Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 137
A
Workshop Agenda
PEDAGOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF COMPUTATIONAL THINKING
KECK CENTER, NATIONAL ACADEMIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.
February 4, 2010
8:30 AM-8:45 AM Welcome
Marcia Linn, University of California, Berkeley,
Committee Chair
Jeannette M. Wing, National Science Foundation
8:45 AM-10:15 AM Panel 1—Computational Thinking and
Scientific Visualization
• hat are the relevant lessons learned and
W
best practices for improving computational
thinking in K-12 education?
• hat are examples of computational
W
thinking and how, if at all, does
computational thinking vary by discipline at
the K-12 level?
• hat exposures and experiences contribute
W
to developing computational thinking in the
disciplines?
• ow do computers and programming fit into
H
computational thinking?
137
OCR for page 138
138 PEDAGOGICAL ASPECTS OF COMPUTATIONAL THINKING
• hat are plausible paths and activities for
W
teaching the most important computational
thinking concepts?
Presenters:
Robert Tinker, The Concord Consortium
Mitch Resnick, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
John Jungck, Beloit College, BioQUEST
Idit Caperton, World Wide Workshop
Committee respondent: Uri Wilensky
10:15 AM-10:45 AM Break
10:45 AM-12:00 PM Panel 2—Computational Thinking and
Technology
• hat are the relevant lessons learned and
W
best practices for improving computational
thinking in K-12 education?
• hat are examples of computational
W
thinking and how, if at all, does
computational thinking vary by discipline at
the K-12 level?
• hat exposures and experiences contribute
W
to developing computational thinking in the
disciplines?
• ow do computers and programming fit into
H
computational thinking?
• hat are plausible paths and activities for
W
teaching the most important computational
thinking concepts?
Presenters:
Robert Panoff, Shodor Education Foundation
Stephen Uzzo, New York Hall of Science
Jill Denner, Education, Training, Research
Associates
Committee respondent: Yasmin Kafai
OCR for page 139
139
APPENDIX A
12:00 PM-1:15 PM Working Lunch—Lou Gross, University of
Tennessee (via teleconference)
1:15 PM-2:45 PM Panel 3—Computational Thinking in
Engineering and Computer Science
• hat are the relevant lessons learned and
W
best practices for improving computational
thinking in K-12 education?
• hat are examples of computational
W
thinking and how, if at all, does
computational thinking vary by discipline at
the K-12 level?
• hat exposures and experiences contribute
W
to developing computational thinking in the
disciplines?
• ow do computers and programming fit into
H
computational thinking?
• hat are plausible paths and activities for
W
teaching the most important computational
thinking concepts?
Presenters:
Christine Cunningham, Museum of Science,
Engineering is Elementary Project
Taylor Martin, University of Texas at Austin
Ursula Wolz, College of New Jersey
Peter Henderson, Butler University
Committee respondent: Marcia Linn
2:45 PM-3:00 PM Break
3:00 PM-4:30 PM Panel 4—Teaching and Learning
Computational Thinking
• hat is the role of computational thinking in
W
formal and informal educational contexts of
K-12 education?
• hat are some innovative environments for
W
teaching computational thinking?
• s there a progression of computational
I
thinking concepts in K-12 education?
OCR for page 140
140 PEDAGOGICAL ASPECTS OF COMPUTATIONAL THINKING
What are criteria by which to order such
a progression? What is the appropriate
progression?
• hat are plausible paths to teaching the
W
most important computational thinking
concepts?
• ow do cognitive learning theory and
H
education theory guide the design of
instruction intended to foster computational
thinking?
Presenters:
Deanna Kuhn, Columbia University
Matthew Stone, Rutgers University
Jim Slotta, University of Toronto
Joyce Malyn-Smith, Education Development
Center, Inc.
Committee respondent: Al Aho
4:30 PM-4:45 PM Break
4:45 PM-5:00 PM Open Discussion
Moderator: Herb Lin, CSTB Staff
5:00 PM-5:25 PM Special Session—Update from Jan Cuny
Jan Cuny, National Science Foundation
5:25 PM-5:30 PM Wrap-up
5:30 Adjourn Day One Public Sessions
February 5, 2010
8:30 AM-8:45AM Welcome and Housekeeping
Marcia Linn, University of California, Berkeley,
Committee Chair
8:45 AM-10:00 AM Panel 5—Report-back on Homework
Assignments
Committee respondent: Brian Blake
OCR for page 141
141
APPENDIX A
10:00 AM-10:15 AM Break
10:15 AM-11:45 AM Panel 6—Educating the Educators
• hat are our goals for teachers and
W
educators to bring computational thinking
into classrooms effectively? What milestones
do we hope to reach in computational
thinking education?
• ow should training efforts, support, and
H
engagement be adapted to the varying
experience levels of teachers such as pre-
service, inducted, and in-service levels?
• hat approaches for computational thinking
W
education are most effective for educators
teaching at the primary versus middle school
versus secondary level? What methods might
best serve the generalist teaching approach
(multisubject/multidiscipline)? What
methods might best serve subject specialists?
• ow does computational thinking education
H
connect with other subjects? Should
computational thinking be integrated into
other subjects taught in the classroom?
• hat tools are available to support teachers
W
as they teach computational thinking? What
needs to be developed?
Participants:
Michelle Williams, Michigan State University
Walter Allan, Foundation for Blood Research,
EcoScienceWorks Project
Jeri Erickson, Foundation for Blood Research,
EcoScienceWorks Project
Danny Edelson, National Geographic Society
Committee respondent: Larry Snyder
11:45 AM-12:45 PM Working Lunch
12:45 PM-2:15 PM Panel 7—Measuring Outcomes (for
OCR for page 142
142 PEDAGOGICAL ASPECTS OF COMPUTATIONAL THINKING
Evaluation) and Collecting Feedback (for
Assessment)
• ow can learning of computational thinking
H
be assessed?
• hat tools are needed to assess learning
W
of computational thinking knowledge and
capabilities? Which are available? What
needs to be developed?
• hat roles should embedded assessments
W
play? What other assessments are needed?
• ow can capabilities and skills of individuals
H
be assessed when students are working
collaboratively?
• ow should the education community
H
measure the success of its efforts? How can
we compare the strengths and weaknesses of
different efforts?
• hat can be learned from efforts currently
W
underway, and from efforts in our country
and in other countries?
Participants:
Paulo Blikstein, Stanford University
Christina Schwarz, Michigan State University
Mike Clancy, University of California Berkeley
Derek Briggs, University of Colorado, Boulder
Cathy Lachapelle, Museum of Science,
Engineering is Elementary Project
Committee respondent: Janet Kolodner
2:30 PM-4:00 PM Discussion and Wrap-up
• ommittee members summarize their
C
individual reactions
• loor thrown open to other workshop
F
participants for discussion
4:00 PM Adjourn
