article

Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework

Authors:

Pratim Sengupta,

John S. Kinnebrew,

Douglas ClarkAuthors Info & Claims

Education and Information Technologies, Volume 18, Issue 2

Pages 351 - 380

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x

Published: 01 June 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Computational thinking (CT) draws on concepts and practices that are fundamental to computing and computer science. It includes epistemic and representational practices, such as problem representation, abstraction, decomposition, simulation, verification, and prediction. However, these practices are also central to the development of expertise in scientific and mathematical disciplines. Recently, arguments have been made in favour of integrating CT and programming into the K-12 STEM curricula. In this paper, we first present a theoretical investigation of key issues that need to be considered for integrating CT into K-12 science topics by identifying the synergies between CT and scientific expertise using a particular genre of computation: agent-based computation. We then present a critical review of the literature in educational computing, and propose a set of guidelines for designing learning environments on science topics that can jointly foster the development of computational thinking with scientific expertise. This is followed by the description of a learning environment that supports CT through modeling and simulation to help middle school students learn physics and biology. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our system by discussing the results of a small study conducted in a middle school science classroom. Finally, we discuss the implications of our work for future research on developing CT-based science learning environments.

References

[1]

ACM K-12 Taskforce. (2003). A Model Curriculum for K-12 Computer Science: Final Report of the ACM K-12 Task Force Curriculum Committee. New York, NY: CSTA.

[2]

Aristotle (350 BCE/2002) Nichomachean ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

[3]

Basu, S., Sengupta, P., & Biswas, G. (In Review). A scaffolding framework to support learning in multiagent based simulation environments. Research in Science Education.

[4]

Basu, S., Kinnebrew, J., Dickes, A., Farris, A. V., Sengupta, P., Winger, J., & Biswas, G. (2012). A Science Learning Environment using a Computational Thinking Approach. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computers in Education, Singapore.

[5]

Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using Agent-Based Modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14, 81-119.

[6]

Bravo, C., van Joolingen, W. R., & deJong, T. (2006). Modeling and simulation in inquiry learning: Checking solutions and giving advice. Simulation, 82(11), 769-784.

Digital Library

[7]

Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Common sense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199.

[8]

Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.

[9]

Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.

[10]

Conway, M. (1997). Alice: Easy to Learn 3D Scripting for Novices, Technical Report, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

[11]

Corcoran, T., Mosher, F., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (RR-63). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

[12]

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25, 427-441.

[13]

Dickes, A., & Sengupta, P. (2012). Learning Natural Selection in 4th Grade with Multi Agent-Based Computational Models. Research in Science Education.

[14]

diSessa, A. A. (1985). A principled design for an integrated computational environment. Human-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 1-47.

Digital Library

[15]

diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2/3), 105-225.

[16]

diSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[17]

diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.

[18]

diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. The MIT Press.

[19]

diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). BOXER: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of ACM, 29(9), 859-868.

Digital Library

[20]

diSessa, A. A., Abelson, H., & Ploger, D. (1991a). An overview of boxer. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(1), 3-15.

[21]

diSessa, A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991b). Inventing graphing: Children's meta-representational expertise. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(2), 117-160.

[22]

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.

[23]

Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. In J. Green, A. Luke, & G. Kelly (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 32, pp. 268-291). Washington, DC: AERA.

[24]

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.

[25]

Dykstra, D. I., Jr., & Sweet, D. R. (2009). Conceptual development about motion and force in elementary and middle school students. American Journal of Physics, 77(5), 468-476.

[26]

Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.

[27]

Elby, A. (2000). What students' learning of representations tells us about constructivism. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 481-502.

[28]

Ford, M. J. (2003). Representing and meaning in history and in classrooms: Developing symbols and conceptual organizations of free-fall motion. Science & Education, 12(1), 1-25.

[29]

Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[30]

Guzdial, M. (1995). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 1-44.

[31]

Guzdial, M. (2008). Paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM: Education Column. 51(8).

[32]

Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043-1056.

[33]

Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 183-187.

[34]

Hammer, D. (1996). Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 97-127.

[35]

Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. pp. 51-52. ISBN 0-89391-785-0.

[36]

Hegedus, S. J., & Kaput, J. J. (2004). An Introduction to the Profound Potential of Connected Algebra Activities: Issues of Representation, Engagement, and Pedagogy. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 129-136.

[37]

Ho, C. H. (2001). Some phenomena of problem decomposition strategy for design thinking: Differences between novices and experts. Design Studies, 22(1), 27-45.

[38]

Hundhausen, C. D., & Brown, J. L. (2007). What You See Is What You Code: A "live" algorithm development and visualization environment for novice learners. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 18, 22-47.

Digital Library

[39]

Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.

[40]

Kahn, K. (1996). ToonTalk: An animated programming environment for children. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing.

[41]

Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old routes. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving (pp. 77-156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[42]

Kelleher, C., & Pausch, R. (2005) Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. (37) 83-137.

[43]

Klahr, D., Dunbar, K., & Fay, A. L. (1990). Designing good experiments to test bad hypotheses. In J. Shrager & P. Langley (Eds.), Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation (pp. 355-401). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

[44]

Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005). Teaching complex dynamic systems to young students with StarLogo. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 157-178.

[45]

Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.

[46]

Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 36-42. April 2007.

Digital Library

[47]

Kynigos, C. (2001). E-slate Logo as a basis for constructing microworlds with mathematics teachers (pp. 65-74). Lintz, Austria: Proceedings of the Ninth Eurologo Conference.

[48]

Kynigos, C. (2007). Using half-baked microworlds to challenge teacher educators' knowing. Journal of Computers for Math Learning, 12(2), 87-111.

[49]

Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335-1342.

[50]

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371-388). New York: Cambridge University Press.

[51]

Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529.

[52]

Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. M. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60, 1-64.

[53]

Levy, S. T., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Inventing a "mid-level" to make ends meet: Reasoning through the levels of complexity. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 1-47.

[54]

Locke, J. (1690/1979). An essay concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.

[55]

Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004) Scratch: A sneak preview. In Proceedings of Creating, Connecting, and Collaborating through Computing, 104-109.

[56]

McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

[57]

National Research Council. (2008). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

[58]

National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

[59]

Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3-45). MN: University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis.

[60]

Oshima, Y. (2005). Kedama: A GUI-based interactive massively parallel particle programming system. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC'05).

[61]

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc.

[62]

Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

[63]

Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3-4), 429-449.

[64]

Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58(3), 303-326.

[65]

Redish, E. F., & Wilson, J. M. (1993). Student programming in the introductory physics course: M.U.P.P.E.T. American Journal of Physics, 61, 222-232.

[66]

Reiner, M., Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T. H., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Naive physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions. Cognition and Instruction, 18(1), 1-34.

[67]

Repenning, A. (1993). Agentsheets: A tool for building domain-oriented visual programming. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 142-143.

[68]

Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[69]

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1994). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. NATO ASI Series F Computer and Systems Sciences, 128, 69-69.

[70]

Roschelle, J., Digiano, C., Pea, R. D., & Kaput, J. (1999). Educational Software Components of Tomorrow (ESCOT), Proceedings of the International Conference on Mathematics/Science Education & Technology (M/SET), March 1-4, 1999. San Antonio, USA.

[71]

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.

[72]

Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859-882.

[73]

Schmidt, D. C. (2006). Guest editor's introduction: Model-driven engineering. Computer, 39(2), 25-31.

Digital Library

[74]

Segedy, J. R., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Biswas, G. (2012). Promoting metacognitive learning behaviors using conversational agents in a learning by teaching environment. Educational Technology Research & Development.

[75]

Sengupta, P. (2011). Design Principles for a Visual Programming Language to Integrate Agent-based modeling in K-12 Science. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference of Complex Systems (ICCS 2011), pp 1636-1637.

[76]

Sengupta, P., & Farris, A. V. (2012). Learning Kinematics in Elementary Grades Using Agent-based Computational Modeling: A Visual Programming Based Approach. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design & Children, pp 78-87.

[77]

Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). Learning electricity with NIELS: Thinking with electrons and thinking in levels. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(1), 21-50.

[78]

Sengupta, P., & Wilensky, U. (2011). Lowering the learning threshold: Multi-agent-based models and learning electricity. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), Dynamic modeling: Cognitive tool for scientific inquiry (pp. 141-171). New York, NY: Springer.

[79]

Sengupta, P., Farris, A. V., & Wright, M. (2012). From agents to aggregation via aesthetics: Learning mechanics with visual agent-based computational modeling. Technology, Knowledge & Learning, 17 (1-2), 23-42.

[80]

Sherin, B. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning:, 6, 1-61.

[81]

Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. M. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91-118.

[82]

Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.

[83]

Smith, D., Cypher, A., & Tesler, L. (2000). Programming by example: Novice programming comes of age. Communications of the ACM, 43(3), 75-81.

Digital Library

[84]

Soloway, E. (1993). Should we teach students to program? Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 21-24.

Digital Library

[85]

Tan, J., & Biswas, G. (2007). Simulation-based game learning environments: Building and sustaining a fish tank. In Proceedings of the First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (pp. 73-80). Jhongli, Taiwan.

[86]

Tanimoto, S. L. (1990). VIVA: A visual language for image processing. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 1, 127-139.

Digital Library

[87]

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1991). Abstraction, re-presentation, and reflection: An interpretation of experience and of Piaget's approach. In L. P. Steffe (Ed.), Epistemological foundations of mathematical experience (pp. 45-67). New York: Springer.

[88]

White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1990). Causal model progressions as a foundation for intelligent learning environments. Artificial Intelligence, 42(1), 99-157.

Digital Library

[89]

Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling (http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

[90]

Wilensky, U., & Novak, M. (2010). Understanding evolution as an emergent process: Learning with agentbased models of evolutionary dynamics. In R. S. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. Intelligent design controversy. New York: Routledge.

[91]

Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories--An embodied modeling approach. Cognition & Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.

[92]

Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1).

[93]

Wing, J. M. (2006) Computational Thinking. Communications of the ACM, vol. 49, no. 3 March 2006, pp. 33-35.

Digital Library

[94]

Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 366, 3717-3725.

Cited By

Vanwijnsberghe-Bolt JHermans FHermans FBohrer R(2024)Roles of Variables in the Hedy Programming LanguageProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E10.1145/3689493.3689984(12-22)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689493.3689984
Snyder CHutchins NCohn CFonteles JBiswas G(2024)Analyzing Students Collaborative Problem-Solving Behaviors in Synergistic STEM+C LearningProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference10.1145/3636555.3636912(540-550)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3636555.3636912
Chen JLu XDu YRejtig MBagley RHorn MWilensky U(2024)Learning Agent-based Modeling with LLM Companions: Experiences of Novices and Experts Using ChatGPT & NetLogo ChatProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642377(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642377
Show More Cited By

Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Computing education programs

Recommendations

Computational Thinking in Teacher Education
SIGCSE '20: Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Teacher education programs are beginning to acknowledge the important role they play in preparing teachers to support students in the area of STEM, coding, Computational Thinking and robotics. As a result, new courses are being developed that connect ...
Computational thinking in high school courses
SIGCSE '10: Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education

The number of undergraduates entering computer science has declined in recent years. This is paralleled by a drop in the number of high school students taking the CS AP exam and the number of high schools offering computer science courses. The declines ...
Teaching how to teach computational thinking
ITiCSE 2018: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Computational Thinking is argued to be an essential skill for the workforce of the 21st century. As a skill, Computational Thinking should be taught in all schools, employing computational ideas integrated into other disciplines. Up until now, questions ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Education and Information Technologies

Education and Information Technologies Volume 18, Issue 2

June 2013

259 pages

ISSN:1360-2357

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York.

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 June 2013

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

70
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 29 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Vanwijnsberghe-Bolt JHermans FHermans FBohrer R(2024)Roles of Variables in the Hedy Programming LanguageProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on SPLASH-E10.1145/3689493.3689984(12-22)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3689493.3689984
Snyder CHutchins NCohn CFonteles JBiswas G(2024)Analyzing Students Collaborative Problem-Solving Behaviors in Synergistic STEM+C LearningProceedings of the 14th Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference10.1145/3636555.3636912(540-550)Online publication date: 18-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3636555.3636912
Chen JLu XDu YRejtig MBagley RHorn MWilensky U(2024)Learning Agent-based Modeling with LLM Companions: Experiences of Novices and Experts Using ChatGPT & NetLogo ChatProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642377(1-18)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904.3642377
Aytekin ATopçu M(2024)The effect of integrating computational thinking (CT) components into science teaching on 6th grade students’ learning of the circulatory system concepts and CT skillsEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-12103-x29:7(8079-8110)Online publication date: 1-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10639-023-12103-x
Kleffmann DMay LFowler A(2023)Holistic education co-design: A taxonomy for consistent documentationProceedings of the 35th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference10.1145/3638380.3638414(518-525)Online publication date: 2-Dec-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3638380.3638414
Killen HCoenraad MByrne VCabrera LMills KKetelhut DPlane J(2023)Teacher Education to Integrate Computational Thinking into Elementary Science: A Design-Based Research StudyACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/361811523:4(1-36)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3618115
Chen JHorn MWilensky U(2023)Interactive Constructionist Scaffolds for Agent-based Modeling and Programming in NetLogoProceedings of FabLearn / Constructionism 2023: Full and Short Research Papers10.1145/3615430.3615434(1-7)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3615430.3615434
Musaeus LCaspersen MMusaeus P(2023)A Template for Teaching Computational Modelling in High SchoolProceedings of the 18th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3605468.3609754(1-10)Online publication date: 27-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3605468.3609754
Chen JHorn MWilensky U(2023)NetLogo AR: Bringing Room-Scale Real-World Environments Into Computational Modeling for ChildrenProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3585088.3594497(736-739)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585088.3594497
Chen JZhao LHorn MWilensky U(2023)The Pocketworld Playground: Engaging Online, Out-of-School Learners with Agent-based ProgrammingProceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Interaction Design and Children Conference10.1145/3585088.3589357(267-277)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3585088.3589357
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents