The educator guides students through computational approaches to shaping, analyzing, and communicating data.
Data does not exist ready-made in the world. Rather, when students use computational thinking to study a phenomenon, they must decide what data to collect and how to organize it. These decisions constitute the process of “shaping data”—first, students define the questions they want to examine with data; second, they go about collecting the data; third, they structure the data in a way that works with the computational tool (e.g., spreadsheet program, statistical software package, visualization tool) that will help them analyze it.
These decisions about collecting and structuring data must be made and carried out even in cases when students are not collecting original data. In the end, these decisions affect which questions can be addressed through computation, as well as the validity and bias of the answers that are ultimately communicated.
Once data has been selected and structured, it can be analyzed using computational tools. Examples of using computational tools to analyze data include:
The results of data analysis are only meaningful when connected back to questions about the original phenomenon being studied. When students skillfully use data to communicate, they draw on practices from a range of subject areas:
This suggested implementation is intended for the end of a unit in which students have already developed a substantial understanding of a big idea or essential question. (Understandings are often described with essential questions or big ideas. “Integrating computational thinking into curriculum” addresses the nature of understandings.) By this point in the unit, students will have generated many of their own questions. It can be helpful to keep track of these questions, either in your notes or somewhere public such as a bulletin board or course website.
To earn the micro-credential, you must earn a “passing” evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component of Part 2.
In the assessment of this micro-credential, an educator will guide students in an inquiry project pursuing an authentic research question, through the steps of shaping data, analyzing it with computational tools, and communicating their findings to an audience invested in the results of students’ inquiry. The educator will analyze one student’s learning, and reflect on the successes and limitations of the lesson(s). The three parts of the assessment should fit together as evidence of professional reflective practice.
Please answer the following questions:
To earn this micro-credential, please submit the following:
1) Student artifacts
Submit the following artifacts from two students:
2) Analysis of artifacts
(800-word limit total)
As you answer the following questions, select artifacts from one student and refer to specific evidence from the submitted artifacts.
Note: If students worked in groups, you may choose to analyze one student’s learning within the group or the learning of the group as a whole.
Reflecting on the lesson, what might you change that would support one or more students (not necessarily the student whose work was considered in Part 2) to more effectively use computational thinking in the inquiry process?