Thank you for viewing our video and sharing your thoughts! While we are interested in studying how pre-service teachers can integrate CT into science teaching practices, you raised an interesting and important piece of information about the Data Science individuals that are looking for ways to enhance both quantitative literacy and CT! 

I wonder how they view quantitative literacy and CT as complementary in science? Please feel free to share further! I would love know more and what others think. 

Hi Dennis, thank you for your comment. I think looking at the Data Science literature is an excellent idea.

We've seen teachers in our study talk about how CT is "easier" to integrate in their Math lessons than when teaching more general science content. It's possible that they, too, see a relationship between quantitative literacy and computational thinking. We are making an effort to expand their understanding of CT and to feel confident about applying it in those areas, like science, where the connection may not be as immediately clear.

Thanks for watching and for your questions. The Elementary Science Methods course in which we are integrating computational thinking is required for all senior preservice elementary teachers in our teacher ed program. The monthly afterschool Science Teaching Inquiry Group for preservice teachers and mentor teachers is voluntary, and open to preservice teachers who express interest. We recruited preservice teachers for the Science Teaching Inquiry Group by visiting one of their seminar classes the year prior and sharing information about the opportunity. In the future, we hope to recruit additional preservice teacher/mentor teacher pairs (i.e., who are teaching in the same elementary classroom) to participate together.

Thank you! I would say that the issue of gender imbalance in STEM field, Computer Science in particular, is one of the challenges that we have considered in working with pre-service elementary teachers. Throughout our Computational Thinking reflective inquiry group workshops that we facilitated, we addressed the need for an enhanced awareness on gender equity in our field in an effort to promote equitable learning and teaching practices.

I am interested in knowing more about your work in Hong Kong and what issues you dealt with? 

HI, Deborah.

Thanks for your interest in our project and the kind words about our video! I think that one of the issues we have seen with working with elementary (both pre- and in-service) is around their own self-efficacy towards computers, and computer science language. At first, they are much more comfortable with doing stand-alone lessons, but as they get more comfortable they begin to more authentically integrate CT with science in their practice. We are still on the early side of our implementations, so we will see if this early finding holds true.

Diane, that makes sense and is a really interesting perspective. On moving from single lessons to thinking more systematically (???) about integrating CS. You should talk with Colby Tofel-Grehl (https://teal.usu.edu/directory/tofel-grehl) who is just starting some work with elementary teachers in a similar area. We need so much more in this area of CS!

thanks, Deborah, for the connection!

Diane

Hi Angie, thank you for your comment!

1. While we don't work directly with students (only with the teachers), we discuss how multiple careers--beyond computer science--involve computational thinking. For example, we have an activity where we look at different STEM professions and explore how CT is integrated into their jobs. We also include some professions that do not require a college degree, such as plumbing. Our expectation is that this discussion can also be had with the students to show, like you said, why CT is important to learn regardless of future career aspirations.
2. In terms of connections with classroom standards, we are making explicit direct relationships between CT and the NGSS. We list specific standards, think about how CT can help fulfill those requirements, and discuss possible applications.
3. As to your last point, we have not addressed that topic directly. As a teacher who integrates CT into your classroom, we'd love to hear your perspective!

Thanks again,

LC

Hi, Angie

Thanks, LC, for your response to Angie. A few other points/ideas/questions:

1. I'm interested, Angie, in how you are integrated ct/cs into your practice? We struggle to help our teachers think about ct/cs as more th 'tools' as opposed to constructs/concepts.

2. LC is right that we are always making connections to NGSS, but that sometimes is a bit frustrating because while NGSS lists CT as one of the 8 scientific processes, there is little explication of how to use it in the elementary classroom.

Thoughts?

Hi Angie! Thank you for viewing our presentation and for your thoughtful questions!

Adding on to Lautaro's response, we had our pre-service teachers work on designing lesson plans (based on the elementary grade level that they teach) that integrated CT and present their lesson plans at our reflective inquiry group sessions. Some using educational technological tools such as code-a-pillar in their lessons, they helped us see their understanding of CT and how successfully they implemented their lessons not only for science learning but for literacy as well for ELL students. We aspire to promoting the usefulness of CT that has real life applications, such as perseverance, beyond science.

Here is what I have been working on to bring CT and CS into k-5 classrooms in my school district 

bit.ly/lstact <--- website with everything

bit.ly/lstalessonplans <----- Google Sheet with  ever-evolving lesson plans 

If you have a chance to take a look at them and want to talk about what you see and/or help me develop them further, please send me an email kalthoff@pd.code.org and we can set up a Google Hangout! 

Hi David! We agree with you that the term computational thinking has been variably described by Wing (2006), NRC (2010), and the list goes on.

After reviewing a variety of perspectives on CT, we were drawn to Weintrop et. al’s (2016) framing of CT in terms of practices for math and science classrooms, as well as CSTA/ISTE’s (2011) operational definition of CT in terms of concepts, capabilities, and dispositions to be modeled in K-12 education. We decided to integrate these two perspectives into our introduction of CT into an Elementary Science Methods course.

Our surveys show that the pre-service teachers view CT as a valuable tool for learning, particularly systems thinking, models and simulation, algorithmic thinking, data practices, to name a few. We are early in our implementation phase so we are hoping to see that teachers become more acclimated to this relatively new concept and integrating it into their teaching practices.

HI, David

you asked if our teachers find one or more ct aspects problematic...i'm not sure that they see this one as problematic, but I do. Our teachers are having issues with distinguishing between data analysis that we always do for science with data analysis that is ct-infused. I think we are struggling too to separate out those (and wonder too if they should be???)

would love to hear your thoughts on this!

HI, Karthik. Thanks for you question about learning goals. We use the robots for multiple purposes...it is why they are such a good first step for our teachers. I 'crowdsourced' your question to my team and what I write below is a synthesis of their ideas.

First, with the lego robots we focus on ct skills of problem decomposition, algorithmic thinking, programming language abstraction, repetition (loops), and the software life cycle. For example, we give the teachers challenges, and they use problem decomposition to break the challenge they are currently facing into smaller steps where those steps each translate into one action that the robot can perform.

Second, the challenges and problem-solving them also support CT dispositions building, like persistence in working with difficult problems and the ability to communicate and work with others to achieve a common goal or solution.

Does this get at what you were asking?

Hi, Xiaoxue

we have a couple of different places where we use different approaches. In our methods course with our preservice teachers, we employ a social constructivist theory of learning. We use something similar for the mentor teachers only workshop. However, in our combined group, we are focusing more on a community of practice approach where each participant (including the researcher/facilitators) bring in a special area of expertise. We try at each meeting to co-develop how to infuse ct into science elementary education.

thanks for asking!