research-article

Public Access

CEO: A Triangulated Evaluation of a Modeling-Based CT-Infused CS Activity for Non-CS Middle Grade Students

Authors:

Nicholas Lytle,

Veronica Cateté,

Danielle Boulden,

Jennifer Houchins,

Tiffany Barnes,

Eric WiebeAuthors Info & Claims

CompEd '19: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education

Pages 58 - 64

https://doi.org/10.1145/3300115.3309527

Published: 09 May 2019 Publication History

Abstract

With the increased demand for introducing computational thinking (CT) in K-12 classrooms, educational researchers are developing integrated lesson plans that can teach CT fundamentals in non-computing specific classrooms. Although these lessons reach more students through the core curriculum, proper evaluation methods are needed to ensure the quality of the design and integration. As part of a research practice partnership, we work to infuse research-backed curricula into science courses. We find a three-pronged approach of evaluation can help us make better decisions on how to improve experimental curricula for active classrooms. This CEO model uses three data sources (student code traces, exit ticket responses, and field observations) as a triangulated approach that can be used to identify programming behavior among novice developers, preferred task ordering for the assignment, and scaffolding recommendations to teachers. This approach allows us to evaluate the practical implementations of our initiative and create a focused approach for designing more effective lessons.

References

[1]

Bernd Meyer Aidan Lane and Jonathan Mullins. 2012. Simulation with Cellular A Project Based Introduction to Programming first ed.). Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Online: https://github.com/MonashAlexandria/snapapps.

[2]

John B Biggs and Kevin F Collis. 2014. Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press, New York, New York, USA.

[3]

Veronica Cateté, Nicholas Lytle, Yihuan Dong, Danielle Boulden, Bita Akram, Jennifer Houchins, Tiffany Barnes, Eric Wiebe, James Lester, Bradford Mott, and Kristy Boyer. 2018. Infusing Computational Thinking into Middle Grade Science Classrooms: Lessons Learned. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 21, 6 pages.

Digital Library

[4]

Cynthia E Coburn, William R Penuel, and Kimberly E Geil. 2013. Practice Partnerships: A Strategy for Leveraging Research for Educational Improvement in School Districts. Technical Report. William T. Grant Foundation, New York, New York, USA.

[5]

National Research Council et al. 2011. Report of a workshop on the pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

[6]

Barry J Fishman, William R Penuel, Anna-Ruth Allen, Britte Haugan Cheng, and NORA Sabelli. 2013. Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. National society for the study of education, Vol. 112, 2 (2013), 136--156.

[7]

Natasa Grgurina, Erik Barendsen, Cor Suhre, Bert Zwaneveld, and Klaas van Veen. 2018. Assessment of Modeling and Simulation in Secondary Computing Science Education. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, bibinfonumpages10 pages.

Digital Library

[8]

J. K. Houchins, D. C. Boulden, B. Akram, E. Wiebe, V. Cateté, Y. Dong, N. Lytle, A. Milliken, T. Barnes, J. Lester, B. Mott, and K. E. Boyer. 2019. Designing a Computational Modeling Unit for Middle Grades Science Classrooms: Grounding Decisions in Practice. In 2019 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. AIED, Toronto, Canada, 15.

[9]

David R Krathwohl. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, Vol. 41, 4 (2002), 212--218.

[10]

Barbara Means and William R Penuel. 2005. Scaling up technology-based educational innovations. Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement, Vol. (2005), 176--197.

[11]

Jaclyn Ocumpaugh. 2015. Baker Rodrigo Ocumpaugh monitoring protocol (BROMP) 2.0 technical and training manual. Teachers College, Columbia University.

[12]

Dale Parsons and Patricia Haden. 2006. Parson's Programming Puzzles: A Fun and Effective Learning Tool for First Programming Courses. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education - Volume 52 (ACE '06). Australian Computer Society, Inc., Darlinghurst, Australia, Australia, 157--163. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1151869.1151890

Digital Library

[13]

Thomas W. Price, Veronica Cateté, Jennifer Albert, Tiffany Barnes, and Daniel D. Garcia. 2016. Lessons Learned from "BJC" CS Principles Professional Development. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (SIGCSE '16). ACM, New York, New York, USA, 467--472.

Digital Library

[14]

Jonathan P Rowe, Scott W McQuiggan, Jennifer L Robison, and James C Lester. 2009. Off-Task Behavior in Narrative-Centered Learning Environments. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, AIED 2019. IOS Press, Brighton, UK, 99--106.

Digital Library

[15]

Robert Sawyer, Andy Smith, Jonathan Rowe, Roger Azevedo, and James Lester. 2017. Enhancing Student Models in Game-based Learning with Facial Expression Recognition. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 192--201.

Digital Library

[16]

John Sweller. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, Vol. 12, 2 (1988), 257--285.

[17]

Jeannette M Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM, Vol. 49, 3 (2006), 33--35.

Digital Library

[18]

Rui Zhi, Thomas W Price, Nicholas Lytle, Yihuan Dong, and Tiffany Barnes. 2018. Reducing the State Space of Programming Problems through Data-Driven Feature Detection. In Educational Data Mining in Computer Science Education (CSEDM) Workshop @EDM 2018. Educational Data Mining, New York, United States, 7.

Cited By

Akram BJiang S(2023)Investigation of Students’ Learning, Interest, and Career Aspirations in an Integrated Science and Artificial Intelligence Learning Environment (i-SAIL)Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 210.1145/3568812.3603488(33-34)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568812.3603488
Poulakis EPolitis P(2021)Computational Thinking Assessment: Literature ReviewResearch on E-Learning and ICT in Education10.1007/978-3-030-64363-8_7(111-128)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64363-8_7
Isvik ACatete VAlvarez LLytle NBarnes T(2020)Exploring Differences Between Student and Teacher Created Snap! Projects2020 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)10.1109/VL/HCC50065.2020.9127249(1-5)Online publication date: Aug-2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC50065.2020.9127249
Show More Cited By

CEO: A Triangulated Evaluation of a Modeling-Based CT-Infused CS Activity for Non-CS Middle Grade Students
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education

Recommendations

Introducing Computational Thinking through Non-Programming Science Activities
SIGCSE '18: Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Many programs offer informal experiences in programming for select students who may qualify or whose parents pay fees for attending. Integrating computational thinking (CT) in the formal classroom setting provides equal opportunities to develop valuable ...
Assessing computational learning in K-12
ITiCSE '14: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education

As computing curricula continue to make their way into K-12 schools, the issue of assessing student learning of computational concepts remains a thorny one. This paper describes the multiple forms of assessments used in a 6-week middle school curriculum ...
Assessing Computational Thinking in CS Unplugged Activities
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Computer Science (CS) Unplugged activities have been deployed in many informal settings to present computing concepts in an engaging manner. To justify use in the classroom, however, it is critical for activities to have a strong educational component. ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CompEd '19: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Global Computing Education

May 2019

260 pages

ISBN:9781450362597

DOI:10.1145/3300115

General Chairs:
Ming Zhang
Peking University, China
,
Bo Yang
Linyi University, China
,
Program Chairs:
Steve Cooper
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
,
Andrew Luxton-Reilly
University of Auckland, New Zealand

Copyright © 2019 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 the author(s) 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].

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 May 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Conference

CompEd '19

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

CompEd '19: ACM Global Computing Education Conference 2019

May 9 - 19, 2019

Chengdu,Sichuan, China

Acceptance Rates

CompEd '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 33 of 100 submissions, 33%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 33 of 100 submissions, 33%

Upcoming Conference

CompEd '25

Sponsor:
sigcse

ACM Global Computing Education Conference 2025

October 21 - 25, 2025

Gaborone , Botswana

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
411
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)78
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12

Reflects downloads up to 11 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Akram BJiang S(2023)Investigation of Students’ Learning, Interest, and Career Aspirations in an Integrated Science and Artificial Intelligence Learning Environment (i-SAIL)Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 210.1145/3568812.3603488(33-34)Online publication date: 7-Aug-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3568812.3603488
Poulakis EPolitis P(2021)Computational Thinking Assessment: Literature ReviewResearch on E-Learning and ICT in Education10.1007/978-3-030-64363-8_7(111-128)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64363-8_7
Isvik ACatete VAlvarez LLytle NBarnes T(2020)Exploring Differences Between Student and Teacher Created Snap! Projects2020 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)10.1109/VL/HCC50065.2020.9127249(1-5)Online publication date: Aug-2020
https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC50065.2020.9127249
Lytle NCatete VIsvik ABoulden DDong YWiebe EBarnes T(2019)From 'Use' to 'Choose'Proceedings of the 14th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education10.1145/3361721.3362110(1-6)Online publication date: 23-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3361721.3362110
Lytle NMcCartney RPetersen ARobins AMoskal AMcCartney RRobins A(2019)Towards Data-Driven Programming Problem Generation for Mastery LearningProceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research10.1145/3291279.3339447(339-340)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3291279.3339447

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten