Heather Bort and Dennis Brylow SIGCSE 2013

1. CS4Impact: Measuring Computational Thinking Concepts Present in CS4HS Participant Lesson Plans Heather Bort and Dennis Brylow SIGCSE 2013

2. Outline • Problem • Solution • Workshop Structure • Rubric • Results • Future Work

3. The Problem • Many current K-12 outreach efforts attempt to increase the number of students interested in majoring in computer science and related fields • Assessing these efforts has proven to be challenging • Most prior work on examining the impact of professional development interventions for K-12 CS teachers stops with indirect measures

4. Indirect vs Direct • Measuring Knowledge • Before and After workshop attitudinal survey (indirect) • Concept Quiz (direct) • Measuring Concept Integration • Surveying attitudes about using the concepts in their classrooms (indirect) • Ability to integrate workshop material into lesson plans for the classroom (direct)

5. Measuring Impact • Workshop structured around Computational Thinking (CT) lesson plan building and sharing • Designed a rubric to measure how CT concepts were used in the lesson plans • Applied the rubric during the sharing phase of the workshop

6. Workshop Structure

7. Data Collection • Each participant presented their lesson plan to the group • Presentations were video taped for later analysis • 4 hours video data with full text of written plans coded with rubric

8. Rubric • Computational Thinking Concepts • Level of Inquiry

9. Computational Thinking • Jeannette Wing states that computational thinking “represents a universally applicable attitude and skill set everyone, not just computer scientists, would be eager to learn and use” • a problem solving method that uses algorithmic processes and abstraction to arrive at a answer • showcase concepts over programming skill or computational tools in the classroom

10. Computational Thinking Concepts • Data Collection • Data Analysis • Data Representation • Problem Decomposition • Abstraction • Algorithms & Procedures • Automation • Simulation • Parallelization

11. Why Inquiry based learning? • We learn by inquiry from birth • Important skill set • Central to science learning • Right answer versus appropriate resolution

12. Traditional Approach to Learning • Focused on mastery of content • Teacher centered • Teacher dispenses “what is known” • Students are receivers of information • Assessment is focused on the importance of “one right answer”

13. Inquiry Approach to Learning • Focused on using and learning content to develop information processing and problem solving skills. • More student centered • Teacher is the facilitator of learning • More emphasis on “how we come to know” • Students are involved in the construction of knowledge

14. Sage on the Stage Versus Guide on the Side

15. Levels of Inquiry

16. 5 Characteristics Of Inquiry Based Learning

17. 1. Bloom’s taxonomy • Inquiry based learning asks questions that come from the higher levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy

19. 2. Asks questions that motivate • Inquiry based learning involves questions that are interesting and motivating to students

20. Types of questions • Inference • Interpretation • Transfer • About hypotheses • Reflective

21. 3. Utilizes wide variety of resources • Inquiry based learning utilizes a wide variety of resources so students can gather information and form opinions.

22. 4. Teacher as facilitator • Teachers play a new role as guide or facilitator

23. 5. Meaningful products come out of inquiry based learning • Students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks.

24. Inquiry based learning in Computer science • Cooperative Learning • Teamwork • Collaboration • Project-oriented learning • Authentic Focus

25. Rubric

26. Rubric

27. Results

28. What We Learned • Many of the participants did not effectively integrate the CT core concepts into their lessons • A large number of lesson plans scored 0 in some sections of the rubric

29. What We Learned • Among the experienced CS teachers, some are firmly entrenched in a pedagogical style that still emphasizes conveying facts and programming language syntax, not in focusing on skill building • Large number of participants were able to produce lesson plans with level 1 or level 2 components, sometimes in multiple core areas.

30. Follow Up • One third of participants volunteered feedback for six month follow up survey. • All but one respondent has been incorporating concepts from the workshop in their classrooms

31. Moving Forward • Link CS4HS content to Common Core Standards • Better lesson plan development and assessment • Continued multi track structure

32. Our Thanks To: • Google • Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction • The Leadership of the Wisconsin Dairyland CSTA • The many teachers that participated