Click for next page ( 138


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 137
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 137
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 137
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 137
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 137
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