in the curriculum. In Brodnik

Tort

(Eds.), Informatics in schools: Improvement of informatics knowledge and perception (pp. 28–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46747-4_3

11.

Denner

Campe

Werner

(2019). Does computer game design and programming benefit children? A meta-synthesis of research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 19(3), Article 19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277565

12.

Denning

P. J.

(2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438

13.

Denning

P. J.

Tedre

Yongpradit

(2017). Misconceptions about computer science. Communications of the ACM, 60(3), 31–33. https://doi.org/10.1145/3041047

14.

Ezeamuzie

N. O.

(2022). Project-first approach to programming in K–12: Tracking the development of novice programmers in technology-deprived environments. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11180-8

15.

Ezeamuzie

N. O.

Leung

J. S. C.

(2022). Computational thinking through an empirical lens: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(2), 481–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211033158

16.

Ezeamuzie

N. O.

Leung

J. S. C.

Garcia

Ting

F. S. T.

(2022a). Discovering computational thinking in everyday problem solving: A multiple case study of route planning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12720

17.

Ezeamuzie

N. O.

Leung

J. S. C.

Ting

F. S. T.

(2022b). Unleashing the potential of abstraction from cloud of computational thinking: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(4), 877–905. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211055379

18.

Grover

Jackiw

Lundh

(2019). Concepts before coding: Non-programming interactives to advance learning of introductory programming concepts in middle school. Computer Science Education, 29(2–3), 106–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1568955

19.

Guzdial

(2008). Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1378704.1378713

20.

Guzdial

(2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1–165. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00684ED1V01Y201511HCI033

21.

Z. Z.

X. M.

Wang

Q. Y.

Huang

C. Q.

(2021). Developing eighth-grade students' computational thinking with critical reflection. Sustainability, 13(20), Article 11192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011192

22.

Jonassen

D. H.

(1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613

23.

Jonassen

D. H.

(2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02300500

24.

Knuth

D. E.

(1974). Computer science and its relation to mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly, 81(4), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1974.11993556

25.

Korkmaz

Ö.

Çakir

Özden

M. Y.

(2017). A validity and reliability study of the computational thinking scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005

26.

Kramer

(2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/1232743.1232745

27.

Kyza

E. A.

Georgiou

Agesilaou

Souropetsis

(2022). A cross-sectional study investigating primary school children’s coding practices and computational thinking using ScratchJr. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(1), 220–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211027387

28.

Lau

W. W. F.

Yuen

A. H. K.

(2009). Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: Implications for programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00847.x

29.

Lau

W. W. F.

Yuen

A. H. K.

(2011). The impact of the medium of instruction: The case of teaching and learning of computer programming. Education and Information Technologies, 16(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9118-8

30.

Lee

(2021). Enhancing computational thinking skills in informatics in secondary education: The case of South Korea. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(5), 2869–2893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10035-2

31.

Liao

Y.-K.

(2000). A meta-analysis of computer programming on cognitive outcomes: An updated synthesis. In Bourdeau

Heller

(Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2000--world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications (pp. 598–604). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/16132

32.

Liao

Y.-K. C.

Bright

G. W.

(1991). Effects of computer programming on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.2190/e53g-hh8k-ajrr-k69m

33.

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

34.

Mannila

Dagiene

Demo

Grgurina

Mirolo

Rolandsson

Settle

(2014). Computational thinking in K-9 education. In Clear

Lister

(Eds.), Proceedings of the working group reports of the 2014 on innovation & technology in computer science education conference (pp. 1–29). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610

35.

Mayer

R. E.

(1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1–2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003088013286

36.

Merkouris

Chorianopoulos

Kameas

(2017). Teaching programming in secondary education through embodied computing platforms: Robotics and wearables. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(2), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025013

37.

Moreno-León

Robles

Román-González

(2015). Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 46(10), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.6018/red/46/10

38.

Nardelli

(2019). Do we really need computational thinking? Communications of the ACM, 62(2), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231587

39.

Noh

Lee

(2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w

40.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development . (2013a). PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-6-en

41.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development . (2013b). PISA 2012 mathematics framework. In PISA 2012 assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy (pp. 23–58). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-6-en

42.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development . (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA-2012-technical-report-final.pdf

43.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development . (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume i): Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en

44.

Papert

(1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books.

45.

Pea

R. D.

Kurland

D. M.

(1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(84)90018-7

46.

Pérez-Marín

Hijón-Neira

Bacelo

Pizarro

(2020). Can computational thinking be improved by using a methodology based on metaphors and scratch to teach computer programming to children? Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 105849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.027

47.

Popat

Starkey

(2019). Learning to code or coding to learn? A systematic review. Computers & Education, 128, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.005

48.

Román-González

Pérez-González

J.-C.

Jiménez-Fernández

(2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the computational thinking test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047

49.

Saritepeci

(2020). Developing computational thinking skills of high school students: Design-based learning activities and programming tasks. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00480-2

50.

Scherer

Siddiq

Viveros

B. S.

(2019). The cognitive benefits of learning computer programming: A meta-analysis of transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 764–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000314

51.

Selby

Woollard

(2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/

52.

Shen

Chen

Barth-Cohen

Jiang

Eltoukhy

(2020). Connecting computational thinking in everyday reasoning and programming for elementary school students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1834474

53.

Shrout

P. E.

Fleiss

J. L.

(1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420

54.

Shute

V. J.

Sun

Asbell-Clarke

(2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

55.

Sullivan

Bers

M. U.

(2019). Investigating the use of robotics to increase girls’ interest in engineering during early elementary school. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9483-y

56.

Taylor

Baek

(2019). Grouping matters in computational robotic activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.010

57.

Tedre

Denning

P. J.

(2016). The long quest for computational thinking. In Sheard

Montero

C. S.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th koli calling international conference on computing education research (pp. 120–129). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999542

58.

Wei

Lin

Meng

Tan

Kong

S.-C.

Kinshuk . (2021). The effectiveness of partial pair programming on elementary school students’ Computational Thinking skills and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 160, Article 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104023

59.

Weintrop

Beheshti

Horn

Orton

Jona

Trouille

Wilensky

(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

60.

Wing

(2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

61.

Witherspoon

Higashi

Schunn

Baehr

Shoop

(2017). Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3104982

62.

Zhao

Liu

Wang

Y.-S.

(2022). Effect of different mind mapping approaches on primary school students’ computational thinking skills during visual programming learning. Computers & Education, 181, Article 104445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104445

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB

0.41 MB