Thanks, Jennie!

Our primary focus is on four of the five categories of computational thinking from the new Massachusetts DESE Digital Literacy Computer Science standards, which are abstraction, algorithm, modeling and simulation, and data. Our aim is to strongly develop those foundational skills early, and not to duplicate others' efforts in developing programming activities (such as code.org). Some units will include programming components or link to other programs whose existing tasks fit well with the unit.

We're currently reviewing the materials that were piloted this school year and expect to have a number of them available for review this summer.

Hi, Kip.

The project is looking at existing mathematics and science lessons that could naturally demonstrate computational thinking concepts, and we are developing enhancements and additions to further engage students in CT through those disciplinary lessons. So we aren't incorporating mathematics into the units, we are doing the reverse. As such, differentiation among students is part of the underlying curriculum.

The bulk of our work so far has been based on the MA DESE model curriculum units. The mathematics lessons we’ve worked with in our first cohort are an introductory angles unit in grade 4 and a statistics (mean and median) unit in grade 6. We expect to include at least one mathematics unit and one science unit for each grade, and are exploring ways to promote the work so that it can be easily applied across different curricula (by tying our work to concepts from the standards, for instance).

We've wondered about the same thing in our work, and have debated about the definition of integration (in our case, we're integrating robotics into different disciplines).  One way we've thought about it is impact on learning outcomes - has using the principles or practices from one discipline enhanced students' ability to understand the second discipline?  

The primary aim of our project is to treat the different aspects of computational thinking more as foundational skills (core-based thinking, in Katie's parlance). As demonstrated in the video, the goals for that lesson were understanding what a model is and its value. Those skills are part of both the Massachusetts Digital Literacy and Computer Science framework and NGSS. In the early grades, that basic understanding isn't significantly different between science and computer science (mathematics is another matter, of course... and a little more nebulous at early grades). As kids get more sophisticated, the concepts do diverge some, and we will address those differences more completely in the later grades.

Our driving theory is that stronger emphasis on the core CT skills, which in the MA DLCS framework are categorized as abstraction, algorithm, modeling and simulation, and data, would enhance students' ability when working on more explicit programming/computer science skills (such as robotics). Thus, the primary focus of our work is not in writing programming tasks, but in these computational thinking skills. (I should note that we also strongly believe these CT skills have value beyond being a support for programming.)

Katie's point about integration versus connections is primary in our work. Our goal is to provide a layered approach: 1) draw those connecting lines from within the discipline, 2) provide enhancements to specific lessons or extra lesson components that may more directly address the CT concepts within a unit, and 3) provide or link to extension lessons and activities tied to the disciplinary concept that are more CS focused (programming, robotics, etc.). Our aim is to provide teachers support materials so they can make sense of CT, recognize it at their grade level, and successfully implement those first two layers. We expect that the third layer will be for those teachers who are technology-savvy, have had professional development in CS concepts, or have access to technology support people within their schools. We're also looking at producing a professional development program for teachers in MA as we near completion of the project.

Thanks, Kevin. This is really helpful. I like the 3-layered approach. It gets at an issue we've debated a lot and will have to address more directly in our next project: Once we've identified the connections (your level 1), how explicit do we make those connections to teachers and kids, and when? It sounds like you've chosen to frame discussion in terms of the core skills for their own sake, and talk about the specifics of how they're used in each discipline later. That makes good sense to me. And I absolutely agree about the value of CT outside of programming!

You bring up a great point. We are following the use/modify/create model here, and are curious about what age it's appropriate to move from one level to the next. We're primarily working with younger kids (grades 1-6), so they aren't very sophisticated in their ability to modify or create models without more directed programming lessons. We're also sensitive to the science content, and incorporating models that are sophisticated enough to enhance the science concepts, so it's a tricky balance.

So we may not, within a particular grade, have students use/modify/create the same model, but find opportunities in a science lesson to work with a fairly sophisticated model, but then in another lesson (science or math) modify or create a different model.

Excellent. thanks for clarifying