Robotics and Coding: A Framework for Examining Cognitive Demand

Anna Bloodworth; AnnaMarie Conner; Claire Miller; Lorraine Franco; Timothy Foutz; Roger B. Hill

doi:10.21061/jte.631

Robotics and Coding: A Framework for Examining Cognitive Demand

Journal of Technology Education

Volume 35 (2023): Issue 1

By: Anna Bloodworth , AnnaMarie Conner , Claire Miller , Lorraine Franco , Timothy Foutz and Roger B. Hill

Open Access

|Jan 2024

Abstract

Drawing on research in mathematics and science education that has supported student higher-level thinking in K-12 classrooms, we sought to classify the ways of thinking and reasoning supported by robotics coding tasks. As part of a larger project, we examined coding tasks implemented in elementary school classrooms and analyzed ways of thinking and reasoning about coding supported by these tasks. From this analysis, we developed a framework for analyzing the cognitive demand of coding tasks that can be used to support researchers, curriculum developers, and teachers in supporting students’ higher levels of thinking as they learn coding.

References

Arbaugh, F., & Brown, C. A. (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 499–536. DOI: 10.1007/s10857-006-6585-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21151
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110(3), 608–645. DOI: 10.1177/016146810811000302
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boston, M. D. (2013). Connecting changes in secondary mathematics teachers’ knowledge to their experiences in a professional development workshop. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 16, 7–31. DOI: 10.1007/s10857-012-9211-6
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 119–156. DOI: 10.2307/40539329
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bransford, J., Vye, N., & Bateman, H. (2002). Creating high-quality learning environments: Guidelines from research on how people learn. In P. A. Graham & N. Stacey (Eds.), The knowledge economy and postsecondary education: Report of a workshop (pp. 159–198) Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. DOI: 10.17226/10239
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, September 8). Employment by detailed occupation. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/emp-by-detailed-occupation.htm
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cai, J., Wang, N., Moyer, J. C., Wang, C., & Nie, B. (2011). Longitudinal investigation of the curricular effect: An analysis of student learning outcomes from the LieCal Project in the United States. International Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 117–136. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2011.06.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chevalier, M., Giang, C., Piatti, A., & Mondada, F. (2020). Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: A model for creative computational problem solving. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–18. DOI: 10.1186/s40594-020-00238-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2<;109::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DeDecker, S., Chouvalova, A., Gordon, K., Clemmer, R., & Vale, J. (2022). Memorization: Friend or foe when solving problems in STEM undergraduate courses. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). DOI: 10.24908/pceea.vi.15945
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Doyle, W. (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students’ thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23, 167–180. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep2302_6
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129–149. DOI: 10.2307/3202177
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Doyle, W., & Sanford, J. P. (1985). Managing students’ work in secondary classrooms: Practical lessons from a study of classroom tasks (Report No. RDCTE-6193). Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED271319
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Early, D. M., Rogge, R. D., & Deci, E. L. (2014). Engagement, alignment, and rigor as vital signs of high-quality instruction: A classroom visit protocol for instructional improvement and research. The High School Journal, 97(4), 219–239. DOI: 10.1353/hsj.2014.0008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Estrella, S., Zakaryan, D., Olfos, R., & Espinoza, G. (2020). How teachers learn to maintain the cognitive demand of tasks through Lesson Study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23, 293–310. DOI: 10.1007/s10857-018-09423-y
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grove, N. P., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). A continuum of learning: from rote memorization to meaningful learning in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 201–208. DOI: 10.1039/C1RP90069B
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Grouws, D. A., Tarr, J. E., Chávez, Ó., Sears, R., Soria, V. M., & Taylan, R. D. (2013). Curriculum and implementation effects on high school students’ mathematics learning from curricula representing subject-specific and integrated content organizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(2), 416–463. DOI: 10.5951/jresematheduc.44.2.0416
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University, Morgantown.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hartman, J. R., & Nelson, E. A. (2021). A paradigm shift: The implications of working memory limits for physics and chemistry instruction. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2102.00454
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549. DOI: 10.5951/jresematheduc.28.5.0524
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hill, R. (1997). The design of an instrument to assess problem solving activities in technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 9(1), 31–46. DOI: 10.21061/jte.v9i1.a.3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hill, R. B. (2006). New perspectives: Technology teacher education and engineering design. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 43(3), 45.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (n.d.). Technology and Engineering Education Collegiate Association (TEECA). Retrieved from https://www.iteea.org/About/Leadership/40079/TEECA.aspx#tabs
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2021). Engineering byDesign. https://www.iteea.org/File.aspx?id=111278&v=5c360a06
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kang, H., Windschitl, M., Stroupe, D., & Thompson, J. (2016). Designing, launching, and implementing high quality learning opportunities for students that advance scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1316–1340. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21329
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Merisio, C., Bozzi, G., Datteri, E. (2021). There is no such thing as a “Trial and error strategy”. In M. Malvezzi, D. Alimisis & M. Moro (Eds.), Education in & with Robotics to Foster 21st-Century Skills: Proceedings of EDUROBOTICS 2020 (pp. 190–201). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-77022-8_17
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pagano, L. C., Haden, C. A., & Uttal, D. H. (2020). Museum program design supports parent–child engineering talk during tinkering and reminiscing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 200. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104944
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4^th ed.). Sage.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Peters, M. (2015). Using cognitive load theory to interpret student difficulties with a problem-based learning approach to engineering education: a case study. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications: An International Journal of the IMA, 34(1), 53–62. DOI: 10.1093/teamat/hru031
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.) (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511844744
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Poce, A., Amenduni, F., & De Medio, C. (2019). From tinkering to thinkering. Tinkering as critical and creative thinking enhancer. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2). DOI: 10.20368/1971-8829/1639
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13(2), 137–172. DOI: 10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rojewski, J. W., & Hill, R. B. (2014). Positioning research and practice in career and technical education: A framework for college and career preparation in the 21st century. Career and Technical Education Research, 39(2), 137–150. DOI: 10.5328/cter39.2.137
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31, 13–25. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X031001013
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schwandt, T. A. (2015). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry (4^th ed.). Sage. DOI: 10.4135/9781483398969
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simpson, A., Burris, A., & Maltese, A. (2020). Youth’s engagement as scientists and engineers in an afterschool making and tinkering program. Research in Science Education, 50(1), 1–22. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-017-9678-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (1998). Reflections on practice: Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(5), 344–350. DOI: 10.5951/MTMS.3.5.0344
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. DOI: 10.3102/00028312033002455
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663–693. DOI: 10.3102/0002831209361210
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80. DOI: 10.1080/1380361960020103
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. DOI: 10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23359412. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022193728205
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sztajn, P., Confrey, J., Wilson, P. H., & Edgington, C. (2012). Learning trajectory based instruction: Toward a theory of teaching. Educational Researcher, 41(5), 147–156. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X12442801
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chávez, Ó., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280. DOI: 10.2307/30034970
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Schunn, C., Stein, M. K., & Reynolds, B. (2019). Change in thinking demands for students across the phases of a science task: An exploratory study. Research in Science Education, 49, 859–883. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-017-9645-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Coker, R. (2018). Teachers’ learning to facilitate high-level student thinking: Impact of a video-based professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(4), 479–502. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21427
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Doyle, W. (2020). Theory and research on tasks revisited: Task as a context for students’ thinking in the era of ambitious reforms in mathematics and science. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 606–617. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X20932480
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. (2015). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 659–685. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21208
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vossoughi, S., & Bevan, B. (2014). Making and tinkering: A review of the literature. National Research Council Committee on Out of School Time STEM, 67, 1–55.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Vossoughi, S., Escudé, M., Kong, F., & Hooper, P. (2013). Tinkering, learning & equity in the after-school setting. In Annual FabLearn conference. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Walkoe, J. (2015). Exploring teacher noticing of student algebraic thinking in a video club. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18, 523–550. DOI: 10.1007/s10857-014-9289-0
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high-quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61(5), 24–28. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ716718
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wicklein, R. C. (1993). Developing goals and objectives for a process-based technology education curriculum. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education 30(3), 66–80. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ463556
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60, 565–568. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.631 | Journal eISSN: 1045-1064

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 7 - 31

Submitted on: Oct 10, 2023

Accepted on: Dec 6, 2023

Published on: Jan 29, 2024

Published by: Virginia Tech

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

coding,

cognitive demand,

framework,

task

© 2024 Anna Bloodworth, AnnaMarie Conner, Claire Miller, Lorraine Franco, Timothy Foutz, Roger B. Hill, published by Virginia Tech
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 35 (2023): Issue 1