Ackermann, E. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Routledge.
Google Scholar
Ah-Nam, L., & Osman, K. (2017). Developing 21st century skills through a constructivist-constructionist learning environment. K-12 STEM Education, 3(2), 205–216. The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/209542/
Aho, A. V. (2011). Ubiquity symposium: Computation and computational thinking. Ubiquity. https://doi.org/10.1145/1922681.1922682
Article
Google Scholar
Aksit, O., & Wiebe, E. N. (2020). Exploring force and motion concepts in middle grades using computational modeling: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09800-z
Article
Google Scholar
Barab, S., Schatz, S., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Using activity theory to conceptualize online community and using online community to conceptualize activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1101_3
Article
Google Scholar
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
Article
Google Scholar
Bell, T., Andreae, P., & Lambert, L. (2010, January). Computer science in New Zealand high schools. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Australasian Conference on Computing Education—Volume 103 (pp. 15–22). https://dl.acm.org/doi/https://doi.org/10.5555/1862219.1862223
Bell, T., Rosamond, F., & Casey, N. (2012). Computer science unplugged and related projects in math and computer science popularization. In H. L. Bodlaender, R. Downey, F. V. Fomin, & D. Marx (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 7370. The multivariate algorithmic revolution and beyond (pp. 398–456). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30891-8_18
Bienkowski, M., Snow, E., Rutstein, D., & Grover, S. (2015). Assessment design patterns for computational thinking practices in secondary computer science: A first look (SRI technical report). SRI International. https://pact.sri.com/downloads/Assessment-Design-Patterns-for-Computational%20Thinking-Practices-Secondary-Computer-Science.pdf
Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL, 16(2), 377. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004000928
Article
Google Scholar
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 1, p. 25). http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf
Brinda, T., Puhlmann, H., & Schulte, C. (2009). Bridging ICT and CS: Educational standards for computer science in lower secondary education. ACM Sigcse Bulletin, 41(3), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1145/1595496.1562965
Article
Google Scholar
Brine, J., & Franken, M. (2006). Students’ perceptions of a selected aspect of a computer mediated academic writing program: An activity theory analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1305
Article
Google Scholar
Brown, N. J., & Wilson, M. (2011). A model of cognition: The missing cornerstone of assessment. Educational Psychology Review, 23(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9161-z
Article
Google Scholar
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Cole, M. D., Engeström, Y., & Vasquez, O. (1997). Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
College Board. (2019). AP computer science principles. AP Course Overview. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-computer-science-principles-course-overview.pdf?course=ap-computer-science-principles
Computing at School Working Group. (2012). Computer science: A curriculum for schools. https://www.computingatschool.org.uk/resource-library/2009/march/computing-a-curriculum-for-schools
Csizmadia, A., Standl, B., & Waite, J. (2019). Integrating the constructionist learning theory with computational thinking classroom activities. Informatics in Education, 18(1), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2019.03
Article
Google Scholar
Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished manuscript, referenced in https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
Denning, P. J. (2017). Computational thinking in science. American Scientist, 105(1), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1511/2017.124.13
Article
Google Scholar
Dickes, A. C., Sengupta, P., Farris, A. V., & Basu, S. (2016). Development of mechanistic reasoning and multilevel explanations of ecology in third grade using agent-based models. Science Education, 100(4), 734–776. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21217
Article
Google Scholar
Dong, Y., Catete, V., Jocius, R., Lytle, N., Barnes, T., Albert, J., Joshi, D., Robertson, R., & Andrews, A. (2019, February). PRADA: A practical model for integrating computational thinking in K-12 education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 906–912). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287431
Dorph, R., Cannady, M. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2016). How science learning activation enables success for youth in science learning experiences. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 89.
Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on Activity Theory, 19(38), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003
Article
Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to Developmental Research. Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Folk, R., Lee, G., Michalenko, A., Peel, A., & Pontelli, E. (2015, December). GK-12 DISSECT: Incorporating computational thinking with K–12 science without computer access. 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344238
Foster, I. (2006). A two-way street to science’s future. Nature, 440(7083), 419–419. https://doi.org/10.1038/440419a
Article
Google Scholar
Google for Education. (2019). CT overview. Exploring Computational Thinking. https://edu.google.com/resources/programs/exploring-computational-thinking/#!ct-overview
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
Article
Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (2015). Commentary: Some prospects for connecting concepts and methods of individual cognition and of situativity. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 248–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1077708
Article
Google Scholar
Grover, S., Fisler, K., Lee, I., & Yadav, A. (2020, February). Integrating computing and computational thinking into K-12 STEM learning. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 481–482). https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366970
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
Article
Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2015). Learner-centered design of computing education: Research on computing for everyone. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 8(6), 1–165. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00684ED1V01Y201511HCI033
Article
Google Scholar
Huang, W., & Looi, C.-K. (2021). A critical review of literature on “unplugged” pedagogies in K-12 computer science and computational thinking education. Computer Science Education, 31(1), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1789411
Article
Google Scholar
Hutchins, N. M., Biswas, G., Maróti, M., Lédeczi, Á., Grover, S., Wolf, R., & McElhaney, K. (2020). C2STEM: A system for synergistic learning of physics and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09804-9
Article
Google Scholar
Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. https://doi.org/10.5334/2002-6
Article
Google Scholar
Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014, January). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting. https://ccl.northwestern.edu/papers/2014/OrtonKaiNorthwestern-1.pdf
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, 7, 89–121.
Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477
Article
Google Scholar
K–12 Computer Science Framework. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org
Kaczmarczyk, D., & Dopplick, R. (2014). Rebooting the pathway to success: Preparing students for computing workforce needs in the United States. Education Policy Committee, Association for Computing Machinery. https://pathways.acm.org/ACM_pathways_report.pdf
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Kite, V., & Park, S. (2020, March). Secondary science teachers’ conceptualizations of computational thinking and perceived barriers to CT/content integration. In Prepared for the 2020 annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching and teacher education (NARST). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340175597
Krugel, J., & Hubwieser, P. (2018). Strictly objects first: A multipurpose course on computational thinking. In M. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 73–98). Berlin: Springer.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Kuutti, K. (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Lealdino Filho, P., & Mercat, C. (2018). Teaching computational thinking in classroom environments: A case for unplugged scenario. In Proceedings of the Resources 2018 International Conference (pp. 296–299).
Lee, I., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). Computational thinking integration patterns along the framework defining computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09802-x
Article
Google Scholar
Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K–8 curriculum. ACM Inroads, 5(4), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/2684721.2684736
Article
Google Scholar
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice Hall.
Google Scholar
Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). Computational thinking is more about thinking than computing. Journal for STEM Education Research, 3, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00030-2
Article
Google Scholar
Lowe, T., & Brophy, S. (2017, October). An operationalized model for defining computational thinking. 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190682
Malone, K. L., Schunn, C. D., & Schuchardt, A. M. (2018). Improving conceptual understanding and representation skills through Excel-based modeling. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9706-0
Article
Google Scholar
Malyn-Smith, J., Lee, I. A., Martin, F., Grover, S., Evans, M. A., & Pillai, S. (2018). Developing a framework for computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education (p. 5). http://www.cs.uml.edu/~fredm/papers/CT%20from%20a%20disciplinary%20perspective%20Malyn-Smith%20et%20al%202018.pdf
Mislevy, R. J., Almond, R. G., & Lukas, J. F. (2003). A brief introduction to evidence-centered design. ETS Research Report Series, 2003(1), i–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2003.tb01908.x
Article
Google Scholar
Murphy, E., & Rodriguez-Manzanares, M. A. (2008). Using activity theory and its principle of contradictions to guide research in educational technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1203
Article
Google Scholar
Nardi, B. A. (Ed.). (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press: New York.
Google Scholar
Nardelli, E. (2019). Do we really need computational thinking? Communications of the ACM, 62(2), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231587
Article
Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, pp. 65–66. National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/a-framework-for-k-12-science-education-practices-crosscutting-concepts
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. Basic Books.
Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, 11, 47–87.
Google Scholar
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
Article
Google Scholar
Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2022). Algorithmic explanations: An unplugged instructional approach to integrate science and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 34, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09965-0
Article
Google Scholar
Pickering, A. (2010). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Rutstein, D. W., Snow, E., & Bienkowski, M. (2014, April). Computational thinking practices: Analyzing and modeling a critical domain in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Philadelphia, PA. https://pact.sri.com/downloads/Rutstein_2014_AERA_Preso_CTP.pdf
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2014. ACM. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299450690_Computational_thinking_the_developing_definition
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. (2018). Toward a phenomenology of computational thinking in STEM education. In M. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 49–72). Springer: Berlin.
Chapter
Google Scholar
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
Article
Google Scholar
Settle, A., Franke, B., Hansen, R., Spaltro, F., Jurisson, C., Rennert-May, C., & Wildeman, B. (2012, July). Infusing computational thinking into the middle- and high-school curriculum. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 22–27). https://doi.org/10.1145/2325296.2325306
Shaffer, D. W., & Clinton, K. A. (2006). Toolforthoughts: Reexamining thinking in the digital age. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1304_2
Article
Google Scholar
Solvie, P., & Kloek, M. (2007). Using technology tools to engage students with multiple learning styles in a constructivist learning environment. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(2), 7–27.
Google Scholar
UlrichHoppe, H., & Werneburg, S. (2019). Computational thinking—more than a variant of scientific inquiry! In: S.C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 13–30). Springer, New York
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. MIT Press.
Google Scholar
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
Article
Google Scholar
Weintrop, D., Rutstein, D., Bienkowski, M., & McGee, S. (2021). Assessment of computational thinking. Computational Thinking in Education, 23, 90–111. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003102991-6
Article
Google Scholar
Wiese, E. S., & Linn, M. C. (2021). “It must include rules”: Middle school students’ computational thinking with computer models in science. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 28(2), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415582
Article
Google Scholar
Wilson, K. G. (1989). Grand challenges to computational science. Future Generation Computer Systems, 5(2–3), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-739X(89)90038-1
Article
Google Scholar
Wing, J. (2010). Research notebook: Computational thinking—what and why. The Link Magazine, 6, 89.
Google Scholar
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Article
Google Scholar
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7
Article
Google Scholar