Student Explanations in the Context of Computational Science and Engineering Education

References

• Abrams, E., & Southerland, S. (2001). The how's and why's of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1271–1281. doi:10.1080/09500690110038558
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2),147–179. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(02)00061-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8),797–817. doi:10.1080/095006900412284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanatirms: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3),439–477. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu, J. L., & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). Supporting Self-Explanation in the classroom. In V. A. Benassi , C. E. Overson , & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. (pp.91–103). Washington, DC: Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T., & Roy, M. (2010). How adaptive is an expert human tutor?. In International conference on intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 401-412). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher's attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. doi:10.1002/tea.21166
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming. Review of Research in Education, 16, 3–56. doi:10.2307/1167350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2–3),105–225. doi:10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence vs. fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843–900. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2806_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2(1),57–73. doi:10.2190/3LFX-9RRF-67T8-UVK9
   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. doi:10.3102/0013189X12463051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hartman, H. J. (2001). Developing Students’ Metacognitive Knowledge and Strategies. In H. J. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in learning and instruction: theory, research, and practice (pp. 33–68). Dordrecht, The Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2243-8
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203847527
   Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K–12 Computer Science Framework. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org.
   Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 579–588.
   Google Scholar
• Keil, F. C., & Wilson, R. A. (2000). Explaining explanation. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
   Google Scholar
• Kester, L., Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2010). Instructional control of cognitive load in the design of complex learning envinronments. In J. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 109–130).
   Google Scholar
• Küchemann, D., & Hoyles, C. (2003). The quality of students’ explanations on a non-standard geometry item. Third Conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education III, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Lawanto, O. (2010). Students’ metacognition during an engineering design project. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2),117–136. doi:10.1002/piq.20084
   Google Scholar
• Lemons, G., Carberry, A., Swan, C., & Jarvin, L. (2011). The effects of service-based learning on metacognitive strategies during an engineering design task. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, Humanitarian Engineering and Social Entrepreneurship, 6(2), 1–18. doi:10.24908/ijsle.v6i2.3561
   Google Scholar
• Lister, R. (2011). Concrete and other neo-piagetian forms of reasoning in the novice programmer. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology Series, 114, 9–18.
   Google Scholar
• Lister, R., Corney, M., Curran, J., Souza, D. D., Fidge, C., Gluga, R., … Teague, D. (2012). Toward a shared understanding of competency in programming: An invitation to the BABELnot project. 14th Australasian Computing Education Conference, 123, 53–60.
   Google Scholar
• Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10),464–470. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombrozo, T., & Carey, S. (2006). Functional explanation and the function of explanation. Cognition, 99(2), 167–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magana, A. J., Brophy, S. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2010). The transparency paradox: Computational simulations as learning tools for engineering graduate education. Presentation at the Annual AERA Meeting: Understanding complex Ecologies in a Changing World, April 30–May 4. Denver, Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Magana, A. J., Brophy, S. P., & Bodner, G. M. (2012). Student views of engineering professors technological pedagogical content knowledge for integrating computational simulation tools in nanoscale science and engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(5), 1033–1045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magana, A. J., & Coutinho, G. S. (2017). Modeling and simulation practices for a computational thinking-enabled engineering workforce. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(1), 62–78. doi:10.1002/cae.21779
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magana, A. J., Falk, M. L., & Reese, J. R. M. (2013). Introducing discipline-based computing in undergraduate. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 13(4),16. doi:10.1145/2534971
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magana, A. J., Falk, M. L., Vieira, C., & Reese, M. J. (2016). A case study of undergraduate engineering students’ computational literacy and self-beliefs about computing in the context of authentic practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 61,427–442. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magana, A. J., & Mathur, J. I. (2012). Motivation, awareness, and perceptions of computational science. Computing in Science & Engineering, 14(1), 74–79. doi:10.1109/MCSE.2012.13
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, A., & Singh, C. (2010). Helping students learn effective problem solving strategies by reflecting with peers. American Journal of Physics, 78(7), 748–754. doi:10.1119/1.3319652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (1981). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. Acm Computing Surveys, 13(1), 121–141. doi:10.1145/356835.356841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mselle, L. J., & Twaakyondo, H. (2012). The impact of Memory Transfer Language (MTL) on reducing misconceptions in teaching programming to novices. International Journal of Machine Learning and Applications, 1, 1–6. doi:10.4102/ijmla.v1i1.3
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384–395. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parnafes, O. (2012). Developing explanations and developing understanding: Students explain the phases of the moon using visual representations. Cognition and Instruction, 30(4),359–403. doi:10.1080/07370008.2012.716885
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pea, R. D., Soloway, E., & Spohrer, J. C. (1987). The buggy path to the development of programming expertise. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 9 (1), 5–30.
   Google Scholar
• Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3),235–275. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1203_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prasada, S., & Dillingham, E. M. (2006). Principled and statistical connections in common sense conception. Cognition, 99(1),73–112. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rector, M. A., Nehm, R. H., & Pearl, D. (2013). Learning the language of evolution: Lexical ambiguity and word meaning in student explanations. Research in Science Education, 43(3),1107–1133. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9296-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out example: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 1–29. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2101_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out examples principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–245). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogalski, J., & Samurçay, R. (1990). Acquisition of programming knowledge and skills. In Psychology of Programming (pp. 157–174). Academic Press. Retrieved from http://128.232.0.20/teaching/1011/R201/ppig-book/ch2-4.pdf\npapers3://publication/uuid/DA9515BF-0666-4ABE-8ED1-EFCEF4171444
   Google Scholar
• Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499–525. doi:10.1002/sce.20264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students ’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations the quality of students ’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1),23–55. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
   Google Scholar
• Sengupta, P., Krinks, K. D., & Clark, D. B. (2015). Learning to deflect: Conceptual change in physics during digital game play. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(4), 638–674. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1082912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafto, P., & Coley, J. D. (2003). Development of categorization and reasoning in the natural world: Novices to experts, naive similarity to ecological knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 29(4), 641–648. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.4.641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R., Ruiz-Primo, A., Li, M., & Ayala, C. (2003). Evaluating new approaches to assessing learning (CSE Report 604). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation.
   Google Scholar
• Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the Acm, 29(9), 850–858. doi:10.1145/6592.6594
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students’ explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or P-Prims? Science Education, 85(4), 328–348. doi:10.1002/sce.1013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Media. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Vieira, C., Magana, A. J., Falk, M. L., & Garcia, R. E. (2017). Writing in-code comments to self-explain in computational science and engineering education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 17(4), 1–21. doi:10.1145/3058751
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vieira, C., Magana, A. J., Garcia, R. E., Jana, A., & Krafcik, M. (2018). Integrating computational science tools into a Thermodynamics course. Journal of Science Education and Technology (JOST), 27(1), 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10956-017-9726-9
   Google Scholar
• Vieira, C., Magana, A. J., Roy, A., Falk, L. M., & Reese, J. M. (2016). Exploring undergraduate students' computational literacy in the context of problem solving. Computers in Education Journal, 7(1), 100–112.
   Google Scholar
• Vieira, C., Roy, A., Magana, A. J., Falk, M. L., & Reese, M. J. (2016, June). In-code Comments as a Self-explanation Strategy for Computational Science Education. Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10.18260/p.25642
   Google Scholar
• Vihavainen, A., Miller, C. S., & Settle, A. (2015). Benefits of Self-explanation in Introductory Programming. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp.284–289). Kansas City, MO: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whalley, J. L., & Lister, R. (2009). The BRACElet 2009. 1 (Wellington) Specification. In Eleventh Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE2009) (pp. 9–18). doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2007.148254
   Google Scholar
• Wilkerson, M. H., Shareff, R., Laina, V., & Gravel, B. (2018). Epistemic gameplay and discovery in computational model-based inquiry activities. Instructional Science, 46(1), 35–60. doi:10.1007/s11251-017-9430-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. J., & Lombrozo, T. (2010). The role of explanation in discovery and generalization: Evidence from category learning. Cognitive Science, 34(5),776–806. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01113.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wing, J. (2011). Computational thinking––What and why? The Link: News from the School of Computer Science, 6, 20–23.
   Google Scholar
• Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the Acm, 49(3), 33–35. doi:10.1145/1118178.1118215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, H.-K., Wu, P. H., Zhang, W. X., & Hsu, Y. S. (2013). Investigating college and graduate students’ multivariable reasoning in computational modeling. Science Education, 97(3),337–366. doi:10.1002/sce.21056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiang, L., & Passmore, C. (2015). A framework for model-based inquiry through agent-based programming. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 311–329. doi:10.1007/s10956-014-9534-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar