Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Examining computational thinking processes in modeling unstructured data

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly pervasive in our daily lives, the need for students to understand the working mechanisms of AI technologies has become more urgent. Data modeling is an activity that has been proposed to engage students in reasoning about the working mechanism of AI technologies. While Computational thinking (CT) has been conceptualized as critical processes that students engage in during data modeling, much remains unexplored regarding how students created features from unstructured data to develop machine learning models. In this study, we examined high school students’ patterns of iterative model development and themes of CT processes in iterative model development. Twenty-eight students from a journalism class engaged in refining machine learning models iteratively for classifying negative and positive reviews of ice cream stores. This study draws on a theoretical framework of CT processes to examine students’ model development processes. The results showed that students (1) demonstrated three patterns of iterative model development, including incremental, filter-based, and radical feature creation; (2) engaged in complex reasoning about language use in diverse contexts in trial and error, (3) leveraged multiple data representations when applying mathematical and computational techniques. The results provide implications for designing accessible AI learning experiences for students to understand the role and responsibility of modelers in creating AI technologies and studying AI learning experiences from the angle of CT processes.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the author upon request.

References

  • Asbell-Clarke, J., Rowe, E., Almeda, V., Edwards, T., Bardar, E., Gasca, S., & Scruggs, R. (2021). The development of students’ computational thinking practices in elementary-and middle-school classes using the learning game, Zoombinis. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, Article 106587.

  • Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, K. (2020). Text as data: An overview. The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations. SAGE Publishing (forthcoming).

  • Bird, K. A., Castleman, B. L., Mabel, Z., & Song, Y. (2021). Bringing transparency to predictive analytics: A systematic comparison of predictive modeling methods in higher education. AERA Open, 7, 23328584211037630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, M., et al. (2020). Teachable machine: approachable web-based tool for exploring machine learning classification. Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382839

  • Cateté, V., Lytle, N., Dong, Y., Boulden, D., Akram, B., Houchins, J., & Boyer, K. (2018, October). Infusing computational thinking into middle grade science classrooms: lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 1–6).

  • Cetin, I., & Dubinsky, E. (2017). Reflective abstraction in computational thinking. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 47, 70–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concord-Consortium. (n.d.). Concord-Consortium/Lara: A “lightweight” activities runtime and authoring (Lara) app in Rails 3. GitHub. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://github.com/concord-consortium/lara

  • Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/∼CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf

  • Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2015). Exploring issues about computational thinking in higher education. TechTrends, 59(2), 57–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Y., Catete, V., Jocius, R., Lytle, N., Barnes, T., Albert, J., & Andrews, A. (2019, February). PRADA: A practical model for integrating computational thinking in K-12 education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 906–912).

  • Enyedy, N., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). They don’t show nothing I didn’t know: Emergent tensions between culturally relevant pedagogy and mathematics pedagogy. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 139–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estevez, J., Garate, G., & Graña, M. (2019). Gentle introduction to artificial intelligence for high-school students using scratch. IEEE access, 7, 179027–179036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadanidis, G. (2017). Artificial intelligence, computational thinking, and mathematics education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 133–139.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In Sentance, S., Barendsen, E., & Schulte, C. (Eds.). Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–38). Bloomsbury Academic.

  • Iglesias, M. (2019). Introduction to data visualizations with D3. js. In Pro D3. js (pp. 1–12). Apress.

  • Jiang, S., & Kahn, J. (2020). Data wrangling practices and collaborative interactions with aggregated data. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(3), 257–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, S., Nocera, A., Tatar, C., Yoder, M. M., Chao, J., Wiedemann, K., ... & Rosé, C. P. (2022). An empirical analysis of high school students’ practices of modelling with unstructured data. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(5), 1114–1133.

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazak, S., Fujita, T., & Turmo, M. P. (2021). Students’ informal statistical inferences through data modeling with a large multivariate dataset. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2021.1922857

  • Kelter, J., Peel, A., Bain, C., Anton, G., Dabholkar, S., Horn, M. S., & Wilensky, U. (2021). Constructionist co-design: A dual approach to curriculum and professional development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1043–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 36–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & English, L. (2018). Introducing children to modeling variability. International handbook of research in statistics education (pp. 229–260). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., Zhi, R., Hicks, A., & Barnes, T. (2017). Understanding problem solving behavior of 6–8 graders in a debugging game. Computer Science Education, 27(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, D., & Magerko, B. (2020, April). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16).

  • Mayfield, E., & Rosé, C. (2010, June). An interactive tool for supporting error analysis for text mining. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Demonstration Session (pp. 25–28).

  • McCarthy, J. (2007). What is artificial intelligence? Technical report, Stanford University. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai.html

  • Ogegbo, A. A., & Ramnarain, U. (2022). A systematic review of computational thinking in science classrooms. Studies in Science Education, 58(2), 203–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2020). Bringing maker practices to school: Tracing discursive and materially mediated aspects of student teams’ collaborative making processes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(3), 319–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosé, C. P. (2017). A social spin on language analysis. Nature, 545(7653), 166–167.

  • Sever, D., & Guven, M. (2014). Effect of inquiry-based learning approach on student resistance in a science and technology course. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 1601–1605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, W. C. (2019, July). Integrating computational thinking into the process of learning artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology (pp. 364–368).

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, C., Yoder, M. M., Coven, M., Wiedemann, K., Chao, J., Finzer, W., Jiang, S., & Rosé, C. P. (2021). Modeling unstructured data: Teachers as learners and designers of technology-enhanced artificial intelligence curriculum. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences—ICLS 2021 (pp. 617–620). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Van Brummelen, J., Shen, J. H., & Patton, E. W. (2019, June). The popstar, the poet, and the grinch: Relating artificial intelligence to the computational thinking framework with block-based coding. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (Vol. 3, pp. 160–161).

  • Vartiainen, H., Tedre, M., & Valtonen, T. (2020). Learning machine learning with very young children: Who is teaching whom? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 25, 100182.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: computational thinking—what and why? Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/link/research-notebook-computational-thinking-what-and-why

  • Witten, I. H., Frank, E., Hall, M., & Pal, C. J. (2016). Data mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques (4th ed.). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann-Niefield, A., Turner, M., Murphy, B., Kane, S. K., & Shapiro, R. B. (2019, June). Youth learning machine learning through building models of athletic moves. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 121–132). ACM.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under DRL #1949110.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education and Learning Sciences, North Carolina State University, Poe Hall, 208, 2310 Stinson Dr, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Shiyan Jiang & Rabia Yalcinkaya

  2. University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Yingxiao Qian & Hengtao Tang

  3. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Carolyn P. Rosé

  4. Concord Consortium, Concord, MA, USA

    Jie Chao & William Finzer

Authors
  1. Shiyan Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingxiao Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hengtao Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rabia Yalcinkaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carolyn P. Rosé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jie Chao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. William Finzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiyan Jiang.

Ethics declarations

All consent processes and forms for this study were approved by the Solutions Institutional Review Board (IRB) (https://www.solutionsirb.com/) prior to the study’s implementation. In addition, the analysis was performed using non-identifiable data.

Conflict of interest

 The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jiang, S., Qian, Y., Tang, H. et al. Examining computational thinking processes in modeling unstructured data. Educ Inf Technol 28, 4309–4333 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11355-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11355-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation