Students’ Computational Thinking Skills In Physics Learning: A Case study of Kinematic Concepts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12928/irip.v6i1.6464Keywords:
Computational thinking, Physics learning, Problem-solving, 21st-century learningAbstract
Physics learning provides a context for future careers in fostering ability in high-end logic with the 21st learning goals. Applying computational thinking in schools is challenging and requires systemic transformation and teacher attention. This study aims to investigate the computational thinking of students in physics learning. This study used exploratory qualitative research. Data were gathered through observation, interviews, and portfolio documents. The data are analyzed through six stages: preparing and organizing, exploring, building descriptions, representing the findings, interpreting the results, and validating the accuracy. The result indicated four primary computational thinking skills: decomposition, abstraction, simulation, and evaluation. The computational thinking skills in physics learning can develop students’ understanding and implementation of physics concepts based on data, not just mathematical formulas. Computational thinking in physics learning gives students the opportunity and space to explore and develop their ideas and logical reasoning more deeply in problem-defining, solutions, and evaluation. Students use their logical reasoning to solve the problem precisely. This study is expected to be used as a basis and support for physics teachers to integrate computational thinking into their learning classroom.
References
T. Palts and M. Pedaste, “A Model for Developing Computational Thinking Skills,” Informatics Educ., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 113–128, 2020, https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2020.06.
M. H. Lee, C. S. Chai, and H. Y. Hong, “STEM Education in Asia Pacific: Challenges and Development,” Asia-Pacific Educ. Res., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-018-0424-z.
N. Hutchins et al., “Studying Synergistic Learning of Physics and Computational Thinking in A Learning by Modeling Environment,” ICCE 2018 - 26th Int. Conf. Comput. Educ. Main Conf. Proc., no. November, pp. 153–162, 2018.
D. Barr, J. Harrison, and L. Conery, “Computational Thinking: A Digital Age Skill for Everyone.,” Learn. Lead. with Technol., vol. 38, no. 6, p. 2023, 2011.
X. C. Wang, Y. Choi, K. Benson, C. Eggleston, and D. Weber, “Teacher’s Role in Fostering Preschoolers’ Computational Thinking: An Exploratory Case Study,” Early Educ. Dev., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 26–48, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1759012.
J. J. G. van Merriënboer, “Perspectives on Problem Solving and Instruction,” Comput. Educ., vol. 64, pp. 153–160, May 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.025.
D. Weintrop et al., “Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 127–147, Feb. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5.
P. Sonnleitner, M. Brunner, U. Keller, and R. Martin, “Differential Relations Between Facets of Complex Problem Solving and Students’ Immigration Background,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 681–695, Feb. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035506.
N. D. Saidin, F. Khalid, R. Martin, Y. Kuppusamy, and N. A. P. Munusamy, “Benefits and Challenges of Applying Computational Thinking in Education,” Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol., vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 248–254, 2021, https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.5.1519.
I. Lee and J. Malyn-Smith, “Computational Thinking Integration Patterns Along the Framework Defining Computational Thinking from a Disciplinary Perspective,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 9–18, Nov. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09802-x.
S. Y. Lye and J. H. L. Koh, “Review on Teaching and Learning of Computational Thinking Through Programming: What is Next for K-12?,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 41, pp. 51–61, Dec. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012.
W. Sung and J. B. Black, “Factors to Consider When Designing Effective Learning: Infusing Computational Thinking in Mathematics to Support Thinking-Doing,” J. Res. Technol. Educ., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 404–426, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1784066.
K. Hava and Z. Koyunlu Ünlü, “Investigation of the Relationship Between Middle School Students’ Computational Thinking Skills and their STEM Career Interest and Attitudes Toward Inquiry,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 484–495, Jan. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09892-y.
K. Bati, M. I. Yetişir, I. Çalişkan, G. Güneş, and E. G. Saçan, “Teaching the Concept of Time: A Steam-Based Program on Computational Thinking in Science Education,” Cogent Educ., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–16, Jan. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1507306.
N. Lapawi and H. Husnin, “The Effect of Computational Thinking Module on Achievement in Scienceonal Thinking Modules on Achievement in Science,” Sci. Educ. Int., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 164–171, Jun. 2020, https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v31.i2.5.
L. Bao and K. Koenig, “Physics Education Research for 21st Century Learning,” Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 2019 11, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–12, Nov. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8.
D. E. Meltzer and R. K. Thornton, “Resource Letter ALIP–1: Active-Learning Instruction in Physics,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 80, no. 6, p. 478, May 2012, https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3678299.
N. M. Hutchins et al., “C2STEM: a System for Synergistic Learning of Physics and Computational Thinking,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 83–100, Feb. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9.
I. Aykutlu, S. Bezen, and C. Bayrak, “Teacher Opinions about the Conceptual Challenges Experienced in Teaching Physics Curriculum Topics,” Procedia-Social Behav. Sci., vol. 174, pp. 390–405, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.681.
S. T. Opitz, K. Neumann, S. Bernholt, and U. Harms, “Students’ Energy Understanding Across Biology, Chemistry, and Physics Contexts,” Res. Sci. Educ., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 521–541, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9632-4.
R. D. Handayani, A. D. Lesmono, S. B. Prastowo, B. Supriadi, and N. M. Dewi, “Bringing Computational Thinking Skills Into Physics Classroom Through Project-Based Learning,” 2022 8th Int. Conf. Educ. Technol., pp. 76–80, Oct. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICET56879.2022.9990631.
Jamalludin, R. D. Handayani, and L. Nuraini, “The Development of Interactive Learning Media of Parabolic Motion Lesson Materials with Patil Lele Traditional Games,” Berk. Ilm. Pendidik. Fis., vol. 9, no. 2, p. 126, 2021, https://doi.org/10.20527/bipf.v9i2.10399.
R. D. Handayani et al., “Computational Thinking: Students’ Abstraction on the Concepts of Kinematics,” J. Penelit. Pendidik. IPA, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 114–118, Jan. 2022, https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v8i1.1188.
G. A. Irgens et al., “Modeling and Measuring High School Students’ Computational Thinking Practices in Science,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 137–161, Feb. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09811-1.
Z. W. Xu and D. D. Tu, “Three New Concepts Of Future Computer Science,” J. Comput. Sci. Technol., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 616–624, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-011-1161-4.
V. J. Shute, C. Sun, and J. Asbell-Clarke, “Demystifying Computational Thinking,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 22, pp. 142–158, Nov. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003.
Y. Li et al., “On Computational Thinking and STEM Education,” J. STEM Educ. Res. 2020 32, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 147–166, Aug. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00044-w.
B. Standl, “Solving Everyday Challenges in A Computational Way of Thinking,” Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), vol. 10696 LNCS, no. December, pp. 180–191, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71483-7_15.
A. A. Alfayez and J. Lambert, “Exploring Saudi Computer Science Teachers’ Conceptual Mastery Level of Computational Thinking Skills,” Comput. Sch., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 143–166, Jul. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2019.1639593.
H. Nickerson, C. Brand, and A. Repenning, “Grounding Computational Thinking Skill Acquisition Through Contextualized Instruction,” ICER 2015 - Proc. 2015 ACM Conf. Int. Comput. Educ. Res., pp. 207–216, Jul. 2015, https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787720.
J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking,” Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 33–35, 2006, https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.
V. Barr and C. Stephenson, “Bringing Computational Thinking to K-12,” ACM Inroads, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 48–54, Feb. 2011, https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905.
K. Brennan and M. Resnick, “New Frameworks for Studying and Assessing the Development of Computational Thinking,” 2012.
A. V Aho, “Computation and Computational Thinking,” Comput. J., vol. 55, no. 7, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074.
S. Grover and R. Pea, “Computational Thinking in K–12: A Review of the State of the Field,” Educ. Res., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 38–43, Jan. 2013, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.
D. Weintrop, N. Holbert, M. S. Horn, and U. Wilensky, “Computational Thinking in Constructionist Video Games,” Int. J. Game-Based Learn., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–17, Jan. 2016, https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2016010101.
U. Kale et al., “Computational What? Relating Computational Thinking to Teaching,” TechTrends 2018 626, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 574–584, Apr. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0290-9.
H. Ehsan, A. P. Rehmat, and M. E. Cardella, “Computational Thinking Embedded in Engineering Design: Capturing Computational Thinking of Children in an Informal Engineering Design Activity,” Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2020 313, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 441–464, Feb. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09562-5.
J. Malyn-Smith and I. Lee, “Application of the Occupational Analysis of Computational Thinking-Enabled STEM Professionals as a Program Assessment Tool,” J. Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 2–10, 2012, https://doi.org/10.22369/issn.2153-4136/3/1/1.
S. Greiff et al., “Domain-General Problem Solving Skills and Education in the 21st Century,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 13, pp. 74–83, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.10.002.
P. Sengupta, J. S. Kinnebrew, S. Basu, G. Biswas, and D. Clark, “Integrating Computational Thinking with K-12 Science Education Using Agent-Based Computation: A Theoretical Framework,” Educ. Inf. Technol. 2012 182, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 351–380, Jan. 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x.
J. M. Wing, “Computational Thinking,” Commun. ACM, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 33–35, Mar. 2006, https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.
K. Jona et al., “Embedding Computational Thinking in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (CT-STEM),” Orlando, 2014.
R. C. Araujo, L. Floyd, and G. Gadanidis, “Teacher Candidates’ Key Understandings about Computational Thinking,” J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach., vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 205–229, 2019, [Online]. Available: https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/209807/.
Y. Yin, R. Hadad, X. Tang, and Q. Lin, “Improving and Assessing Computational Thinking in Maker Activities: the Integration with Physics and Engineering Learning,” J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2019 292, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 189–214, Dec. 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09794-8.
L. A. Palinkas, S. M. Horwitz, C. A. Green, J. P. Wisdom, N. Duan, and K. Hoagwood, “Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research,” Adm. Policy Ment. Health, vol. 42, no. 5, p. 533, Sep. 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y.
R. K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). 2014.
S. Crowe, K. Cresswell, A. Robertson, G. Huby, A. Avery, and A. Sheikh, “The Case Study Approach,” BMC Med. Res. Methodol., vol. 11, p. 100, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100.
O. G. Stewart and M. E. Jordan, “‘Some Explanation Here’: A Case Study of Learning Opportunities and Tensions in an Informal Science Learning Environment,” Instr. Sci. 2016 452, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 137–156, Oct. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9396-7.
R. B. Johnson and L. B. Christensen, Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, 5 edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2013.
J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, vol. 4. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
C. M. Orban and R. M. Teeling-Smith, “Computational Thinking in Introductory Physics,” Phys. Teach., vol. 58, no. 4, p. 247, Mar. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1119/1.5145470.
J. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2012.
M. U. Bers, L. Flannery, E. R. Kazakoff, and A. Sullivan, “Computational Thinking and Tinkering: Exploration of an Early Childhood Robotics Curriculum,” Comput. Educ., vol. 72, pp. 145–157, Mar. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020.
K.-D. Boom, · Matt Bower, J. Siemon, and · Amaël Arguel, “Relationships Between Computational Thinking and the Quality of Computer Programs,” Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, pp. 1–22, Mar. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10921-z.
R. Popping, “Analyzing Open-ended Questions by Means of Text Analysis Procedures,” Bull. Méthodologie Sociol., vol. 128, pp. 23–39, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1177/0759106315597389.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Rif'ati Dina Handayani, Albertus Djoko Lesmono, Sri Handono Budi Prastowo, Bambang Supriadi, Nila Mutia Dewi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in IRiP agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the IRiP right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in IRiP. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in IRiP. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
