Towards a Generalized Assessment of Computational Thinking for Introductory Physics Students

TL;DR

This study qualitatively analyzes physicists' perspectives on computational thinking in introductory physics, emphasizing core skills like coding comprehension and explanation, to inform assessment development.

Contribution

It provides insights into what physicists value in computational thinking for introductory physics and highlights key skills and challenges for assessment design.

Findings

Physicists value reading code and core physics concept identification.

Python, VPython, and spreadsheets are preferred tools.

Assessment should focus on basic computational skills relevant to physics.

Abstract

Computational thinking in physics has many different forms, definitions, and implementations depending on the level of physics, or the institution it is presented in. In order to better integrate computational thinking in introductory physics, we need to understand what physicists find important about computational thinking in introductory physics. We present a qualitative analysis of twenty-six interviews asking academic (N=18) and industrial (N=8) physicists about the teaching and learning of computational thinking in introductory physics courses. These interviews are part of a longer-term project towards developing an assessment protocol for computational thinking in introductory physics. We find that academic and industrial physicists value students' ability to read code and that Python (or VPython) and spreadsheets were the preferred computational language or environment used. Additionally, the interviewees mentioned that identifying the core physics concepts within a program, explaining code to others, and good program hygiene (i.e., commenting and using meaningful variable names) are important skills for introductory students to acquire. We also find that while a handful of interviewees note that the experience and skills gained from computation are quite useful for student's future careers, they also describe multiple limiting factors of teaching computation in introductory physics, such as curricular overhaul, not having "space" for computation, and student rejection. The interviews show that while adding computational thinking to physics students repertoire is important, the importance really comes from using computational thinking to learn and understand physics better. This informs us that the assessment we develop should only include the basics of computational thinking needed to assess introductory physics knowledge.