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 • What are the relevant lessons learned and best practices for improving computational thinking in K-12 education? • What are examples of computational thinking and how, if at all, does computational thinking vary by discipline at the K-12 level? • What exposures and experiences contribute to developing computational thinking in the disciplines? • How do computers and programming fit into computational thinking? |
|
• What are plausible paths and activities for 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 |
|
• What are the relevant lessons learned and best practices for improving computational thinking in K-12 education? • What are examples of computational thinking and how, if at all, does computational thinking vary by discipline at the K-12 level? • What exposures and experiences contribute to developing computational thinking in the disciplines? • How do computers and programming fit into computational thinking? • What are plausible paths and activities for 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 |
|
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 |
|
• What are the relevant lessons learned and best practices for improving computational thinking in K-12 education? • What are examples of computational thinking and how, if at all, does computational thinking vary by discipline at the K-12 level? • What exposures and experiences contribute to developing computational thinking in the disciplines? • How do computers and programming fit into computational thinking? • What are plausible paths and activities for 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 |
|
• What is the role of computational thinking in formal and informal educational contexts of K-12 education? • What are some innovative environments for teaching computational thinking? • Is there a progression of computational thinking concepts in K-12 education? |
|
What are criteria by which to order such a progression? What is the appropriate progression? • What are plausible paths to teaching the most important computational thinking concepts? • How do cognitive learning theory and 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 |
|
10:00 AM-10:15 AM |
Break |
|
10:15 AM-11:45 AM |
Panel 6—Educating the Educators |
|
• What are our goals for teachers and educators to bring computational thinking into classrooms effectively? What milestones do we hope to reach in computational thinking education? • How should training efforts, support, and engagement be adapted to the varying experience levels of teachers such as pre-service, inducted, and in-service levels? • What approaches for computational thinking 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? • How does computational thinking education connect with other subjects? Should computational thinking be integrated into other subjects taught in the classroom? • What tools are available to support teachers 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 |
|
Evaluation) and Collecting Feedback (for Assessment) |
|
|
• How can learning of computational thinking be assessed? • What tools are needed to assess learning of computational thinking knowledge and capabilities? Which are available? What needs to be developed? • What roles should embedded assessments play? What other assessments are needed? • How can capabilities and skills of individuals be assessed when students are working collaboratively? • How should the education community measure the success of its efforts? How can we compare the strengths and weaknesses of different efforts? • What can be learned from efforts currently 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 |
|
• Committee members summarize their individual reactions • Floor thrown open to other workshop participants for discussion |
|
|
4:00 PM |
Adjourn |
