In the Wilensky's article "Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms" They clearly describe the taxonomy of a computational thinking curriculum. These authors list the multitude of ways in which computational thinking and the skills its supports, are directly related to the math and science skills that are required by common core standards. For example, dealing with data is a large part of both the math and science curriculum. Wilensky and company argue that computational thinking provides contextual supports for the many facets of deal with data including; collecting, creating, manipulating, visualizing and analyzing it. Not only does this article argue that computers as tools can aid in the learning of new ideas but rather the relationship is more complex. Wilensky and company propose that in addition to supporting comprehension they provide strategies to improve efficiency of the skills listed and therefore improve clarity the of conclusions and explanations of gathered data.
However, Grover and Pea point out the difficulties that computational thinking presents for classroom teachers. They propose many questions which I have considered myself, including: "What can we expect children to know or do better once they have participated in a curriculum designed for Computational thinking and how can they be evaluated?" (Pea 42) This is something that is Wilensky and company only halfway answer, although they do propose multiple standards that computational thinking can support and initiate, they do not outline a means of assessment which I believe is the biggest barrier to integrating computational thinking into state standards. In the American education system, it is necessary to consistently measure and prove progress through assessment. If we are teaching using a relatively abstract methods, how can we measure improvement? Papert might argue that this is where shareable artifacts come into play, but I wonder how can these artifacts be compared to a rubric or standard? I don't believe it is impossible, I just need clarification as to how it can be done.
I think assessments are a valid concern with our current educational focuses. I wonder if students creating a portfolio over a relatively long time period (1 semester - 1 year) might help answer this. Teachers could require each student to include specific demonstrations of skills in their portfolio. However, I think the main advantage would be to see a progression over time.
ReplyDeleteI think a portfolio showing learning through progression over time is a great suggestion. But it would be hard to argue for schools to adopt that with all the high-stakes testing going on. A portfolio model doesn't fit with the standardized testing model going on now. This issue of assessment is hard because we don't want what kids learn to be controlled or ruled by testing; we want more exploration and play and discovery. But we also want schools to start incorporating computational thinking so that kids don't miss out on it, so how do we develop ways for schools to incorporate CT in the current testing climate, without giving up on our visions of learning and giving into instructionism and memorization and lectures? It's a really difficult line. I struggle with this in education research in general. It's a balance between what we ideally want to happen and what we have to compromise to get schools to incorporate these things.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was in elementary school, we used a program called Paw's Party to learn how to type. From what I can remember about the program, it was a software program with black and white outlined animals who all wanted to come to Paw the Cat's birthday party. There were a series of levels in which we practiced typing different words to get more animals to the party. Now, I may have made this whole game up in my head or changed some of the major details, but the point is the same: Can we do something similar for computational thinking? Create a series of levels that require computational thinking that a learner can progress through? The other way I remember learning how to type is literally sitting at a computer and going through this typing program that would tell us to repeat f f f f f f then d d d d d d over and over again, then progress to more and more difficult strings of letters until we had mastered all the home keys, then all the upper row keys, lower row, numbers, etc. So the alternative is that we could just use some brute force to help students memorize various computational thinking patterns, but the first way seems a little more fun (and more empowering).
ReplyDeleteFor assessment I think series of levels is a great idea. But since students are to learn STEM concepts using CT the design of the levels would be trickier. Each level would need to keep account of the concepts of a STEM domain and also the CT practices. Nonetheless it is completely possible. Furthermore it would be possible to analyze the hardness of a level by keeping track of how hard students are finding them. Support for having multiple alternative paths for keeping students who are finding it easier or harder can enhance the overall experience of the students. I believe keeping students engaged is very important though less noted in these papers.
ReplyDelete