Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3372782.3406268acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Opening the Black Box: Investigating Student Understanding of Data Displays Using Programmable Sensor Technology

Published: 07 August 2020 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    This paper describes the design and classroom implementation of a week-long unit that aims to integrate computational thinking (CT) into middle school science classes using programmable sensor technology. The goals of this sensor immersion unit are to help students understand why and how to use sensor and visualization technology as a powerful data-driven tool for scientific inquiry in ways that align with modern scientific practice. The sensor immersion unit is anchored in the investigation of classroom data where students engage with the sensor technology to ask questions about and design displays of the collected data. Students first generate questions about how data data displays work and then proceed through a set of programming exercises to help them understand how to collect and display data collected from their classrooms by building their own mini data displays. Throughout the unit students draw and update their hand drawn models representing their current understanding of how the data displays work. The sensor immersion unit was implemented by ten middle school science teachers during the 2019/2020 school year. Student drawn models of the classroom data displays from four of these teachers were analyzed to examine students' understandings in four areas: function of sensor components, process models of data flow, design of data displays, and control of the display. Students showed the best understanding when describing sensor components. Students exhibited greater confusion when describing the process of how data streams moved through displays and how programming controlled the data displays.

    References

    [1]
    Stamatina Anastopoulou, Mike Sharples, Shaaron Ainsworth, Charles Crook, Claire O'Malley, and Michael Wright. 2012. Creating personal meaning through technology-supported science inquiry learning across formal and informal settings. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 34, 2 (2012), 251--273.
    [2]
    Norman R Augustine et almbox. 2005. Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Retrieved March, Vol. 19 (2005), 2008.
    [3]
    Amber Schultz Bismack, Anna Maria Arias, Elizabeth A Davis, and Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar. 2015. Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 52, 6 (2015), 816--846.
    [4]
    Paulo Blikstein. 2012. Bifocal modeling: a study on the learning outcomes of comparing physical and computational models linked in real time. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimodal interaction. ACM, 257--264.
    [5]
    Cory A Buxton. 2010. Social problem solving through science: An approach to critical, place-based, science teaching and learning. Equity & excellence in education, Vol. 43, 1 (2010), 120--135.
    [6]
    Todd Campbell, Thomas J McKenna, Xavier Fazio, Amy Hetherington-Coy, and Patrick Pierce. 2019. Negotiating Coherent Science Teacher Professional Learning Experiences Across a University and Partner School Settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 30, 2 (2019), 179--199.
    [7]
    Todd Campbell, Rebecca Zuwallack, Max Longhurst, Brett E Shelton, and Paul G Wolf. 2014. An examination of the changes in science teaching orientations and technology-enhanced tools for student learning in the context of professional development. International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 36, 11 (2014), 1815--1848.
    [8]
    Cynthia E Coburn and William R Penuel. 2016. Research--practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, Vol. 45, 1 (2016), 48--54.
    [9]
    Cynthia E Coburn, William R Penuel, and Kimberly E Geil. 2013a. Practice Partnerships: A Strategy for Leveraging Research for Educational Improvement in School Districts. William T. Grant Foundation (2013).
    [10]
    Cynthia E Coburn, William R Penuel, and Kimberly E Geil. 2013b. Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation (2013).
    [11]
    National Research Council et almbox. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Core Ideas, and Crosscutting Concepts.
    [12]
    Christine M Cunningham and William S Carlsen. 2014. Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 25, 2 (2014), 197--210.
    [13]
    Lila Finch, R Benjamin Shapiro, and Franziska Carstens. 2018. Teachers' values in co-design of an art-science-computation unit. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.[ISLS].
    [14]
    William Finzer. 2014. Hierarchical data visualization as a tool for developing student understanding of variation of data generated in simulations. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Teaching Statistics.
    [15]
    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.
    [16]
    Ian Foster. 2006. A two-way street to science's future. Nature, Vol. 440, 7083 (2006), 419--419.
    [17]
    Joanna Goode, Jane Margolis, and Gail Chapman. 2014. Curriculum is not enough: The educational theory and research foundation of the exploring computer science professional development model. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 493--498.
    [18]
    Susanne Hambrusch, Christoph Hoffmann, John T Korb, Mark Haugan, and Antony L Hosking. 2009. A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, Vol. 41, 1 (2009), 183--187.
    [19]
    Common Core State Standards Initiative et almbox. 2010. Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
    [20]
    J Kahn and R Hall. 2016. Getting personal with big data: Stories with multivariable models about global health and wealth. In annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC Best Paper award, SIG for Learning Sciences and Advanced Technologies.
    [21]
    Emily J Klein and Meg Riordan. 2011. Wearing the "student hat": Experiential professional development in expeditionary learning schools. Journal of Experiential Education, Vol. 34, 1 (2011), 35--54.
    [22]
    Joseph Krajcik and Joi Merritt. 2012. Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? The Science Teacher, Vol. 79, 3 (2012), 38.
    [23]
    NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
    [24]
    Victor R Lee and Joel Drake. 2013. Quantified recess: design of an activity for elementary students involving analyses of their own movement data. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children. 273--276.
    [25]
    Chi-Cheng Lin, Mingrui Zhang, Barbara Beck, and Gayle Olsen. 2009. Embedding computer science concepts in K-12 science curricula. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 539--543.
    [26]
    Fred Martin, Sarah Kuhn, Michelle Scribner-MacLean, Christopher Corcoran, James Dalphond, John Fertitta, Michael McGuiness, Sam Christy, and Ivan Rudnicki. 2010. iSENSE: A Web Environment and Hardware Platform for Data Sharing and Citizen Science. In 2010 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.
    [27]
    J Minstrell. 2001. Facets of students' thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (2001), 415--443.
    [28]
    Leyla Norooz, Matthew Louis Mauriello, Anita Jorgensen, Brenna McNally, and Jon E Froehlich. 2015. BodyVis: A New Approach to Body Learning Through Wearable Sensing and Visualization. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1025--1034.
    [29]
    William R Penuel. 2016. Studying science and engineering learning in practice. Cultural Studies of Science Education, Vol. 11, 1 (2016), 89--104.
    [30]
    William R Penuel and Angela Haydel DeBarger. 2016. A research-practice partnership to improve formative assessment in science. Thinking systemically: Improving districts under pressure. Washington, DC: AERA (2016).
    [31]
    William R Penuel, Kim Frumin, Katie Van Horne, and Jennifer K Jacobs. 2018a. A phenomenon-based assessment system for three-dimensional science standards: Why do we need it and what can it look like in practice. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
    [32]
    William R Penuel, Brian J Reiser, Michael Novak, Tara A.W. McGill, Kim Frumin, Katie Van Horne, Sumner Tamara, and Watkins Douglas Adams. 2018b. Using Co-Design to Test and Refine a Model for Three-Dimensional Science Curriculum that Connects to Students' Interests and Experiences. In In Proceedings of the 2018 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, New York.
    [33]
    Kylie Peppler, Joshua Danish, Benjamin Zaitlen, Diane Glosson, Alexander Jacobs, and David Phelps. 2010. BeeSim: Leveraging wearable computers in participatory simulations with young children. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 246--249.
    [34]
    Amy L Powers. 2004. An evaluation of four place-based education programs. The Journal of Environmental Education, Vol. 35, 4 (2004), 17--32.
    [35]
    BJ Reiser, M Novak, and M Fumagalli. 2015. NGSS storylines: How to construct coherent instructional sequences driven by phenomena and motivated by student questions. In Illinois Science Education Conference, Tinley Park, IL. http://bit. ly/1sS1y26.
    [36]
    Brian J Reiser, Michael Novak, and Tara AW McGill. 2017. Coherence from the students' perspective: Why the vision of the framework for K-12 science requires more than simply "combining" three dimensions of science learning. In Board on Science Education Workshop Instructional Materials for the Next Generation Science Standards.
    [37]
    Emmanuel Schanzer, Kathi Fisler, Shriram Krishnamurthi, and Matthias Felleisen. 2015. Transferring skills at solving word problems from computing to algebra through bootstrap. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, 616--621.
    [38]
    Yael Schwartz, Ayelet Weizmann, David Fortus, Joe Krajcik, and Brian Reiser. [n.d.]. Middle school science curriculum: Coherence as a design principle.
    [39]
    Christina V Schwarz, Brian J Reiser, Elizabeth A Davis, Lisa Kenyon, Andres Achér, David Fortus, Yael Shwartz, Barbara Hug, and Joe Krajcik. 2009. Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 46, 6 (2009), 632--654.
    [40]
    Pratim Sengupta, John S Kinnebrew, Satabdi Basu, Gautam Biswas, and Douglas Clark. 2013. Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 18, 2 (2013), 351--380.
    [41]
    Samuel Severance, William R Penuel, Tamara Sumner, and Heather Leary. 2016. Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 25, 4 (2016), 531--564.
    [42]
    Tricia Shelton. 2015. Climbing the NGSS mountain. The Science Teacher, Vol. 82, 9 (2015), 65.
    [43]
    Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Open coding. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Vol. 2, 1990 (1990), 101--121.
    [44]
    Katie Headrick Taylor and Rogers Hall. 2013. Counter-mapping the neighborhood on bicycles: Mobilizing youth to reimagine the city. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 18, 1--2 (2013), 65--93.
    [45]
    Seth Tisue and Uri Wilensky. 2004. Netlogo: A simple environment for modeling complexity. In International conference on complex systems, Vol. 21. Boston, MA, 16--21.
    [46]
    David Weintrop, Elham Beheshti, Michael Horn, Kai Orton, Kemi Jona, Laura Trouille, and Uri Wilensky. 2016. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 25, 1 (2016), 127--147.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Toward a debugging pedagogy: helping students learn to get unstuck with physical computing systemsInformation and Learning Sciences10.1108/ILS-03-2022-0051124:1/2(1-24)Online publication date: 6-Jan-2023
    • (2022)Primary School Students Programming with Real-Time Environmental Sensor DataProceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3511861.3511871(85-94)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2022
    • (2022)Making Data Tangible: A Cross-disciplinary Design Space for Data PhysicalizationProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3501939(1-18)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
    • Show More Cited By

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ICER '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
    August 2020
    364 pages
    ISBN:9781450370929
    DOI:10.1145/3372782
    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]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 07 August 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. computational thinking
    2. micro:bit
    3. middle school science
    4. sensors

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    ICER '20
    Sponsor:
    ICER '20: International Computing Education Research Conference
    August 1 - 5, 2020
    Virtual Event, New Zealand

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

    Upcoming Conference

    ICER 2024
    ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
    August 13 - 15, 2024
    Melbourne , VIC , Australia

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)72
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Toward a debugging pedagogy: helping students learn to get unstuck with physical computing systemsInformation and Learning Sciences10.1108/ILS-03-2022-0051124:1/2(1-24)Online publication date: 6-Jan-2023
    • (2022)Primary School Students Programming with Real-Time Environmental Sensor DataProceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference10.1145/3511861.3511871(85-94)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2022
    • (2022)Making Data Tangible: A Cross-disciplinary Design Space for Data PhysicalizationProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3501939(1-18)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
    • (2022)Scratch and SenseProceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - Volume 110.1145/3478431.3499316(983-989)Online publication date: 22-Feb-2022
    • (2021)Challenges and Unexpected Affordances of Physical Computing Going RemoteProceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3459990.3460711(276-282)Online publication date: 24-Jun-2021
    • (2021)Luminous Science: Teachers Designing For and Developing Transdisciplinary Thinking and LearningCognition and Instruction10.1080/07370008.2021.194506439:4(512-560)Online publication date: 5-Jul-2021

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media