Unpublished manuscript in progress, referenced in. ( 2010): Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Common Core of Data (CCD), 2020 Common Core of Data (CCD) ( 2020) : Retrieved from.Clark et al., 2016 Clark D.B., Tanner-Smith E., Killingsworth S., Digital games, design, and learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research 86 ( 1) ( 2016) 79– 122.Brown et al., 2014 Brown P.C., Roediger H.L., McDaniel M.A., Make it stick, Harvard University Press, 2014.Bransford and Schwartz, 1999 Bransford J.D., Schwartz D.L., Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications, Review of Research in Education 24 ( 1999) 61– 100.Bertling et al., 2015 Bertling M., Jackson G.T., Oranje A., Owen V.E., Measuring argumentation skills with game-based assessments: Evidence for incremental validity and learning, June in: International conference on artificial intelligence in education, Springer, Cham, 2015, pp.Berland and Lee, 2011 Berland M., Lee V.R., Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking, International Journal of Game-Based Learning 1 ( 2) ( 2011) 65– 81.Benjamini and Hochberg, 2000 Benjamini Y., Hochberg Y., On the adaptive control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing with independent statistics, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 25 ( 1) ( 2000) 60– 83.Barr and Stephenson, 2011 Barr V., Stephenson C., Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?, Inroads 2 ( 1) ( 2011) 48– 54.Barchas-Lichtenstein et al., 2019 Barchas-Lichtenstein J., Brucker J.L., Voiklis J., Thomas U.G., Fraser J., Shane-Simpson C., et al., Cultivating computational thinking in elementary & middle school learners, Knology Publication #NSF.051.213.05, New York, 2019, (Knology).Interactive assessments of CT (IACT): digital interactive logic puzzles to assess computational thinking in grades 3–8. Asbell-Clarke et al., Asbell-Clarke, J., Rowe, E., Almeda, V., Gasca, S., Edwards, T., Bardar, E., Shute, V., & Ventura, M.(Ed.), Global Perspectives on Gameful and Playful Teaching and Learning. Asbell-Clarke et al., 2019 Asbell-Clarke J., Rowe E., Bardar E., Edwards T., The importance of teacher bridging in game-based learning classrooms, in: Farber M.Asbell-Clarke et al., 2012 Asbell-Clarke J., Edwards T., Rowe E., Larsen J., Sylvan E., Hewitt J., Martian boneyards: Scientific inquiry in an MMO game, International Journal of Game-Based Learning (IJGBL) 2 ( 1) ( 2012) 52– 76.Almeda et al., 2019 Almeda M., Rowe E., Asbell-Clarke J., Baker R., Scruggs R., Bardar E., Gasca S., Modeling Implicit Computational Thinking in Zoombini’s Mudball Wall Gameplay, in: Paper presented at the Technology, Mind, and Society conference, October, 2019, October, Washington `D.C.This research suggests that Zoombinis is an effective CT learning tool and CT assessment tool for elementary- and middle-school students. Students with high duration of gameplay and high gameplay CT practices scored highest on external post-assessment of CT practices, when accounting for pre-assessment scores. Automated detectors of gameplay CT practices built for this research were significant predictors of external post-assessment scores, and thus show promise as implicit assessments of CT practices within gameplay. A combination of research methods, including educational data-mining on game data logs, cluster analysis on teacher logs of classroom activity, and multilevel modeling, was used to determine the impact of the duration and nature of student gameplay, as well as the extent and nature of classroom activity, on student CT practices. The study examined the relationship among student gameplay, related classroom activity, and the development of students’ CT practices in Zoombinis classes. This paper reports on a research study of 45 classes in US schools (grades 3–8) using Zoombinis, a popular Computational Thinking (CT) learning game for ages 8 to adult.
0 kommentar(er)
