Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating Computational Thinking in STEM Education: A Literature Review

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research focusing on the integration of computational thinking (CT) into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education started to emerge. We conducted a semi-systematic literature review on 55 empirical studies on this topic. Our findings include: (a) the majority of the studies adopted domain-general definitions of CT and a few proposed domain-specific CT definitions in STEM education; (b) the most popular instructional model was problem-based instruction, and the most popular topic contexts included game design, robotics, and computational modelling; (c) while the assessments of student learning in integrated CT and STEM education targeted different objectives with different formats, about a third of them assessed integrated CT and STEM; (d) about a quarter of the studies reported differential learning processes and outcomes between groups, but very few of them investigated how pedagogical design could improve equity. Based on the findings, suggestions for future research and practice in this field are discussed in terms of operationalizing and assessing CT in STEM contexts, instructional strategies for integrating CT in STEM, and research for broadening participation in integrated CT and STEM education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Djambong and Freiman (2016) included participants from both upper elementary and middle school levels, and it was counted in both categories.

References

  • Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksit, O., & Wiebe, E. N. (2020). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ArastoopourIrgens, G., Dabholkar, S., Bain, C., Woods, P., Hall, K., Swanson, H., & Wilensky, U. (2020). Modeling and measuring high school students’ computational thinking practices in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09811-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, A., Smit, J., & Wegerif, R. (2015). Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM Mathematics Education, 47(7), 1047–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K–12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth-Cohen, L. A., Montoya, B., & Shen, J. (2019). Making in the middle: Walk like A Robot. Science Scope, 42(9), 12–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Kinnebrew, J. S. (2017). Learner modeling for adaptive scaffolding in a Computational Thinking-based science learning environment. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 27(1), 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9187-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean, N., Weese, J., Feldhausen, R., & Bell, R. S. (2015). Starting from scratch: Developing a pre-service teacher training program in computational thinking. Paper presented at the 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), EI Paso, Texas, USA.

  • Benton, L., Hoyles, C., Kalas, I., & Noss, R. (2017). Bridging primary programming and mathematics: Some findings of design research in England. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0028-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9552-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, W. W., Gautam, A., Tatar, D., & Lipscomb, K. (2020). Missing in measurement: Why identifying learning in integrated domains is so hard. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09805-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boticki, I., Pivalica, D., & Seow, P. (2018). The use of computational thinking concepts in early primary school. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education in 2018, Hong Kong, China.

  • Bremner, A. (2013). Singing and gaming to math literacy. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19(9), 582–584. https://doi.org/10.5951/teacchilmath.19.9.0582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Education Researcher Association, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Çalık, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2014). Parameters of content analysis. Education and Science, 39(174), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3412.

  • Campbell, L. O., & Heller, S. (2019). Building computational thinking: Design and making in teacher education. In J. Leonard, A. C. Burrows, & R. Kitchen (Eds.), Recruiting, preparing, and retaining STEM teachers for a global generation (pp. 163–189). Brill | Sense.

  • Cateté, V., Lytle, N., Dong, Y., Boulden, D., Akram, B., Houchins, J., & Boyer, K. (2018). Infusing computational thinking into middle grade science classrooms: Lessons learned. Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, Potsdam, Germany.

  • Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X., & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computer & Education, 109, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Code.org, CSTA, & ECEP Alliance. (2020). 2020 State of computer science education: Illuminating disparities. Retrieved from https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs.

  • College Board. (2020). AP computer science principles: Course and exam description. Retrieved from https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-computer-science-principles/course.

  • Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00476.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Djambong, T., & Freiman, V. (2016). Task-based assessment of students’ computational thinking skills developed through visual programming or tangible coding environments. Paper presented at the 13th Conference on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age (CELDA 2016), Mannheim, Germany.

  • Duncan, C., & Bell, T. (2015). A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. Paper presented at the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, London, United Kingdom.

  • Falloon, G. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using Scratch Jnr. on the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(6), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, A. V., Dickes, A. C., & Sengupta, P. (2016). Development of disciplined interpretation using computational modeling in the elementary science classroom. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Singapore.

  • Feldhausen, R., Weese, J. L., & Bean, N. H. (2018). Increasing student self-efficacy in computational thinking via STEM outreach programs. Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education—SIGCSE ‘18, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

  • Gadanidis, G., Cendros, R., Floyd, L., & Namukasa, I. (2017). Computational thinking in mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 458–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G., Clements, E., & Yiu, C. (2018). Group theory, computational thinking, and young mathematicians. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadad, R., Thomas, K., Kachovska, M., & Yin, Y. (2020). Practicing formative assessment for computational thinking in making environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09796-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. Paper presented at the 40th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Chattanooga, TN, USA.

  • Harrison, A., Hulse, T., Manzo, D., Micciolo, M., Ottmar, E., & Arroyo, I. (2018). Computational thinking through game creation in STEM classrooms. Paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2018, London, UK.

  • Hoover, A. K., Barnes, J., Fatehi, B., Moreno-Leon, J., Puttick, G., Tucker-Raymond, E., & Harteveld, C. (2016). Assessing computational thinking in students' game designs. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play Companion Extended Abstracts, Austin, Texas, USA.

  • Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M., Lédeczi, Á., Grover, S., Wolf, R., & McElhaney, K. (2020). C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTE, & CSTA. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K–12 education. Retrieved from https://id.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

  • Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, J., & Droumeva, M. (2016). Exploring media literacy and computational thinking a game maker curriculum study. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(2), 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2017). A proposal for teaching ScratchJr programming environment in preservice kindergarten teachers. Paper presented at the 12th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Dublin, Ireland.

  • Lamprou, A., & Repenning, A. (2018). Teaching how to teach computational thinking. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Larnaca, Cyprus.

  • Lee, I., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). Computational thinking integration patterns along the framework defining computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09802-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I., Grover, S., Martin, F., Pillai, S., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). Computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective: Integrating computational thinking in K-12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09803-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., & Almughyirah, S. (2016a). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, STEM attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, J., Buss, A., Unertl, A., & Mitchell, M. (2016b). Using robotics and game design to promote pathways to STEM. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona.

  • Leonard, J., Mitchell, M., Barnes-Johnson, J., Unertl, A., Outka-Hill, J., Robinson, R., & Hester-Croff, C. (2018). Preparing teachers to engage rural students in computational thinking through robotics, game design, and culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 386–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117732317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2012). Building upon and enriching grade four mathematics standards with programming curriculum. Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

  • Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). On computational thinking and STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00044-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F. (2018). Rethinking computational thinking. Retrieved October 24, 2020 from http://advocate.csteachers.org/2018/02/17/rethinking-computational-thinking/.

  • Mouza, C., Marzocchi, A., Pan, Y.-C., & Pollock, L. (2016). Development, implementation, and outcomes of an equitable computer science after-school program: Findings from middle-school students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2015). Modeling oriented assessment in K-12 science education: A synthesis of research from 1980 to 2013 and new directions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 993–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1012185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Bringing computational thinking into high school mathematics and science classrooms. Paper presented at the Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016, Singapore.

  • Pei, C., Weintrop, D., & Wilensky, U. (2018). Cultivating computational thinking practices and mathematical habits of mind in Lattice Land. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.

  • Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A., & Chor, B. (2014). Computational thinking in life science education. PLOS Computational Biology, 10(11), e1003897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiter, L., & Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. Proceedings of the 9th Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, San Diego, San California, USA.

  • Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K–12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, J., Chen, G., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., & Eltoukhy, M. (2020). Connecting students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and programming: Designing a humanoid robotics curriculum for elementary school students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1834474.

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, F. R., & Heffernan, J. (2016). Robotic construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1146563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, W., Ahn, J., & Black, J. B. (2017). Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(3), 443–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, H., Anton, G., Bain, C., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2019). Introducing and assessing computational thinking in the secondary science classroom. In S.-C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 99–117). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Syed, M., & Nelson, S. C. (2015). Guidelines for establishing reliability when coding narrative data. Emerging Adulthood, 3(6), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696815587648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, X., Yin, Y., Lin, Q., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020). Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers & Education, 148, 103798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2014). Defining computational thinking for science, technology, engineering, and math. Paper presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. https://ccl.northwestern.edu/papers/2014/CT-STEM_AERA_2014.pdf.

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann, K., Chao, J., Galluzzo, B., & Simoneau, E. (2020). Mathematical modeling with R: embedding computational thinking into high school math classes. ACM Inroads, 11(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witherspoon, E. B., Higashi, R. M., Schunn, C. D., Baehr, E. C., & Shoop, R. (2017). Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 18(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M. L. (2018). Educational game design as gateway for operationalizing computational thinking skills among middle school students. International Education Studies, 11(4), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n4p15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Y., Hadad, R., Tang, X., & Lin, Q. (2020). Improving and assessing computational thinking in maker activities: The integration with physics and engineering learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 189–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Miami, 5202 University Drive, Coral Gables, FL, USA

    Changzhao Wang & Ji Shen

  2. Concord Consortium, Concord, MA, USA

    Jie Chao

Authors
  1. Changzhao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ji Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jie Chao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ji Shen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Informed Consent

This study does not involve any human participants or animals since we only worked with literature we collected.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 39 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 24 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, C., Shen, J. & Chao, J. Integrating Computational Thinking in STEM Education: A Literature Review. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 20, 1949–1972 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10227-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10227-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation