Integrating the Constructionist Learning Theory with Computational Thinking Classroom Activities
Integrating the Constructionist Learning Theory with Computational Thinking Classroom Activities
复制标题
将建构主义学习理论与计算思维课堂活动相结合
DOI：
10.15388/infedu.2019.03
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jane Waite
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Csizmadia;Bernhard Standl;Jane Waite
在学校计算机科学教育中，计算思维在过去十年中一直是一个新兴主题。尽管计算思维在课堂上以不同的方式被解释和整合，但自从 Wing 发表关于计算思维特征的第一篇论文以来，计算机科学学校教师和计算机科学教育研究人员一直在进行关于计算思维含义的识别过程。另一方面，Papert基于建构主义和皮亚杰的建构主义学习理论，在计算机科学教育中具有悠久的传统，通过实践活动来描述学生的学习过程。在本文中，我们的贡献是提出一种新的绘图工具，可用于回顾计算思维和建构主义学习方面的课堂活动。对于该工具，我们重用了计算机科学概念和计算思维概念的现有定义，并将它们与我们新的建构主义矩阵相结合。该矩阵最显着的特征是学习者自主权的规模。这个量表代表了学习者在其制品发展的每个阶段的选择程度。为了开发量表定义，我们尝试了绘图工具，为 5 至 11 岁 (K-5) 的学生编写了 21 种流行的国际计算活动。从我们的试验来看，我们已经表明，我们可以使用映射工具（对编码人员具有中度到高度的可靠性）来分析有关计算思维和建构主义的课堂活动，但是，需要进一步验证以确定其有用性。尽管使用我们的绘图工具分析了少量活动（n = 21），但我们的初步结果显示了一些有趣的发现。首先，学习者定义问题和开发自己的设计的自主权很低。其次，活动类型（例如课程计划而不是在线活动）或创建的人工制品（例如物理人工制品而不是屏幕上的活动或不插电的活动），而不是所教授的计算思维或计算机科学概念，与学习者的自主性相关。这提供了一些似乎显而易见的初步证据，表明学习环境而不是学习内容与活动的建构主义程度相关，而计算思维本身可能与建构主义无关。然而，需要对大量活动进行进一步的工作来验证和验证这一建议。
In computer science education at school, computational thinking has been an emerging topic over the last decade. Even though, computational thinking is interpreted and integrated in classrooms in different ways, an identification process about what computational thinking is about has been in progress among computer science school-teachers and computer science education researchers since Wing’s initial paper on the characteristics of computational thinking. On the other hand, the constructionist learning theory by Papert, based on constructivism and Piaget, has a long tradition in computer science education for describing the students’ learning process by hands-on activities. Our contribution, in this paper, is to present a new mapping tool which can be used to review classroom activities in terms of both computational thinking and constructionist learning. For the tool, we have reused existing definitions of computer science concepts and computational thinking concepts and combined these with our new constructionism matrix. The matrix’s most notable feature is its scale of learners’ autonomy. This scale represents the degree of choices learners have at each stage of development of their artefact. To develop the scale definitions, we trialed the mapping tool, coding twenty-one popular international computing activities for pupils aged 5 to 11 (K-5). From our trial, we have shown that we can use the mapping tool, with a moderate to high degree of reliability across coders, to analyse classroom activities with regard to computational thinking and constructionism, however, further validation is needed to establish its usefulness. Despite a small number of activities (n = 21) being analysed with our mapping tool, our preliminary results showed several interesting findings. Firstly, that learner autonomy was low for defining the problem and developing their own design. Secondly that the activity type (such as lesson plan rather than online activity) or artefact created (such as physical artefact rather than onscreen activity or unplugged activity), rather than the computational thinking or computer science concept being taught was related to learner autonomy. This provides some tentative evidence, which may seem obvious, that the learning context rather than the learning content is related to degree of constructionism of an activity and that computational thinking per se may not be related to constructionism. However, further work is needed on a larger number of activities to verify and validate this suggestion.