Abstract
Computational thinking is a contemporary science and engineering practice that has been introduced to the US science classrooms due to its emphasis in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). However, including computational thinking into science instruction may be challenging. Therefore, for biological evolution (an essential theory within biology that spans across temporal and organizational scales), we recommend integrating computational thinking into evolution teaching to overcome misconceptions, reinforce the nature of science (NOS), and allow student embodiment (as students become emerged in their models, i.e., personification). We present a learning progression, which outlines biological evolution learning coupled with computational thinking. The defined components of computational thinking (input, integration, output, and feedback) are integrated with biology student roles. The complex nature of both teaching computational thinking and biological evolution lends toward a learning progression that identifies instructional context, computational product, and computational process and spans from simple to complex. Two major themes of biological evolution, unity and diversity have each been paired with both computational thinking and specific corresponding NGSS standards at levels of increasing complexity. There are virtually no previous studies which relate computation and evolution across scales, which paves the way for questions of importance, support, benefits, and overall student achievement in relation to the advancement of science in education.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxs074.
Aikenhead, G. (2007). Expanding the research agenda for scientific literacy. Promoting scientific literacy. Science Education Research in Transaction, 64.
Alexander, P. A. (2018). Information management versus knowledge building: Implications for learning and assessment in higher education. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74338-7_3.
Alters, B. J., & Nelson, C. E. (2002). Perspective: Teaching evolution in higher education. Evolution, 56(10), 1891–1901. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00115.x.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Project 2061 (AAAS). Science for All Americans. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769001000206.
Antolin, M. F., Jenkins, K. P., Bergstrom, C. T., Crespi, B. T., De, S., et al. (2012). Evolution and medicine in undergraduate education: A prescription for all biology students. Evolution, 66(6), 1991–2006. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01552.x.
Ayala, F. J. (1977). “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” Theodosius Dobzhansky: 1900–1975. Journal of Heredity, 68(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a108767.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905.
Basawapatna, A. R., Repenning, A., Koh, K. H., & Nickerson, H. (2013). The zones of proximal flow: Guiding students through a space of computational thinking skills and challenges. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research (pp. 67-74).
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan press.
Beggrow, E. P., & Sbeglia, G. C. (2019). Do disciplinary contexts impact the learning of evolution? Assessing knowledge and misconceptions in anthropology and biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 12(1), 1.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402.
Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9552-x.
Britner, S. L. (2008). Motivation in high school science students: A comparison of gender differences in life, physical, and earth science classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 955–970. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20249.
Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Sources of science self-efficacy beliefs of middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20131.
Broughton, S. H., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). “Pluto has been a planet my whole life!” Emotions, attitudes, and conceptual change in elementary students’ learning about Pluto’s reclassification. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 529–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9274-x.
Brown, M. H., & Schwartz, R. S. (2009). Connecting photosynthesis and cellular respiration: Preservice teachers’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 791–812.
Brumby, M. (1979). Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. Journal of Biological Education, 13(2), 119–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1979.9654240.
Bybee, R. W. (2011, December). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. The Science Teacher, 78(9), 34 Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.temple.edu/apps/doc/A274521193/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=AONE&xid=8073c03a.
Campbell, N. A., Mitchell, L. G., Reece, J. B., & Taylor, M. R. (2000). Biology: Concepts & connections. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.
Catley, K., Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. (2005). Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on test design for K-12 Science achievement, 67. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/35284613/Paper_Commissioned_by_the_National_Academies_Committee_on_Test_Design_for_K-12_Science_Achievement_2005_Catley.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1535338785&Signature=q0AjjacnesePFecYJlLbwMUUlw8%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DTracing_a_prospective_learning_progressi.pdf.
Chandrasekharan, S., & Nersessian, N. J. (2015). Building cognition: The construction of computational representations for scientific discovery. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1727–1763. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12203.
Chi, M. T., Roscoe, R. D., Slotta, J. D., Roy, M., & Chase, C. C. (2012). Misconceived causal explanations for emergent processes. Cognitive Science, 36(1), 1–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01207.x.
Cohen, J. E. (2004). Mathematics is biology’s next microscope, only better; biology is mathematics’ next physics, only better. PLoS Biology, 2(12), 439. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020439.
Coley, J. D., Arenson, M., Xu, Y., & Tanner, K. D. (2017). Intuitive biological thought: Developmental changes and effects of biology education in late adolescence. Cognitive Psychology, 92, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.11.001.
College Board. (2009). AP® Biology Lab Manual for Students. New York: The College Board.
College Board. (2012). AP Biology: Course and exam description effective fall 2012. New York: The College Board.
Concord Consortium. (2018). Research projects: Biology. Retrieved from https://concord.org/our-work/research-projects/ on April 22.
Cordova, J. R., Sinatra, G. M., Jones, S. H., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2014). Confidence in prior knowledge, self-efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.006.
Dada, J. O., & Mendes, P. (2011). Multi-scale modelling and simulation in systems biology. Integrative Biology, 3(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0ib00075b.
Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438.
Denning, P. J., & Freeman, P. A. (2009). The profession of IT Computing’s paradigm. Communications of the ACM, 52(12), 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/1610252.1610265.
Denning, P. J., Martell, C. H., & Cerf, V. (2015). Great principles of computing. MIT Press Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AjFkBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Denning,+P.+J.,+Martell,+C.+H.,+%26+Cerf,+V.+(2015).+Great+principles+of+computing.+MIT+Press.&ots=mDb0z-aapQ&sig=CoAHAqh01P3c8ul3YguCzhFTrWE#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35(3), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/4444260.
Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational psychologist, 33(2-3), 109-128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3302&3_5.
Dole, J., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. (1991). The effects of strong beliefs on text processing: The case of evolution and creationism. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference Annual Meeting Palm Springs, CA.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007005.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016.
Duit, R., & Tesch, M. (2010). On the role of the experiment in science teaching and learning–visions and the reality of instructional practice. In M. Kalogiannakis, D. Stavrou, & P. G. Michaelides (Eds.).
Duit, R. H., & Treagust, D. F. (2012). Conceptual change: Still a powerful framework for improving the practice of science instruction. In Issues and challenges in science education research (pp. 43–54). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3980-2_4.
Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., Kattmann, U., Komorek, M., & Parchmann, I. (2012). The model of educational reconstruction–a framework for improving teaching and learning science. In Science education research and practice in Europe (pp. 13–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Dunbar, K. (2000). How scientists think in the real world: Implications for science education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00050-7.
Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701–718). New York: Oxford University Press.
Duschl, R. A. (2012). The second dimension—Crosscutting concepts. Science and Children, 49(6), 10–14 Retrieved from http://link.galegroup.com.libproxy.temple.edu/apps/doc/A280005164/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=AONE&xid=9d53f1e4.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4.
Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.604476.
Edelson, D. C. (1998). Realising authentic science learning through the adaptation of scientific practice. International handbook of science education, 1, 317–331. Retrieved from http://www.growingtallpoppies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/handbook.pdf.
Fisher, M. E., Giakoumis, S., & Dorner, M. A. (2016). The benefits of an engaged constructivist pedagogy in the sciences.
Forrest, S. (1990). Emergent computation: Self-organizing, collective, and cooperative phenomena in natural and artificial computing networks. Physica D, Nonlinear Phenomena, 42(1–3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2789(90)90063-U.
Gadanidis, G. (2017). Artificial intelligence, computational thinking, and mathematics education. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(2), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-09-2016-0048.
Gallagher, S. R., Coon, W., Donley, K., Scott, A., & Goldberg, D. S. (2011). A first attempt to bring computational biology into advanced high school biology classrooms. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(10), e1002244. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002244.
Gee, H. (2013). The accidental species: Misunderstandings of human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416839.
Griffith, J. A., & Brem, S. K. (2004). Teaching evolutionary biology: Pressures, stress, and coping. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 791–809. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20027.
Gross, L. J. (2004). Points of view: The interface of mathematics and biology: Interdisciplinarity and the undergraduate biology curriculum: Finding a balance. Cell Biology Education, 3(2), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.04-03-0040.
Grover, S. (2011). Robotics and engineering for middle and high school students to develop computational thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051.
Guo, Y., Wagh, A., Brady, C., Levy, S. T., Horn, M. S., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Frogs to think with: Improving Students' computational thinking and understanding of evolution in a code-first learning environment. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 246-254). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930724.
Heddy, B. C., & Nadelson, L. S. (2013). The variables related to public acceptance of evolution in the United States. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 6(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1936-6434-6-3.
Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming misconceptions: Using transformative experience to promote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution. Science Education, 97(5), 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21072.
Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (2012). The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hongladarom, S. (2006). Ethics of bioinformatics: A convergence between bioethics and computer ethics. Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 9(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23960-1_36.
Ioannidou, A., Bennett, V., Repenning, A., Koh, K. H., & Basawapatna, A. (2011). Computational. Thinking Patterns, In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American. Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, April 66–12,
Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4.
Jördens, J., Asshoff, R., Kullmann, H., & Hammann, M. (2016). Providing vertical coherence in explanations and promoting reasoning across levels of biological organization when teaching evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 960–992.
Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanations and understanding. Annual Review Psychology, 57, 227–254. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100.
Kenyon, L., Schwarz, C., & Hug, B. (2008). The benefits of scientific modeling. Science and Children, 46(2), 40–44 Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.temple.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=601d4d8c-5e34-4402-bce5-e7221b49dc63%40sessionmgr4009.
Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). The impact of student self-efficacy on scientific inquiry skills: An exploratory investigation in River City, a multi-user virtual environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9038-y.
King, R. D. (2011). Rise of the robo scientists. Scientific American, 304(1), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0111-72.
Kong, S. C., & Abelson, H. (Eds.). (2019). Computational thinking education. Springer.
Krajcik, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Science and Children, 49(7), 10–13 Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.temple.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=3e42c09a-bc72-4394-a2d9-d97e2bb16bda%40sessionmgr4010.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290205.
Lawson, A. E., Banks, D. L., & Logvin, M. (2007). Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and achievement in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20172.
Lederman, N. G. (2019). Contextualizing the relationship between nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 28, 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00030-8.
Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners' understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 65–83.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lenhard, J. (2010). Computation and simulation. The Oxford handbook on interdisciplinarity, 246–258.
Leutenegger, S., & Edgington, J. (2007). A games first approach to teaching introductory programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 115-118). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1227310.1227352.
Levinson, R. (2010). Science education and democratic participation: An uneasy congruence? Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 69–119.
Liao, Y. W., & She, H. C. (2009). Enhancing eight grade students’ scientific conceptual change and scientific reasoning through a web-based learning program. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 228–240 Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.temple.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=003d3cbb-123e-452c-806a-3a9cd761b647%40pdc-v-sessmgr04.
Llewellyn, D. (2012). Teaching high school science through inquiry and argumentation. New York: Corwin Press.
Longbottom, J. E., & Butler, P. H. (1999). Why teach science? Setting rational goals for science education. Science Education, 83(4), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199907)83:4<473::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-Z.
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.
Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441.
Marr, D. (1977). Artificial intelligence—a personal view. Artificial Intelligence, 9(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(77)90013-3.
Mau, W. C. (2003). Factors that influence persistence in science and engineering career aspirations. The Career Development Quarterly, 51(3), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2003.tb00604.x.
McCain, K., & Kampourakis, K. (2018). Which question do polls about evolution and belief really ask, and why does it matter? Public Understanding of Science, 27(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516642726.
McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10205.x.
McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM Education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530–569.
Mead, R., Hejmadi, M., & Hurst, L. D. (2018). Scientific aptitude better explains poor responses to teaching of evolution than psychological conflicts. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(2), 388. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0442-x.
Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21199.
National Research Council. (2010). Exploring the intersection of science education and 21st century skills: A workshop summary. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Nehm, R. H., Kim, S. Y., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: Biology versus non-biology teachers. Science Education, 93(6), 1122–1146. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20340.
Nelson, C. E., Scharmann, L. C., Beard, J., & Flammer, L. I. (2019). The nature of science as a foundation for fostering a better understanding of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 12(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-019-0100-7.
Newell, A., Perlis, A. J., & Simon, H. A. (1967). Computer Science. Science, 157(3795), 1373–1374.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
Parker, J. M., Anderson, C. W., Heidemann, M., Merrill, J., Merritt, B., Richmond, G., & Urban-Lurain, M. (2012). Exploring undergraduates’ understanding of photosynthesis using diagnostic question clusters. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 47–57.
Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Learning natural selection through computational thinking: Unplugged design of algorithmic explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 983–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21545.
Perlis, A. J. (1982). Special feature: Epigrams on programming. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 17(9), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/947955.1083808.
Pezzulo, G., Barsalou, L. W., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, M. H., McRae, K., & Spivey, M. J. (2013). Computational grounded cognition: a new alliance between grounded cognition and computational modeling, Frontiers in Psychology, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00612.
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory, In Piaget and his school (pp. 11–23). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. B. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063002167.
Plummer, J. D. (2012). Challenges in defining and validating an astronomy learning progression. In Learning progressions in science (pp. 77–100). Brill Sense.
Plummer, J. D., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: Elementary levels from an earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 768–787. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20355.
Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20415.
Pobiner, B., Beardsley, P. M., Bertka, C. M., & Watson, W. A. (2018). Using human case studies to teach evolution in high school AP biology classrooms. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 11(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-018-0077-7.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207.
Pratt, H., & Bybee, R. W. (2012). The NSTA reader’s guide to a framework for K-12 science education. Arlington: NSTA Press.
Qin, H. (2009). Teaching computational thinking through bioinformatics to biology students. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 188-191). ACM.
Román-González, M., Moreno-León, J., & Robles, G. (2017). Complementary tools for computational thinking assessment. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (CTE 2017), S. C Kong, J Sheldon, and K. Y Li (Eds.). The Education University of Hong Kong (pp. 154-159)
Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students' images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<201::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-H.
Schmaltz, R. M., Jansen, E., & Wenckowski, N. (2017). Redefining critical thinking: Teaching students to think like scientists. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 459. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00459.
Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311.
Schweingruber, H., Thomas, K., & Helen, Q. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition (6pp). University of Southampton (E-prints).
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-x.
Shen, B. S. (1975). Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In Communication of scientific information (pp. 44-52). Karger Publishers.
Sherman, M., & Martin, F. (2015). The assessment of mobile computational thinking. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 30(6), 53–59 Retrieved from http://www.cs.uml.edu/~fredm/papers/p53-sherman.pdf.
Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science.
Sinatra, G. M., & Lombardi, D. (2020). Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educational Psychologist, 55(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181.
Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10087.
Sinatra, G. M., Brem, S. K., & Evans, E. M. (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0037-8.
Singh, K., Granville, M., & Dika, S. (2002). Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and academic engagement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(6), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596607.
Speth, E. B., Long, T. M., Pennock, R. T., & Ebert-May, D. (2009). Using Avida-ED for teaching and learning about evolution in undergraduate introductory biology courses. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(3), 415–428.
Stocum, D. L. (2015). Reflections on scientific literacy, worldviews, and education. Journal of Civic Literacy, 2(1), 4–23.
Tamatea, L. (2019). Compulsory coding in education: Liberal-humanism, Baudrillard and the ‘problem’ of abstraction. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0106-3.
The AP Biology Development Committee. (2012). AP biology investigative labs: An inquiry-based approach. New York: The College Examination Board.
Toffoli, T. (2004). Nothing makes sense in computing except in the light of evolution. IJUC, 1(1), 3–29 Retrieved from http://research.cs.queensu.ca/home/akl/cisc879/papers/PAPERS_FROM_UNCONVENTIONAL_COMPUTING/VOLUME_1_Issue_1/TOFFOLI.pdf.
Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge, Taylor, & Francis Group.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41 Retrieved from http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/vygotsky78.pdf.
Wachowski, A., Wachowski, L., Reeves, K., Fishburne, L., Moss, C.-A., Warner Bros., Village Roadshow Pictures, Silver Pictures. (1999). The matrix. Burbank: Warner Home Video.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5.
Welcome to NCBI. (2019). Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 215-220). ACM https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157200.
Wilensky, U. (2014). Computational thinking through modeling and simulation. Whitepaper presented at the summit on future directions in computer education. Orlando, FL.
Wilensky, U., & Papert, S. (2010). Restructurations: Reformulations of knowledge disciplines through new representational forms. Constructionism. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a684/d3149266ce9e55dc366b8acbbc6e905f8c80.pdf.
Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35 Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Jeannette_Wing.pdf.
Wood, W. B. (2009). Revising the AP biology curriculum. Science, 325(5948), 1627–1628. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1180821.
Zirbel, E. L. (2004). Framework for conceptual change. Astronomy Education Review, 3(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.3847/AER2004007.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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
About this article
Cite this article
Christensen, D., Lombardi, D. Understanding Biological Evolution Through Computational Thinking. Sci & Educ 29, 1035–1077 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00141-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00141-7