nach oben

TechTrends

Erschienen in:

02.01.2020 | Original Paper

Learning Computational Thinking Together: Effects of Gender Differences in Collaborative Middle School Robotics Program

verfasst von: Gerald Ardito, Betül Czerkawski, Lauren Scollins

Erschienen in: TechTrends | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Problem-solving and critical thinking are considered important skills to be developed by students, and are supported by the development of Computational Thinking (CT) skills. This study investigated the collaborative development of CT skills in sixth grade students via a six week LEGO robotics program. This robotics program focused on the development of four key CT skills: engineering/building, coding, problem-solving, and collaboration. Students in the program maintained journals of their activities, and these journals were analyzed in order to understand the collaborative development of CT skills in these students. Findings suggest that this process is a gendered one, with the boys focused more on the operational aspects of building and coding their robots while the girls focused more on group dynamics. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Vorheriger Artikel Graduate Students’ Use and Perceived Value of Learning Resources in Learning the Content in an Online Course

Nächster Artikel Making Spaces for STEM in the School Library

Interestingly, LOGO is not an acronym. It was named by one of its programmers for the Greek word for ‘word’ or ‘thought’.

Agustiani, H., Cahyad, S., & Musa, M. (2016). Self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of students academic performance. The Open Psychology Journal, 9(1).

Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2015). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics. A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Differences, 75, 661–670.CrossRef

Author., et al. (2014). "Deleted for Peer Review.".

Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.

Bear, J. B., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 146–153.CrossRef

Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2), n2.

Buffum, P. S., Frankosky, M., Boyer, K. E., Wiebe, E. N., Mott, B. W., & Lester, J. C. (2016). Collaboration and gender equity in game-based learning for middle school computer science. Computing in Science & Engineering, 18(2), 18–28.CrossRef

Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. B. (2012). The writers' workshop for youth programmers: Digital storytelling with scratch in middle school classrooms. In SIGCSE (Vol. 12, pp. 433-438).

Cavallo, D., Papert, S., & Stager, G. (2004). Climbing to understanding: Lessons from an experimental learning environment for adjudicated youth (pp. 113–120). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175.CrossRef

Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Edmonton, Alberta: Athabasca University Press.

Evard, M. (1996). A community of designers: Learning through exchanging questions and answers. Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world, Eds. Kafai, Y. & Resnick, M, Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Inc, 223–239.

Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., Nakajima, T., & Goode, J. (2017). Teaching practices for making e-textiles in high school computing classrooms. In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (p. 5). ACM.

Forman, E. A. (1992). Discourse, intersubjectivity, and the development of peer collaboration: A Vygotskian approach. Children's development within social context, 1, 143–159.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 174–206.CrossRef

Gaggioli, A., Milani, L., Mazzoni, E., & Riva, G. (2011). Networked flow: A framework for understanding the dynamics of creative collaboration in educational and training settings. The Open Education Journal, 4(1).

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2003). A theory of critical inquiry in online distance education. Handbook of Distance Education, 1, 113–127.

Goddard, W., & Melville, S. (2004). Research methodology: An introduction. Juta and Company Ltd..

Gomoll, A., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Šabanović, S., & Francisco, M. (2016). Dragons, ladybugs, and softballs: Girls' STEM engagement with human-centered robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 899–914.CrossRef

Good, J. A. (2018). Gender-related effects of advanced placement computer science courses on self-efficacy, belongingness, and persistence. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation: Michigan State University.

Grover, S. & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In Computer Science Education: Perspectives on teaching and learning, Sentance, S., Carsten, S., & Barendsen, E. (Eds). Bloomsbury.

Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25, 199–237.CrossRef

Ioannou, A., & Makridou, E. (2018). Exploring the potentials of educational robotics in the development of computational thinking: A summary of current research and practical proposal for future work. Education Information Technologies. 2531-2544.

Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1), 16–21.CrossRef

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Inc: Prentice-Hall.

Knochel, A. D., & Patton, R. M. (2015). If art education then critical digital making: Computational thinking and creative code. Studies in Art Education, 57(1), 21–38.CrossRef

Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S., Namukasa, I. K., Somanath, S., Weber, J., & Yiu, C. (2017). A pedagogical framework for computational thinking. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 154–171.CrossRef

Martin, F. G. (2000). Robotic explorations: A hands-on introduction to engineering. Prentice Hall PTR.

Martinez, S. L., & Stager, G. (2014). Invent to learn: Making, tinkering, and engineering in the classroom. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424–437.CrossRef

Melchior, A., Cohen, F., Cutter, T., & Leavitt, T. (2005). More than robots: An evaluation of the first robotics competition participant and institutional impacts. Retrieved from, http://www.techfire225.com/uploads/6/3/7/1/6371896/first_study.pdf.

Mugaitoglu, B. (2016). Attitudes of pre-service teachers toward computational thinking in education. Duquesne University: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.

“Next Generation Science Standards.” Next Generation Science Standards, 11 July 2019, www.nextgenscience.org/.

Nourbakhsh, I. R., Hamner, E., Crowley, K., Wilkinson, K. (2004). Formal measures of learning in a secondary school mobile robotics course. In international conference on robotics autonomy proceedings. IEEE, 2004. 1831-1836.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Computers, children, and learning. New York: Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. New York, NY, USA.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Paulsen, M. F. (1993). The hexagon of cooperative freedom: A distance education theory attuned to computer conferencing. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://www.prof2000.pt/users/ajlopes/AF22_EAD/teorias_ead/Teorias_Paulsen.htm

Poh, L., Poh, E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P.-W., Chen, I.-M., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Journal of Educational Technology & Society., 19(2), 148–163.

Pra, Y., & Sengupta, T. (2015). Programming in K–12 science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 58(11).

Relkin, E. (2018). Assessing young children’s computational thinking abilities. Tufts University. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.

Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications ACM, 52(11), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779.CrossRef

Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 99–111.CrossRef

Ruthmann, A., Heines, J. M., Greher, G. R., Laidler, P., & Saulters II, C. (2010, March). Teaching computational thinking through musical live coding in scratch. In proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 351-355). ACM.

Sangachin, P. M., & Jelodari, A. (2015). The simple and multiple relationship of self-regulation strategies and academic self efficacy with student academic performance in Shahid Chamran University. International Journal of Biology, Pharmacy and Allied Sciences (IJBPAS), 4(2), 6797–6807.

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158.CrossRef

Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2016). Voyant tools: Reveal your texts. Computer software. Voyant Tools: Reveal Your Texts. Vers, 1.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research of cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 71–82.

Stager, G. S. (2007). Towards the construction of a language for describing the learning potential of computing activities. Informatics in Education-An International Journal, 6(2), 429.

Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Girls, boys, and bots: Gender differences in young children’s performance on robotics and programming tasks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 145–165 Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol15/JITEv15IIPp145-165Sullivan2633.pdf.

Sullivan, F. R., & Wilson, N. C. (2015). Playful talk: Negotiating opportunities to learn in collaborative groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(1), 5–52.CrossRef

Sweeny, R. W. (2017). Makerspaces and art educational places. Studies in Art Education, 58(4), 351–359.CrossRef

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.CrossRef

Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., & Ninaus, M. (2018). Training computational thinking through board games: The case of Crabs & Turtles. International Journal of Serious Games, 5(2), 25–44.CrossRef

Urrea, C. M., & Papert, S. (2007). One to one connections: Building a community learning culture. MIT media lab. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016a). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.CrossRef

Weintrop, D., Holbert, N., Horn, M. S., & Wilensky, U. (2016b). Computational thinking in constructionist video games. International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL), 6(1), 1–17.CrossRef

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.CrossRef

Witherspoon, E. B., Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., Baehr, E. C., & Shoop, R. (2017). Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 18(1), 4.

Wolz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 11(2), 9.

Xia, L., & Zhong, B. (2018). A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education, 127, 267–282.CrossRef

Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)., 14(1), 1–16.CrossRef

Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). TechTrends, 60, 565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7.CrossRef

Yuen, T. T., Boecking, M., Tiger, E. P., Gomez, A., Guillen, A., Arreguin, A., & Stone, J. (2014). Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 39.CrossRef

Titel: Learning Computational Thinking Together: Effects of Gender Differences in Collaborative Middle School Robotics Program
verfasst von: Gerald Ardito
Betül Czerkawski
Lauren Scollins
Publikationsdatum: 02.01.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: TechTrends / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Elektronische ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00461-8

Springer Professional

Learning Computational Thinking Together: Effects of Gender Differences in Collaborative Middle School Robotics Program

Abstract

Premium Partner

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

The Effects of a Mobile App with Tutorial Learning Strategy on Anxiety Level of Secondary Students

A Flipped-Blended Learning Model with Augmented Problem Based Learning to Enhance Students’ Computer Skills

T-REX: the Teachers’ Research Exchange. Overcoming the Research-Practice Gap in Education

Trends of Educational Technology in Korea and the U.S.: A Report on the AECT-Korean Society for Educational Technology (KSET) Panel Discussion

Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Introduction of ICT in Ecuadorian Public Schools

The Fault in our Systems: LMS as a Vehicle for Critical Pedagogy

Premium Partner