=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2755/shortpaper3
|storemode=property
|title=Designing Problem-Based Learning to Develop Computational Thinking in the Context of K-12 Maker Education (short paper)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2755/shortpaper3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2755
|authors=Megumi Iwata,Jari Laru,Kati Mäkitalo
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/issep/IwataLM20
}}
==Designing Problem-Based Learning to Develop Computational Thinking in the Context of K-12 Maker Education (short paper)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2755/shortpaper3.pdf
Designing Problem-Based Learning to Develop
Computational Thinking in the Context of K-12 Maker
Education
Megumi Iwata1[0000-0001-7944-5157], Jari Laru1[0000-0003-0347-0182], Kati Mäkitalo1[0000-0003-4037-2872]
1
Faculty of Education, University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland
megumi.iwata@oulu.fi, jari.laru@oulu.fi, kati.makitalo@oulu.fi
Abstract. Computational thinking (CT) is a fundamental concept in the disci-
plines associated with information technology including informatics. Developing
CT helps understand the principles of informatics. CT can be effectively devel-
oped through the facilitated problem-solving tasks in problem-based learning
(PBL). This study introduces on-going project which aims to develop educational
practices in PBL to foster CT. As a context to foster CT, the study chooses maker
activities. Maker activities provide hands-on problem-solving experience which
can enhance development of CT. Focusing on key aspects of PBL and teacher’s
facilitation of problem-solving processes, the study explores how CT can be ef-
fectively developed through maker activities. The participants of the study are in-
service teachers and their pupils. The teachers design maker activities consisting
of four sessions. Pupils’ CT proficiency is assessed after each session and teach-
ers improve the following sessions based on the assessment results. The study
advances understanding of CT from learning science perspectives. The findings
can be applied into pre-service and in-service teacher education.
Keywords: Computational Thinking, K-12 Education, Maker Education.
1 Introduction
Computational thinking (CT) shares its elements with principles and concepts of infor-
matics. CT can be defined as “the thought processes involved in formulating problems
and their solutions so that the solutions are represented in a form that can be effectively
carried out by an information-processing agent” [Cuny, Snyder, & Wing, 2010, as cited
in [16]]. CT has been considered as a skill set which every child should have [15], and
many countries (e.g., Finland, the United Kingdom, Japan) have initiated the curricu-
lum reform to introduce the concept of CT at schools. Thus, currently, there are needs
to develop approaches to integrate CT in the existing school practices and support
teachers’ professional development [10].
Jeng and colleagues [9] select the ten relevant components of CT and explain the
connection between CT and the problem-solving cycle. Problem-based learning (PBL)
provides opportunity to develop CT through suitably designed problem-solving tasks
with teacher’s facilitation [6]. In PBL, pupils commonly work in a small group and
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons
License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
2
solve a complex problem which does not have single correct answer [3]. Ill-structured
problem-solving and collaborative problems-solving are considered as the key aspects
of PBL [6]. Teacher’s role of facilitating problem-solving processes is crucial in suc-
cessful PBL [11]. Maker education is a common context for PBL in K-12 schools.
Maker education is built upon constructionism introduced by Harel and Papert [5],
which highlights learning through making tangible artefacts [2]. Tangible making helps
pupils grasp the abstract CT concepts, and ill-structured problem-solving processes
with physical materials provide pupils with concrete experience to apply CT [8].
This study aims to develop educational practices in PBL to foster CT in the context
of K-12 maker education. Focusing on the educational practices in PBL, this study ex-
plores how the key aspects influence development of CT and how teachers improve
their role in PBL to foster pupils’ proficiency of CT. The study is divided into the fol-
lowing three sub-studies:
1. To what extent is CT developed through PBL in the context of maker education?
2. In what ways is development of CT enhanced by the key aspects of PBL in the con-
text of maker education?
3. In what ways do teachers improve facilitation of PBL in the context of maker edu-
cation?
2 Related studies
The previous studies have proposed CT frameworks and models, however, there has
not been a single definitive view of what CT includes. Some frameworks (e.g., [7,18])
include both cognitive (knowledge and practices of computing) and metacognitive as-
pects of CT (perspectives and attitudes of computing), while others (e.g., [12,13]) focus
only on cognitive aspects of CT. Tang and colleagues [14] listed the assessment meth-
ods commonly used in the current literature, such as traditional test, portfolio and sur-
vey. They suggest using qualitative measures, such as interviews and think-aloud as
supplemental assessments to deeper investigate CT proficiency.
In constructionism-based maker activities, informal formative feedback, which as-
sist the progress of the project and provide opportunity to revise understanding, is part
of culture [4]. Yin et al. [17] focus on assessing four aspects of CT concepts / capabil-
ities: abstraction, decomposition, algorithm design, and parallel generalization, as well
as CT disposition listed in [7]. They developed and test the assessment methods (open-
ended CT integrated achievement test and self-report survey) based on the framework
of learning outcomes of CT embedded in maker activities.
3 Methods
Participants of the study are in-service teachers and their pupils in K-12 schools in Fin-
land. The teachers are chosen from the members of a regional network which promotes
maker education by providing in-service teachers with training to design and implement
maker activities. Background of the teachers in the network differs, from those who
3
have skills in using ICT tools in teaching and learning to those who are not necessarily
technology-oriented teacher. However, the training sessions include both technical con-
tents and pedagogical contents regarding maker activities and CT, which enable the
teachers to design, implement and evaluate suitable maker activities.
This study is design-based research (DBR) where in-service teachers plan and im-
plement PBL activities in the context of maker education. Becker and Jacobsen [1]
conducted DBR to study the development of teacher knowledge, pedagogy and practice
through the maker activity sessions. In this study, an activity consists of four of a 90
minutes session, where pupils make an artefact in a small group. In the pre phase, the
teachers develop the PBL activity based on the pre-designed model with required con-
ditions provided by the researchers. After each session, the teachers reflect on the edu-
cational practices and improve them for the next session. Qualitative data are collected
through observations, teachers’ activity plan and interviews, as well as assessment of
CT (see Table 1).
Table 1. Phases of the study.
Phase Description Data collection
Assessment of Teachers’ inter-
CT ventions
Pre phase Teacher develops initial plan based Pre-test Pre-interview
on the pre-designed model. Pre-survey Initial plan for
Pupils take the assessment. PBL activity
Imple- Teacher plans the session in detail. Portfolio Plan for each
mentation Teacher implements the session. Artifact-based session
phase Pupils participate in the session. interview Reflective in-
Teacher reflects the session. terview
Post phase Teacher reflects PBL activity Post-test Post-interview
Pupils take the assessment. Post-survey
4 Discussion
We develop the assessment methods based on the open-ended tests and self-reported
survey in [17]. Although their study only measured four components of CT, we aim to
measure ten components of CT which are relevant to problem-solving processes intro-
duced by [9]. Pre- and post-test and survey are performed in the beginning and in the
end of the maker activity. We add portfolio and artifact-based interview to capture
problem-solving process in details [14,18]. The assessments are performed after every
session and the results are shared with teachers to improve the following session.
This study provides suggestions for educational practices to effectively develop CT
through PBL in the context of maker education. The findings can be applied to teacher
education and in-service teachers’ professional development for designing and imple-
menting PBL which can enhance CT. As this project is work in progress, International
Conference on Informatics in Schools 2020 provides a great opportunity to discuss with
experts in the fields and develop the research design to get the best results.
4
References
1. Becker, S., Jacobsen, M.: Becoming a Maker Teacher: Designing Making Curricula That
Promotes Pedagogical Change. Frontiers in Education 5 (2020).
2. Blikstein, P.: Digital Fabrication and ’Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Inven-
tion. In Walter-Herrmann, J., Büching, C. (eds.) FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inven-
tors, 203–222 (2013).
3. Ge, X., Land, S. M.: A conceptual framework for scaffolding Ill-structured problem-solving
processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 52(2), 5–22 (2004).
4. Hadad, R., Thomas, K., Kachovska, M., Yin, Y.: Practicing formative assessment for com-
putational thinking in making environments. Journal of Science Education and Technol-
ogy, 29(1), 162–173 (2020).
5. Harel, I. E., Papert, S. E.: Constructionism. Ablex Publishing, New York (1991).
6. Hmelo-Silver, C. E.: Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?. Educational
psychology review, 16(3), 235–266 (2004).
7. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and Computer Science Teachers
Association (CSTA): Computational Thinking in K–12 Education teacher resources second
edition https://id.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-teacher-resources_2ed-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=2,
last accessed 2020/9/22.
8. Iwata, M., Pitkänen K., Laru, J., Mäkitalo, K.: Exploring Potentials and Challenges to De-
velop Twenty-First Century Skills and Computational Thinking in K-12 Maker Education.
Frontiers in Education 5. (2020).
9. Jeng, H. L., Liu, L. W., Chen, C. N.: Developing a Procedural Problem-solving-based
Framework of Computational Thinking Components. In: 2019 8th International Congress
on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI) 272–277. IEEE, Toyama, Japan (2019).
10. Mäkitalo, K, Tedre, M., Laru, J., Valtonen, T.: Computational Thinking in Finnish Pre-Ser-
vice Teacher Education. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational
Thinking Education 2019, 105–107. The Education University of Hong Kong (2019).
11. Savery, J. R.: Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. Essential
readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Bar-
rows, 9, 5–15 (2015).
12. Selby, C., Woollard, J.: Computational thinking: the developing definition. University of
Southampton, The United Kingdom (2013). https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/, last ac-
cessed 2020/9/22.
13. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., Asbell-Clarke, J.: Demystifying computational thinking. Educational
Research Review, 22, 142–158 (2017).
14. Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., Zhai, X.: Assessing computational thinking: A sys-
tematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 103798 (2020).
15. Wing, J. M.: Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3) 33–35 (2006).
16. Wing, J.: Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The link magazine,
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why,
last accessed 2020/9/22.
17. Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., Lin, Q.: Improving and Assessing Computational Thinking in
Maker Activities: the Integration with Physics and Engineering Learning. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 1–26 (2019).
18. Zhong, B., Wang, Q., Chen, J., Li, Y.: An exploration of three-dimensional integrated as-
sessment for computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(4),
562–590 (2016).