Computational Thinking Skills of Gifted and Talented Students in 2021

Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100931
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Thinking Skills and Creativity

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsc
Computational thinking skills of gifted and talented students in

integrated STEM activities based on the engineering design
process: The case of robotics and 3D robot modeling
Ceylan Sen a, *, Zeynep Sonay Ay b, Seyit Ahmet Kiray c
a
Yozgat Bozok University Department of Primary Education, Faculty of Education, Yozgat, Turkey
b
Hacettepe University Department of Elementary Mathematics Education, Faculty of Education, Ankara, Turkey
c
Necmettin Erbakan University, Department of Elementary Science Education, Faculty of Education, Konya, Turkey
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: In this study, it is aimed to identify the computational thinking skills used by gifted and talented
Computational thinking skills students in integrated STEM activities based on the EDP. The case study design, a qualitative
Engineering design process research method, is employed in the study. The participants consist of gifted and talented students
Integrated STEM
attending the Science and Arts Center. Integrated STEM activities based on the EDP were con
Gifted and talented students
ducted over the course of ten weeks and among these activities, robotic and 3D modeling-based
robot construction activities using Lego sets are addressed in the present study. The STEM activity
booklet, researchers’ fieldnotes, and teaching process video recordings were used as data
collection tools in the study. Data that was collected was analyzed through content analysis. It
was seen that gifted and talented students participating in integrated STEM activities based on the
EDP make active use of critical thinking skills while providing explanations, making associations,
questioning information, giving justifications, solving problems, thinking creatively, making
generalizations, and attempting to convince others; as for the instances of defining problems,
creating solutions, and evaluating the effectiveness of the solution, the students were observed to
actively use their problem-solving skills. The detailed account provided by the study on the way
robotic and 3D robot modeling activities improve the computational thinking skills of gifted and
talented students contributes to the required educational support and to the existing body of
literature.
1. Introduction
While school curricula mainly focus on improving the success of students performing poorly, the attention devoted to the education
of gifted and talented students, who are to play crucial roles in the professions of the future, remains insufficient (Callahan, Moon, Oh,
Azano, & Hailey, 2015; Thomas, 2018). The curriculum implemented at schools may be limiting for the advanced cultivation of the
skills of gifted students in sciences and mathematics (Adams et al., 2008). Therefore, the use of a differentiated curriculum that adopts
a developmentally suitable pace with enriched syllabi and materials is recommended for gifted and talented students (Ericsson, 2014;
Miedijensky & Tal, 2016). Certain studies (e.g., Andersen, 2014; Choi, 2014; Robinson, Dailey, Hughes, & Cotabish, 2014; Schroth &
Helfer, 2017; Tofel-Grehl & Callahan, 2017; Yoon & Mann, 2017) suggest the use of STEM (science, technology, engineering,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ceylan.sen@yobu.edu.tr (C. Sen), zsp@hacettepe.edu.tr (Z.S. Ay), akiray@erbakan.edu.tr (S.A. Kiray).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100931
Received 2 August 2021; Received in revised form 13 August 2021; Accepted 17 August 2021
Available online 20 August 2021
1871-1871/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Sen et al. Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100931
mathematics) education and activities for the development of the skills of gifted and talented students by attaining an effective
learning environment. Gifted and talented students usually possess an above-average level of academic knowledge, skills, and crea
tivity in addition to high motivations regarding science and mathematics assignments (Jang, Chung, Choi, & Kim, 2013). Thus, they
have high potentials of excelling in and contributing to career paths in science and technology (Roman, 2012). STEM is a suitable
education model for guiding gifted and talented students to STEM-related career trajectories and equipping them with the necessary
skills as well as for allowing them to develop creative solution proposals for complex problems in line with their pursuits and interests
and to make novel discoveries (Lee, Baek, & Lee., 2013; Steenbergen-Hu & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2017; Stoeger, Hopp, & Ziegler, 2017).
In this respect, STEM practices come to play an important role in the support education programs for gifted and talented students.
A suitable education model must be developed in order to improve the traits and skills of gifted and talented students and to direct
them to the fields of sciences and engineering (Noh & Choi, 2017; Shim & Kim, 2005). STEM education has revealed a need for
educational programs for gifted and talented students based on the engineering design process (EDP) (Han & Shim, 2019). EDP allows
students to solve problems in consideration of future societal and environmental issues (The Next Generation Science Standards
(NGSS), 2013). Although not defined directly in association with the education of gifted and talented students, EDP is also seen to
contribute to the provision of a science and mathematics learning experience where they are able to achieve high academic success as
well as to their skill development processes (Renzulli, Koehler, & Fogarty, 2006). The present study attempts to provide some examples
of the educational practices needed by gifted and talented students indicated in the existing body of research through integrated STEM
activities based on the EDP. The review of STEM studies conducted with gifted and talented children revealed the focus on identifying
the impact of STEM education on their academic achievement (Tofel-Grehl & Callahan, 2017; Trna & Trnova, 2015), skills (Andersen,
2014; Robinson et al., 2014; Schroth & Helfer, 2017; Yoon & Mann, 2017), and selection of STEM-related career paths. However, this
review also displayed the limited extent to which integrated STEM activities based on the EDP are applied to the educational practices
as far as gifted and talented students are concerned (Han & Shim, 2019; Mann & Mann, 2016; Song, Han, & Shim, 2017). Furthermore,
recent studies argue that computational thinking and engineering thinking may complement one another and that EDP may provide
students with an appropriate context for their development in terms of computational thinking (Dorie, Cardella, & Svarovsky, 2014;
Ehsan, Rehmat, & Cardella, 2020). Yet only a few studies examine the computational thinking skills of students within the scope of
EDP. In particular, the number of studies demonstrating the way the EDP conducted with gifted and talented students contributes to
their computational thinking skills seems to be quite limited. Therefore, in the present study designed as a case study, it is aimed to put
forward the way integrated STEM activities based on the EDP conducted with gifted and talented students improve their computational
thinking skills as well as to fill the gap in the existing literature. In this respect, the study attempts to answer the following question:
• What are the computational thinking skills employed by gifted and talented students during robotics-related activities, which are
within the scope of STEM activities based on the EDP?
1.1. Theoretical framework
1.1.1. Integrated stem

STEM signifies the four disciplines of science (S), technology (T), engineering (E), and mathematics (M) (International Technology
Education Association (ITEA), 2000; National Academy of Engineering (NAE), 2005). Despite the common use of STEM in education, a
plethora of definitions regarding the way STEM is supposed to be integrated into education have been provided by many researchers.
Bybee (2013) provides different definitions for the integration of STEM disciplines, namely STEM as science (or mathematics), as both
science and mathematics, as science incorporating technology, engineering, and mathematics, as a quartet of these four separate
disciplines, as science and mathematics connected by one technology or engineering program, as the coordination across disciplines, as
the combination of two or three disciplines, as the complementary overlapping across disciplines, or as a transdisciplinary course or
program. Each approach defined within the scope of STEM education has their unique advantages and disadvantages; however, each
approach allows one to integrate STEM subjects in a clear manner (NRC & NAE, 2009).
STEM integration denotes the educational program whereby students are provided with opportunities to use their knowledge of
science and mathematics for developing technological equipment by participating in engineering practices, therefore supporting their
meaningful learning processes (Moore & Smith, 2014). Based on this approach, within the scope of integrated STEM, the created
content is based on the four disciplines concerned and concentrates on one or two subjects with the remaining disciplines providing a
context to support the teaching of the target content. Integrated STEM education takes place within an interesting and motivating
context based on the individual knowledge and experiences of students. This context should contain a challenging purpose for students
to perform engineering activities and be based on current events related to life itself (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008;
Frykholm & Glasson, 2005). In integrated STEM, students participating in engineering design are given the chance to obtain
knowledge about the EDP and its practices (Moore & Smith, 2014). In a good EDP, students are provided with the opportunity to
discover and develop suitable technology to solve the problem in question while taking limitations, risks, and alternative solutions into
account (Morrison, 2006). An important aspect of the EDP for educators and student learning is that it provides and supports the
opportunity of learning from failures (Wendell & Rogers, 2013). Students participate in activities allowing them to learn, comprehend,
and use basic science and mathematics concepts to solve complex real-life problems in an engineering design-focused manner (Fortus,
Dershimer, Krajcik, Marx, & Mamlok-Naaman, 2004; NRC & NAE, 2009). Therefore, integrated STEM practices must have the science
and mathematics coverage appropriate for student traits and levels. Several studies (NRC, 2009; Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson,
2005) indicate that the active participation of students in learning activities leads to better understanding and improved skills; in this
2
respect, integrated STEM practices must focus on students (Moore & Smith, 2014). In integrated STEM, students are given the op
portunity to use their academic knowledge of science and mathematics and to engage in communication and collaboration in the
achievement of engineering tasks (Carlson & Sullivan, 2004). In this respect, integrated STEM practices that lead to the uncovering of
student skills in their learning of science and mathematics concepts and in their reflection of mathematical thinking and the engi
neering process gain prominence (Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer, 2005).
1.1.2. Engineering design process (EDP)

EDP is a recurrent process starting with the definition of a problem and ending with a solution in consideration of the limitations
and desired conditions (Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering, 2010). Even though there are unique details for various design
models and applications, each EDP involves similar processes and themes (Hynes, 2012). Cross (2000) considered engineering design
as having a basic structure including the steps of "analysis, synthesis, and evaluation". This approach guides the individual at the
beginning of and during the process in understanding the problem, synthesizing information and resources for the solution, and
evaluating the reached solutions. The engineering process is defined by Atman et al. (2007) in ten cyclical steps: (1) problem definition,
(2) information collection, (3) idea generation, (4) modeling, (5) viability analysis, (6) evaluation, (7) decision-making, (8)
communication, (9) application, and (10) design revision. Hynes et al. (2011) differentiate this process, defining EDP in the eight steps
of (1) identifying the need or problem, (2) researching the need or problem, (3) developing potential solutions, (4) opting for the best
solution possible, (5) creating a prototype, (6) testing and evaluating the solution, (7) communication, and (8) redesigning. The
identification and researching of the need/problem involve determining the current state of the problem and conducting research on
potential solutions. This research may be conducted online, at libraries, and in various researching areas. Brainstorming sessions, as
well as academic knowledge of science and mathematics, are used for developing a potential solution or potential solutions; then, these
solution ideas are developed even further. The process of opting for the best possible solution involves the selection of original ideas
related to the problem and meeting the need. Two or three-dimensional models are formulated for the solutions selected within the
prototype creation stage. Testing and evaluating the solutions involves experimenting with the prototype in consideration of the
questions of whether the proposed product works and whether the design complies with the limitations. In the communication stage, a
discussion-based presentation is given about the extent to which the solutions proposed on the basis of the product concerned address
the problem and need. This stage involves debating on the societal impact and contributions of the solutions. The ultimate stage of
redesigning concerns the review of the solution and product in accordance with the information collected during the testing, evalu
ation, and presentation stages. The cyclical process for the EDP is defined with the transitions from one step towards another within the
design system. The defined EDP processes show some similarities to problem-solving stages; however, researchers underline the
different aspects by emphasizing the modeling and suitability analyses in their proposed processes. In other words, the viability of the
solution proposed is not always assessed in the problem-solving process. Therefore, modeling and viability assessments constitute the
most vital aspects of EDP contributing to the evaluative capacities of students (Lin, Wu, Hsu, & Williams, 2021).
Structured based on student characteristics, EDP provides students with opportunities supporting their learning processes (Wen
dell, Wright, & Paugh, 2015). Thus, an educational structuring becomes the objective with the contextualization of pedagogical
practices within the EDP (Berland, Steingut, & Ko, 2014). It is indicated in certain studies (Hmelo, Douglas, & Kolodner, 2000;
Mehalik, Doppelt, & Schunn, 2008) that the EDP may be combined with integrated STEM in the teaching and application of STEM
disciplines. The integration of the EDP and STEM enables learners to associate science and mathematics concepts within the real-life
context of engineering practices through technological tools. The STEM education combined with the EDP (EDP-STEM) within the
scope of the present study may be defined as a pedagogical approach including engineering practices applied by means of various
technological materials with the integration of theoretical knowledge of science and mathematics. EDP-STEM fosters a learning
environment within which students access and collect information regarding the solution of problem situations they encounter and
propose realistic products to solve real-life problems (Wahono, Lin, & Chang, 2020).
1.1.3. Computational thinking skills

Computational thinking (CT) refers to developing thoughts for solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human
behavior by making use of the information and tools of computer science (Wing, 2006). Wing (2008) defines CT as the thinking skill
underlying the capabilities of expressing opinions in a society making use of both digital and analog devices, using the digital medium,
and solving problems. Even though CT is "a broad foundation consisting of the heuristics used by computer scientists and… a way to
think about the diverse thinking skills associated with computing"(Keith, Sullivan, & Pham, 2019), it is a fundamental skill that must
be developed not only by computer scientists but by all. This is because CT covers the skills to be developed not only by computer
scientists but also by others since it influences other fields (Wing, 2006) and as it allows people to be more competent in a world where
computers are omnipresent (Grover & Pea, 2013). According to Wing (2008), computational thinking, which is a kind of analytical
thinking, has common points with mathematical thinking at the problem-solving stage, with engineering thinking while designing and
evaluating a complex system, and with scientific thinking as far as the endeavor of understanding human behavior is concerned. What
distinguishes this skill from creativity, logical thinking, and critical thinking is that it increases the critical thinking capacity by making
use of the capacity of a computer and of human creativity and by displaying these skills while allowing computers to be used as a
supporting means within problem-solving methods(ISTE, 2015). When various definitions for CT within the literature are reviewed,
there seems to be a consensus regarding the argument that abstraction, algorithmic thinking, cooperativity, critical thinking, crea
tivity, data analysis, debugging, decomposition, reasoning, iterative thinking, and problem-solving constitute the components of CT
(Barr & Stephenson, 2011; Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Korkmaz, Çakir, & Özden, 2017). Based on these shared opinions, Korkmaz et al.
(2017) expressed CT skills as algorithmic thinking, problem-solving, communication, cooperativity, critical thinking, and creativity.
3
Algorithmic thinking is a skill involving solving problems through a series of steps implemented in a particular order to attain the
desired outcome (Katai, 2014). Cooper et al. (2017) described algorithmic thinking as the capacity of abstraction going beyond the
mere use of computers and mathematics. In light of this definition, algorithmic thinking denotes a cognitive skill allowing one to
understand and analyze problems, develop suitable steps for an appropriate solution, regulate these steps through a due process, and
come up with alternative approaches regarding the solution (Futschek, 2006). Computing signifies an orderly algorithmic structure
resulting in an output based on an input and, therefore, algorithmic thinking is one of the fundamental skills within the scope of
computational thinking (Yadav, Stephenson, & Hong, 2017). CT is a problem-solving process within which an algorithmic solution is
sought for the problem in question and covers the solution of a problem defined within the framework of limitations (Denning, 2009).
Polya (2004) defines the problem-solving process as the steps of defining the problem, developing solution proposals regarding the
problem, applying the suitable solution, and making the relevant assessments. As for CT, it constitutes a problem-solving process
undertaken by means of technological devices and provides students with enriched content through engineering and technology
practices for the innovative and creative solution of problems. Critical thinking is required in order to perform a deeper intellectual
activity and to evaluate the problem by using and adapting existing knowledge and skills within the problem-solving process. Con
sisting of in-depth intellectual activity, critical thinking covers multidimensional factors such as analysis, association, questioning,
prediction, abstraction, inference, and generalization (Kules, 2016). It involves making inquiries and interpretations based on
pre-existing information in a way inclusive of a cognitive process, coming up with inferences based on this process, and attaining
outcomes and assumptions (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2015). Cooperativity, another CT skill, plays a supportive role in
computational thinking (Standl, 2016). Cooperation may be necessary for the solution of complex problems, and higher levels of
reasoning are supported in this process (NRC, 2011). Technology and engineering practices based on collaboration make use of
different channels of communication, namely written, verbal, visual, and technological channels. Fluent speech, clear literacy, and the
use of digital technologies influence the effective expression of thoughts. Individuals who are able to communicate effectively can
express their ideas and opinions through verbal, written, and other various communicative channels (Korkmaz et al., 2007). These
individuals may engage in communication for many purposes (informing, motivating, convincing others, etc.) and make effective use
of information and communication technologies (computers, cameras, printers, smartphones, etc.) (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Creativity,
another skill covered in CT, denotes the capacity of thinking differently and producing and imagining a non-existent product as a result
of this different thinking process (Guilford, 1959). Being able to reach diverse solutions for daily events and experiences and having
unique perspectives is related to the extent to which one’s creative side is developed. The development of original ideas rather than
ordinary ones and findings such solutions are the outcomes of problem-solving skills and creative thinking (Snalune, 2015). CT
contributes to creative thinking by fostering the creation of interactive personal stories, games, animations, and products by means of
technological software tools (e.g., Scratch, Tinkercad, LOGO) (Resnick et al., 2009).
2. Methodology
The present study was conducted with the purpose of examining the computational thinking skills of gifted and talented students in
EDP-STEM activities. In this respect, the study adopts the case study research design allowing for the in-depth analysis of activities,
events, and relationships (Yin, 2006).
2.1. Participants
The study was conducted with the participation of seven gifted and talented students diagnosed by the Guidance and Research
Center (GRC) and pursuing their support education programs at the Science and Art Centre (SAC). For the subject matter to be analyzed
well, the selected study group must be able to provide the researcher with detailed data on the issue researched (Stake, 1995).
Therefore, the participants were included in the study through purposeful sampling. Gifted and talented students differentiate from
one another in terms of their characteristics as general ability (ga), visual art (va), and music (m) students. The presence of varying
fields of talents was taken into consideration while including the participants in the study. With the variation of the talents of students,
the researchers were able to examine the data collected in line with the characteristics of students. Each student was named as S1, S2,
…, S7 to ensure the privacy of the participants in the study and given codes indicating the fields in which they are talented. A detailed
outlook concerning the individual characteristics of the participants is presented in Table 1.
In Turkey, gifted and talented students are usually diagnosed at the age of 8 by the GRC through the WISC-R intelligence test; these
children are provided with an extracurricular education program at the official SACs. Gifted and talented students specialize in the
Table 1
Individual characteristics of participants.
Participant Gender Age Talent fields Discipline(s) of support training in SAC
S1(ga) Male 13 General ability Science, mathematics, technology

S2(ga&m) Female 13 General ability-Music Science, mathematics, music
S3(ga&m) Male 13 General ability-Music Science, mathematics, music
S4(va) Male 13 Visual Art Technology, art
S5(va&m) Female 12 Visual Art-Music Visual art, music, literature
S6(va) Male 13 Visual Art Visual art
S7(m) Female 13 Music Music, literature
4
fields of general ability (ga), visual art (va), and music (m) at SACs, receiving support education in these specific fields. To identify the
specialization field in which the students will receive support education, the first step is to train these students in groups of 7 or 8 in the
seven branches of music, art, Turkish, mathematics, science, social studies, and philosophy offered at SACs. Following the educational
process implemented during this module, meetings are held with teachers to assess each student. Taking place between the 2nd and 5th
grades, this process is called the "Support Education Program (SEP)". After the SEP is completed, the counselor at the SAC, branch
teachers, and administrators convene to make an assessment for the "Individual Talent Recognition Program". Within the scope of this
program, students who are now directed towards 1–3 fields in line with expert opinions on special talent fields receive education at
their SAC for 3 h per subject once or twice weekly. The Individual Talent Recognition Program is followed by the "Special Talent
Development Program" containing more advanced-level practices and project groups.
2.2. EDP-STEM context
The EDP-STEM activities designed by the researchers include four hands-on, one robotics, and four 3D modeling STEM activities.
The EDP proposed by Hynes et al. (2011) was employed for the implementation of the STEM activities included within the study
(Fig. 1).
In this study, the computational thinking skills coming to the fore in the EDP-STEM activities as a common aspect were examined,
and robotics-related activities, in which students reflect their computational thinking skills and engineering practices to the best extent
possible, were selected as sample. Prior to this activity, four hands-on STEM activities were undertaken so that students could acquire
further working experience regarding the EDP. Then three 3D modeling activities were performed as students did not have experience
in using Tinkercad, a 3D modeling software tool, and 3D printers. After students acquired experience in the EDP, programming, and 3D
modeling, a two-step robotic activity was proposed. This activity involved the steps of building robots using Lego Mindstorms and
modeling robots with a 3D modeling software tool and producing robots with a 3D printer. Choosing this activity allowed the re
searchers to examine and analyze the computational thinking skills among students in detail throughout the course of the activity.
EDP-STEM was structured in a way allowing students to work both individually and in groups. In consideration of the gifts and talents
of the participating students and with the purpose of allowing these students to display their creativity and to identify and resolve their
problems, the 3D robot activity was planned as an individual activity while the robotics activity with Lego Mindstorms was planned as
a group activity. The process involving the implementation of robotics activities within the context of the EDP is given below in detail.
Fig. 1. Engineering design process (Hynes et al., 2011).
5
2.2.1. Lego mindstorms robotics

Students were given Rubik’s cubes with the dimensions of 2 × 2 × 2, 3 × 3 × 3, and 4 × 4 × 4 to be solved, and the durations
required for figuring out the cubes were recorded using chronometers. Then students were asked to calculate the steps to be imple
mented for solving the Rubik’s cubes, and permutation operations were performed. The problem situation was introduced to students
by asking them about potential solutions for overcoming this challenging situation involving a long duration and multiple steps and for
rendering the solution of more difficult cubes easier and more practical. This was followed by a discussion session with students about
the impact of technological advancements and robots on the way human needs are addressed and on our life as a whole. The purpose of
the activity was to allow students to construct a robot helping one with solving the Rubik’s cubes and to code the program for these
robots. To this end, students were given computers and an Internet connection so that they could research the academic information
that would help them program robots solving Rubik’s cubes and build robots with the Lego Mindstorms set.
The steps to be followed by students to program a robot solving Rubik’s cubes and to construct a robot using the Lego Mindstorm
EV3 set were explained by the researcher, and students were also given certain limitations for these tasks. Teams were created for a
collaborative working process, and tasks were allocated among students with the implementation of a temporal limitation. Following
the planning stage of students regarding their work, the robot was constructed physically using the Lego Mindstorms EV3 set. Then the
motor and sensor coding for the robot was done using the Lego Mindstorms Education EV3 software in order to allow the robot to solve
Rubik’s cubes. The functioning of the students’ prototypes was tested to assess their effectiveness in the solution of the problem
identified. Finally, properties that could be changed and improved were discussed before revising and finalizing the prototypes.
2.2.2. 3D robot modeling and production using 3D printers

Following the robotics activity involving the construction of a robot solving Rubik’s cubes using certain steps with the Lego
Mindstorms EV3 set, the next activity involved coming up with a 3D model of the robot before producing it with a 3D printer in order to
allow students to display their creativity and original thinking skills.
In order to enable students to define their own problems and to develop product-oriented solutions for their problems, they were
given a prompt with the following statement: "Identify a problem you encounter in your daily life and have a hard time overcoming; then
produce your robot offering an easy solution for this problem". Then, each student was asked to describe their problems and to make
explanations about the features of their robots that would solve their problems. After the identification of problems and solutions, the
participants moved on to the steps for the production of their robots having these features.
Students were asked to design the robots solving their problems on Tinkercad, a software tool for 3D modeling. Following this
design process, each student created the 3D design prototype for their robots and evaluated the features of their 3D robot designs as
well as their suitability for 3D printing. The Z-Suite software was used for the evaluation of suitability for 3D printing. The robots
designed by each student were then produced using 3D printers after the necessary modifications on their 3D designs. The students
presented the properties and working principles of the robots produced and the solutions they provided for the problem concerned.
Then the solutions provided by these robots were evaluated. Properties with the potential of further development and shortcomings
were identified after each student evaluated their robots. The activity was concluded with the implementation of the necessary
modifications by students.
2.3. Data collection tools
The STEM activity booklet, researchers’ fieldnotes, and in-class video recordings were used as data collection tools in the study. The
whole EDP-STEM session was recorded in order to evaluate the teaching process in an integral manner and to fully reflect the
interaction between the instructor and students as well as among students themselves.
STEM activity booklet: STEM activity booklets were used to allow students to make drawings, designs, mathematical measure
ments, solutions, and operations throughout the EDP-STEM activities. Prepared by the researchers, the booklet contains specific
chapters for the scope of each activity. These chapters consist of research questions within the scope of the activity in question, the
design framework for prototype creation, and an activity journal where students may indicate their opinions about the activity in
writing. The suitability of the questions included in the activity booklet for the student level, subject, scope, and content was assessed
through expert opinions.
Fieldnotes: The researcher made observations and took fieldnotes regarding the behaviors, discourses, and striking details
observed throughout the activity.
Teaching process videos: As the researcher was the implementer of the study, she was in constant communication with the
participants. Therefore, the entire process was videorecorded to eliminate the limitations of observations, to prevent data loss, and to
examine the EDP-STEM process in detail. The transcription of video records allowed the researcher to document the interactions
among the students and between the students and the researcher as well as in-class discussions. The STEM activity booklet in the study,
researcher’s fieldnotes, and video recordings allowed for the diversification of data.
2.4. Data analysis
The STEM activity booklets, researcher’s fieldnotes, and video recordings were examined by means of content analysis to inves
tigate the EDP-STEM activities within the scope of computational thinking skills employed by students. The data obtained from the
data collection tools were rearranged prior to the analysis. The data obtained from STEM activity booklets were transcribed to create
separate files for each student. The data from each STEM activity session was compiled by analyzing the working process, actions, and
6
verbal comments of each student. The fieldnotes taken by the researcher throughout the study were also separately recorded and
arranged for each student. After the arrangement of the data, they were coded and analyzed in line with the qualitative data analysis
steps identified by Miles and Huberman (1994) using the NVivo 11.0 software. An inductive approach was adopted for the analysis of
computational thinking skills of students, and the data was analyzed in four steps using this approach.
To identify the computational thinking skills employed by students, the initial step for the three researchers was to develop first-
level code lists separately and independently. For instance, the factors that may be related to the critical thinking skill such as forming
causal relationships, convincing others, questioning ideas, making associations, explaining thoughts, providing justifications, and
making generalizations were included in the first level of codes. In some cases, certain instances corresponded to multiple skills. An
example would be the cases of problem definitions by students where they made inferences with explanations, inquiries, and justi
fications, which are sub-skills within the framework of critical thinking. In this respect, the explanations given by students during the
EDP-STEM process required multiple codes. After each researcher prepared their first code lists independently, they convened to
discuss their code lists and the justifications for the codes they came up with. This allowed the researchers to make reliability checks to
ensure the accuracy and internal consistency of the coding system. In the third step, the relational instances between the codes were
examined by combining all the codes, and categories were created based on the first-level codes, tagged as higher-level nodes. At the
final stage, the themes of critical thinking, creativity, algorithmic thinking, problem-solving, communication, and cooperativity were
attained at the end of the review of structural relationships between the categories. Sample student expressions and sample coding are
presented in Table 2.
2.5. Validity and reliability of the study
The validity of the study was ensured through data triangulation, expert opinions, purposeful sample selection, and detailed ex
planations regarding the participants and the context. The use of activity booklets, researchers’ fieldnotes, and video recordings
prevented data loss and resulted in the obtainment of sufficient and required data. The inclusion of participants through purposeful
sampling and the detailed presentation of the practice content ensured the transferability of the study while the detailed presentation
of the individual characteristics and of the study content secured the applicability and transferability of the study for similar situations.
The reliability of the study was ensured with the consistency and verifiability of the data. The separate coding efforts by the three
researchers and the attainment of categories and codes based on the common codes at their meeting ensured the consistency of the
study. The triangulation of the data set and the support for the findings provided by direct quotations contributed to the verifiability of
the study.
3. Findings
This section examines the computational thinking skills of gifted and talented students at the EDP-STEM activity within the scope of
the robotics activity conducted using the Lego Mindstorms set to build a robot solving Rubik’s cubes and the robot modeling activity
based on 3D modeling and production.
3.1. Algorithmic thinking
The algorithmic thinking skills of students came into the fore separately within the scope of the robotics activity involving the
construction of a robot solving Rubik’s cubes using Legos and of the activity of creating a robot based on 3D modeling. The con
struction of robots by students using the Lego Mindstorms EV3 set was based on the instructions including specific steps. Regarding the
correct construction of the robot in physical terms, the students built their robot by following the instructions given in the Lego
Mindstorms EV3 booklet. Upon being asked the points to which they paid attention while constructing their robots, S3 made the
Table 2
Sample coding.
Example(s) Code Example(s) Theme(s)
…for instance, MR (magnetic resonance) is an advanced technological Explanation Critical thinking

product allowing one to Justification
examine our bones and internal organs. This is beneficial for human Cause-effect
health. However, Association with technology
devices like cell phones and tablets also emit radiation, which is Association with health
detrimental to one’s health.
Today, there is a shortage of food and poverty; therefore, I think of Problem definition Critical thinking
creating a robot that would Making decisions Problem-solving
render infertile soil fertile again. Cause-effect Creativity
Generating ideas
Association with real-life cases
Creative thinking
The data examined through a content analysis were supported with direct quotations from the STEM activity booklets containing student work and
from student explanations.
7
following statement: "We build the robot with S2 because we pay attention to not missing any detail. If I was building it on my own, it would be
challenging for me to both check the codes of the pieces and find the places they belong, I would mix things up". Furthermore, the importance of
following the steps indicated in the instructions was highlighted by S7 for "being able to attach the pieces together and having the correct
pieces" and by S2 for "being able to attach the pieces together in accordance with their numbers" in their worksheets (Fig. 2).
These findings show that during the physical construction of the robot for the solution of the problem in question, students ordered
the steps indicated in their booklets in a logical manner. After students built the robot physically, they also programmed their robot so
that it could solve Rubik’s cubes. Using the Lego Mindstorms Education EV3 software, students coded their robots for solving Rubik’s
cubes at the end of the installation of the motor and sensor. The Lego Mindstorms Programmer software provided the language on
which the algorithm structure is based for the programming process by students. This allowed students to use the drag-and-drop
interface using icons with ease. The MindCub3r for Lego Mindstorms EV3 instruction booklet was followed by students during cod
ing. After following the booklet and applying the instructions on a step-by-step basis, the students successfully coded and programmed
their robot. Fig. 3 shows the screenshot displaying the work and coding process of S1, S2, and S3.
It was observed that students followed procedural steps during the coding process. In the stage involving checking whether students
did the programming right after the coding session and of whether the robot worked correctly, the robot created with the collaboration
of the students coded as S4, S5, S6, and S7 did not work. These students discussed the potential reasons for this problem. During this
discussion, S6 said: "Let me read the instructions in the booklet to S4 again so that he can check from the software if we used a wrong block, then
we can fix it". The explanation by S6 indicates that they adopted the debugging method which involves the identification and separation
of the errors in the codes; this seems to be consistent with the researcher’s fieldnotes (Fig. 4). These findings lead to the conclusion that
students do not merely follow the coding steps but also activate advanced algorithmic thinking skills such as error detection and
debugging.
During the robotics activity involving the 3D modeling and 3D printing of a robot, the second stage of the activity, students fol
lowed the EDP. In this respect, students first defined their problems, then designed their robots that would solve their problems, and
modeled their designs on the Tinkercad software (Fig. 5).
The robot drawing in the student worksheets and the models created on Tinkercad show the coherent physical properties of the
designs and models created by the students. This indicates that students go beyond coming up with codes of pre-determined steps,
making the best choices for their wishes among different algorithms. Students modeled the suitability of their robot designs in 3D using
Z-Suite, a 3D printing software tool. It is seen that students thought both procedurally by following certain steps during robot pro
duction and algorithmically while coming up with models using the Tinkercad and Z-Suit software tools.
3.2. Critical thinking
Students shared their opinions on the advancement of technology, the concepts of technology and advanced technology, and
technological tools during discussion sessions. During such discussions, the students were seen to make inquiries and exert efforts to
convince one another through justifications.
Researcher (R): Think of today’s technological products and the technological products of the past. Do we call the same products tech
nological today?
S4(va): We cannot talk of technological tools because technology was not present back then.
S3(ga&m): Most people, like S4, perceive technology to be tablets and televisions. However, technology was present even before these tools
and it made people’s lives easier. Anything that serves a function constitutes technology.
R: What do you think about the perception of technology today?
S3(ga&m): From today’s perspective, smart boards are technological tools. For example, cell phones and computers are also technology. But
I do not agree with this position. For me, [shows a pen] this is also a technology.
S4(va): The fields of use in the past and in the present day are quite different, so the instances in the past are not called "technology".
S7(m): I think when we make associations with our experiences of the past, writing boards were also technological tools.
S5(va&m): The products making our lives easier constitute technology, but here is the thing: I do not think it is accurate to argue that a table
and a chair were technological for people in the past, but they are not anymore, being replaced by phones and tablets today.
S4(va): For example, do you think calling this curtain technological would be logical?
S2(ga&m): It could be with the mechanism next to it.
Fig. 2. Explanations by students a) S2 and b) S7 regarding robot construction.
8
Fig. 3. The coding process of students for the robot solving Rubik’s cubes.
Fig. 4. Fieldnote about debugging in coding.
Fig. 5. 3D robot designs and models created by students.
S3(ga&m): S4 considers this new now, but in a few centuries, these will also be commonplace; there will be flying cars and time travel. So,
will today’s technological tools not be considered to be technological in the future?
S4(va): These tools run on electricity now and will run on electricity in the future, so there will be no change.
The student explanations on technology and technological tools during the discussions reveal that S4 questions the statements of
their peers regarding technological tools. To this questioning, the students S2, S3, S5, and S7 responded with justified explanations and
made inferences based on causality. During this discussion, S2, S3, S5, and S7 seem to have made generalizations about technology
developing based on human needs and that not only electrical tools constitute technology. However, S4 only defined electrical tools as
technology. In this respect, it was concluded that the discussion-based process affects students’ skills of questioning each other’s
thoughts, making explanations, establishing causal relations, providing justifications, and making generalizations, i.e., their critical
thinking skills. The continuation of the discussion regarding technology and the use of technological tools manifested further student
opinions on the technological tools we use daily and the advantages and disadvantages of their use.
S2(ga&m): The advancements in technology have led to improvements in the tools used in hospitals. Now, operations are performed using
artificial intelligence and drones.
S2(ga&m): Technology has both advantages and disadvantages for our health. For instance, MR (magnetic resonance) is an advanced
technological product allowing one to examine our bones and internal organs. This is beneficial for human health. However, devices like cell
phones and tablets also emit radiation, which is detrimental to one’s health.
S4(va): Technological tools make our lives easier. For example, we can find things we cannot find in books or dictionaries through the
Internet instantly. Another example would be the new audiobooks for visually impaired individuals.
S5(va&m): For instance, one of our relatives may live far away but we can video call them instantly.
S4(va): But there was this film where people were replaced by robots. Such a case would increase unemployment.
9
S2(ga&m): There would be no such thing as labor. Think of it: Would you rather achieve something through hard work and studying or just
through a chip placed in your brain? This would lead to an increase in unemployment.
S3(ga&m): But then, even if we receive an education, robots would replace us. Then what is the use?
S7(m): Then who would build robots? Humans are still necessary.
The exchange of opinions on technological tools in our lives revealed that students made associations with health, technology, and
their own lives. As far as the advantages and disadvantages of technological tools are concerned, S2 gave an example of the positive use
of such tools in the healthcare sector while S3 provided justifications for both positive and negative aspects of the same technology.
This is demonstrative of their intention to refute each other’s opinions with contradicting examples and to convince one another.
Students gave the examples of robots and artificial intelligence regarding the use of technological tools in daily life. Their exempli
fications included explanations indicating that robotics technologies, in particular, facilitate one’s life and are human-made ad
vancements. Similarly, a discussion setting was established regarding the development and use of 3D printing technologies where
students asked the questions of why and how. The dialog between S2 and S3 on the development of 3D printers was as follows:
S2(ga&m): Maybe these printers were developed because two-dimensional outputs were not sufficient for people?
S3(ga&m): I think 3D printers are not advanced versions of 2D printers because these printers have different purposes. For example, 2D
printers aim to put things in writing while 3D printers are good for designing and producing things, so they are only similar in name.
S2(ga&m): Why? I believe the purpose of using both printers is to make something on the digital medium tangible.
S3(ga&m): S2 made a general statement. It is true that something on the electronic medium is transferred into the physical medium, but while
regular printers make writing physical, 3D printers create models. So, I believe they are not the same, they have different purposes.
The explanations exchanged among the students reveal that S2 questioned the development of 3D printers while S3, as a counter-
argument, underlined the different aspects of 2D and 3D printing technologies. During this discussion, S4 said: "I was curious and
Googled the inventor of 3D printers, it was someone named Chuck Hull". This showed that students conducted research using information
and communication technologies to find answers to their questions through "how" and "when" inquiries. As was the case for the robot
technology, students also made associations with different disciplines regarding the 3D printing technology. The sample statements
from students regarding such associations can be found below:
S1(ga): For example, the topic for our science class at school was the structure of the eye. I wish we had a model to examine. One benefit of
3D printers would be generating a lot of models like this for schools.
S4(va): For instance, it can also be used for producing prosthetic organs.
S7(m): It may be used for manufacturing toys; anything can be produced.
The examples provided for the uses of 3D printing technology include school-related purposes indicated by S1, the healthcare
sector expressed by S4, and real-life uses and associations underlined by S7. This leads to the result that students made associations
with the STEM disciplines and real-life instances. The discussion and brainstorming sessions within the process of defining the need
and problem during the EDP-STEM activities revealed that students made inquiries regarding the development and use of technology,
technological tools, robots, and 3D printing technologies, that they attempted to convince one another and make inferences based on
causality while expressing their opinions, that they reached certain generalizations after indicating and justifying their opinions, and
that their creative thinking skills came to the fore throughout these processes. These findings lead to the conclusion that students made
active use of their critical thinking skills.
3.3. Communication and cooperativity
In robotics-related activities, students were seen to engage in student-student and student-researcher communication while
providing explanations, attempting to convince others, and sharing their opinions. They established effective written, verbal, and
visual communication throughout the activities. In addition to expressing themselves verbally, students took part in written
communicative processes while keeping journals in their STEM activity booklets and in visual communication as they came up with
robot designs. One might argue that fostering an encouraging and heartening environment for students during robotics activities,
which were within the scope of the EDP-STEM process, so that they could share their opinions and providing them with different
communication channels could contribute to their verbal communication skills. Furthermore, the fact that students made use of
computers and the Internet to access the academic knowledge required to construct a robot solving Rubik’s cubes and that they built
robots using the Lego Mindstorms set and software tool involved communication with media and information technologies. As far as
creating their own robots was concerned, students made use of Tinkercad, a software tool for 3D modeling, and 3D printing hardware.
The media and communication technologies provided for students in this respect resulted in ample visual communication opportu
nities, allowing them to use their communicative skills in a variety of ways.
The first step of the robotics activity, i.e., constructing a robot using the Lego set and coding robots, was based on teamwork. The
formation of the teams and task distributions were handled by students. The following example demonstrates the way students divided
and planned their tasks.
S3(ga&m): So, we can first classify these materials.
10
S2(ga&m): Yes, it would be easier to find the parts.

R: How do you plan to do that?
S2(ga&m): S3 will tell me which parts to take by checking them from the computer and I will find and give these parts to her Then she will
assemble the parts.
…
S7(m): [Addressing the researcher] But there are too many parts here.
S5(va&m): Yes, I am also confused.
R: What can you do to overcome this?
S4(va): Page 135 on the manual shows how to build the robot, maybe we can divide it part by part, then we assemble the parts.
Even though S5 and S7 had concerns regarding building their robot, they were motivated by their teammate, S4. Furthermore,
students were observed to help one another while working on the robot. It was observed that S7, who initially had reservations about
using technological tools and computers, developed positive attitudes at the end of the collaborative work of students. The worksheets
in which S7 expresses her opinions about the activities were demonstrative of these positive attitudes (Fig. 6).
Students were observed to share tasks among each other while constructing a robot solving Rubik’s cubes with the Lego set as they
modelled their robots. This indicates that the students had team-working skills. Each student displayed the necessary flexibility and
worked as a part of a team for a common goal. It is possible to argue that students, working for this common purpose, devoted the
necessary efforts and assumed the required responsibilities to perform effectively at the individual level. Each student executed an
effective working process while constructing their robots based on collaboration as part of a team (Fig. 7)
The EDP-STEM activity involving 3D robot production was structured in order to allow students to reveal their personal opinions
and to come up with their own robot models in line with their opinions (Fig. 8). In addition to the individual-oriented structure of the
activity, students also had the opportunity to exchange opinions and ideas, helping them develop their models even further. In the
evaluation stage of 3D designs created by students, their opinions and thoughts contributed to the development of each product. In line
with this, the environment provided for students during the 3D robot modeling activity seemed to have led to the effective use of
communicative and collaborative skills.
As was the case during the first activity in which students constructed a robot using Lego pieces, S7 was, once again, observed to
experience difficulties and be reluctant while coming up with her 3D model and using Tinkercad during this second activity involving
3D modeling. Upon being asked about the reason for her reluctance, S7 said: "It was not difficult to draw my design, but it was very difficult
to transfer it into the computer. This was because I do not see myself as skilled with computers, I am recently getting used to designing and using
computers. But I enjoy it as I use such technological tools". Student statements and in-class fieldnotes reveal that S7, initially having
concerns and hesitations about using technological tools, developed positive attitudes at the end of technological practices based on
collaboration and cooperation. The working environment established during EDP-STEM robotics activities allowed students to engage
in communication through various channels (written, verbal, and visual) and to complete individual and teamwork. Based on this
outcome, it was concluded that the activities were effective in displaying students’ communicative and collaborative skills.
3.4. Problem-Solving
The sub-skills of problem definition, development of solution proposals for the said problem, application of the most effective
solution, and checking the solution were observed within the scope of problem-solving skills during the robotics-related activities.
During the first activity of robotics within the two-step program, the students had a difficult time while solving Rubik’s cubes and,
consequently, produced a robot solving these cubes in order to overcome this difficulty, developing a solution for this problem (Fig. 9).
In 3D robot modeling, the second stage of the process, the aim was to allow students to produce a solution-oriented product by
defining their needs and problems.
S1(ga): I have problems with my friends. They do not include me [in their activities], they always argue with me. That is why I want a robot
to be my friend.
S2(ga&m): I love watching sports matches, that is why I want to create a robot that would remind me of match dates and narrate the matches
vocally. And if I develop such a robot, I think it would be useful for others who are interested in sports.
S3(ga&m): My sibling loves dinosaurs, so I am going to create a talking and walking robot shaped like a dinosaur.
S4(va): My family always makes me go to the supermarket and do shopping. That is why I want to create a robot that can handle my errands.
S6(va): Today, there is a shortage of food and poverty; therefore, I think of creating a robot that would render infertile soil fertile again.
S7(m): I have a hard time keeping up with my tasks, so I want to build a robot that would help me.
Fig. 6. Opinions of S7 about producing technological tools.
11
Fig. 7. The working environment for the EDP-STEM robotics activity.
Fig. 8. The working environment for the 3D robot modeling activity.
Fig. 9. Rubik’s cube-solving robots produced by students.
S5(va&m): I want to build a robot that would be a friend to me, that understands me and consoles me. Sometimes people do not listen to one
another, that is why my robot will listen.
When defining needs and problems, students were observed to consider their personal matters as well as social issues. While most
students came up with problem definitions in line with their personal wishes, S6 defined food shortage, a global issue, as a problem.
While defining their problems, students also expressed the properties their robots are supposed to have, therefore indicating the so
lutions for their problems as well. After defining their problems, students were asked to come up with solutions regarding their
problems through a product. The explanations made by students about the robots they would construct for their problems were as
follows:
S1(ga): I want my robot to be frightening so that it can protect me. That is why it will have spikes.
S2(ga&m): My robot’s name will be Eagle 23 [the symbol of a football team based in Istanbul], it will have a flat lower part as I want to place
it on my desk.
S4(va): My robot must be able to handle my errands outside, so there will be a pedal mechanism allowing it to move around quickly.
S3(ga&m): I will create a dino-robot that will not resemble any of the dinosaur toys my sibling has.
S6(va): My robot will have a mechanism similar to that of a grinder so that it can render infertile soil fertile again. I mean, the soil we place
inside will come out as fertile after the processes.
S7(m): My robot must be practical since it will help me. For example, it may be small so that I can carry it around.
S5(va&m): As my robot will accompany me, it will resemble a human being.
Students structured their solutions in accordance with their definitions of the problem and need. They elaborated on their designs
and design processes while explaining their product-oriented problem solutions. After explaining themselves, students were asked to
model their designs in 3D using Tinkercad. They were observed to pay attention to mathematical measurements and lengths in their
uses of geometric shapes while creating their 3D designs. Based on this, one might argue that students took properties that were
suitable for 3D printing into consideration. After the 3D modeling step, the suitability of student designs on Z-Suite for 3D printing was
12
evaluated; then, students made the necessary modifications to their designs. Following the design creation and modeling for products
by students, realistic products were created using 3D printers. The models created by students are presented in Fig. 10.
The quality and performance of the products created for the solution of the problem were tested by students. They presented and
elaborated on the properties of their products as well as the way in which they provided a solution for the problems concerned. While
the products were being evaluated, as S1 was seen to create a product different from the one he had initially designed, he was asked
about the reasons for the changes. As a response to this question, S1 said: "I first envisaged a robot with spikes, but I thought that separating
the spikes from the 3D printer would be difficult because to make them sharp, I would have to design thin spikes that could have been broken
while obtaining them using the 3D printers. So, I changed the design". As for the robot designed by S3, it was seen that some parts were
missing in the product, which was explained by the student as follows: "I made the feet of my robot too thin, and they broke off while
separating the pieces. I will redesign them thicker". The designs of other students were similar to their actual designs. In this respect, one
might see that students made modifications upon encountering a difficulty, solving their problems during the process.
3.5. Creativity
Within the scope of creativity, students were observed to create unique products in line with their original conceptions at the end of
the examination of their ideas, opinions, designs, and models. The evaluation of the student products and opinions in terms of orig
inality within the scope of creativity revealed that each student displayed these skills in robotics activities, which are covered by the
EDP-STEM process. The students are thought to have made use of the EDP-STEM environment and the flow of the activity process while
manifesting their original thoughts and ideas. Discussion and brainstorming sessions were held to reveal student opinions throughout
the activity, which was encouraging for students to express their thoughts. The EDP-STEM activity process was implemented in a way
allowing students to be free while indicating their opinions and reflecting these opinions on their products. Therefore, each student
was able to express their ideas and opinions. The provision of such a discussion environment and the support of thought expression
may be considered to be effective in revealing the creative and original ideas of students throughout the EDP-STEM process.
Furthermore, students created their own designs and modeled these designs in 3D while producing robots based on 3D modeling. Thus,
it was observed that the original ideas by students were actualized as they came up with realistic and tangible products. While taking
fieldnotes concerning the robot design process of students, S1 was observed to come up with a design different from those of his friends
while S6 made an explanation about developing the features of his robot as follows: "I can make my robot move with sensors as we did with
the robot solving Rubik’s cubes" (Fig. 11).
The explanations and observations about the design and production processes of students revealed their intention to come up with
unique products. Supporting students in their creation of unique designs and products, this activity helped them demonstrate their
creativity.
4. Conclusion and discussion
A detailed account of the computational thinking skills used by gifted and talented students in EDP-STEM robot-building activities
within the scope of robotics and 3D robot modeling activities is presented in this study. In the process of robotics activities, it was
concluded that algorithmic thinking, creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, and cooperativity skills of students
were effective within the scope of computational thinking skills.
In the robotics and 3D robot modeling activities carried out within the course of the study, it was revealed that the algorithmic
thinking of the students was effective in both stages. The students were observed to follow the steps to be taken regarding the problem
in a logical order in both activities while developing creative solutions for the problem they defined. It was revealed that the students
not only did procedural coding during the process of programming and coding but also identified the bugs they encountered and
subsequently debugged their robots. In the robotics activity, the students equipped their robots with both the desired physical
properties and the ability to solve Rubik’s cubes. In this respect, the students were observed to make effective use of coding as a
different language in order to equip a robot with physical capabilities such as moving, solving a Rubik’s cube, and perceiving colors as
well as to make these actions possible through their coding activities. In this way, it was seen that an action rule was formulated by
means of abstraction. The evaluation of the properties and functioning of the robots constructed after the programming process
implemented by the students provides an assessment of the accuracy and usability of their formulated solutions. Vallance, Martin, and
Naamani (2015) conducted a study on the question of how to support students’ computational thinking skills in education through
robotics-related STEM activities using Lego Mindstorms and reached the conclusion that the participating students solved problems by
equipping their robots with the desired features (maneuvering, navigation), indicating the influence of algorithmic thinking. Similarly,
Vallance and Towndrow (2018) stated that algorithmic thinking affects the coding process based on the use of flowcharts, initially by
Fig. 10. 3D robot products of students.
13
Fig. 11. Fieldnote about the designs by a) S1 and b) S6.
drawing and then by using blocks. In this study as well, students first designed their models in drawing and then modeled them on
Tinkercad, a 3D modeling software tool, through the 3D robot modeling activity. This allowed them to make a comparison between
their designs and products while evaluating the solution to their problem in consideration of the features with which they wanted to
equip their robots. In line with these results, it was concluded that the algorithmic thinking skills among students were effective during
the EDP-STEM robotics and 3D robot modeling activities.
In the EDP-STEM activity, the sub-dimensions of questioning, reasoning, abstraction, association, making inferences, making
generalizations, providing justifications, and persuading each other and the researcher while making explanations about the subject
matter were observed within the scope of the critical thinking skills of the students. Discussion sessions were held during EDP-STEM,
and these environments were found to be effective in revealing students’ critical thinking skills. Similarly, Brown and Joerg (2018)
stated that as far as revealing and sharing student opinions was concerned, the discussion environment and the correct guidance of
discussions were effective in revealing the reasoning and problem-solving skills of gifted and talented students in the context of critical
thinking. During EDP-STEM, the purpose was to enable the students to become more active in the intellectual sense; to this end, the
questions of "why" and "how" were asked within the scope of the relevant inquiries. This enabled students to display the skills of
explanation, justification, persuasion, and reasoning. Shaunessy (2000) underlined the effect and significance of asking questions for
the abilities of gifted and talented students to make assumptions, form arguments, make predictions, reach inferences, make inquiries,
and engage in logical reasoning. The study by Walsh (2014) on the reasoning of gifted and talented students similarly indicated the
effectiveness of asking questions about student responses and encouraging students. Based on this result, it can be argued that asking
questions and making inquiries during the practice and activity processes are effective in terms of critical thinking.
It was seen in the present study that the students made associations with STEM disciplines, other disciplines, and real-life situations
in the EDP-STEM activities. Meyrick (2011) analyzed the STEM practices in the learning of K-12 students and concluded that the
association of students’ prior knowledge and academic knowledge of science and mathematics with the practices were effective in
providing them with meaningful learning opportunities within the scope of EDP-oriented STEM education. For this purpose, the use of
robotics, 3D modeling, and 3D printers provided enriched opportunities regarding the subject, scope, and application, which sup
ported students while making associations with a variety of contexts. Therefore, it was concluded that association skills were also
effective. Similarly, Shadduck (2017) stated that STEM education provides a plethora of opportunities with its technological and
engineering practices so that students may make associations. In the same vein, Lou, Shih, Diez, and Tseng (2011) reported at the end
of their STEM activities that the discussion environment and the sharing of thoughts were influential on the academic knowledge and
interdisciplinary associations of students in the EDP. It was also seen in the present study that especially discussion platforms were
influential on the reasoning and parallel association skills of students in their own right. The explanations and justifications provided
by students also involved associations with real-life situations and various academic disciplines while establishing cause and effect
relationships. Based on this outcome, it was concluded that STEM practices support students in terms of making connections, and thus,
that students’ making associations, establishing links, and critical thinking skills are effective.
It was concluded that students’ critical thinking skills were effective in the evaluation of designs and products during the EDP-STEM
robotics activities. It reveals the significance of justifications and explanations in the suitability of design properties and the evaluation
of the products to be created. Fusco’s (2014) study included practices based on the EDP and concluded that critical thinking was
effective in the actualization and development of product designs made by 5th-grade students. In the robotics activity of the present
study, students made associations between the steps while applying the procedures and made inferences about how the process was
supposed to be completed by examining the overall working process. At the same time, they adopted an inquisitive approach while
evaluating the suitability of the design and creating a realistic product by revealing original ideas during the production of their robots
based on 3D modeling. Based on these results, it was concluded that both robotics and 3D modeling activities within the scope of
EDP-STEM were effective in revealing students’ critical thinking skills.
It was seen that students made their definitions regarding the problem situation, developed a model for solving the problem,
created their products, and evaluated their solutions. In this regard, all students were given the opportunity to find a solution for a
certain problem by developing a product. In the evaluation of the solution provided by the product regarding the problem, it was seen
that students determined the problems they encountered, developed solutions for these problems, and reformed their work in that
respect. In addition to the influence of students’ problem-solving skills during the EDP-STEM activity, it was concluded that the
students were able to develop effective solutions for the problems they encountered during their work. This finding is consistent with
those of STEM education studies involving the solution of complex problems (Eguchi, 2016; Hinton, 2017). It is also stated in these
studies that STEM education involving challenging problematic situations contributes to the problem-solving skills of students as well
as to their cooperativity.
Gifted and talented students are often regarded as isolated individuals in their own world (Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams, 2008).
Therefore, particular attention was devoted so that students participating in the study could engage with one another and with the
researchers in addition to performing individual tasks. In the EDP-STEM robotics practice, students were allowed to work in teams.
14
However, robot production based on 3D modeling was carried out individually in order for students to reflect their creativity and
original thoughts sourcing from their giftedness and talent on their products. Nevertheless, they were supported by the researcher in
terms of helping each other in their work as they were seated close to one another so that they could interact and communicate with
each other. Many studies support the argument that teacher behaviors and attitudes are influential on the collaborative work per
formed by students (VanTassel-Baska et al., 2008). It was observed that students encouraged each other by motivating one another
during their collaborative work while collaborating to help each other and to share information during their individual studies. Some
researchers (Gura, 2011; Welch & Huffman, 2011) state that STEM education involving collaboration is likely to provide students with
the interest in and motivation for taking part in STEM career fields. In this respect, it is thought that supporting and improving stu
dents’ communicative and collaborative skills may be influential on their life and career skills. In the present study, students were
provided with opportunities to use different channels of communication. Accordingly, they used their STEM activity booklets to ex
press their ideas in writing and to transform the designs in their minds into actual drawings. Furthermore, students were given the
chance to make use of media and communication technologies such as computers, the Tinkercad software, and 3D printers while
generating programming codes and creating 3D designs. By creating codes and using Tinkercad, students engaged in visual
communication. During the activity, they were observed to communicate verbally in order to persuade, inform, explain, and motivate
each other. In this regard, it was seen that students’ communication skills were effective in the EDP-STEM activity where they were
provided with ample opportunities to interact with one another. Similarly, the study by Hinton (2017) involving middle-school stu
dents based on design and engineering concluded that it contributes to collaboration and communication among students. The study
indicated the students developed teamwork skills by working in harmony.
Students participating in the study were diagnosed as gifted and talented and therefore had creative traits. With the EDP-STEM
activity, it was aimed for students to display their creativity in their opinions and thoughts as well as in the development of their
solution proposals related to their problem throughout the activity and in the products they created in the end. A free working
environment was provided for students within the scope of the two-stage activity in order for them to create programming codes
during the robotics practice and to express their original ideas and create products during the 3D robot modeling activity. During the
activities, it was observed that students attempted to produce unique and innovative products. It is thought that this stemmed from the
fact that students were provided with an enriched and flexible study opportunity during the EDP-STEM robotics activities. During this
process, students were able to share their opinions and thoughts freely, simultaneously translating their own opinions and thoughts
into tangible products. This result of the study is consistent with other studies stating that STEM education supports gifted and talented
students’ creative skills (e.g., Gotlieb, Hyde, Immordino-Yang, & Kaufman, 2016; Trna & Trnova, 2015). Kelley and Kelley (2013)
highlighted the characteristics of the environment and conditions in terms of fostering creativity with the following statement:
"Creativity comes into play wherever you have the opportunity to generate new ideas, solutions, or approaches." (p. 3). In this respect, the
EDP-STEM activities were designed in a way allowing students to be free and flexible in their work and while expressing their thoughts.
Many researchers state that interdisciplinary educational opportunities are effective in revealing gifted and talented students’ creative
skills (Drain, 2008; Hockett, 2009; VanTassel-Baska & Brown, 2008). Choi (2014) underlines the significance of a flexible environment
supporting their creativity among the opportunities STEM education provides to gifted and talented students. Similarly, Gotlieb et al.
(2016) indicate that STEM education encourages curiosity, creativity, and a sense of exploration among gifted and talented students.
Based on this result, it is concluded that the EDP-STEM activity supports gifted and talented students’ creative skills and is effective in
terms of uncovering their creative thoughts.
Funding
The authors declare that there is no funding for this research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ceylan Sen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Zeynep Sonay Ay: Data curation, Supervision, Writing – original draft. Seyit Ahmet Kiray: Writing – original draft, Visualization,
Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
References
Adams, C., Chamberlin, S., Gavin, M. K., Schultz, C., Sheffield, L. J., & Subotnik, R. (2008). The stem promise: Recognizing and developing talent and expanding
opportunities for promising students of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Washington, DC: Math/Science Task Force, National Association for Gifted
Children.
Andersen, L. (2014). Visual–spatial ability: Important in STEM, ignored in gifted education. Roeper Review, 36(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02783193.2014.884198.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905.
15
Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in
engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23, 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9498-
4.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Vancouver: Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association.
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x.
Brown, E. F., & Joerg, M. (2018). How to discuss books with your kids (Even when you haven’t read them!). Parenting for High Potential, 7(1), 12–14.
Bybee, R. (2013). The case of stem education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Oh, S., Azano, A. P., & Hailey, E. P. (2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/
instructional model for gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 137–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549448.
Carlson, L., & Sullivan, J. (2004). Exploiting design to inspire interest in engineering across the K–16 engineering curriculum. International Journal of Engineering
Education, 20(3), 372–380.
Choi, K. M. (2014). Opportunities to explore for gifted STEM students in Korea: From admissions criteria to curriculum. Theory into Practice, 53(1), 25–32. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00405841.2014.862117.
Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Cooper, S., Pe´rez, L., & Rainey, D. (2010). K-12 computational learning. Communications of the ACM, 53(11), 27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1839676.1839686.
Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design method: Strategies for product design. Chichester: Wiley.
Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Adams, C. M. (2008). The psychology of gifted adolescents as measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 326–339.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321810.
Denning, P. (2009). The profession of IT beyond computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 28. https://doi.org/10.1145/1516046.1516054.
Dorie, B. L., Cardella, M. E., & Svarovsky, G. N. (2014). Capturing the design thinking of young children interacting with a parent. In Indianapolis, IN: Paper presented at
the 121st SEE annual conference and exposition.
Drain, J. D. (2008). Teachers’ attitudes and practices toward differentiating for gifted learners in K-5 general education classrooms. The College of William and Mary.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 103–120.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and
Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013.
Ehsan, H., Rehmat, A.P., .& Cardella, M.E. (.2020). Computational thinking embedded in engineering design: Capturing computational thinking of children in an
informal engineering design activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–24. doi: 10.1007/s10798-020-09562-5.
Ericsson, K. A. (2014). Why expert performance is special and cannot be extrapolated from studies of performance in the general population: A response to criticisms.
Intelligence, 45, 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.12.001.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040.
Foundation for Critical Thinking (2015). Elements and standards learning tool. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/analyzing-and-assessing-
thinking-/783.
Frykholm, J., & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105
(3), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2005.tb18047.x.
Fusco, C. (2014). Developing engineering and science process skills using design software in an elementary classroom. New York: Hofstra University.
Futschek, G. (2006). Algorithmic thinking: The key for understanding computer science. International conference on informatics in secondary schools-evolution and
perspectives (pp. 159–168). Berlin: Springer.
Gotlieb, R., Hyde, E., Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Kaufman, S. B. (2016). Cultivating the social-emotional imagination in gifted education: Insights from educational
neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13165.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12 a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X12463051.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 142–161). New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Gura, M. (2011). Getting started with LEGO robotics: A guide for K-12 educators. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/ROBOTS-excerpt.pdf.
Han, H. J., & Shim, K. C. (2019). Development of an engineering design process-based teaching and learning model for scientifically gifted students at the Science
Education Institute for the Gifted in South Korea. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0047-6.
Hinton, T. B. (2017). An exploratory study of a robotics educational platform on STEM career interests in middle school students. The University of Alabama.
Hmelo, C., Douglas, H., & Kolodner, J. (2000). Designing to learn complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327809JLS0903_2.
Hockett, J. (2009). Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general education and gifted education quality indicators. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 32(3), 394–440. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2009-857.
Hynes, M. M. (2012). Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content
knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9142-4.
Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., & Hammer, D. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. Retrieved from http://
ncete.org/flash/pdfs/Infusing%20Engineering%20Hynes.pdf.
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
ISTE (2015). CT leadership toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-leadershipt-toolkit.pdf? sfvrsn¼4.
Jang, J., Chung, Y., Choi, Y., & Kim, S. W. (2013). Exploring the characteristics of science gifted students’ task commitment. Journal of the Korean Association for
Science Education, 33(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.001.
Katai, Z. (2014). The challenge of promoting algorithmic thinking of both sciences- and humanitiesoriented learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(4),
287–299. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2013.33.1.001.
Keith, K., Sullivan, F., & Pham, D. (2019). Roles, collaboration, and the development of computational thinking in a robotics learning environment. In S. C. Kong & H.
Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 223–245). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-6528-718.
Kelley, T., & Kelley, D. (2013). Creative confidence: Unleashing the creative potential within us all. New York, NY: Crown Business Random House.
Korkmaz, Ö., Çakir, R., & Özden, M. Y. (2017). Avalidity and reliability study of the Computational Thinking Scales (CTS). Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 558–569.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.005.
Kules, B. (2016). Computational thinking is critical thinking: Connecting to university discourse, goals, and learning outcomes. Proceedings of the association for
information science and technology. Silver Springs, MD: American Society for Information Science.
Lee, S. W., Baek, J. I., & Lee., J., . G.. (2013). The development and the effects of educational program applied on STEAM for the mathematical prodigy. Education of
Primary School Mathematics, 16(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.7468/jksmec.2013.16.1.035.
Lin, K. Y., Wu, Y. T., Hsu, Y. T., & Williams, P. J. (2021). Effects of infusing the engineering design process into STEM project-based learning to develop preservice
technology teachers’ engineering design thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00258-9.
Lou, S. J., Shih, R. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: An
exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10798-010-9114-8.
16
Mann, E. L., & Mann, R. L. (2017). Engineering design and gifted pedagogy. In D. Dailey, & A. Cotabish (Eds.), Engineering instruction for high-ability learners in K-8
classrooms (pp. 33–44). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept
learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x.
Meyrick, K. M. (2011). How STEM education improves student learning. Meridian K-12 School Computer Technologies Journal, 14(1), 1–6.
Miedijensky, S., & Tal, T. (2016). Reflection and assessment for learning in science enrichment courses for the gifted. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 50, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.05.001.
Miles, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expended sourcebook.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Moore, T. J., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Advancing the state of the art of STEM integration. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(1), 5–10.
Morrison, J. (2006). TIES stem education monograph series, attributes of stem education. Baltimore, MD: TIES.
National Academy of Engineering. (2005). Educating the engineer of 2020: Adapting engineering education to the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council & National Academy of Engineering. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington
DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 stem education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Noh, H., & Choi, J. (2017). An analysis of the interpersonal competence of science-gifted students in school and science gifted education institutes. Journal of the
Korean Association for Science Education, 37(2), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0383.
Pólya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Renzulli, J. S., Koehler, J. L., & Fogarty, E. A. (2006). Operation Houndstooth intervention: Social capital in today’s schools. Gifted Child Today, 29(1), 14–24.
Resnick, M., Silverman, B., Kafai, Y., Maloney, J., Monroy-Herna´ndez, A., Rusk, N., et al. (2009). Scratch. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60. https://doi.org/
10.1145/1592761.1592779.
Robinson, A., Dailey, D., Hughes, G., & Cotabish, A. (2014). The effects of a science-focused STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and
skills. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(3), 189–213, 1932202X14533799.
Roman, H. T. (2012). STEM-a powerful approach to real-world problem solving for gifted and talented students in middle and high school grades. Manassas, VA: Gifted
Education Press.
Schroth, S. T., & Helfer, J. A. (2017). Gifted & Green: Sustainability/environmental science investigations that promote gifted children’s learning. Gifted Child Today,
40(1), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217516675903.
Shadduck, P. (2017). Comprehensive Cocurricular support promotes persistence of community college STEM students. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 41(11), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1222506.
Shaunessy, S. E. (2000). Techniques questioning in the gifted classroom? Gifted Child Today, 23(5), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2000-752.
Shim, K. C., & Kim, Y. S. (2005). Science gifted learning program: Research and education model. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 25(6),
635–641.
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement. Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1),
87–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00831.x.
Snalune, P. (2015). The benefits of computational thinking. ITNOW, 57(4), 58–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/itnow/bwv111.
Song, S. C., Han, H. J., & Shim, K. C. (2017). A study on perceptions of scientifically gifted middle school students about engineering design process. Journal of The
Korean Association for Science Education, 37(5), 835–846. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.5.835.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research.. London: Sage.
Standl, B. (2016). A case study on cooperative problem solving processes in small 9th grade student groups. In IEEE global engineering education conference (EDUCON),
Abu Dhabi.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2017). Factors that contributed to gifted students’ success on stem pathways: The role of race, personal interests, and
aspects of high school experience. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(2), 99–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217701022.
Stoeger, H., Hopp, M., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Online mentoring as an extracurricular measure to encourage talented girls in STEM (science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics): An empirical study of one-on-one versus group mentoring. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0016986217702215.
Thomas, M. S. (2018). A neurocomputational model of developmental trajectories of gifted children under a polygenic model: When are gifted children held back by
poor environments? Intelligence, 69, 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.06.008.
Tofel-Grehl, C., & Callahan, C. M. (2017). STEM high schools teachers’ belief regarding STEM student giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0016986216673712.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Trna, J., & Trnova, E. (2015). Implementation of fostering giftedness in science teacher training. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications,
6(3), 18–27.
Vallance, M., Martin, S., & Naamani, C. (2015). A situation that we had never imagined: Post-Fukushima virtual collaborations for determining robot task metrics.
International Journal of Learning Technology, 10(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJLT.2015.069453.
Vallance, M., & Towndrow, P. A. (2018). Mapping computational thinking for a transformative pedagogy. In M. S. Knie (Ed.), Computational thinking in the stem
disciplines (pp. 301–325). Cham: Springer.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2008). An overview of alternative assessment measures for gifted learners and the issues that surround their use. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.),
Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 1–17). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Wahono, B., Lin, P. L., & Chang, C. Y. (2020). Evidence of STEM enactment effectiveness in Asian student learning outcomes. International Journal of STEM Education,
7, 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00236-1.
Walsh, C. A. (2014). Life in school: The academic identity stories of fifth grade African American boys. Florida: University of Florida.
Welch, A., & Huffman, D. (2011). The effect of robotics competitions on high school students’ attitudes toward science. School Science & Mathematics, 111(8),
416–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00107.x.
Wendell, B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering
Education, 102(4), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20026.
Wendell, K., Wright, C., & Paugh, P. (2015). Engineering design as disciplinary discourse: An exploration of language demands and resources among urban elementary
students. In Presented at the NARST, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.eie.org/engineering-elementary/research/articles.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118.
Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2994591.
Yin, R. K. (2006). Case study methods. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111–122).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Yoon, S. Y., & Mann, E. L. (2017). Exploring the spatial ability of undergraduate students: Association with gender, STEM majors, and gifted program membership.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(4), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217722614.
17

Computational Thinking Skills of Gifted and Talented Students in 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computational Thinking Skills of Gifted and Talented Students in 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computational Thinking Skills of Gifted and Talented Students in 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thinking Skills and Creativity 42 (2021) 100931

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thinking Skills and Creativity

Computational thinking skills of gifted and talented students in

1.1. Theoretical framework

1.1.1. Integrated stem

1.1.2. Engineering design process (EDP)

1.1.3. Computational thinking skills

S1(ga) Male 13 General ability Science, mathematics, technology

2.2. EDP-STEM context

Fig. 1. Engineering design process (Hynes et al., 2011).

2.2.1. Lego mindstorms robotics

2.2.2. 3D robot modeling and production using 3D printers

2.3. Data collection tools

2.4. Data analysis

2.5. Validity and reliability of the study

3.1. Algorithmic thinking

…for instance, MR (magnetic resonance) is an advanced technological Explanation Critical thinking

3.2. Critical thinking

Fig. 2. Explanations by students a) S2 and b) S7 regarding robot construction.

Fig. 4. Fieldnote about debugging in coding.

Fig. 5. 3D robot designs and models created by students.

3.3. Communication and cooperativity

S3(ga&m): So, we can first classify these materials.

S2(ga&m): Yes, it would be easier to find the parts.

Fig. 6. Opinions of S7 about producing technological tools.

Fig. 7. The working environment for the EDP-STEM robotics activity.

Fig. 8. The working environment for the 3D robot modeling activity.

Fig. 9. Rubik’s cube-solving robots produced by students.

4. Conclusion and discussion

Fig. 10. 3D robot products of students.

Fig. 11. Fieldnote about the designs by a) S1 and b) S6.

The authors declare that there is no funding for this research.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of Competing Interest

You might also like