European Journal of STEM Education,

2021, 6(1), 04
ISSN: 2468-4368

Infusing Computational Thinking in an Integrated STEM Curriculum: User

Reactions and Lessons Learned
Dazhi Yang 1*, Youngkyun Baek 1, Yu-Hui Ching 1, Steve Swanson 1, Bhaskar Chittoori 1, Sasha Wang 1

1 Boise State University, USA

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Citation: Yang, D., Baek, Y., Ching, Y.-H., Swanson, S., Chittoori, B., & Wang, S. (2021). Infusing
Computational Thinking in an Integrated STEM Curriculum: User Reactions and Lessons Learned. European
Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 04. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/9560

Published: January 15, 2021

ABSTRACT
This study describes the design and implementation of an integrated STEM + computational thinking (CT)
curriculum, which was guided by project-based learning, for integrating CT in after-school programs. The
study examined teachers and students’ reactions to the curriculum and the challenges in implementing such
a curriculum. Results show that most students and teachers reacted positively toward the curriculum. Main
challenges to implementing such a curriculum were also identified. Lessons learned from the curriculum
implementation are discussed. The study contributes to the integration of CT and development of CT in
students. It also contributes to teacher professional development regarding CT integration.

Keywords: computational thinking (CT), integration of CT, integrated STEM, curriculum design, project-
based learning (PBL), after-school programs

INTRODUCTION

What is Computational Thinking and Why is it Important?

Computational thinking (CT) is a fundamental skill that involves problem formulation, problem-solving, and
scientific reasoning (Wing, 2006). CT is also a metacognitive process that involves sub-skills and dispositions for
regulating complex problem-solving and modeling unobservable phenomena (Dwyer et al., 2014). Therefore, CT
is considered the “third pillar” of scientific practice (PITAC, 2005) and is a fundamental 21st century skill (PCAST,
2010).
The integration of CT in K-12 for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) learning has the
potential to improve science learning and increase student engagement in STEM learning via CT-embedded
scientific inquiry (Yang et al., 2018). Integrating CT into the classroom helps prepare students for the future by
encouraging creativity and problem solving (Fessakis et al., 2013). Although researchers have studied K-12 student
mathematical thinking and scientific reasoning extensively (Bicer et al., 2015), the development of CT in K-12
students has received much less attention (Lye & Koh, 2014). The practice of CT in K-12 STEM learning is rarely
studied (Sengupta et al., 2018). Moreover, currently CT is widely missing in K-12 STEM education (NRC, 2011).
The question that researchers and educators in STEM education are facing is not why we need to integrate CT, but
how. Therefore, it is critical to examine productive ways to integrate CT in K-12 STEM education.

Copyright © 2021 by Author/s and Licensed by Lectito BV, Netherlands. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons
Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Yang et al. / User reactions and lessons learned
LITERATURE REVIEW

CT is relatively new for many K-12 researchers and educators. However, the fundamental skills emphasized in
CT are vital for STEM learning because of their relationship with the STEM disciplinary processes of modeling,
reasoning, and problem solving (Sengupta et al., 2013). The STEM subjects also provide a natural context for CT
learning (Grover & Pea, 2018). The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) recognized CT as a key scientific
practice (NGSS Lead States, 2013), which has prompted various attempts to integrate CT into K-12 classrooms
based on limited research (Stanton et al., 2017). Moreover, the National Science Board (2010) has also supported
teaching CT in K-12 education. In addition, the review of CT integration in several European countries and the
United States has shown that including “CT aspects in the curriculum is relevant in all countries” (Mannila et al.,
2014, p. 9).

Integrating CT in K-12 Education

Recent attempts to integrate CT into K-12 education fall into three categories: a) the stand-alone addition of
programming activities that support little to no subject content learning (Lye & Koh, 2014); b) integration that
supports subject content learning “as ways to describe, make comparisons between, and test predictions about
systems” in problem-solving (Wilkerson & Fenwick, 2016, p. 186); and c) integration aligned with the practice of
STEM professionals showing students how professionals practice CT (Winthrop et al., 2016). Although different
CT integration approaches have been reported (Israel et al., 2015), researchers generally agree that instructional
support should be offered during the process (Sengupta et al., 2013).
Coding and programing activities are some of the popular integration approaches at the K-12 level. Scratch, a
visual programming language, has been integrated into many classroom instructional activities to teach computing
and programing to lower level elementary students, whereas Java or Python may be used to develop programming
skills in older students (Israel et al., 2015). Research indicates that the integration of visual programming languages
in K-12 classrooms can improve students’ CT and computational practices (e.g., experimentation and iteration).
However, the use of programming as the learning context in CT integration has led to the confusion that CT
equates with programming, or that CT practice has to at least involve programming (Voogt et al., 2015).
More recent CT integration has focused supporting subject content learning, which is reflected in the view of
CT as a necessary transdisciplinary skill (Wing, 2008). In practice, some science educators have had students focus
on an ecosystem using CT to conduct experiments, whereas others have advocated the use of modeling physical
phenomena to teach CT. Students can also be exposed to the work of STEM professionals which can help them
apply CT skills, reflecting another view of CT that considers the human experience and creativity in CT integration
(Wing, 2008).
Most previous CT integration in K-12 education has shown that CT was embedded in only one or two subject
areas. More recently, researchers have adopted an integrated STEM education approach to solve problems (Yang
et al., 2018). At the same time, in order to train teachers, researchers have started to include teacher professional
development (PD) in their approach toward integrating CT in K-12 science inquiry (Elby et al., 2015). However,
most teacher PD does not immerse teachers and students together in inquiry experiences (Wilson, 2013). As a
result, critical teacher-student interactions are missing, which runs counter to the strengths of inquiry-based
learning (Linn & Hsi, 2000).
Research indicates that CT can be effectively integrated into K-12 STEM education and inquiry (NRC, 2011).
Most pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based hands-on inquiry, trial and error within science experiments,
and guided arguments, are all used to integrate CT into K-12 education, and have been recommended for formal
learning environments (NRC, 2011). However, these pedagogies can also be adopted in informal ones. In fact,
running structured STEM projects in informal settings can provide a suitable learning environment to explore the
integration of CT in STEM disciplines because both teachers and students have the time and opportunity for
thoughtful and reflective engagement in complex projects (NRC, 2011).

After-School vs. In-School Programs

Formal (in-school) programs are structured and planned curriculum activities that are led and facilitated by
trained personnel while informal (after-school) programs are less structured activities that often have no pre-
designed learning objectives (Czerkawski & Hernandez, 2011). The systematical structure with pre-designed
learning objectives of formal curricula entails the quality and complete coverage of subject content. The facilitation
of the formal curricula by well- trained instructors is also a major advantage compared with that of the informal
programs and curricula. Thus students can be expected to systematically learn and master fundamental subject
content mapped to well established content standards with formal programs and curricula. However, all
stakeholders including students, teachers, as well as industries have called for the reforms in formal curricula for

2 / 14 © 2021 by Author/s
 European Journal of STEM Education, 2021, 6(1), 04
the lack of changes accompanying the advances of the society (Stocklmayer et al., 2010). For example, the reform
within a formal curriculum such as the implementation of a student-centered learning approach like the project-
based learning for real world problem solving has always been challenging and faced with resistance (Marx et al.,
1997). One reason for such challenge and resistance lies in the teachers’ lack of time and expertise to explore
innovative practice to implement the needed changes within a formal curriculum (Stocklmayer et al., 2010). The
challenge in providing students with relevant problem solving and learning activities often results in an outdated
curriculum that fails in equipping a workforce with desired skills.
Informal programs and curricula are highly adaptable and are an ideal context for bridging both formal and
informal programs for STEM learning (Braund & Resiss, 2007; Fallik et al., 2013) while offering a semi-structured
environment for hands-on, immersive, and authentic learning to occur. For an informal program and curriculum,
its loose structure without pre-designed learning objectives nor the mandate for meeting the standard testing allows
both teachers and students to explore a topic in a more relaxed way (Linn & Hsi, 2000). Thus informal programs
and curricula provide an ideal learning context for experimenting interventions and innovative practice (Braund &
Resiss, 2006). Researchers and practitioners are increasingly focusing on bridging informal and formal programs
as both have advantages and disadvantages (Braund & Resiss, 2006; Fallik et al., 2013). Eshach (2007) suggested
that bridging formal and informal curricula can be achieved by recognizing the advantages and disadvantages of
both curricula and implementing the desired learning experience accordingly.
In after-school venues, students have the time to engage in complex projects that are better suited to nurturing
CT than during the narrow windows of opportunity in formal settings. An after-school program is well suited to
integrate CT in STEM learning, allowing students and teachers to work as partners so that everyone is learning
collaboratively (Linn & Hsi, 2000). Community centers are particularly well-suited to informal learning as they
offer a setting in which learning activities are typically expected over a sustained period of time. After-school
settings also give teachers the freedom to experiment and not worry about class time being taken away.
Additionally, there are too few K-12 students who are exposed to CT in non-school programs (PCAST, 2010).
Thus, an informal, after-school setting could be the most appropriate, as well as needed for implementing a
complex curriculum integrated with CT.

Productive CT Integration Environments

Productive CT integration lies in the design of the integration, whether it be the design of an activity, a lesson,
or curriculum. As discussed in the NRC’s (2011) report, most students find it highly motivating to work in teams
with teachers and peers on a project, and students often develop the ability to communicate concepts with others,
share resources, and develop the products with their peers. Therefore, the appropriate environment for integrating
CT should support social interactions, cooperation, and collaboration (Chowdhury et al., 2018).
Project-based learning (PBL) is a constructivist instructional method that engages students in constructing
knowledge and learning skills with teachers and their peers through “an extended inquiry process structured around
complex, authentic” questions (BIE, 2017, para. 4). The PBL approach is also consistent with best practices for
STEM learning such as providing students with opportunities that are authentic (i.e., participating in “real” science),
inquiry-based, relevant to them as learners, and supportive and collaborative (NRC, 2005). PBL can guide the
design and development of a productive learning environment and curriculum in terms of delivering the content
and fostering the development of CT in elementary students with social interaction, teacher scaffolding, and hands-
on activities in STEM learning. The PBL approach enables the design of hands-on activities that allow students to
investigate relevant topics or problems and to learn through the active creation of final products. In PBL, all
learning activities and objectives are driven by an overall guiding question. At the end of a unit, students showcase
their final products, often through a competition or an exhibition.
Previous research has shown the advantage of engaging students in an integrated STEM learning environment
that requires the application of multiple STEM concepts and skills as opposed to focusing on discrete subject areas
(Wang et al., 2011). Teachers also benefit from such an integrated learning environment since it can serve to
complement and even reinforce their existing curriculum. By designing inquiry environments in which CT is
integrated with multiple STEM topics, teachers are less likely to feel that they are pulling time or materials away
from other subjects, and by contrast they are helping solidify student learning comprehensively. Therefore, an
integrated STEM+CT learning environment guided by PBL inquiry, which requires students to learn, explore, and
apply more than one discipline to solve problems, would be productive for integrating CT for K-12 students. This
is consistent with the claim that for K-12 students to develop CT literacy and competency, they must gain not only
CT skills, but also a deeper knowledge of where CT is relevant, including disciplinary practice (Grover & Pea,
2018).

© 2021 by Author/s 3 / 14
Yang et al. / User reactions and lessons learned
METHODS

Purpose of the Study

This study presents the design and development of a project-based STEM+CT curriculum for integrating CT
in an after-school program as a backdrop and subsequently explores the users’ (teachers and students) reactions to
the curriculum. Two research questions were formed: How would teachers and students react to (think and feel
about) the project-based integrated STEM+CT curriculum in an after-school setting? What would the challenges
be when implementing such a STEM +CT curriculum in an after-school setting?

The PBL Guided STEM+CT Curriculum

The curriculum design team consisted of a group of interdisciplinary faculty members in educational
technology, mathematics education, engineering, and a former NASA astronaut, as well as a school district STEM
content supervisor.
The STEM+CT curriculum consisted of several PBL projects, which with a project topic and overview, a
driving question and sub-questions, learning objectives and outcomes, student activities, and required resources.
The driving question and sub-questions helped guide the learning process and hands-on inquiry. Content wise, the
STEM+CT curriculum projects were designed for upper elementary (4th to 6th) grade levels since those students
are developing abstract thinking (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958).
Table 1 illustrates two STEM+CT project-based projects. One is Life on Mars and the other is the Bridge
Design. The Life or Mars and Bridge Design topics were chosen because both were relatively easy to integrate with
different STEM subject content, were motivating (such as learning about Mars), or related to students’ physical
surroundings like building a bridge for a river in the students’ local community, an active earthquake area. Both
projects lasted eight-weeks and required students to integrate STEM subjects with CT to solve the overall driving
question. The following table lists the essential components of each project in the form of the PBL-guided inquiry.

Table 1. STEM+CT Projects Guided by PBL

Projects Life on Mars Bridge Design
Description Students research different forms of life and the Students research earthquakes and bridges, design an
Martian environment, design and assemble a robot to earthquake resistant bridge, and build and test their
detect life on a simulated Mars. bridges under simulated earthquake conditions.
Outline Week 1 to 4: Research forms of life and Mars; assemble Week 1 to 4: Research earthquakes and bridges;
a robot; learn to program; Week 5 to 8: Design, build, and test a bridge; final
Week 5 to 8: Assemble, program, and test a robot; final competition
competition
Learning Objectives Students investigate life on Mars and how it can be Students investigate bridges and earthquakes; design
detected; design and build a robot to detect life on and build a bridge and test it under simulated
Mars. earthquake conditions.
Driving Question How can we detect life on Mars using a robot? How can we build a strong bridge for the Mountain
River to resist earthquake forces?
Final Product An assembled/programmed robot A bridge built with specified criteria
Sample Hands-on Assembling and programming a robot Designing, building and testing a bridge
Activities
Assessment Final competition in which robot detects life in the Final competition on which bridge is the strongest in
shortest time. resisting earthquake forces.
Resources Needed Mindstorms LEGO (EV3) set; Laptops; etc. K’Nex building kits; Laptops; etc.

The STEM+CT projects also included final learning outcomes, student activities, assessment, and required
resources (Table 1). Both projects were designed for small groups of four to six students based on the sharing of
project materials such as Lego Mindstorms kits, as well as the project tasks and available time. Both projects
covered multiple STEM subjects and provided learning objectives based on the guiding question and its sub-
questions. The overall driving questions were: How can we detect life on Mars using a robot? and How can we
build a bridge for the Mountain (pseudonym) River that is strong enough to resist earthquake forces?

Learning Activities
The Life on Mars project was designed to engage students to practice and apply CT and integrate science, math,
engineering, computer science, and technology through robotics and programming. Scientific knowledge and
concepts (e.g., forms of life, the planet Mars) and robotics and programming concepts were introduced in the first
four weeks. Students assembled robots using Lego Mindstorms kits and programmed the robots with Mindstorms
EV3 software. The purpose of programming the robot was to find “water” (a green dot) on a surface that simulated

4 / 14 © 2021 by Author/s
 European Journal of STEM Education, 2021, 6(1), 04

Figure 1. Assembled and programmed robot and simulated Mars

Mars, since water is most likely where life would be found. Figure 1 shows a robot that was assembled and
programmed by students.
The CT integration in this project was beyond the stand-alone addition of programming or coding. It supported
students’ learning of STEM concepts related to the Martian environment in order to solve the problem of how to
use a robot to detect life on Mars. At the start of the fifth week, students assembled and programed robots, which
were showcased in week eight in a race to detect life (the green dot in Figure 1). The team that found “life” in the
shortest amount of time, won.
The Bridge Design project was designed to have students apply CT and integrate STEM through engineering
design and bridge building. At the core of the engineering design process were: defining and identifying a problem;
developing possible solutions; designing and testing prototypes; and making revisions (Chabalengula & Mumba,
2017). In this project, scientific knowledge and engineering concepts (e.g., earthquakes, bridges) were introduced
in the first four weeks. Engineering design concepts (e.g., developing possible solutions and building prototypes)
were introduced in later weeks while students were designing and building bridges. Starting in the fifth week,
students built an earthquake-resistant bridge with K’Nex kits and prepared for a final competition. Each of the
K’Nex pieces had an associated price tag, which the students used to keep track of bridge costs for the final
competition. In the eighth week, students competed for the best bridge design judged by design specifications
(width of at least 2 feet, height of at least 1.5 feet, having two towers, and meeting the pre-determined earthquake
testing criteria) plus the cost.

Embedded with CT
To facilitate the integration of CT, the research team highlighted some CT components for student hands-on
inquiry and problem-solving based on an extended review of literature (e.g., Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Grover &
Pea, 2013, 2018). Subsequently, 11 CT components displayed in Table 2 were embedded in both projects based
on our curriculum’s learning objectives and activities (see Table 1).
The STEM+CT curriculum focused on students’ ability (e.g., practices) to solve problems using CT (Grover &
Pea, 2018). The vocabulary and terminology (Table 2) focuses on student computational literacy and the use of
appropriate CT terminology while communicating their thoughts and actions during scientific inquiry. CT
vocabulary and terminology usage can overlap with math and science in a STEM+C learning environment. The
majority of the CT components focuses on student ability to form and communicate problems (Grover & Pea,
2018) as well as solve problems (Wing, 2006). Specifically, abstraction, algorithms, conditional logic, data structures,
analysis and representation, decomposition, and heuristics focus on the thought process and logic in problem
solving. CT components of data collection, data structures, analysis and representation, pattern recognition, and
simulation and modeling focus on students communicating and dissecting problems while creating and generating
different questions, as well as resolving those questions. Communication focuses on both oral and written
descriptions of student inquiries, usually supported by visuals, graphics, or simulations. Since the PBL approach
emphasizes the importance of providing reflection and students voices, communication is one of the CT
components highlighted and embedded throughout the curriculum design. Table 2 also includes some curricular
examples of each embedded CT components.
The following screen capture is an example of how CT components were embedded in student inquiry
activities.
As shown in Figure 2, students collected data about Mars’ environment via watching videos and reading
websites (e.g., What Is Mars? by NASA) that were selected by the researchers. Students were also guided by
questions during data collection and took notes about their findings. In one part of the curriculum, students worked
independently and in groups of two to three in collecting data on Mars’ environment. Students’ data collection in
this project involved gathering and obtaining data, and more importantly organizing them in the form of drawings
or student-produced graphics. This organization was to identify the key characteristics and patterns of the data to
answer a research question such as what the environment of Mars looks like. Finally, students presented their
findings, along with the data they collected, to their peers (CT communication). The presentations were also
© 2021 by Author/s 5 / 14
Yang et al. / User reactions and lessons learned
Table 2. CT Embedded in the STEM+CT Curriculum
CT Component Description Example of Embedded CT
CT vocabulary Variables, data, modeling, testing and debugging, iterative, Test, analyze, debug, retest, solution
etc. (Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Lye & Koh, 2014)
Abstraction Reducing complexity and generalizing from specific Identifying each of the characteristics of strong bridges
instances to make sense of things (An & Lee, 2014; Lee et
al., 2011)
Algorithm Applying specific set of tools or sequence of steps Programming the Lego Mindstorms EV3’s software
(processes) to solve problems (Yadav, Zhou, Mayfield, blocks, testing and repeating until a task is competed
Hambrusch, & Korb, 2011)
Communication Written and oral descriptions supported by graphs, Presenting research finding via Google slides or other
visualizations, etc. (Astrachan & Briggs, 2012) visuals
Conditional logic Using strategy such as an “if-then-else” construct to Programming a robot using the if- then command/block
clarify problems and solutions (Wing, 2006)
Data collection Gathering data to define or solve a problem (Grover & Gathering and analyzing the simulated Mars area to
Pea, 2013) determine what path the robot should take
Data structures, Exploring data to find patterns, causes, trends, or results Using distance and speed to determine the time a robot
analysis and to facilitate the knowledge construction and problem should move in a specific direction
representation solving (Grover & Pea, 2013; CSTA, 2009)
Decomposition Simplifying problems or specifying steps to solve Determining which Lego Mindstorms EV3’s software
problems (Catlin & Woollard, 2014) blocks are needed for a robot to turn left or right, then
programming the blocks, testing and repeating until the
task is competed
Heuristics Applying experience-based strategy that facilitates Using the trial and error strategy while programming and
problem solving (Yadav et al., 2011) testing
Pattern recognition Recognizing repeated patterns such as iteration or Identifying the same characteristics of strong bridges
recursion (Grover & Pea 2013, 2018) from the data collected from different sources
Simulation and Manipulating data or concepts through controlled Using an online program to simulate the strength of a
modeling programs or exercises or creating such programs for data bridge while varying the values of the input variables
manipulations (CSTA, 2009)

Figure 2. Embedded CT components in the Life on Mars project

followed by a discussion to reach a consensus on the common key characteristics of the Mars’ environment.
Students applied the CT components of data collection, data structure, abstraction and communication to answer
the research questions in the STEM+CT curriculum. In these activities, CT components of data collection, data
structures, analysis and representation as well as CT communication were embedded through the curriculum
design.
Another example of embedded CT in the curriculum is student practice of CT in problem solving. For example,
students had to translate the measurements of distance or degrees into input values while programming a robot to
go forward or to turn left or right. At the same time, the students had to interpret a physical action of a robot into
programming languages such as using the if- then command, which helped students develop CT skills and logical
thinking. The integrated STEM+CT curriculum provides student a learning context which was quite different than
what they usually practiced in the classrooms. The integration of CT and the design of the curriculum, such as the
built-in guiding questions and relevant resources for answering them, also supported student learning of science
and problem solving. Descriptions of CT and more examples of embedded CT components in the curriculum can
be found in Table 2. The examples of student practice of CT are centered on problem solving and engineering
design activities.

Implementing the STEM+CT Curriculum

The implementation of the STEM+CT curriculum was led by in-service teachers working with small groups of
students in community centers’ after-school programs over eight weeks (two 90-minute sessions per week) for a
total of 16 sessions. All STEM+CT curriculum materials were available via a Google site and shared with all
teachers prior to the implementation.
The curriculum was implemented at two community centers’ after-school programs. The community centers
helped recruit 18 4th to 6th grade students for each of the projects on a first come, first served basis and a total of
36 students participated. The community centers were adjacent to a Title I (at least 45% of its students receive free

6 / 14 © 2021 by Author/s
 European Journal of STEM Education, 2021, 6(1), 04
or reduced lunches) elementary school. The community centers’ staff escorted the students to the classrooms of
their Title I schools where the project team and teachers would meet around 3:40 pm on the project days
(Mondays/Wednesdays or Tuesdays/Thursdays).

Implementation Led by Teachers

The research team worked with the local school district, which helped recruit six teachers (three per project per
location) to facilitate the implementation of two STEM+CT projects. Two weeks prior to implementing the
projects at the community centers, the research team led two, three-hour PD sessions on CT, PBL, and the subject
content of each project. In addition, a brief preview of the project’s weekly sessions was provided. The teachers
were directed to facilitate and guide the students during the implementation of the curriculum. The teachers
assumed various roles such as a helper, motivator, facilitator, resources provider, co-learner, and a problem-solving
guide. The teachers received a stipend, as well as two PD credits, from the researchers’ institute for their
participation and facilitation of the project. At least two researchers of the curriculum design team were present at
each location during the eight-week period to facilitate them.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teachers were asked to write a weekly reflection after leading two sessions. The teachers were provided with
specific prompts to guide their reflections and solicit their experience with the curriculum, students’ reactions to
it, and implementation challenges. The reflection prompts varied slightly from week 1 to week 8 as the project
progressed but all six teachers in both projects had the same prompts. Each teacher’s weekly reflection ranged
from half to one and a half pages (single-spaced) with an average of 266 words.
Student focus group interviews were conducted at the end of the implementation to examine their reactions.
Four focus group interviews (one interview with 3 students for the Life on Mars project and three interviews with
12 students for the Bridge Design project) were conducted. 14 students (11 boys and four girls) participated in
four focus groups. Table 3 presents an overview of the participants as well as the data sources.

Table 3. Participants and Data Sources

Projects Data Sources
Participants Total Total
Life on Mars Bridge Design Life on Mars Bridge Design
Teachers 3 3 6 Weekly Reflection (19) Weekly Reflection (20) 39
Students 18 18 36 Focus Group (1) Focus Group (3) 4

The focus group interviews were transcribed and prepared for analysis in Nvivo by one graduate research
assistant. Teachers’ reflections were imported into Excel for data analysis by another graduate research assistant.
The two graduate research assistants then conducted a thematic analysis to examine the teacher reflections and
student focus group interviews for themes by “identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns within data” (Braun &
Clarke, 2006, p. 79) independently. The data analysis was then reviewed and roughly 30% of the reflections and
interviews were analyzed by a faculty researcher. An inter-rater reliability of 96% based on the shared coding for
the reflections, and a similar inter-rater reliability of 88% for the interviews were found, which were higher than
the minimum acceptable threshold of 75% (Graham et al., 2012).

RESULTS

Student Practice of CT
Before presenting the research findings, we would like to share two examples of student work and student
reasoning to further illustrate student practice of CT components, which aims to serve as a backdrop for
understanding the teachers and students reactions to the curriculum as well as lessons learned from the curriculum
design and implementation. The first example is a screenshot of a student’s codes for programming the robot to
follow a path leading to the “life” on a simulated Mars. In this example, students had to use or practice various CT
components such as conditional logic (the if-then command) and heuristics (trial and error and debugging) to
accomplish the task.

© 2021 by Author/s 7 / 14
Yang et al. / User reactions and lessons learned

Figure 3. Student codes of programming a robot to follow a path

The second example provides a small vignette of student reasoning that took place during the discourse of
problem solving. A student was testing his robot and seemed frustrated that it was not working after trying the
same approach several times. A facilitator stepped in to find out what was going on and had the following
conversation.
Facilitator: Okay, so read the problem. So, you’re making the robot move straight at a speed of 60. That was… it’s doing right
there?
Student: I’m gonna put a speed of 100.
Facilitator: Now, what’s the problem? Is it 60 or 100?
Student: 100.
Facilitator: No.
Student: I want it to be 100 because ...I’ll know myself.
Even though this student was not following the written instructions to make the robot move at a speed of 60,
he persisted in trying his own value and engaged in thinking on his own. The student had to reason abstractly and
quantitatively while interpreting the physical action of a robot and translating the measurements of speed into
programming. The trial-and-error approach gave him the space to test his own reasoning. More student work and
artifacts demonstrating CT practice can be found in our recent report on elementary school students’ CT practice
in a bridge design challenge (Yang et al., 2019).

Teachers’ Reactions to the Curriculum

Teachers in the Life on Mars project reflected that they mostly had positive experiences. For example, one
teacher wrote, “I was also impressed by the students. … It was great to see that some students had background knowledge on either
life or robots. I loved seeing most of them excited and eager to get started on the project. The collaboration, discussion, and work ethic
made me proud to be a teacher at their school.” The teachers liked that all of the curriculum materials were online and
readily accessible. For example, one teacher wrote, “It helped … with the links [of the curriculum materials] readily available.
It made transitions much smoother.”
In the Bridge Design project, the teachers reported that students were more interested in doing the hands-on
activities, rather than reading and researching. One teacher observed, “Students are coming from a full day of learning
(reading, writing, researching) at school and they want to participate in hands-on activities and have a REALLY hard time engaging
in reading, researching and notetaking.” The teachers also recognized acquiring foundational knowledge through
researching was important for students to design and build an earthquake-resistant bridge. Due to students’ low
interest in research, a couple teachers proposed using videos instead texts. One teacher wrote “… if students have to
do research, then videos would be more engaging for students than reading heavy with words.”
In the Life on Mars project, all three teachers described the beneficial outcome of their participation in the
project from different perspectives. One teacher emphasized that she gained more confidence in teaching STEM
concepts as a result of her participation. Another teacher stated that the project broadened her horizon on how
much technology could be used in facilitating STEM teaching and learning. The third teacher would like to add

8 / 14 © 2021 by Author/s
 European Journal of STEM Education, 2021, 6(1), 04
more STEM activities and facilitate them in her classroom. In the Bridge Design project, all three teachers reflected
that they would incorporate similar hands-on activities in their own classrooms. One teacher wrote, “This experience
enhanced my skills in STEM and CT. I will bring this teaching experience to my third grade classroom. I learned a lot and [my
learning] will transfer to many areas.”

Students’ Reaction toward the Curriculum

In the Life on Mars project, all three teachers reflected that students were very excited and engaged in the
activities, especially the robot activities. One teacher pointed out that the introduction of the driving question (see
Table 1) had helped students realize the importance of having background knowledge before they conducted
hands-on activities.
In the Bridge Design project, the teachers reported that students were not fully engaged in the discussions and
readings in the first session. One teacher provided a possible reason for the students’ low engagement as “Session
1 was incredibly rushed, as there was no time allowed in the lesson plans to meet/greet the new students and then the rest of the readings
and discussions were rushed.” However, all teachers pointed out that the students were more engaged in conversations
among themselves and enjoyed exploring different types of bridges in the second session.
In the Life on Mars project, students expressed positive reactions through an interconnected set of themes
ranging from coding, building robots, learning about Mars, making new friends, working in teams, and having fun
in the focus group interview. Even when students’ efforts did not go according to plan, they still had fun
participating in the activities as one student said “I also liked the obstacle course we had to run through, even though we failed.”
Another student appreciated the experience of learning how to code, “I didn’t know how to code before and I got to try
something new.” Another expressed that what they (their peers) enjoyed most “was learning how to use programming and
making a robot move and sense things.” In the Bridge Design project, students similarly expressed having fun, enjoying
the hands-on activities, and making new friends. Students described their experience as “It’s just fun playing with the
K’NEX kit and building something with it.” All the students who were interviewed expressed that they had fun and
hoped that they would be able to participate in similar projects again in the future.
In the Life on Mars project, students expressed frustrations with insufficient time in the sessions and noted
how, consequently, they felt being rushed in the focus group interviews. One student stated, “what I didn’t like was
that I was rushed in the last [activity].” Other students explicitly commented on the timeframe, stating that they did not
like “how short it [each session] was.”
In the Bridge Design project, some students explicitly stated their views on research, “I just think there is a
breaking point of too much research” and “If you don’t include the research, it is very fun.” In addition, students felt that the
timing of the Bridge Design project was less than ideal because “it was right after school. … it was hard to sit down to do
the research….”

Challenges in the Implementation

Insufficient Time
Throughout the implementation, the teachers kept reflecting that the time was insufficient to finish all the
planned activities. The teachers often had to cancel the recommended 10 minute break in the middle of each
session to make up time for the planned activities. For example, one teacher wrote, “I believe the amount of tasks
outlined in the lesson plans are still too ambitious and our group rushed through again to try and achieve all 3 challenges. The students
were not given a break at all, …let alone the recommended ten minutes of break.” Similarly, another wrote: “I think our biggest
challenge with the project thus far has been time. I think the amount of material we’re trying to squeeze into 90 minutes is really
difficult.” The lack of time was also corroborated by observations from the researchers present at each session.
After a few sessions, both the teachers and research team realized the issue of insufficient time. The teachers
started to work on reducing some activities while keeping the learning objectives intact with the research team’s
help.

Complex Lesson Plans

As the curriculum was designed to weave together multiple disciplines, facilitating the sessions was challenging.
The complexity of the lesson required teachers to go out of their comfort zone and sometimes to learn together
with the students, which the teachers were not necessarily prepared for, or used to doing. Teachers from the Life
on Mars projects pointed out this challenge, “The biggest challenge was not being familiar with the [Mindstorms EV3]
software. Next time, I would want to be able to … learn how to code myself. It would have helped me facilitate and support the students
more effectively.” One teacher approached this challenge differently, however still not from the perspective of learning
together with the students, as she wrote, “I used my teaching skills to guide students through the activity. I encouraged them to

© 2021 by Author/s 9 / 14
Yang et al. / User reactions and lessons learned
use the resources available .... Although I didn’t feel like I had much knowledge about the programming to help them, I was at least
able to guide them to the correct resources so they could attempt to figure it out on their own.”
The complex curriculum was also challenging for teachers facilitating the Bridge Design project. One teacher
wrote, “My biggest challenge was in figuring out how the K’Nex pieces work, but luckily, I had many students who could take that
on easily.” Similarly, another teacher reflected, “I feel that the lesson plans are a bit complex (too many activities, too many
readings) to accomplish during the allotted time, students and teachers feel rushed.”

Students’ Low Interest in Research

The low interest in research largely manifested in the first several weeks when the curriculum focused on the
necessary background knowledge for solving problems later on. That was when students did not have many
opportunities for hands-on activities. In the Bridge Design project, one teacher reflected at the end of the third
week, “I do feel like the students are starting to feel like this is not what they signed up for. I think they thought that there would be
much more building involved (hands-on activities) and not so much reading and writing.” Similarly, another teacher reported, “I
have a hard time motivating my students to read and write [taking notes for discussions] when they just spent an entire school day doing
that. While we realize that this is essential, this amount of reading and note taking may be a better format for an engineering class
during school hours, rather than an after school program.” The same challenge appeared in the Life on Mars project:

I gave them [the students] a choice of presentation materials to generate more interest, I tried questioning
them as they worked and presented to see if they could clarify concepts…we did talk about being a
critical reader and I showed them how to use the illustrations and headings on the websites to quickly
find the information that they needed. Some of them were quite overwhelmed with the amount of
information they needed to read through.

DISCUSSION

The hands-on activities in both projects focused on learning and applying CT, and learning STEM content as
well as solving problems. For example, students learned about earthquakes, the engineering aspect of bridge design,
and then designed earthquake resistant bridges based on the STEM knowledge acquired in the Bridge Design
project. Similarly, students applied measurement skills (e.g., of angles, rotations, distance, and time) to program
their robots in the Life on Mars project. One student summarized this succinctly when asked what he learned from
his participation, “… I learned that, I didn’t know that you had to incorporate math and, uh, science and engineering. I thought it
would be just building the bridge.”
The curriculum inquiry was also supported by technology and tools. As technology-supported learning can
enable students to engage in scientific practices, when students use the tools, technology, and computational
techniques that real scientists use, students engage in career exploration and preparation. The design and
development of a STEM+CT curriculum paves the way for future research on what CT looks like within and
across disciplines, which is critical for CT integration in K-12 classrooms.
Finally, the implementation involved multiple stakeholders from higher education, the school district and
schools, and community centers, which helped “build a broad base of leadership and ownership” to amass all
necessary and resources (Stanton et al., 2017, p. 5); the involvement of multiple stakeholders also leads to long-
term sustainability of CT integration across K-12 education.
Overall, the teachers in both projects had positive reactions to the curriculum and viewed their experience
facilitating the curriculum as highly beneficial despite of some challenges presented herein regarding the design
and implementation of such a complex curriculum. The students interviewed also reacted positively to the
curriculum and expressed their desire to participate in a similar project in the future. Data analysis regarding the
effectiveness of the curriculum in terms of students’ learning of CT and STEM knowledge is ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

Lessons Learned
As the curriculum design team (research team) was present at both implementation sites, they saw first-hand
the challenges in implementing the curriculum. To overcome the time issue and ensure a relatively relaxing
environment for both teachers and students, the researchers focused on the essential readings and materials for
providing necessary knowledge while revising the curriculum following the first around of implementation. The
overall structure of the curriculum (such as learning objectives and time frame) remained the same. During the

10 / 14 © 2021 by Author/s
 European Journal of STEM Education, 2021, 6(1), 04
revisions, some learning activities were fine-tuned and efforts to reduce reading materials and increase more hands-
on activities were sought.
The research team also specifically allocated time for team building and icebreaking as well as time to introduce
the overall guiding question for each project at the beginning of the revised curriculum. This helped ensure that
the students and teachers would have the time to get to know each other and have an overall picture of the project
before working with each other, regardless of the facilitator. The introduction of the project and the overall guiding
question is very important to provide the background to students so that they would be motivated to do the
necessary reading and research, rather than only wanting to do the activities.
For students’ low interest in reading and research, in addition to the up-front introduction of the overall guiding
question, the researchers also provided more videos and replaced some text materials with videos or graphics in
both projects. While working with the teachers during the implementation, the researchers became more
conscientious about making the curriculum materials “kid friendly” (e.g., more visuals) and more aligned to
students’ reading levels.
To help the teachers better lead such a complex curriculum/lesson plans, the research team made it clear that
teachers were not expected to be subject experts; instead they could and should assume the various roles of
learners, facilitators, or learners. Teachers were also encouraged to use materials outside of the curriculum to help
students solve the guiding question. The research team also added specific questions for research and inquiry
activities in different sessions so the learning objectives could be more focused on CT.
The research team also learned that it was really beneficial to be present during the implementation to provide
timely assistance for the teachers and students. However, access to the research team and content experts would
not be scalable. To help transfer and maintain the presence of content experts during the curriculum
implementation in other settings, the researchers have added facilitation prompts/questions in hands-on activities
provided by the experts during the curriculum revisions. The additional facilitation questions/prompts were
intended to help teachers better facilitate hands-on activities while students were exploring and solving various
problems.

Communicating CT: The Problem-Solving Process Chart

One critical lesson the research team learned was that it was necessary to explain and communicate what CT
was to teachers so that they could better facilitate the integration of CT in STEM learning. In revising the
curriculum, the researchers created a problem-solving process (PSP) chart mapped with CT components
(Figure 4) and included it as part of the curriculum (Yang et al., 2018). The PSP chart was based on the K-12
engineering design processes of identifying and researching problems, developing and selecting solutions, building
prototypes, testing, evaluating and redesigning the solutions as needed (Chabalengula & Mumba, 2017). The PSP
chart helped the researchers communicate with the teachers, and relate CT to the problem-solving processes for
practice so that teachers shared the same understanding of CT and its affordance in STEM learning. Specifically,
the PSP chart would serve three purposes: 1) helping researchers share common ideas on what CT was among

Figure 4. The PSP chart

© 2021 by Author/s 11 / 14
Yang et al. / User reactions and lessons learned
themselves and with teachers; 2) helping teachers understand what CT was and how to explain CT to students;
and 3) providing a means for students to reflect and recognize what CT applications and practice were in learning
the STEM content and solving problems.
In Figure 3, 10 CT components, such as decomposition, abstraction and conditional logic that focus on
forming and solving problems, were mapped on to one or more engineering design processes based on engineering
practice and engineering design thinking (NRC, 2010). However, it should be pointed out that the mapping of one
CT component on to a specific engineering design process does not mean that this CT will not be used in other
processes. From our observations and preliminary findings (Yang et al., 2018), the manifestation of CT practices
is very much dependent on the specific tasks at hand. During the implementation, the teachers would pull out the
chart and direct students to talk about and discuss what they had learned and practiced by referring to it at the end
of each session. The following screen capture shows the guiding questions the teachers used to help students
reflect on their learning in the revised curriculum (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Guided reflection and debrief

For K-12 students to develop CT literacy, they had to learn to use CT and recognize the applications of CT
across disciplinary domains, which the PSP chart could serve as a tool helping achieve this purpose.
This paper contributes to the design and development of CT-rich STEM programs for K-12 students and the
effort to develop CT in students in terms of “positioning CT in the curriculum” (Voogt, et al., 2015, p. 722).
Specifically, it provides a curricular example for integrating CT in cross-disciplinary practices. The integrated
approach could also help make CT integration in K-12 classrooms and STEM curriculum more sustainable by
learning and covering several content areas and standards simultaneously. The paper also contributes to teacher
training and PD for CT integration involving various stakeholders.
However, there are some limitations associated primarily with the context of the study. First, the findings and
lessons learned resulted from an informal context in a community centers’ after-school program and may not apply
to formal classroom settings. Second, the lessons learned involved various stakeholders (teachers, students,
researchers, and community partners) which all impacted the findings, and thus they may not be able to inform
other programs that involve different stakeholders. That being said, the researchers speculate that similar challenges
could persist in formal settings and time would always be an issue, as well as the teachers’ challenges in facilitating
such a complex curriculum. Third, different or additional coding categories might emerge in the data analysis if the
diversity in study contexts were increased. Therefore, additional research regarding the design and implementation
of a STEM+CT curriculum in different contexts of study and participants is needed. Future research on what CT
and computational practices may look like in different areas of STEM professional practice for K-12 students is
recommended. Studies on how technology and tools can support the application of CT and development of CT
in students, as well as research on evolving approaches to assessing CT are highly recommended.

REFERENCES

An, S., & Lee, Y. (2014). Development of pre-service teacher education program for computational thinking. In
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2055–2059). Chesapeake, VA.
Astrachan, O., & Briggs, A. (2012). The CS principles project. ACM Inroads, 3, 38–42.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2189835.2189849
Bicer, A., Boedeker, P., Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). The effects of STEM PBL on students’
mathematical and scientific vocabulary knowledge. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 2, 69–
75. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED573146.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Braund, M., & Reiss, M. (2006). Towards a more authentic science curriculum: The contribution of out-of-school
learning. International journal of science education, 28, 1373-1388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500498419
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational
thinking. In American Educational Research Association meeting. Vancouver, BC, Canada.

12 / 14 © 2021 by Author/s
 European Journal of STEM Education, 2021, 6(1), 04
Buck Institute for Education [BIE] (2017). Why project based learning? Buck Institute for Education. http://bie.org/
Catlin, D., & Woollard, J. (2014). Educational robots and computational thinking. In Proceedings of 4th International
Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education (pp. 144–151).
Padova, Italy.
Chabalengula, V. M., & Mumba, F. (2017). Engineering design skills coverage in K-12 engineering program
curriculum materials in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 2209–2225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1367862
Chowdhury, B., Bart, A. C., & Kafura, D. (2018). Analysis of collaborative learning in a computational thinking
class. In SIGCSE’ 2018 Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 143–
148). Baltimore, Maryland, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159470
Computer Science Teachers Association [CSTA] (2009). Computational thinking across the curriculum.
Czerkawski, B., & Hernandez, J. (2012) Formal, non-formal, informal E- Learning experiences with emerging
technologies: A case study of a graduate educational technology program. In Yang, H. & Wang, Y. (Ed). Cases
on formal, non-formal, and informal learning: Opportunities and practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1930-2.ch018
Dwyer, C., Hogan, M., & Stewart, I. (2014). An integrated critical thinking framework for the 21st century. Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 12, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.004
Elby, A., Gupta, A., & Yadav, A. (2015). Research on practice using STEM inquiry embedded with computational thinking in
elementary school. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=
1543061
Eshach, H. (2007). Bridging in-school and out-of-school learning: Formal, non-formal, and informal education.
Journal of science education and technology, 16(2), 171-190. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9027-1
Fallik, O., Rosenfeld, S., & Eylon, B. S. (2013). School and out-of-school science: A model for bridging the gap.
Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.822166
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a
computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016
Graham, M., Milanowski, A., & Miller, J. (2012). Measuring and promoting inter-rater agreement of teacher and principal
performance ratings. Center for Educator Compensation Reform. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED532068.pdf
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational
Researcher, 42, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, E.
Barendsen, & C. Schulte (Eds.), Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 19–38).
Bloomsbury Academic.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking: From childhood to adolescence. Basic Books, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1037/10034-000
Israel, M., Wherfel, Q. M., Pearson, J., Shehab, S., & Tapia, T. (2015). Empowering K-12 students with disabilities
to learn computational thinking and computer programming. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48, 45–53.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915594790
Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., … Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking
for youth in practice. Acm Inroads, 2, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929902
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605917
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through
programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
Mannila, L., Settle, A., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., & Rolandsson, L. (2014). Computational
thinking in K-9 education. ITiCSE-WGR 2014: Proceedings of Working Group Reports of the 2014 Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education Conference, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary
School Journal, 97(4), 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1086/461870
National Research Council [NRC]. (2005). How students learn: History, science, and mathematics in the classroom.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10126
National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12840
National Research Council. (2011). Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13170

© 2021 by Author/s 13 / 14
Yang et al. / User reactions and lessons learned
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s
human capital. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee [PITAC] (2005). Computational science: Ensuring America’s
competitiveness. Washington, DC.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST] (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Washington, DC: White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. (2018). Toward a phenomenology of computational thinking in STEM
education. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in STEM discipline: Foundations and research highlights (pp.
49–72). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93566-9_4
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, 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x
Stanton, J., Goldsmith, L., Adrion, R., Dunton, S., Hendrickson, K., Peterfreund, A., … Zinth, J. (2017). State of
the states landscape report: State-level policies supporting equitable K–12 computer science education. Educational
Development Center. https://www.edc.org/state-states-landscape-report-state-level-policies-supporting-
equitable-k-12-computer-science
Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J. & Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The roles of the formal and informal sectors in the
provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1-44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903562284
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P. & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education:
Towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20, 715-728.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6
Wang, H.-H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and
practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 1, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
Wilkerson, M. H., & Fenwich, M. (2016). Using mathematics and computational thinking. In C. V. Schwarz, C.
Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering
practices (pp. 181–204). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers’ Association Press.
Wing, J. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions. Series A,
Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366, 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49, 33–35.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in
education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 465–470).
Dallas, Texas, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297
Yang, D., Chittoori, B., Baek, Y., & Stewart, W. (2019). Elementary students’ computational thinking practice in a
bridge design and building challenge (Fundamental). Proceedings of 2019 American Society for Engineering Education
(ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Tampa, FL.
Yang, D., Swanson, S., Chittoori, B. & Baek, Y. (2018). Work-in-Progress: Integrating computational thinking in
STEM education through a project-based learning approach. Proceedings of 2018 American Society for Engineering
Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UH.

14 / 14 © 2021 by Author/s