Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms | Journal of Science Education and Technology
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science and mathematics are becoming computational endeavors. This fact is reflected in the recently released Next Generation Science Standards and the decision to include “computational thinking” as a core scientific practice. With this addition, and the increased presence of computation in mathematics and scientific contexts, a new urgency has come to the challenge of defining computational thinking and providing a theoretical grounding for what form it should take in school science and mathematics classrooms. This paper presents a response to this challenge by proposing a definition of computational thinking for mathematics and science in the form of a taxonomy consisting of four main categories: data practices, modeling and simulation practices, computational problem solving practices, and systems thinking practices. In formulating this taxonomy, we draw on the existing computational thinking literature, interviews with mathematicians and scientists, and exemplary computational thinking instructional materials. This work was undertaken as part of a larger effort to infuse computational thinking into high school science and mathematics curricular materials. In this paper, we argue for the approach of embedding computational thinking in mathematics and science contexts, present the taxonomy, and discuss how we envision the taxonomy being used to bring current educational efforts in line with the increasingly computational nature of modern science and mathematics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. https://gk12northwestern.wikispaces.com/Lesson+Plans.

  2. https://gk12northwestern.wikispaces.com/Roller+Coaster+Activity.

  3. By infographic, we mean a visual abstraction that communicates information. It includes conventional formats such as graphs, charts, and maps, but also includes interactive, dynamic visualizations designed with the express goal of communicating information to the viewer.

  4. Additional information on the lesson plans, including materials and software, can be found at http://ct-stem.northwestern.edu

References

  • Abrahamson D, Wilensky U (2005) ProbLab goes to school: design, teaching, and learning of probability with multi-agent interactive computer models. In: Proceedings of the fourth conference of the European Society for research in mathematics education. San Feliu de Gixols

  • Abrahamson D, Janusz RM, Wilensky U (2006) There once was a 9-block: a middle-school design for probability and statistics. J Stat Educ 14(1). http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v14n1/abrahamson.html

  • Adams WK, Reid S, LeMaster R, McKagan SB, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Wieman CE (2008a) A study of educational simulations part I: engagement and Learning. J Interact Learn Res 19(3):367–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams WK, Reid S, LeMaster R, McKagan SB, Perkins KK, Dubson M, Wieman CE (2008b) A study of educational simulations part II: interface design. J Interact Learn Res 19(4):551–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MP, Srolovitz DJ, Grest GS, Sahni PS (1984) Computer simulation of grain growth—I: kinetics. Acta Metall 32(5):783–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assaraf OB-Z, Orion N (2005) Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. J Res Sci Teach 42(5):518–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astrachan O, Briggs A (2012) The CS principles project. CM Inroads 3(2):38–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augustine NR (2005) Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey D, Borwein JM (2011) Exploratory experimentation and computation. Not Am Math Soc 58(10):1410–1419

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab S, Thomas M, Dodge T, Carteaux R, Tuzun H (2005) Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educ Technol Res Dev 53(1):86–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr V, 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Yam Y (2003) Dynamics of complex systems. Perseus Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Beheshti E, Weintrop D, Horn MS, Orton K, Jona K, Wilensky U (In Preparation) Computational thinking in the wild: how scientists and mathematicians use computational thinking in their work.

  • Blikstein P (2013) Digital fabrication and “making” in education: the democratization of invention. In: Walter-Herrmann J, Büching C (eds) FabLabs: of machines, makers and inventors, Transcript Publishers, Bielefeld, pp 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein P, Wilensky U (2009) An atom is known by the company it keeps: a constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. Int J Comput Math Learn 14(2):81–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borner K (2015) Atlas of knowledge: anyone can map. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Box GE, Draper NR (1987) Empirical model-building and response surfaces. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady C, Holbert N, Soylu F, Novak M, Wilensky U (2015) Sandboxes for model-based inquiry. J Sci Educ Technol 24(2):265–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown D (2013) Tracker: video analysis and modeling tool (Version 4.82). http://www.cabrillo.edu/~dbrown/tracker

  • Brennan K, Resnick M (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Presented at the American Education Researcher Association, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Bryan J (2006) Technology for physics instruction. Contemp Issues Technol Teach Educ 6(2):230

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley BC, Gobert JD, Kindfield ACH, Horwitz P, Tinker RF, Gerlits B et al (2004) Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogicaTM: what do they learn? how do they learn? how do we know? J Sci Educ Technol 13(1):23–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buechley L, Eisenberg M, Catchen J, Crockett A (2008) The LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 423–432

  • Chinn CA, Malhotra BA (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 86(2):175–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements DH, Gullo DF (1984) Effects of computer programming on young children’s cognition. J Educ Psychol 76(6):1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Computer Science Teachers Association (2011) K-12 computer science standards. http://csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/K12Standards.html

  • Confrey J (1993) The role of technology in reconceptualizing functions and algebra. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Asilomar

  • Cooper S, Dann W, Pausch R (2000) Alice: a 3-D tool for introductory programming concepts. J Comput Sci Coll 15(5):107–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra HA (2013) Nonlinear climate dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa AA (2000) Changing minds: computers, learning, and literacy. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • diSessa AA (2004) Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cogn Instr 22(3):293–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll DP (2013) Technology and engineering literacy framework for the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress. US Department of Education, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl RA, Bismack AS (2013) Standards for science education: quantitative reasoning and modeling concepts. In: Duschl RA, Bismack AS (eds) Reconceptualizing STEM education: the central role of practices. University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl RA, Schweingruber HA, Shouse AW (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson DC, Gordin DN, Pea RD (1999) Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. J Learn Sci 8(3/4):391–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg M (2002) Output devices, computation, and the future of mathematical crafts. Int J Comput Math Learn 7(1):1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein J, Axtell R (1996) Growing artifical societies: social science from the bottom up. Brookings Institution Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Feurzeig W, Papert S, Lawler B (2011) Programming-languages as a conceptual framework for teaching mathematics. Interact Learn Environ 19(5):487–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finzer W, Erickson T, Binker J (2001) Fathom [computer software]. KCP Technologies, Emeryville

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JW (1968) Principles of systems. Pegasus Communications, Waltham, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster I (2006) 2020 computing: a two-way street to science’s future. Nature 440(7083):419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furber S (2012) Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. Technical report, The Royal Society, London

  • Gardner DP (1983) A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert JK (2004) Models and modelling: routes to more authentic science education. Int J Sci Math Educ 2(2):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone RL, Wilensky U (2008) Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. J Learn Sci 17(4):465–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Google: Exploring Computational Thinking. (n.d.). Retrieved 25 Oct 2010. http://www.google.com/edu/computational-thinking/index.html

  • Grimm Volker, Revilla Eloy, Berger Uta, Jeltsch Florian, Mooij Wolf M, Railsback Steven F, Thulke Hans-Hermann, Weiner Jacob, Wiegand Thorsten, DeAngelis Donald L (2005) Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science 310:987–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover S, Pea R (2013) Computational thinking in K-12: a review of the state of the field. Educ Res 42(1):38–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial M (1994) Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interact Learn Environ 4(1):001–044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial M (2008) Paving the way for computational thinking. Commun ACM 51(8):25–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzdial M, Soloway E (2003) Computer science is more important than calculus: the challenge of living up to our potential. SIGCSE Bull 35(2):5–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrusch S, Hoffmann C, Korb JT, Haugan M, Hosking AL (2009) A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In: ACM SIGCSE bulletin, vol 41, pp 183–187

  • Hancock C, Kaput JJ, Goldsmith LT (1992) Authentic inquiry with data: critical barriers to classroom implementation. Educ Psychol 27(3):337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison AG, Treagust DF (2000) A typology of school science models. Int J Sci Educ 22(9):1011–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson PB, Cortina TJ, Wing JM (2007) Computational thinking. In: ACM SIGCSE bulletin, vol 39. ACM, pp 195–196

  • Hmelo CE, Holton DL, Kolodner JL (2000) Designing to learn about complex systems. J Learn Sci 9(3):247–298. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn MS, Brady C, Hjorth A, Wagh A, Wilensky U (2014) Frog pond: a code-first learning environment on evolution and natural selection. ACM Press, New York, pp 357–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz P, Schwartz J, Kindfield ACH, Yessis LM, Hickey DT, Heidenberg A, Wolfe EW (1998) Implementation and evaluation of the GenScope™ learning environment: issues, solutions, and results. In: Guzdial M, Kolodner J, Bruckman A (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd annual international conference of the learning sciences. Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education, Charlottesville

  • Jackson SL, Stratford SJ, Krajcik J, Soloway E (1994) Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interact Learn Environ 4(3):233–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson MJ, Wilensky U (2006) Complex systems in education: scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. J Learn Sci 15(1):11–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jona K, Vondracek M (2013) A remote radioactivity experiment. Phys Teach 51(1):25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jona K, Wilensky U, Trouille L, Horn MS, Orton K, Weintrop D, Beheshti E (2014) Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Presented at the Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting, Orlando

  • Kaput JJ (1998) Representations, inscriptions, descriptions and learning: a kaleidoscope of windows. J Math Behav 17(2):265–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay A, Goldberg A (1977) Personal dynamic media. Computer 10(3):31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeling MJ, Grenfell BT (1997) Disease extinction and community size: modeling the persistence of measles. Sci 275(5296):65–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer E (2003) Technologies to support the creation of complex systems models: using StarLogo software with students. Biosystems 71(1–2):111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn W (2003) Nobel lectures, chemistry 1996–2000. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 213

    Google Scholar 

  • Konold C, Miller CD (2005) TinkerPlots: dynamic data exploration. Computer software. Key Curriculum Press, Emeryville, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lander ES, Schork NJ (1994) Genetic dissection of complex traits. Sci 265(5181):2037–2048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laszlo E (1996) The systems view of the world: a holistic vision for our time, 2nd edn. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer R, Giles N, Schauble L (2002) Data modeling. In: Lehrer R, Schauble L (eds) Investigating real data in the classroom: expanding children’s understanding of mathematics and science. Teachers College Press, New York, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer R, Romberg T (1996) Exploring children’s data modeling. Cognition Instruct 14(1):69–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco J, Olson AM, Brubaker LB, Carpenter SR, Holland MM, Hubbell SP et al (1991) The sustainable biosphere initiative: an ecological research agenda: a report from the Ecological Society of America. Ecology 72(2):371–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer R, Schauble L (2006) Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 371–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy ST, Wilensky U (2008) Inventing a “Mid Level” to make ends meet: reasoning between the levels of complexity. Cogn Instr 26(1):1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy ST, Wilensky U (2009) Crossing levels and representations: the connected chemistry (CC1) curriculum. J Sci Educ Technol 18(3):224–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CC, Zhang M, Beck B, Olsen G (2009) Embedding computer science concepts in K-12 science curricula. In: Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 539–543

  • Linn MC, Clark D, Slotta JD (2003) WISE design for knowledge integration. Sci Educ 87(4):517–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louca LT, Zacharia ZC (2012) Modeling-based learning in science education: cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educ Rev 64(4):471–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manabe S, Stouffer RJ (1988) Two stable equilibria of a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. J Clim 1:841–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis J (2008) Stuck in the shallow end: education, race, and computing. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis J, Fisher A (2003) Unlocking the clubhouse: women in computing. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010) Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2007) Taking science to school: learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2010) Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2011a) Learning science through computer games and simulations. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2011b) Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012a) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012b) Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012c) Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving, vol 104. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen LF, Schaffer WM (1990) Chaos versus noisy periodicity: alternative hypotheses for childhood epidemics. Sci 249(4968):499–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palumbo DB (1990) Programming language/problem solving research: a review of relevant issues. Rev Educ Res 60(1):65–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert S (1972) Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 3(3):249–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert S (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert S (1996) An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. Int J Comput Math Learn 1(1):138–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnafes O (2007) What does “fast” mean? understanding the physical world through computational representations. J Learn Sci 16(3):415–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner DE (2000) Cognition, computers, and synthetic science: building knowledge and meaning through modeling. Rev Res Educ 25:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins K, Adams W, Dubson M, Finkelstein N, Reid S, Wieman C, LeMaster R (2006) PhET: interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. Phys Teach 44(1):18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlis A (1962) The computer in the university. In: Greenberger M (ed) Computers and the world of the future. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 180–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Pople J (2003) Nobel lectures, chemistry 1996–2000. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 246

    Google Scholar 

  • Redish EF, Wilson JM (1993) Student programming in the introductory physics course: mUPPET. Am J Phys 61:222–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repenning A, Webb D, Ioannidou A (2010) Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on computer science education. pp 265–269

  • Resnick M, Silverman B, Kafai Y, Maloney J, Monroy-Hernández A, Rusk N et al (2009) Scratch: programming for all. Commun ACM 52(11):60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond B, Peterson S, Vescuso P, Maville N (1987) An Academic user’s guide to Stella Software. High Performance Systems, Inc, Lyme, NH

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle J, Kaput J, Stroup W (2000) SimCalc: accelerating student engagement with the mathematics of change. In: Learning the sciences of the 21st century: research, design, and implementing advanced technology learning environments. pp 47–75

  • Rubin A, Nemirovsky R (1991) Cars, computers, and air pumps: thoughts on the roles of physical and computer models in learning the central concepts of calculus. In Underhill RG (ed) Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematics Education—North American Chapter Conference, Virginia, pp 168–174

  • Ryoo JJ, Margolis J, Lee CH, Sandoval CD, Goode J (2013) Democratizing computer science knowledge: transforming the face of computer science through public high school education. Learn Media Technol 38(2):161–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz CV, Meyer K, Sharma A (2007) Technology, pedagogy, and epistemology: opportunities and challenges of using computer modeling and simulation tools in elementary science methods. J Sci Teach Educ 18(2):243–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta P, Kinnebrew JS, Basu S, Biswas G, Clark D (2013) Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: a theoretical framework. Educ Inf Technol 18(2):351–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settle A, Franke B, Hansen R, Spaltro F, Jurisson C, Rennert-May C, Wildeman B (2012) Infusing computational thinking into the middle- and high-school curriculum. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 22–27

  • Settle A, Goldberg DS, Barr V (2013) Beyond computer science: computational thinking across disciplines. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, pp 311–312

  • Shaughnessy JM (2007) Research on statistics learning. In: Lester FK (ed) Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, pp 957–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin BL (2001) A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. Int J Comput Math Learn 6(1):1–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin BL, diSessa AA, Hammer D (1993) Dynaturtle revisited: learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interact Learn Environ 3(2):91–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srolovitz DJ, Anderson MP, Sahni PS, Grest GS (1984) Computer simulation of grain growth—II: grain size distribution, topology, and local dynamics. Acta Metall 32(5):793–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieff M, Wilensky U (2003) Connected chemistry: incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. J Sci Educ Technol 12(3):285–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taub R, Armoni M, Bagno E, Ben-Ari M (2015) The effect of computer science on physics learning in a computational science environment. Comput Educ 87:10–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinker RF, Xie Q (2008) Applying computational science to education: the molecular workbench paradigm. Comput Sci Eng 10(5):24–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turelli M, Barton NH (1994) Genetic and statistical analyses of strong selection on polygenic traits: what, me normal? Genetics 138(3):913–941

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogelsberger M, Genel S, Springel V, Torrey P, Sijacki D, Xu D et al (2014) Introducing the illustris project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe. Mon Not R Astron Soc 444(2):1518–1547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann J (1955) Method in the physical sciences. In: Bródy F, Vámos T (eds) The Neumann compendium: world series in 20th century mathematics, vol 1. World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, p 628

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagh A, Wilensky U (2014) Seeing patterns of change: supporting student noticing in building models of natural selection. In: Proceedings of 2014 constructionism. Vienna, 19–23 Aug

  • Weintrop D, Wilensky U (2013) RoboBuilder: a computational thinking game. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education. ACM, Denver, pp 736–736

  • White BY (1993) ThinkerTools: causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cogn Instr 10(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White BY, Frederiksen JR (1998) Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students. Cogn Instr 16(1):3–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U (1995) Paradox, programming, and learning probability: a case study in a connected mathematics framework. J Math Behav 14(2):253–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U (1997) What is normal anyway? therapy for epistemological anxiety. Educ Stud Math 33(2):171–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U (1999a) GasLab: an extensible modeling toolkit for exploring statistical mechanics. In: Roberts N, Feurzeig W, Hunter B (eds) Computer modeling and simulation in science education. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–178

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U (1999b) NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo

  • Wilensky U (2001) Modeling nature’s emergent patterns with multi-agent languages. In: Proceedings of EuroLogo. Linz, pp 1–6

  • Wilensky U (2003) Statistical mechanics for secondary school: the GasLab multi-agent modeling toolkit. Int J Comput Math Learn 8(1):1–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U, Novak M (2010) Teaching and learning evolution as an emergent process: the BEAGLE project. In: Taylor R, Ferrari M (eds) Epistemology and science education: understanding the evolution versus intelligent design controversy. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U, Papert S (2010) Restructurations: reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. In: Clayson J, Kalas I (eds) Proceedings of the constructionism 2010 conference. Paris. 10–14 Aug, p 97

  • Wilensky U, Rand W (2015) An introduction to agent-based modeling: modeling natural, social and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U, Reisman K (2006) Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cogn Instr 24(2):171–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U, Resnick M (1999) Thinking in levels: a dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. J Sci Educ Technol 8(1):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U, Brady C, Horn M (2014) Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Commun ACM 57(8):17–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde MH (2014) Construction, categorization, and consensus: student generated computational artifacts as a context for disciplinary reflection. Educ Technol Res Dev 62(1):99–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde MH, Wilensky U (2015) Patterns, probabilities, and people: making sense of quantitative change in complex systems. J Learn Sci 24(2):204–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkerson-Jerde MH, Gravel BE, Macrander CA (2015) Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. J Sci Educ Technol 24(2–3):396–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing JM (2006) Computational thinking. Commun ACM 49(3):33–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram S (2002) A new kind of science, 1st edn. Wolfram Media, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav A, Zhou N, Mayfield C, Hambrusch S, Korb JT (2011) Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In: Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, ACM, pp 465–470

  • Zuckerman O, Resnick M (2003) System blocks: a physical interface for system dynamics learning. In: Proceedings of the 21st international system dynamics conference. Citeseer, pp 810–811.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF Grant CNS-1138461. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations are those of the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    David Weintrop, Michael Horn, Kai Orton & Uri Wilensky

  2. Learning Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    David Weintrop, Michael Horn, Kai Orton, Kemi Jona & Uri Wilensky

  3. Computer Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    Elham Beheshti, Michael Horn, Kemi Jona & Uri Wilensky

  4. Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    Uri Wilensky

  5. The Adler Planetarium, Chicago, IL, 60605, USA

    Laura Trouille

  6. Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA), Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, 60208, USA

    Laura Trouille

Authors
  1. David Weintrop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elham Beheshti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Horn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kai Orton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kemi Jona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura Trouille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Uri Wilensky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Weintrop.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M. et al. Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms. J Sci Educ Technol 25, 127–147 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation