skip to main content
research-article

Computational Thinking in Elementary and Secondary Teacher Education

Published:01 March 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) is broadly defined as the mental activity for abstracting problems and formulating solutions that can be automated. In an increasingly information-based society, CT is becoming an essential skill for everyone. To ensure that students develop this ability at the K-12 level, it is important to provide teachers with an adequate knowledge about CT and how to incorporate it into their teaching. This article describes a study on designing and introducing computational thinking modules and assessing their impact on preservice teachers’ understanding of CT concepts, as well as their attitude towards computing. Results demonstrate that introducing computational thinking into education courses can effectively influence preservice teachers’ understanding of CT concepts.

References

  1. Vicki Allan, Valerie Barr, Dennis Brylow, and Susanne Hambrusch. 2010. Computational thinking in high school courses. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Donald Ary, Lucy Jacobs, Asghar Razavieh, and Chris Sorensen. 2009. Introduction to Research in Education. Wadsworth.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Valerie Barr and Chris 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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Lenore Blum and Thomas J. Cortina. 2007. CS4HS: An outreach program for high school CS teachers. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. John S. Brown, Allan Collins, and Paul Duguid. 1989. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Res. 18, 1, 32--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Alan Bundy. 2007. Computational thinking is pervasive. J. Sci. Pract. Comput. 1, 67--69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. College Board. 2012. Program Summary Report. http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/program_summary_report_2012.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Computing Research Association CRA. 2012. CRA Taulbee Survey. http://cra.org/uploads/documents/resources/crndocs/2012_taulbee_survey.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Jan Cuny, Larry Snyder, and Jeannette M. Wing. 2010. Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Work in progress.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Peter J. Denning. 2009. The profession of IT: Beyond computational thinking. Commun. ACM 52, 628--630. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Daniel D. Garcia, Colleen M. Lewis, John P. Dougherty, and Matthew C. Jadud. 2010. You might be a computational thinker!. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Susanne Hambrusch, Christoph Hoffmann, John T. Korb, Mark Haugan, and Antony L. Hosking. 2009. A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’09). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. David Hemmendinger. 2010. A plea for modesty. ACM Inroads 1, 2, 4--7. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Peter B. Henderson, Thomas J. Cortina, and Jeannette M. Wing. 2007. Computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. H. C. Hill, S. G. Schilling, and D. L. Ball. 2004. Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elemen. School J. 105, 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Andrew Hoegh and Barbara M. Moskal. 2009. Examining science and engineering students’ attitudes toward computer science. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE International Conference on Frontiers in Education. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. Lenhart, J. Kahne, E. Middaugh, Rankin, C. Evans, and J. Vitak. 2008. Teens, video games, and civics. Tech. rep.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Gary Lewandowski, Dennis Bouvier, Robert McCartney, Kate Sanders, and Beth Simon. 2007. Commonsense computing (episode 3): Concurrency and concert tickets. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER’07). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. James J. Lu and George H. L. Fletcher. 2009. Thinking about computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’09). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Punya Mishra, Aman Yadav, and the Deep-Play Research Group. 2013. Rethinking technology and creativity in the 21st century: Of art and algorithms. TechTrends 57, 10--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Patricia Morreale and David Joiner. 2011. Changing perceptions of computer science and computational thinking among high school teachers. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 26, 6, 71--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. National Research Council (NRC). 2010. Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. The National Academies Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jake A. Qualls and Linda B. Sherrell. 2010. Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum. J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 25, 66--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Jeannette Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 33--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Jeannette Wing. 2008. Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Trans. Royal Soc. A: Math., Phys. Eng. Sci. 366, 1881, 3717--3725.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Aman Yadav, Ninger Zhou, Chris Mayfield, Susanne Hambrusch, and John T. Korb. 2011. Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Computational Thinking in Elementary and Secondary Teacher Education

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
      ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 14, Issue 1
      March 2014
      98 pages
      EISSN:1946-6226
      DOI:10.1145/2600089
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 March 2014
      • Accepted: 1 January 2014
      • Revised: 1 October 2013
      • Received: 1 April 2013
      Published in toce Volume 14, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader