Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Designing technology entrepreneurship education using computational thinking

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

Abstract

While Computational thinking (CT) has been adopted in various educational settings, it has not been fully utilized in entrepreneurship education. In particular, technology entrepreneurship education involves project-based learning for creating business value. To help students improve learning outcomes, we propose a new framework of entrepreneurship education that combines business model development and CT. We applied this framework to a capstone course for social innovation, in which undergraduate students were asked to define a social problem, develop a solution, and finally implement the appropriate products and services using Arduino, Raspberry Pi, sensors, and actuators. To evaluate the students’ learning outcomes, we conducted a survey and an interview after the course had finished. The results demonstrate that the students acquired various skills, including technical and implementation skills, and that their awareness of the broad applicability of computing increased. It was also determined that students’ self-efficacy in terms of their software development abilities increased as a result of the course. We discuss the benefits of the various strategies used in the design and implementation of the course and issues that need to be discussed further. Finally, we provide guidelines for designing and implementing CT-based project courses.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

References

  • Adams, J. B. (2008). Computational science as a twenty-first century discipline in the liberal arts. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 23(5), 15–23.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Association for Computing Machinery (n.d.). Curricula recommendations. ACM. https://www.acm.org/education/curricula-recommendations. Accessed 14 April 2019.

  • Association for Computing Machinery & IEEE Computer Society (2017). Information technology curricula 2017. ACM. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/education/curricula-recommendations/it2017.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2019.

  • Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 1-25).

  • Chang, Y.-H., & Peterson, L. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of computational thinking. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 353–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp. 347–365). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) Standards Task Force (2011). In CSTA K-12 computer science standards, p. 9. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.csteachers.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/Standards/CSTA_K-12_CSS.pdf.

  • Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015). Computational thinking: A guide for teachers. Computing at school. https://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/8550/original.pdf. Accessed 14 April 2019.

  • Demil, B., Lecocq, X., Ricart, J. E., & Zott, C. (2015). Introduction to the SEJ special issue on business models: Business models within the domain of strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkman, R. M., Sprenkels, B., Peeters, T., & Janssen, A. (2015). Business models for the internet of things. International Journal of Information Management, 35(6), 672–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, J. C. (2005). Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorensen, C. D. (1997). A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, C. E. (1991). Not just a method but a way of learning. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem-based learning (pp. 22–33). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glova, J., Sabol, T., & Vajda, V. (2014). Business models for the internet of things environment. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15, 1122–1129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Google. (2018). Exploring computational thinking. Google for Education. https://edu.google.com.ph/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/. Accessed 14 April 2019.

  • 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 

  • Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauhart, R. C., & Grahe, J. E. (2015). Designing and teaching undergraduate capstone courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershkovitz, A., Sitman, R., Israel-Fishelson, R., Eguíluz, A., Garaizar, P., & Guenaga, M. (2019). Creativity in the acquisition of computational thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(5–6), 628–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1610451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160–189.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, S. R., Pocock, J. B., Zuraski, P. D., Meade, R. B., Mitchell, Z. W., & Farrington, J. J. (2002). Capstone course in an integrated engineering curriculum. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 128(2), 75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 195–213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. M. (2000). Design and implementation of computer games: A capstone course for undergraduate computer science education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(1), 260–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, J., Kim, M. S., & Ahn, J. H. (2016). Prototyping business models for IoT service. Procedia Computer Science, 91, 882–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalogiannakis, M., & Kanaki, K. (2020). Introducing computational thinking unplugged in early childhood education within the context of physical and natural science courses: A pilot study in Greece. In J. Keengwe & P. Wachira (Eds.), Handbook of research on integrating computer science and computational thinking in K-12 education (pp. 164–190). Hershey: IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-1479-5.ch010.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kanaki, K., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2018). Introducing fundamental object-oriented programming concepts in preschool education within the context of physical science courses. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2673–2698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kong, S.-C., Chiu, M. M., & Lai, M. (2018). A study of primary school students’ _interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers & Education, 127, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, N., & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences, 25(3), 385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Kang, Y. (2019). Bringing computational thinking to nonengineering students through a capstone course. In Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Grand Wailea, Maui (pp. 7681-7690). University of Hawaii at Manoa: Scholarspace.

  • Leschke, J. (2013). Business model mapping: Application and experience in an introduction to entrepreneurship course. Journal of entrepreneurship Education, 16, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, B. (2016). A five-dimensional model of creativity and its assessment in schools. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcelino, M. J., Pessoa, T., Vieira, C., Salvador, T., & Mendes, A. J. (2018). Learning computational thinking and scratch at distance. Computers in Human Behavior, 80, 470–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, L. J., Trevisan, M. S., Davis, D. C., & Beyerlein, S. W. (2004). Capstone design courses and assessment: A national study. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, USA (pp. 1–14). New York: ACM.

  • Mosey, S. (2016). Teaching and research opportunities in technology entrepreneurship. Technovation, 57(2), 43–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Chevrier, M., Di Leo, I., & Lajoie, S. P. (2016). Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 474–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, S., Kalogiannakis, M., & Zaranis, N. (2016). Developing fundamental programming concepts and computational thinking with ScratchJr in preschool education. A case study. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(3), 187–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2009). New developments in technology management education: Background issues, program initiatives, and a research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(3), 324–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulimood, S. M., Shaw, D., & Lounsberry, E. (2011). Gumshoe: A model for undergraduate computational journalism education. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dallas, USA (pp. 529–534). New York, USA: ACM.

  • Qualls, J. A., & Sherrell, L. B. (2010). Why computational thinking should be integrated into the curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), 66–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “21st-Century” skills. American Educator, 34(1), 17–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saarikko, T., Westergren, U. H., & Blomquist, T. (2017). The internet of things: Are you ready for what’s coming? Business Horizons, 60(5), 667–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabin, M. C., Peltsverger, S., Tang, C., & Lunt, B. M. (2016). ACM/IEEE-CS information technology curriculum 2017: a status update. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Information Technology Education (SIGITE '16), Boston, USA (pp. 102–103). https://doi.org/10.1145/2978192.2978241. New York, USA: ACM.

  • Shell, D. F., Hazley, M. P., Soh, L. K., Miller, L. D., Chiriacescu, V., & Ingraham, E. (2014). Improving learning of computational thinking using computational creativity exercises in a college CSI computer science course for engineers. In Proceedings of the 2014 Frontiers in Education Conference, Madrid, Spain (pp. 1–7). New York, USA: IEEE.

  • Snihur, Y., Lamine, W., & Wright, M. (2018). Educating engineers to develop new business models: Exploiting entrepreneurial opportunities in technology-based firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.011.

  • Stepien, W., & Gallagher, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: As authentic as it gets. Educational Leadership, 50(7), 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, R. H., & Magleby, S. P. (2005). Elements of a successful capstone course considering the needs of stakeholders. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(2), 203–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., Sorensen, C. D., Swan, B. R., & Anthony, D. K. (1995). A survey of capstone engineering courses in North America. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The link magazine, 6.

  • Wing, J. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. 40th anniversary blog of social issues in computing. http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html. Accessed 14 April 2019.

  • Wing, J. M. (2016). Computational thinking, 10 years later. Microsoft Research Blog. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/blog/computational-thinking-10-years-later. Accessed 14 April 2019.

  • Wu, B., Hu, Y., Ruis, A. R., & Wang, M. (2019). Analysing computational thinking in collaborative programming: A quantitative ethnography approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning., 35, 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011, March). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dallas, USA (pp. 465–470). New York, USA: ACM.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Underwood International College, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Younah Kang & Keeheon Lee

Authors
  1. Younah Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keeheon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keeheon Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

The Authors declare that there is 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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kang, Y., Lee, K. Designing technology entrepreneurship education using computational thinking. Educ Inf Technol 25, 5357–5377 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10231-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10231-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation