DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Bringing Computational Thinking into Science Education

  • Park, Young-Shin (Science Culture Education Center, Chosun University) ;
  • Green, James (Science Culture Education Center, Chosun University)
  • Received : 2019.07.18
  • Accepted : 2019.08.23
  • Published : 2019.08.31

Abstract

The purpose of science education is scientific literacy, which is extended in its meaning in the $21^{st}$ century. Students must be equipped with the skills necessary to solve problems from the community beyond obtaining the knowledge from curiosity, which is called 'computational thinking'. In this paper, the authors tried to define computational thinking in science education from the view of scientific literacy in the $21^{st}$ century; (1) computational thinking is an explicit skill shown in the two steps of abstracting the problems and automating solutions, (2) computational thinking consists of concrete components and practices which are observable and measurable, (3) computational thinking is a catalyst for STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education, and (4) computational thinking is a cognitive process to be learned. More implication about the necessity of including computational thinking and its emphasis in implementing in science teaching and learning for the envisioned scientific literacy is added.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)

References

  1. Aho, A. V., 2011, Computation and computational thinking. Ubiquity, an ACM Press, 2011(1), 1-8 p. DOI: 10.1145/1895419.1922682
  2. Barr, V. and Stephenson, C., 2011, Bringing computational thinking to K-12: what is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48-54 p. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
  3. Coyle, P., 2010, Computational thinking and STEM education. Retrieved from https://peadarcoyle.com/2010/09/05/computational-thinking/
  4. Cummins, K., 2015, Five reasons why computational thinking is an essential tool for teachers and students. Retrieved from edgalaxy.com (cool stuff for nerdy teachers) https://www.edgalaxy.com/journal/2016/5/25/five-reasons-why-computational-thinking-is-an-essentialtool-for-teachers-and-students
  5. Denning, P. J., 2017, Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33-39 p. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438
  6. Easterbrook, S., 2014, From computational thinking to systems thinking: A conceptual toolkit for sustainability computing. Retrieved from https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/ict4s-14/13446
  7. Foster, I., 2006, 2020 computing: a two-way street to science's future. Nature, 440(7083), 419 p. https://doi.org/10.1038/440419a
  8. Han, N. and Nam, Y., 2018, The change of elementary science gifted students' perception about engineers and engineering practices through science and engineering integrated (SEI) lessons, Journal of Korean Earth Science and Society, 39(3), 275-290 p. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2018.39.3.275
  9. Hannasari, R., Harahap, M., and Sinulingga, K., 2017, Effect of scientific inquiry learning model using scientific concepts map and attitudes to skills process science students. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(21), 48-52 p.
  10. Hwang, K., 2019, Exploring elementary teachers' perception about computational thinking included science program during professional development program. Master thesis at Chosun University.
  11. Jones, E., 2011, The trouble with computational thinking. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/JonesCTOnePager.pdf
  12. Kong, S. C., Abelson, H., Sheldon, J., Lao, A., Tissenbaum, M., Lai, M., Lang, K., and Lao, N., 2017, Curriculum activities to foster primary school students' computational practices in block-based programming environments. In S. C. Kong, J. Sheldon & K. Y. Li (Eds.), Conference Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education 2017 (pp. 84-89). Hong Kong: The Education University of Hong Kong.
  13. Kuhn, D., 1986, Education for thinking. Teachers college Record, 87, 495-511 p.
  14. Kuhn, D., 1993, Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  15. MacDonald, C., 2012, Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 34-50 p.
  16. Mann, S., Costello, K., Lopez, M., Lopez, D., and Smith, N., 2014, An ethical basis for sustainability in the worldviews of first year students, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S'2014). Atlantis Press.
  17. Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Jellison Home, J., and Nao, K., 2008, Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
  18. Margolis J., and Fisher A., 2003, Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
  19. Ministry of Education, 2015, The 2015 revised information curriculum.
  20. Nardelli, E., 2019, Do we really need computational thinking?. Communications of the ACM, 62(02), 32-35p. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231587
  21. National Research Council, 2012, A framework for K-12 Science education, Washington. D.C: The National Academies Press.
  22. National Research Council, 2000, Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.
  23. NGSS Lead States, 2013, Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
  24. Osborne, J., 2010, Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science (New York, N.Y.). 328. 463-466. 10.1126/science.1183944.
  25. Park, Y-S., 2006, Theoretical study on the opportunity of scientific argumentation for implementing authentic scientific inquiry. Journal of Korean Earth Science Society, 27(4), 401-415 p.
  26. Park, Y-S., 2010, Secondary beginning teachers' views of scientific inquiry: With the view of hands-on, minds-on, and hearts-on. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 31(7), 798-812 p. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2010.31.7.798
  27. Park, Y-S., 2013, STEAM project Climate Change, program book funded by KOFAC (Korean Foundation for the Advancement of Science & Creativity).
  28. Park, Y-S., and Hwang, J., 2017, The preliminary study of developing computational thinking practice analysis tool and its implication, Journal of Korean Society of Earth Science Education, 10(2), 140-160 p. https://doi.org/10.15523/JKSESE.2017.10.2.140
  29. Park, Y-S., May, 2018, The study of elementary science program with computational thinking practices and its understandings by elementary teachers, The 1st Korean Geoscience Union conference 2018, Hong-Cheon, Kangwon-Do, Korea.
  30. Park, Y-S. and Park, M., 2018, Exploring students' competencies to be creative problem solvers with computational thinking practices. Journal of the Korean Earth Science Society, 39(4), 388-400 p. https://doi.org/10.5467/JKESS.2018.39.4.388
  31. Sim, J., Lee, Y., and Kim. H-K, 2015, Understanding STEM, STEAM education, and addressing the issues facing STEAM in the Korean context, Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 35(4), 709-723 p. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.4.0709
  32. The International Society for Technology in Education, 2011, Computational Thinking; teacher resoucres second edition.
  33. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., and Wilensky, U., 2016, Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127-147 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
  34. Wing, J. M., 2006, Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-36 p. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
  35. Wing, J. M., 2008, Computational Tinking and Thinking About Computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366, 3717-3725 p. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
  36. Wing, J. M., 2010, Computational thinking: What and why?. Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/-CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
  37. Wilensky, U., 1995, Paradox, programming, and learning probability: a case study in a connected mathematics framework. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 253-280 p. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-3123(95)90010-1
  38. Wilensky, U., and Reisman K, 2006, Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209 p. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1
  39. Yadva, A., Hong, H., and Stephenson, C., 2016, Computational Thinking for All: Pedagogical Approaches to Embedding 21st Century Problem Solving in K-12 Classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565-568 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7