Experimenting with computational thinking for knowledge transfer in engineering robotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite its obvious relevance to computer science, computational thinking (CT) is transdisciplinary with the potential of impacting one's analytical ability. Although countless efforts have been invested across K‐12 education, there is a paucity of research at the postsecondary level about the extent to which CT can contribute to sustainable learning outcomes. Objectives The current study examines how a series of Arduino‐based robotics learning activities capture the fuller essence of concepts related to CT. Methods College students (n = 50) completed a series of six robotics learning activities. Think‐alouds, student reflections and performance scores were used to assess students' CT through a robotics challenge in virtual and physical learning environments. Results and Conclusions Students verbalized CT concepts related to algorithmic thinking much more than abstraction, problem decomposition and testing and debugging. Students exposed to active learning performed better in a virtual robotics challenge compared to their peers in a traditional‐oriented classroom. Students' scores on the physical robotics challenge increased as a function of the number of references they made to CT concepts during the think‐alouds. It is possible to design pedagogical experiences that tap into various dimensions of CT at incremental levels of complexity through a series of Arduino‐based robotics activities. With the integration of an online simulation, students can visualize and transfer their CT skills between a virtual and physical learning environment, thus leading to more sustainable learning outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".