Assessing computational thinking: an overview of the field
Assessing computational thinking: an overview of the field
复制标题
评估计算思维：该领域概述
DOI：
10.1080/08993408.2021.1918380
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
McGee, Steven
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Weintrop, David;Wise Rutstein, Daisy;Bienkowski, Marie;McGee, Steven
在过去的十年中，计算思维（CT）在教育环境中的存在迅速增长。那些致力于推进CT的人认为，与CT相关的概念和技能对于在日益计算化的世界中取得成功至关重要。由于这些努力，CT在K-12教室和其他地方的存在越来越多。这可以在学科标准（例如下一代科学标准和共同核心数学将CT确定为核心实践）中包含CT，以及国家课程的努力（例如英国的国家计算课程旨在让学生“发展和应用他们的分析，解决问题，设计和计算思维技能”）。正如计算机技术在正规教育中的影响力越来越大一样，它也可以通过计算机营地的增长，课后和图书馆的计算机技术编程以及越来越多的旨在吸引年轻人参与计算机技术的玩具而在非正式环境中看到。当代关于计算机技术的讨论始于Wing（2006）的文章，她认为“除了阅读、写作和算术之外，我们应该在每个孩子的分析能力中加入计算思维”（第33页）。然而，概念的起源有着更长的历史，可以追溯到Logo编程语言的早期工作和Papert对计算作为强大的学习环境的潜力的见解（1980）。为了回应Wing的文章，许多努力都致力于试图定义CT的构成以及构造的边界在哪里。虽然社区尚未确定一个统一的定义，但普遍的共识是CT包括基础计算概念，如抽象和算法，以及计算实践，如问题分解和调试（Grover & Pea，2013; Shute et al.，2017年）。随着围绕CT的范围和性质的早期辩论尘埃落定，越来越多的研究项目寻求设计CT学习体验。在计算和其他学科交叉的教育项目的资金增加的部分刺激下，CT特别适合做出贡献的空间，过去十年在课程，学习环境和CT教育创新方面取得了巨大的增长（Tang等人，2020年）。在这种增长之后，这个特别的问题试图回答一个越来越重要的问题：我们如何评估计算思维？这不是一个简单的问题，因为CT的几个方面使得评估具有挑战性。例如，有各种各样的方法，其中CT是教和学生学习CT的背景。虽然有些学校提供独立的CT学习经验，其他学校可能会尝试将CT融入当前的主题。此外，如上所述，CT是相对不明确的结构，因此，不同的评估可能集中在CT的略微不同的维度上。总的来说，这产生了一个景观，需要各种评估，以反映不同的概念，上下文和动机方面的CT教学。
The last decade has seen rapid growth in the presence of computational thinking (CT) in educational contexts. Those working to advance CT argue that the concepts and skills associated with CT are essential to succeed in an increasingly computational world. As a result of these efforts, CT has a growing presence in K-12 classrooms and beyond. This can be seen in the inclusion of CT in disciplinary standards (eg the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core Math identifying CT as a core practice), as well as national curricular efforts (eg the United Kingdom’s national computing curriculum seeks to have students “develop and apply their analytic, problem-solving, design, and computational thinking skills”). Just as CT has a growing presence in formal education, it can also be seen in informal contexts through the growth of computing camps, after-school and library CT programming, and a growing array of toys designed to engage youth with CT. The contemporary discussion around CT began with Wing’s (2006) article, where she argued “to reading, writing, and arithmetic, we should add computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability”(p. 33). However, the conceptual origins have a much longer history, dating back to early work on the Logo programming language and Papert’s insights on the potential of computing as a powerful context for learning (1980). In response to Wing’s article, much effort has been dedicated to trying to define what constitutes CT and where the boundaries of the construct lie. While the community has yet to settle on a single unified definition, there is general consensus that CT includes foundational computing concepts such as abstraction and algorithms, as well as computing practices such as problem decomposition and debugging (Grover & Pea, 2013; Shute et al., 2017). As the dust started to settle from early debates around the scope and nature of CT, a growing number of research projects sought to design CT learning experiences. Spurred in part by an increase in funding for educational projects at the intersection of computing and other disciplines, a space in which CT is particularly well-suited to contribute, the last decade has seen tremendous growth in curricula, learning environments, and innovations around CT education (Tang et al., 2020). In the wake of this growth, this special issue seeks to respond to a question of growing importance: How do we assess computational thinking?This is not a straightforward question to answer as several aspects of CT make it challenging to assess. For example, there is a wide variety of methods by which CT is taught and contexts in which students learn CT. While some schools offer stand-alone CT learning experiences, other schools may try to integrate CT within current subject matters. Further, as discussed above, CT is a relatively ill-defined construct, thus, different assessments may focus on slightly different dimensions of CT. Collectively, this produces a landscape where a variety of assessments are needed to reflect the different conceptual, contextual, and motivational aspects of CT instruction.
影响因子：
11.7
作者：
Shute, V. J.;Sun, C.;Asbell-Clarke, J.
通讯作者：
Asbell-Clarke, J.