research-article

Elementary Computational Thinking Instruction and Assessment: A Learning Trajectory Perspective

Authors:

Brian GaneAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 22, Issue 2

Article No.: 19, Pages 1 - 26

https://doi.org/10.1145/3494579

Published: 09 February 2022 Publication History

Abstract

There is little empirical research related to how elementary students develop computational thinking (CT) and how they apply CT in problem-solving. To address this gap in knowledge, this study made use of learning trajectories (LTs; hypothesized learning goals, progressions, and activities) in CT concept areas such as sequence, repetition, conditionals, and decomposition to better understand students’ CT. This study implemented eight math-CT integrated lessons aligned to U.S. national mathematics education standards and the LTs with third- and fourth-grade students. This basic interpretive qualitative study aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of elementary students’ CT by having students express and articulate their CT in cognitive interviews. Participants’ (n = 22) CT articulation was examined using a priori codes translated verbatim from the learning goals in the LTs and was mapped to the learning goals in the LTs. Results revealed a range of students’ CT in problem-solving, such as using precise and complete problem-solving instructions, recognizing repeating patterns, and decomposing arithmetic problems. By collecting empirical data on how students expressed and articulated their CT, this study makes theoretical contributions by generating initial empirical evidence to support the hypothesized learning goals and progressions in the LTs. This article also discusses the implications for integrated CT instruction and assessments at the elementary level.

References

[1]

Charoula Angeli and Nicos Valanides. 2020. Developing young children's computational thinking with educational robotics: An interaction effect between gender and scaffolding strategy. Computers in Human Behavior 105 (2020), 105954.

Digital Library

[2]

Soumela Atmatzidou and Stavros Demetriadis. 2016. Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 75 (2016), 661–670.

Digital Library

[3]

Jeffrey E. Barrett and Michael T. Battista. 2014. Two approaches to describing the development of students’ reasoning about length. In Learning over Time: Learning Trajectories in Mathematics Education, Alan P. Maloney, Jere Confrey, and Kenny H. Nguyen (eds.). Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 97.

[4]

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 (2011), 48–54.

Digital Library

[5]

Tim Bell and Jan Vahrenhold. 2018. CS unplugged—How is it used, and does it work? In Adventures between Lower Bounds and Higher Altitudes. Springer, 497–521.

[6]

Matthew Berland and Uri Wilensky. 2015. Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology 24, 5 (2015), 628–647.

[7]

Marina U. Bers. 2010. The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice 12, 2 (2010), 1–20.

[8]

Marina U. Bers, Louise Flannery, Elizabeth R. Kazakoff, and Amanda Sullivan. 2014. Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education 72 (2014), 145–157.

[9]

Hennie Boeije. 2002. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity 36, 4 (2002), 391–409.

[10]

Karen Brennan and Mitchel Resnick. 2012. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. 1–25.

[11]

Guanhua Chen, Ji Shen, Lauren Barth-Cohen, Shiyan Jiang, Xiaoting Huang, and Moataz Eltoukhy. 2017. Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education 109 (2017), 162–175.

Digital Library

[12]

Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama. 2004. Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 6, 2 (2004), 81–89.

[13]

Douglas H. Clements and Julie Sarama. 2009. Learning trajectories in early mathematics—Sequences of acquisition and teaching. In Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development, R. E. Tremblay, M. Bolvin, and R. Peters (eds.). Online, 1–7.

[14]

Douglas H. Clements, Julie Sarama, Arthur J. Baroody, Candace Joswick, and Christopher B. Wolfe. 2019. Evaluating the efficacy of a learning trajectory for early shape composition. American Educational Research Journal 56, 6 (2019), 2509–2530.

[15]

Douglas H. Clements, Julie Sarama, Arthur J. Baroody, and Candace Joswick. 2020. Efficacy of a learning trajectory approach compared to a teach-to-target approach for addition and subtraction. ZDM Mathematics Education 52 (2020), 1–12.

[16]

Computer Science Teachers Association. (2017). CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards. Retrieved January 14, 2022 from https://www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/176/CSTA%20Computer%20Science%20Standards%20Revised%202017.pdf.

[17]

Jere Confrey, Alan P. Maloney, and Kenny H. Nguyen. 2014. Learning trajectories going forward. In Learning over Time: Learning Trajectories in Mathematics Education, Alan P. Maloney, Jere Confrey, and Kenny H. Nguyen (eds.). Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 243.

[18]

Thomas J. Cortina. 2015. Reaching a broader population of students through “unplugged” activities. Communications of the ACM 58, 3 (2015), 25–27.

Digital Library

[19]

Phil Daro, Frederic A. Mosher, and Thomas B. Corcoran. 2011. Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Research Report. Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE). http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/60.

[20]

Georgios Fessakis, Evangelia Gouli, and E. Mavroudi. 2013. Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education 63 (2013), 87–97.

Digital Library

[21]

Brian Gane, Maya Israel, Noor Elagha, Wei Yan, Feiya Luo, and Jim Pellegrino. 2021. Design and validation of learning trajectory-based assessments for computational thinking in upper elementary grades. Computer Science Education 31, 2 (2021), 141–168.

[22]

Egon G. Guba and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1981. Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass.

[23]

Maya Israel, Ruohan Liu, Wei Yan, Heather Sherwood, Wendy Martin, Cheri Fancseli, Edgar Rivera-Cash, and Alexandra Adair. Understanding barriers to school-wide computational thinking integration at the elementary grades: Lessons from three schools. ACM Special Issue on Computational Thinking. In press.

[24]

K–12 Computer Science Steering Committee. 2016. K12 Computer Science Framework. Retrieved January 14, 2022 from https://k12cs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/K%E2%80%9312-Computer-Science-Framework.pdf.

[25]

Elizabeth R. Kazakoff, Amanda Sullivan, and Marina U. Bers. 2013. The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal 41, 4 (2013), 245–255.

[26]

Irene Lee, Fred Martin, Jill Denner, Bob Coulter, Walter Allan, Jeri Erickson, Joyce Malyn-Smith, and Linda Werner. 2011. Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads 2, 1 (2011), 32–37.

Digital Library

[27]

Feiya Luo, Pavlo “Pasha” Antonenko, and E. Christine Davis. 2020. Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education 146 (2020), 103759.

Digital Library

[28]

Feiya Luo, Maya Israel, Ruohan Liu, Wei Yan, Brian Gane, and John Hampton. 2020. Understanding students’ computational thinking through cognitive interviews: A learning trajectory-based analysis. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education ACM, New York, NY, 919–925.

Digital Library

[29]

Alan P. Maloney, Jere Confrey, and Kenny H. Nguyen. 2014. Learning Over Time: Learning Trajectories in Mathematics Education. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.

[30]

Sharan B. Merriam and Elizabeth J. Tisdell. 2015. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

[31]

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://www.nextgenscience.org/.

[32]

Michael Quinn Patton. 1999. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research 34, 5 Pt 2 (1999), 1189–1208.

[33]

David Pepper, Jeremy Hodgen, Katri Lamesoo, Pille Kõiv, and Jos Tolboom. 2018. Think aloud: Using cognitive interviewing to validate the PISA assessment of student self-efficacy in mathematics. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 41, 1 (2018), 3–16.

[34]

Christina Hamme Peterson, N. Andrew Peterson, and Kristen Gilmore Powell. 2017. Cognitive interviewing for item development: Validity evidence based on content and response processes. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 50, 4 (2017), 217–223.

[35]

Mitchel Resnick, Amy Bruckman, and Fred Martin. 1996. Pianos not stereos: Creating computational construction kits. Interactions 3, 5 (1996), 40–50.

Digital Library

[36]

Kathryn M. Rich, T. Andrew Binkowski, Carla Strickland, and Diana Franklin. 2018. Decomposition: A K-8 computational thinking learning trajectory. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, 124–132.

Digital Library

[37]

Kathryn M. Rich, Diana Franklin, Carla Strickland, Andy Isaacs, and Donna Eatinger. 2020. A learning trajectory for variables based in computational thinking literature: Using levels of thinking to develop instruction. Computer Science Education 2020 (2020), 1–22.

[38]

Kathryn M. Rich, Carla Strickland, T. Andrew Binkowski, and Diana Franklin. 2019. A K-8 debugging learning trajectory derived from research literature. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 745–751.

Digital Library

[39]

Kathryn M. Rich, Carla Strickland, T. Andrew Binkowski, Cheryl Moran, and Diana Franklin. 2017. K-8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. ACM, New York, NY, 182–190.

Digital Library

[40]

Kathryn M. Rich, Aman Yadav, and Christina V. Schwarz. 2019. Computational thinking, mathematics, and science: Elementary teachers’ perspectives on integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 27, 2 (2019), 165–205.

[41]

Brandon Rodriguez, Stephen Kennicutt, Cyndi Rader, and Tracy Camp. 2017. Assessing computational thinking in CS unplugged activities. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 501–506.

Digital Library

[42]

José-Manuel Sáez-López, Marcos Román-González, and Esteban Vázquez-Cano. 2016. Visual programming languages integrated across the curriculum in elementary school: A two year case study using “Scratch” in five schools. Computers & Education 97 (2016), 129–141.

Digital Library

[43]

Julie Sarama, Douglas H. Clements, Jeffrey Barrett, Douglas W. Van Dine, and Jennifer S. McDonel. 2011. Evaluation of a learning trajectory for length in the early years. ZDM Mathematics Education 43, 5 (2011), 667.

[44]

Annie Savard and Elena Polotskaia. 2017. Who's wrong? Tasks fostering understanding of mathematical relationships in word problems in elementary students. ZDM Mathematics Education 49, 6 (2017), 823–833.

[45]

Martin A. Simon. 1995. Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 26, 2 (1995), 114–145.

[46]

Carla Strickland, Kathryn M. Rich, Donna Eatinger, Todd Lash, Andy Isaacs, Maya Israel, and Diana Franklin. 2021. Action Fractions: The design and pilot of an integrated math+CS elementary curriculum based on learning trajectories. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 1149–1155.

Digital Library

[47]

Xiaodan Tang, Yue Yin, Qiao Lin, Roxana Hadad, and Xiaoming Zhai. 2020. Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education 148 (2020), 103798.

Digital Library

[48]

Christiane Gresse Von Wangenheim, Nathalia Cruz Alves, Pedro Eurico Rodrigues, and Jean Carlo Hauck. 2017. Teaching computing in a multidisciplinary way in social studies classes in school—A case study. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools 1, 2 (2017), 1–14.

[49]

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 25, 1 (2016), 127–147.

[50]

Linda Werner, Jill Denner, Shannon Campe, and Damon Chizuru Kawamoto. 2012. The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 215–220.

Digital Library

[51]

LeChen Zhang and Jalal Nouri. 2019. A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education 141 (2019), 103607.

Digital Library

Cited By

Busuttil LVassallo DSchembri P(2025)Computational ThinkingEffective Computer Science Education in K-12 Classrooms10.4018/979-8-3693-4542-9.ch002(27-54)Online publication date: 24-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-4542-9.ch002
Kim MKim JLee W(2025)Intellectual disabilities and programming: Improving computational thinking-based problem solvingEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-13253-2Online publication date: 8-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13253-2
Ocampo LCorrales-Álvarez MCardona-Torres SZapata-Cáceres M(2024)Systematic Review of Instruments to Assess Computational Thinking in Early Years of SchoolingEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1410112414:10(1124)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101124
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Elementary Computational Thinking Instruction and Assessment: A Learning Trajectory Perspective
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computational thinking
      2. K-12 education

Recommendations

A study to determine the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics achievement levels of learning disabled elementary students
The impact of computer-assisted instruction on the mathematics achievement of elementary school children grades three through six
Variability in reading ability gains as a function of computer-assisted instruction method of presentation
Abstract
This study examines the effects on early reading skills of three different methods of presenting material with computer-assisted instruction (CAI): (1) learner-controlled picture menu, which allows the student to choose activities, (2) ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 22, Issue 2

June 2022

312 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3494072

Editor:
Amy J. Ko
University of Washington, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

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: 09 February 2022

Accepted: 01 October 2021

Revised: 01 September 2021

Received: 01 February 2021

Published in TOCE Volume 22, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Refereed

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

11
Total Citations
View Citations
1,302
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)307
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)34

Reflects downloads up to 31 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Busuttil LVassallo DSchembri P(2025)Computational ThinkingEffective Computer Science Education in K-12 Classrooms10.4018/979-8-3693-4542-9.ch002(27-54)Online publication date: 24-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-4542-9.ch002
Kim MKim JLee W(2025)Intellectual disabilities and programming: Improving computational thinking-based problem solvingEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-13253-2Online publication date: 8-Jan-2025
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13253-2
Ocampo LCorrales-Álvarez MCardona-Torres SZapata-Cáceres M(2024)Systematic Review of Instruments to Assess Computational Thinking in Early Years of SchoolingEducation Sciences10.3390/educsci1410112414:10(1124)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101124
Severance SMiller EKrajcik J(2024)IF science AND making AND computing: Insights for project-based learning and primary science curriculum designStudies in Science Education10.1080/03057267.2024.2397300(1-65)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2024.2397300
Wong GJian SCheung H(2024)Engaging children in developing algorithmic thinking and debugging skills in primary schools: A mixed-methods multiple case studyEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-12448-x29:13(16205-16254)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-024-12448-x
Bratitsis TTsapara MMelliou KBusuttil LVassallo DCallus JMeireles GKoliakou IKojok NSousa S(2024)Cultivating Computational Thinking in Early Years Through Board Games. The Cthink.it ApproachSmart Mobile Communication & Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-031-56075-0_8(78-89)Online publication date: 20-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56075-0_8
McGill MThigpen LMabie A(2023)Emerging Practices for Integrating Computer Science into Existing K-5 Subjects in the United StatesProceedings of the 18th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3605468.3609759(1-10)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3605468.3609759
Jocius RJoswick CAlbert JJoshi DBlanton M(2023)Towards pedagogical content knowledge learning trajectories: tracing elementary teachers’ infusion of computational thinkingProfessional Development in Education10.1080/19415257.2023.2228813(1-20)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2228813
Luo FIjeluola SWesterlund JWalker ADenham AWalker JYoung C(2023)Supporting Elementary Teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge in Computational Thinking IntegrationJournal of Science Education and Technology10.1007/s10956-023-10045-032:4(583-596)Online publication date: 11-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10045-0
Krause GVanderberg ME. Hung ESkuratowicz E(2023)Computational thinking in a bilingual kindergarten classroom: Emergent ideas for teaching across content areasEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-022-11454-128:8(9767-9782)Online publication date: 18-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-022-11454-1
Show More Cited By

View Options

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 Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Figures

Tables

Media

View full text|Download PDF

View Issue’s Table of Contents