Abstract
Just as engineering and computational thinking have recently gained increased attention in pre-college school-based education, many museums and science centers have also designed exhibits and experiences to promote computational thinking and engineering learning. Recent reports suggest that computational and engineering thinking can empower each other, and engineering design can be an appropriate context for children’s engagement in computational thinking. Previous studies have documented young children’s abilities to engage in engineering thinking and other studies have collected evidence of young children’s abilities to engage in computational thinking. However, there is little research that explores how children’s engagement in both engineering and computational thinking can support each other. Hence, in this qualitative case study, we aimed to examine how 5 to 7-year-old children engage in computational thinking competencies in the context of a family based engineering design activity. This activity was conducted at a small science center exhibit. In our presented findings we map children’s enactment of at least one CT competency to children’s engagement in engineering design actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Armoni, B. M. (2013). Designing a K-12 computing curriculum. ACM Inroads, 4(2), 34–35.
Ash, D. (2003). Dialogic inquiry in life science conversations of family groups in a museum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 138–162.
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2015). Report of the Australian curriculum technologies. Retrieved February 2019 from http://www.acara.edu.au.
Bairaktarova, D., Evangelou, D., Bagiati, A., & Brophy, S. (2011). Early engineering in young children’s exploratory play with tangible materials. Children Youth and Environments, 21(2), 212–235.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (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.
BBC [Online]. Bitesize. Retrieved February 2019 from https://www.bbc.com/education/topics/z7tp34j.
Bell, T., Andreae, P., & A. Robins, A. (2014). A case study of the introduction of computer science in NZ schools. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education, SIGCSE’12 (pp. 343–348).
Bell, T., & Vahrenhold, J. (2018). CS unplugged—How is it used, and does it work? In H. J. Böckenhauer, D. Komm, & W. Unger (Eds.), Adventures between lower bounds and higher altitudes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 11011). Cham: Springer.
Bennett, J., & Müller, U. (2010). The development of flexibility and abstraction in preschool children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56(4), 455–473.
Blikstein, P., & Krannich, D. (2013). The makers’ movement and FabLabs in education: experiences, technologies, and research. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 613–616). ACM.
Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 65–72).
Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304–328.
Case, J. M., & Light, G. (2011). Emerging research methodologies in engineering education research. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 186–210.
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(5), 275–279.
Cohen, A. T. (1984). Data abstraction, data encapsulation and object-oriented programming. SIGPLAN Notices, 19(1), 31–35.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.
Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished manuscript in progress. Retrieved February 2019 from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf.
Dasgupta, A., Rynearson, A., Purzer, S., Ehsan, H., & Cardella, M. (2017). Computational thinking in kindergarten: Evidence from student artifacts (Fundamental). In Proceedings of the 2017 American society for engineering education annual conference & exposition, Columbus, OH.
Denning, P. J., & Freeman, P. A. (2009). The profession of IT computing’s paradigm. Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 28–30.
Dorie, B. L., Cardella, M., & Svarovsky, G. N. (2014). Capturing the design thinking of young children interacting with a parent. In Proceedings of the 121st American society of engineering education annual conference and exposition, Indianapolis, IN.
Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2009). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Essential Topics for Technology Educators, 1001, 102.
Duncan, C., & Bell, T. (2015). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. In Proceedings of WiPSCE (pp. 1–10).
Ehsan, H., & Cardella, M. (2017). Capturing the computational thinking of families with young children in out-of-school environments. In Proceedings of the 2017 American society for engineering education annual conference & exposition, Columbus, OH.
Ehsan, H., Dandridge, T., Yeter, I., & Cardella, M. (2018). K-2 students’ computational thinking engagement in formal and informal learning settings: A case study (Fundamental). In Proceedings of the 2018 American society for engineering education annual conference & exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.
English, L., & King, D. (2017). Engineering education with fourth-grade students: Introducing design-based problem solving. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1), 346–360.
Ginsburg, H. P., Inoue, N., & Seo, K. H. (1999). Young children doing mathematics: Observations of everyday activities. Mathematics in the Early Years, 1, 88–99.
Google [Online]. Computational thinking concepts guide. Retrieved February 2019 from https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i0wgBMG3TdwsShAyH_0Z1xpFnpVcMvpYJceHGWex_c/edit.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2017). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, E. Barendsen, & C. Schulte (Eds.), Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 19–38). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
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.
Grubbs, M., & Strimel, G. (2015). Engineering design: The great integrator. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 77–90.
Hammer, D., & Berland, L. K. (2014). Confusing claims for data: A critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 37–46.
Hofstein, A., & Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Studies in Social Science Education, 28, 87–112.
Hynes, M. M., Portsmore, M, Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. Publications. Paper 165. Retrieved February 2019 from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications/165.
Hynes, M. M., Moore, T. J., Cardella, M. E., Tank, K. M., Purzer, S., Menekse, M., et al. (2019). Inspiring young children to engage in computational thinking in and out of school (research to practice). In Proceedings of the 2019 American society for engineering education annual conference & exposition, Tampa, FL.
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy. Reston: International Technology Education Association.
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEEA).
Jaramillo, J. A. (1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and contributions to the development of constructivist curricula. Education, 117(1), 133–140.
Karatas, F. O., Micklos, A., & Bodner, G. M. (2011). Sixth-grade students’ views of the nature of engineering and images of engineers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(2), 123–135.
King, D., & English, L. D. (2016). Engineering design in the primary school: Applying STEM concepts to build an optical instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2762–2794.
Lachapelle, C. P., Sargianis, K., & Cunningham, C. M. (2013). Engineer it, learn it: Science and engineering practices in action: Step into an elementary classroom to see what Next Generation Science standards practices look like. Science and Children, 51(3), 70–76.
Lee, T. Y., Mauriello, M. L., Ahn, J., & Bederson, B. B. (2014). CTArcade: Computational thinking with games in school age children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 2(1), 26–33.
Lee, T. Y., Mauriello, M. L., Ingraham, J., Sopan, A., Ahn, J., & Bederson, B. B. (2012). CTArcade: Learning computational thinking while training virtual characters through game play. In CHI’12 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2309–2314). ACM.
Lichtman, M. (2010). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lowe, T., & Brophy, S. (2017). An operationalized model for defining computational thinking. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8).
Lucas, B., & Hanson, J. (2016). Thinking like an engineer: Using engineering habits of mind and signature pedagogies to redesign engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 6(2), 4–13.
Mattoon, C., Bates, A., Shifflet, R., Latham, N., & Ennis, S. (2015). Examining computational skills in prekindergarteners: The effects of traditional and digital manipulatives in a prekindergarten classroom. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 17(1), n1.
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., & Smith, K. A. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-Peer), 4(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069.
National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Committee for the workshops on computational thinking: Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Petroski, H. (2003). Engineering: Early education. American Scientist, 91(3), 206–209.
Piaget, J. (1964). Cognitive development in children: Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(3), 176–186.
Powell, A. B., Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 405–435.
Prigmore, M., Taylor, R., & De Luca, D. (2016). A case study of autonomy and motivation in a student-led game development project. Computer Science Education, 26(2–3), 129–147.
Schnittka, C. G., Brandt, C. B., Jones, B. D., & Evans, M. A. (2012). Informal engineering education after school: Employing the studio model for motivation and identification in STEM domains. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1–31.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). On paradigms and methods: What do you do when the ones you know don’t do what you want them to? Issues in the analysis of data in the form of videotapes. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 179–214.
Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158.
Stewart, O. G., & Jordan, M. E. (2017). “Some explanation here”: A case study of learning opportunities and tensions in an informal science learning environment. Instructional Science, 45(2), 137–156.
Tõugu, P., Marcus, M., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2017). Connecting play experiences and engineering learning in a children’s museum. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 53, 10–19.
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 12, 6–18.
Watkins, J., Spencer, K., & Hammer, D. (2014). Examining young students’ problem scoping in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 5.
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., et al. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Wing, J. M. (2010). Computational thinking: What and why? Unpublished manuscript Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). London: Sage.
Funding
This study was funded by National Science Foundation under Grant No. DRL- 1543175.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
First and second authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The third author, Dr. Cardella receives funding from the National Science Foundation. Dr. Cardella is a scientific advisor to the Board of Directors for Imagination Station, the science center where the study data was collected. Her husband is also the President of the Board of Directors (an unpaid position) for Imagination Station.
Ethical approval
“All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.” This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Big blue blocks
Appendix: Big blue blocks
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ehsan, H., Rehmat, A.P. & Cardella, M.E. Computational thinking embedded in engineering design: capturing computational thinking of children in an informal engineering design activity. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 441–464 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09562-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09562-5