OntoScratch: ontologias para a avaliação do ensino de Pensamento Computacional através do Scratch
Resumo
Este artigo apresenta uma representação de conhecimento baseada em ontologias para representar um projeto Scratch e as avaliações de habilidades de pensamento computacional realizadas sobre ele ao longo do tempo, como forma de prover suporte para a realização de análises e inferências que auxiliem na compreensão do conhecimento adquirido pelo aluno, sua evolução e outros aspectos relacionados a seu aprendizado. Os resultados demonstram a eficiência e potencial desta representação, sendo capaz de reproduzir fielmente, através de consultas SPARQL, a avaliação de habilidades do pensamento computacional da ferramenta Dr. Scratch.
Palavras-chave:
Engenharia de Ontologias, Modelagem Semântica, Ontologias, Pensamento Computacional, Scratch
Referências
(2020a). Scratch. https://scratch.mit.edu/statistics/. Acessado em 11/07/2020.
(2020b). Scratch wiki. https://en.scratch-wiki.info/. Acessado em 07/07/2020.
Araujo, C., Lima, L. V., and Henriques, P. R. (2019). An ontology based approach to teach computational thinking. In 2019 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), pages 1–6. IEEE.
Blikstein, P. (2008). O pensamento computacional e a reinvenção do computador na educação. Education & Courses.
BLINKSTEIN, P. (2019). O pensamento computacional e a reinvenção do computador na educação. 2008.
Brennan, K. and Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada, volume 1, page 25.
Campos, F., Soster, T., and Blikstein, P. (2019). Sorry, i was in teacher mode today: Pivotal tensions and contradictory discourses in real-world implementations of school makerspaces. In Proceedings of FabLearn 2019, pages 96–103.
De França, R. S. and do Amaral, H. J. C. (2013). Proposta metodologica de ensino é avaliação para o desenvolvimento do pensamento computacional com o uso do scratch. In Anais do Workshop de Informatica na Escola, volume 1, page 179.
Dousay, T. A. (2017). Defining and differentiating the makerspace. Educational Technology, pages 69–74.
Horridge, M. and Musen, M. (2015). Snap-sparql: A java framework for working with sparql and owl. In International Experiences and Directions Workshop on OWL, pages 154–165. Springer.
Junior, J. L. N. V., Primo, T. T., Pernas, A. M., and Junior, D. A. M. (2019). A framework for collecting and analyzing interactions in scratch projects. In XIV Latin American Conference on Learning Technologies (LACLO), pages 50–54. IEEE.
Moreno-Leon, J., Robles, G., and Román-González, M. (2015). Dr. scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. RED. Revista de Educacion a Distancia, (46):1–23.
Oluk, A. and Korkmaz, O. (2016). Comparing students’ scratch skills with their computational thinking skills in terms of different variables. Online Submission, 8(11):1–7.
Seiter, L. and Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research, pages 59–66.
Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B. C., Kalyanpur, A., and Katz, Y. (2007). Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(2):51–53.
Troiano, G. M., Snodgrass, S., Argımak, E., Robles, G., Smith, G., Cassidy, M., TuckerRaymond, E., Puttick, G., and Harteveld, C. (2019). Is my game PK, Dr. Scratch? Exploring programming and computational thinking development via metrics in studentdesigned serious games for stem. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pages 208–219.
Wilson, A., Hainey, T., and Connolly, T. (2012). Evaluation of computer games developed by primary school children to gauge understanding of programming concepts. In European Conference on Games Based Learning, page 549. Academic Conferences
InternationalLimited.
(2020b). Scratch wiki. https://en.scratch-wiki.info/. Acessado em 07/07/2020.
Araujo, C., Lima, L. V., and Henriques, P. R. (2019). An ontology based approach to teach computational thinking. In 2019 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE), pages 1–6. IEEE.
Blikstein, P. (2008). O pensamento computacional e a reinvenção do computador na educação. Education & Courses.
BLINKSTEIN, P. (2019). O pensamento computacional e a reinvenção do computador na educação. 2008.
Brennan, K. and Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada, volume 1, page 25.
Campos, F., Soster, T., and Blikstein, P. (2019). Sorry, i was in teacher mode today: Pivotal tensions and contradictory discourses in real-world implementations of school makerspaces. In Proceedings of FabLearn 2019, pages 96–103.
De França, R. S. and do Amaral, H. J. C. (2013). Proposta metodologica de ensino é avaliação para o desenvolvimento do pensamento computacional com o uso do scratch. In Anais do Workshop de Informatica na Escola, volume 1, page 179.
Dousay, T. A. (2017). Defining and differentiating the makerspace. Educational Technology, pages 69–74.
Horridge, M. and Musen, M. (2015). Snap-sparql: A java framework for working with sparql and owl. In International Experiences and Directions Workshop on OWL, pages 154–165. Springer.
Junior, J. L. N. V., Primo, T. T., Pernas, A. M., and Junior, D. A. M. (2019). A framework for collecting and analyzing interactions in scratch projects. In XIV Latin American Conference on Learning Technologies (LACLO), pages 50–54. IEEE.
Moreno-Leon, J., Robles, G., and Román-González, M. (2015). Dr. scratch: Automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. RED. Revista de Educacion a Distancia, (46):1–23.
Oluk, A. and Korkmaz, O. (2016). Comparing students’ scratch skills with their computational thinking skills in terms of different variables. Online Submission, 8(11):1–7.
Seiter, L. and Foreman, B. (2013). Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on International computing education research, pages 59–66.
Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B. C., Kalyanpur, A., and Katz, Y. (2007). Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics, 5(2):51–53.
Troiano, G. M., Snodgrass, S., Argımak, E., Robles, G., Smith, G., Cassidy, M., TuckerRaymond, E., Puttick, G., and Harteveld, C. (2019). Is my game PK, Dr. Scratch? Exploring programming and computational thinking development via metrics in studentdesigned serious games for stem. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pages 208–219.
Wilson, A., Hainey, T., and Connolly, T. (2012). Evaluation of computer games developed by primary school children to gauge understanding of programming concepts. In European Conference on Games Based Learning, page 549. Academic Conferences
InternationalLimited.
Publicado
24/11/2020
Como Citar
ARAUJO, Nícolas de; PRIMO, Tiago Thompsen; PERNAS, Ana Marilza.
OntoScratch: ontologias para a avaliação do ensino de Pensamento Computacional através do Scratch. In: SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE INFORMÁTICA NA EDUCAÇÃO (SBIE), 31. , 2020, Online.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2020
.
p. 1823-1832.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/cbie.sbie.2020.1823.
