Real-world problems through computational thinking tools and concepts: the case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Many mathematical models have been shared to communicate about the COVID-19 outbreak; however, they require advanced mathematical skills. The main purpose of this study is to investigate in which way computational thinking (CT) tools and concepts are helpful to better understand the outbreak, and how the context of disease could be used as a real-world context to promote elementary and middle-grade students' mathematical and computational knowledge and skills. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the authors used a qualitative research design, specifically content analysis, and analyzed two simulations of basic SIR models designed in a Scratch. The authors examine the extent to which they help with the understanding of the parameters, rates and the effect of variations in control measures in the mathematical models. Findings This paper investigated the four dimensions of sample simulations: initialization, movements, transmission, recovery process and their connections to school mathematical and computational concepts. Research limitations/implications A major limitation is that this study took place during the pandemic and the authors could not collect empirical data. Practical implications Teaching mathematical modeling and computer programming is enhanced by elaborating in a specific context. This may serve as a springboard for encouraging students to engage in real-world problems and to promote using their knowledge and skills in making well-informed decisions in future crises. Originality/value This research not only sheds light on the way of helping students respond to the challenges of the outbreak but also explores the opportunities it offers to motivate students by showing the value and relevance of CT and mathematics (Albrecht and Karabenick, 2018).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".