Computational Thinking in Introductory Physics

Abstract

Computational thinking” (CT) is still a relatively new term in the lexicon of learning objectives and science standards. The term was popularized in an essay by Wing, who said, “To reading, writing and arithmetic, we should add computational thinking to every child’s analytical ability.” Agreeing with this premise, in 2013 the authors of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) included “mathematical and computational thinking” as one of eight essential science and engineering practices that K-12 teachers should strive to develop in their students. There is not yet widespread agreement on the precise definition or implementation of CT, and efforts to assess CT are still maturing, even as more states adopt K-12 computer science standards. In this article we will try to summarize what CT means for a typical introductory (i.e., high school or early college) physics class. This will include a discussion of the ways that instructors may already be incorporating elements of CT in their classes without knowing it.

Computational Thinking: Students’ Abstraction on the Concepts of Kinematics

“…Simulations and modeling can provide more profound abstraction because they show an understanding of the basic concepts (core ideas). Model building involves complex thought multiple interactions (Orban & Teeling-Smith, 2020). Perspective changes will occur when interest and interaction in interactive simulations that use computational concepts and practices (Brennan & Resnick, 2012).…”

“…Wing, (2006) stated that it was necessary to add computational thinking to children to read, write, and do arithmetic. Several definitions of computational thinking have been proposed by researchers, where each researcher has a different way of defining and interpreting it (Barr & Stephenson, 2011;Li, et al, 2020;Orban & Teeling-Smith, 2020;Shute, et al, 2017;Weintrop, et al, 2016;Yin, et al, 2019). Computational thinking involves formulating problems and solutions, where the solutions offered can be represented more effectively and efficiently within processing information (Standl, 2017).…”

Teachers’ Disciplinary Boundedness in the Implementation of Integrated Computational Modeling in Physics

“…After 1 week learning to program, we asked teachers to spend 2 weeks developing integrated curricular materials for teaching physics using the MI approach. Rather than provide explicit guidelines to teachers about the possible goals or objectives of such an integrated curriculum, such as possible goals identified by Orban and Teeling-Smith (2020), we encouraged teachers to first consider for themselves if or how integrating CM might support their own goals for students, whatever they might be.…”

Comparing student conceptions and construction of while loops in modeling motion

“…In order to adequately prepare physics graduates for their future careers, calls and recommendations have been made to encourage the incorporation of computation into physics programs [1,2]. While there had been an uptake in computational physics instruction, there remains a need for material development, teaching practices and assessment strategies [3,4]. Recent physics education research has provided frameworks and guidelines for identifying and assessing computational physics practices [5] and physics computational literacy [6], and has tested strategies for integrating computation into physics courses [7][8][9][10].…”