Using Computational Physics Essays to Facilitate Engineering Students' Computational Thinking

TL;DR

This study adapts the Computational Essay framework into Computational Physics Essays to assess engineering students' scientific inquiry and computational thinking through real-world physics modeling in Python.

Contribution

It introduces a project-based assessment method that effectively evaluates and enhances students' computational thinking and scientific reasoning skills.

Findings

High proficiency in Modeling and Systems Thinking among students.

Strong correlation ( {ho}= 0.75) between CT practices and project quality.

Successful shift in students' epistemic frame toward physical sensemaking.

Abstract

Background: As traditional coding tasks in education become increasingly vulnerable to the use of Generative AI, there is a critical need for authentic, project-based assessments that evaluate students' scientific inquiry. To address this need, we adapted the existing Computational Essay framework to create the Computational Physics Essay (CPE). Administered as a culminating capstone project, the CPE required introductory engineering students to use Python within Jupyter Notebooks to iteratively model real-world physics systems. We analyzed a random sample of CPE submissions (N = 100) using a customized 20-item rubric based on Weintrop's computational thinking (CT) taxonomy. Results: The project-based constraint successfully elicited a high variety of CT practices. Students demonstrated high proficiency in Modeling and Systems Thinking, with 99% successfully investigating complex systems as a whole. Furthermore, the use of CT practices strongly correlated (\r{ho}= 0.75) with expert ratings of the overall quality of the CPE. While some students showed expected novice weaknesses in software modularity, the CPE successfully shifted their epistemic frame toward physical sensemaking. Conclusions: Situating computation within real-world capstone projects provides a robust framework for assessing CT, bridging the gap between programming and scientific argumentation in introductory engineering students.