Evolution of STEM-Driven Computer

Science Education: The Perspective of

Big Concepts Vytautas Štuikys
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/evolution-of-stem-driven-computer-science-education-
the-perspective-of-big-concepts-vytautas-stuikys/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Computer Science Principles The Foundational Concepts

of Computer Science Kevin Hare

https://ebookmeta.com/product/computer-science-principles-the-
foundational-concepts-of-computer-science-kevin-hare/

Computer Science Principles : The Foundational Concepts

of Computer Science 4th Edition Kevin Hare

https://ebookmeta.com/product/computer-science-principles-the-
foundational-concepts-of-computer-science-4th-edition-kevin-hare/

Computer Science Principles: The Foundational Concepts

of Computer Science, 4th Edition Kevin P Hare

https://ebookmeta.com/product/computer-science-principles-the-
foundational-concepts-of-computer-science-4th-edition-kevin-p-
hare/

Harmony of Colour 85 Big Cats 1st Edition Various

https://ebookmeta.com/product/harmony-of-colour-85-big-cats-1st-
edition-various/
STEM The Science of Fitness Multiplying Fractions
Georgia Beth

https://ebookmeta.com/product/stem-the-science-of-fitness-
multiplying-fractions-georgia-beth/

Computational Thinking A Perspective on Computer

Science Zhiwei Xu

https://ebookmeta.com/product/computational-thinking-a-
perspective-on-computer-science-zhiwei-xu/

Higher Education Computer Science: A Manual of

Practical Approaches 2nd Edition Jenny Carter

https://ebookmeta.com/product/higher-education-computer-science-
a-manual-of-practical-approaches-2nd-edition-jenny-carter/

Computer Science Security Concepts and Tools 1st

Edition Ameur Salem Zaidoun

https://ebookmeta.com/product/computer-science-security-concepts-
and-tools-1st-edition-ameur-salem-zaidoun/

The Evolution of Economic Wellbeing Progress Driven

Economic Policies in the Era of Globalization 1st
Edition Zuhayr Mikdashi

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-evolution-of-economic-
wellbeing-progress-driven-economic-policies-in-the-era-of-
globalization-1st-edition-zuhayr-mikdashi/
Vytautas Štuikys and Renata Burbaitė

Evolution of STEM-Driven Computer

Science Education
The Perspective of Big Concepts
Vytautas Štuikys
Department of Software Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology,
Kaunas, Lithuania

Renata Burbaitė
Department of Software Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology,
Kaunas, Lithuania
Juozas Balčikonis Gymnasium, Panevėžys, Lithuania

ISBN 978-3-031-48234-2 e-ISBN 978-3-031-48235-9

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48235-9

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive

license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively
licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks,

service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the
absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the
advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer

Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham,
Switzerland
Preface
STEM is an interdisciplinary approach to learning. It comprises
knowledge from Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
This educational paradigm has emerged as a response to the twenty-
first century’s social, economic, and technological challenges. Currently,
STEM is evolving extremely rapidly towards a higher level of
integration. The possibilities for integration are indeed large. The
integration occurs among the constituent components within some
educational environments, or by integrating other components, such as
Art, Medicine, and Design. Therefore, multiple approaches and visions
to STEM research and practice exist worldwide now. Our approach
focuses on STEM research and practices visible through the lens of
computer science (CS) education and robotics. We have presented it in
the published book by Springer in 2018 under the title “Smart STEM-
Driven Computer Science Education: Theory, Methodology and Robot-
based Practices”. Since the appearance of the mentioned book, many
innovations have taken place in the field of STEM and CS education
research and practice globally. We have also accumulated multiple new
knowledge and new scientific results due to our intensive research in
this field. The core of that is the new or extended approaches we have
developed since that time. The basic idea on which we constructed the
content of this book is Big Concepts. The title of this new book begins
with the term ‘evolution’ to define the recent changes and innovations
of our approach in the context of worldwide initiatives and research
concerning Big Concepts.
What are the Big Concepts to drive the evolution of our approach?
They are the Internet of Things (IoT), Data Science (DS), artificial
intelligence (AI), integrated STEM thinking (ISTEMT), and Smart
Education. Note that, in our vision, the concept ISTEMT covers
computational thinking, design thinking, data thinking, and scientific
thinking. What is the role of STEM, computer science, and robotics?
Whether, or not they are Big Concepts? Of course, in our vision, they are
Big Concepts too; however, their role is different. For developing the
concept and content of this new book, we put STEM-driven computer
science education at the centre. We treat this paradigm (STEM,
computer science, and robotics) as the object here for the investigation,
research, and practice from the perspective of evolutionary changes
under the impact of the content and technology of basic Big Concepts,
such as IoT, DS, and AI. Note the remaining Big Concepts (ISTEMT,
Smart Education) do have not specific content. We argue that it is
possible to consider and research these relying on the content of basic
Big Concepts and technology (tools) supporting them.
The other important aspects regarding the basic Big Concepts are
(1) how we introduce these concepts and (2) how we evaluate their
impact on the advancement of STEM education and students’
interdisciplinary knowledge. To define the way of introducing the Big
Concepts, we apply a wide range of modelling approaches. They range
from contextual modelling, conceptual modelling, feature-based (or
structural), and process-based functional modelling to virtual and
physical modelling applied in the implementation of case studies. All
these enable us to provide the motivated design procedures of the
entities, i.e., real-world tasks taken from the fields relevant to Big
Concepts applications.
The complexity of real-world tasks creates the preconditions to
apply design as a learning approach for the enhancement of creativity,
design thinking, computational thinking, and scientific thinking. To
evaluate the outcomes of learning through design, we have developed
the Integrated STEM-CS skills model. This model integrates all skills and
thinking minds gained through design. It is a practical implementation
of the concept ISTEMT. In our vision, this concept integrates all known
so far movements in the integrated STEM research.
What is the structure of this book? We have distributed the whole
book’s content into three parts, plus Chaps. 1 and 12 as independent
chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction. It is about the context and our
vision of the entire book. It provides an evolutionary model to better
understand the book’s intention. Chapter 12 is a summarising re-
evaluation of the whole content and concepts with an indication of
future work.
Part I includes chapters from Chaps. 2 to 5. They present
evolutionary aspects from the pedagogical perspective as follows.
Chapter 2 brings an approach to the development and usage of the
integrated STEM-CS skills model to assess students’ knowledge. It is one
of the most important ingredients of integrated STEM-driven CS
education. Chapter 3 discusses personalised learning (PL) and the
personalised content at the component level for smart STEM-driven
education. Chapter 4 extends a discussion on PL at the sub-system level
with a focus on the automation of personal libraries (for the teacher and
students). Chapter 5 delivers the outcomes of research regarding robot
contests-based collaborative learning along with the complexity issues
of real-world task solving.
Part II includes Chaps. 6–8. Chapter 6 discusses the methodological
aspects of introducing the IoT into K–12 STEM-CS education. Those
aspects include the conceptual modelling of IoT, architectural aspects
and their interpretation for STEM-CS education, and adequate
framework. Chapter 7 deals with the design of the educational IoT
system (through prototyping) and its use in practice. Chapter 8 is about
how to introduce and play with Data Science approaches and techniques
in the context of integrated STEM-CS education.
Part III consists of the following chapters. Chapter 9 introduces a
vision of how AI-based approaches we have incorporated into STEM-CS
education systematically. Chapter 10 deals with the topics of speech
recognition regarding tools, techniques, methods, and content.
Chapter 11 provides background on artificial neural networks in STEM-
driven CS education. What is the novelty and contribution of this book
as compared to the previously published one?
Methodological contribution includes (i) vision and framework for
the introduction of Big Concepts into STEM-CS education; (ii)
enforcement of personalised and collaborative learning (we treat them
as components of Smart Education) by explicit models and outcomes;
(iii) new content regarding IoT, DS, and AI along with the adequately
extended Smart Learning Environment; and (iv) next, lifting the
integrated STEM-CS education to a higher level in terms of better
student involvement and self-involvement, changing the status or role
of students from recipients of knowledge to creators of the new
knowledge. Based on the extended space of real-world tasks and
applying previous knowledge, students can create educational
prototypes of IoT applications, voice-based smart device control
systems, etc.
Scientific contribution includes: (i) the enforcement of conceptual
modelling as background for motivating and presenting our
evolutionary model; (ii) the development and use of the integrated
STEM-CS skills evaluation model for the assessment of new knowledge,
regarding new STEM-CS topics; (iii) the enforcement of the automation
level in designing tools for personalised learning, learning scenarios,
and assessment; and (iv) the development and implementation of the
multi-stage prototyping model for educational IoT design.
(1) How should one read the book? (2) Who will be interested in
reading this book?
Regarding the first question, one needs to look at the layout within
the book’s chapters. We have arranged the material within each part as
much as possible independently from other chapters. In most cases, we
have presented chapters as a complete scientific work on the selected
topic with relevant attributes, such as (motivation, context (references),
contribution, methodology, case studies, conclusions, etc.). Therefore,
one can read, share ideas, and discuss each concept and topic
separately. However, the specific title of this book (e.g., the word
‘evolution’) calls for looking back to the previously published book. We
have tried to minimise this need by including a very short reference
here to an item from that book if this was unavoidable only.
Regarding the second question, we hope this book will be
interesting to the researchers working in the field of STEM and
computer science (CS) educational research in the first place. This book
is a monograph, not a textbook for the entire educational course at the
K–12 level (for 9–12 grades, or higher). Nevertheless, smart STEM
teachers, CS teachers, or teachers from related disciplines (e.g., Science,
Engineering) will be benefited by reading and using this book in their
working practice. We admit that the most motivated students will find
many interesting topics for their informal learning and research here.
We hope that the university teachers/students, especially those
students who are preparing to be STEM teachers, will find this book
useful and interesting as well. We suppose that the book’s methodology,
content, and especially case studies might or could be helpful for the
organisers of teacher’s re-qualification courses.

Acknowledgements We thank the colleagues of Faculty of

Informatics at Kaunas University of Technology and the colleagues of
Panevėžys Balčikonis Gymnasium for promotion and support in writing
this book. Special thanks are to students of the gymnasium who spent
many hours in testing multiple case studies and their robot
competition-based projects we included in this book. Also, we thank
anonymous reviewers for their evaluation of the book’s ideas and
content and suggestions for future work.

Vytautas Štuikys
Renata Burbaitė
Kaunas, Lithuania
Kaunas/Panevėžys, Lithuania
Abbreviations
AI Artificial Intelligence
ANN Artificial Neural Network
BC Big Concept
BD Big Data
CB LO Component-Based Learning Object
CBL Contest (Competition)-Based Learning
CL Collaborative Learning
CS Computer Science
CT Computational Thinking
DB Database
DL Deep Learning
DS Data Science
DT Design Thinking
ESLE Extended Smart Learning Environment
GLO Generative Learning Object
IoT Internet of Things
ISTEM Integrated STEM
ISTEM SM Integrated STEM Skills Model
LKSAM Learner’s Knowledge and Skills Assessment Module
LO Learning Object
LO LG Learning Object List Generator
MDG Metadata Generator
ML Machine Learning
NLP Natural Language Processing
PCB LO Personalised Component-Based Learning Object
PGL Personal Generative Library
PGLO Personalised Generative Learning Object
PL Personalised Learning
PLE Personalised Learning Environment
PSLO Personalised Smart Learning Object
QG Query Generator
SLE Smart Learning Environment
SLO Smart Learning Object
SPGL Student’s Personal Generative Library
SR Speech Recognition
SRS Speech Recognition System
ST Scientific Thinking
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
TPACK Technological, Pedagogical And Content Knowledge
TPL Teacher’s Personal Library
VTT Voice-to-Text
Contents
1 Context and Model for Writing This Book:​An Idea of Big
Concepts
1.​1 Introduction
1.​2 A Short Glance to Education Evolution
1.​3 A Short Glance to Computing Evolution
1.​4 A Short Glance to STEM Evolution
1.​5 A Short Glance to Computational Thinking Skills
1.​6 Context Model to Define Our Approach
1.​7 Evolutionary Model for Change
1.​8 The Topics This Book Addresses
1.​9 Concluding Remarks
References
Part I Pedagogical Aspects of STEM-Driven CS Education Evolution:
Integrated STEM-CS Skills Model, Personalisation Aspects and
Collaborative Learning
2 Models for the Development and Assessment of Integrated STEM
(ISTEM) Skills:​A Case Study
2.​1 Introduction
2.​2 The Aim and Motivation
2.​3 Research Tasks and Methodology
2.​4 Related Work
2.​5 Defining Context and Functionality for STEM-CS Skills
2.​6 Defining the Structure of STEM-CS Skills Model
2.​7 Analysis of the Interdependencie​s Among Different Skills
2.​8 Feature-Based STEM-CS Skills Model (RQ3)
 2.​9 Analysis of Metrics and Defining Metrics Model for Skills
Evaluation
2.​10 Model for Evaluating and Describing of the ISTEM-CS Skills
2.​11 Validation of the ISTEM-CS Skills Model Through Case
Study (RQ6)
2.​12 ISTEM-CS Skills and Their Metrics Generating Tool
2.​13 Summarising Discussion and Evaluation
2.​14 Conclusion
Appendix
References
3 Enforcing STEM-Driven CS Education Through Personalisation
3.​1 Introduction
3.​2 Related Work
3.​3 Requirements for Personalised STEM-Driven CS Learning
and Research Questions
3.​4 Basic Idea and Methodology
3.​5 Background
3.​6 A Framework for Implementing Personalised STEM-Driven
CS Education
3.​6.​1 Structural Models of Personalised LOs
3.​6.​2 Personalised Processes and Activities Within the
Framework
3.​6.​3 Tools and Approaches to Implement the Proposed
Framework
3.​7 Case Study
3.​8 Discussion and Concluding Remarks
References
4 Personal Generative Libraries for Personalised Learning:​A Case
Study
4.​1 Introduction
4.​2 Related Work
4.​3 The Concept of the Personal Generative Library
4.​4 Methodology and Background
4.​5 Structure and Functionality of PGL
4.​6 Integration of PGLs into the Framework of Personalised
Learning
4.​7 Case Study and Results
4.​8 Discussion and Evaluation
4.​9 Conclusion
References
5 Enforcing STEM-Driven CS Education Through Collaborative
Learning
5.​1 Introduction
5.​2 Related Work
5.​3 Basic Idea of the Approach and Methodology
5.​4 The Concept ‘Real-World Task’ in STEM Research and Its
Complexity
5.​4.​1 Complexity Issues of Real-World Tasks
5.​4.​2 Conceptual Model for Solving Real-World Tasks
5.​5 Framework for STEM-Driven Contest-Based Collaborative
Learning
5.​6 Case Study
5.​7 Discussion and Evaluation
5.​8 Conclusion
Appendix
 References
Part II Internet of Things (IoT) and Data Science (DS) Concepts in
K–12 STEM-Driven CS Education
6 Methodological Aspects of Educational Internet of Things
6.​1 Introduction
6.​2 Related Work
6.​3 Research Strategy, Aim, and Requirements
6.​4 Motivation and Basic Idea
6.​5 Background:​Conceptual Modelling of IoT
6.​6 A Framework for Introducing IoT into STEM-CS Education
6.​7 Interpretation of IoT Architecture for STEM-Driven CS
Education
6.​8 Discussion on Proposed Methodology
6.​9 Conclusion
References
7 Multi-stage Prototyping for Introducing IoT Concepts:​A Case
Study
7.​1 Introduction
7.​2 Related Work
7.​3 Methodology:​Implementation Aspects Through Modelling
7.​3.​1 A Multi-stage Model for Introducing IoT into STEM-
Driven CS Education
7.​3.​2 A Framework for Solving Real-World Tasks Through
IoT Prototyping
7.​3.​3 A Detailed Specification of IoT Prototype Design
Processes
7.​3.​4 IoT Prototyping Task Solving Through Inquiry-Based
and Design-Oriented Collaborative Learning
 7.​4 Extending Smart Learning Environment with Tools for IoT
Prototyping
7.​5 Case Study
7.​6 Summarising Discussion and Evaluation
7.​7 Conclusion
References
8 Introducing Data Science Concepts into STEM-Driven Computer
Science Education
8.​1 Introduction
8.​2 Related Work
8.​3 Motivation and Research Methodology
8.​4 Conceptual Model for Introducing DS Concepts into K–12
8.​5 Implementation of the Methodology:​A Three-Layered
Framework
8.​6 Development of the DS Model
8.​7 Extending Smart Learning Environment
8.​8 Modelling for Developing the Task Solution System
8.​9 Development of the Assessment Model
8.​10 A Case Study and Experiments
8.​11 Summarising Discussion and Evaluation
8.​12 Conclusion
References
Part III Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
9 A Vision for Introducing AI Topics:​A Case Study
9.​1 Introduction
9.​2 Related Work
9.​3 Background and AI Key Concepts
 9.​4 A Framework for Introducing AI Topics
9.​5 Methodology for Implementing the Proposed Framework
9.​6 Generic Architecture for Introducing AI Tools into SLE
9.​7 Adopted Generic Scenario for Delivery of the AI Content
9.​8 Summarising Discussion and Conclusion
References
10 Speech Recognition Technology in K–12 STEM-Driven Computer
Science Education
10.​1 Introduction
10.​2 Related Work
10.​3 Basic Idea with Motivating Scenario
10.​4 Background
10.​5 Research Methodology
10.​6 Extending Smart Learning Environment for Speech
Recognition Tasks
10.​7 Case Study to Support Task 1
10.​8 Case Study to Support Task 3
10.​9 Summarising Discussion and Conclusions
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
References
11 Introduction to Artificial Neural Networks and Machine
Learning
11.​1 Introduction
11.​2 Related Work
11.​3 Operating Tasks and Methodology
 11.​4 Background:​Basic Concepts and Models of ANNs (RQ2)
11.​5 Motivating Example:​A Binary Classification (RQ3)
11.​6 Case Study 1:​Implementation of Single-Layered
Perceptron Model
11.​7 Case Study 2:​Implementation of Multi-Layered Perceptron
Model
11.​8 Summarising Discussion and Evaluation
11.​9 Conclusion
References
12 Overall Evaluation of This Book Concepts and Approaches
12.​1 Aim and Structure of This Chapter
12.​2 What Is the Contribution of This Book?​
12.​3 Difficulties and Drawbacks of the Proposed Approach
12.​4 Rethinking of Discussed Approach
12.​5 STEM-Driven Precision Education:​A Vision Inspired by
Concepts Discussed in This Book
12.​6 Topics for Future Work
References
Index
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
V. Štuikys, R. Burbaitė, Evolution of STEM-Driven Computer Science Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48235-9_1

1. Context and Model for Writing This

Book: An Idea of Big Concepts
Vytautas Štuikys1 and Renata Burbaitė1, 2
(1) Department of Software Engineering, Kaunas University of
Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania
(2) Juozas Balčikonis Gymnasium, Panevėžys, Lithuania

1.1 Introduction
The title of this book begins with the term ‘evolution’ to define the
recent changes and innovations in the so-called STEM-driven computer
science (CS) education. By this paradigm, we mean concepts, ideas, and
approaches presented in the published book by Springer in 2018 under
the title “Smart STEM-Driven Computer Science Education: Theory,
Methodology and Robot-based Practices”. What is this book about?
Shortly, that book [ŠB18] is about how three fields, i.e., STEM, CS, and
Educational Robotics, are to be (or could be) combined seamlessly into
a coherent educational methodology to gain synergistic benefits from
all. More specifically, the basic idea we have discussed there focused on
(1) the high variability of STEM pedagogy, variability of CS-related
content, and variability of the available technology used and (2) how to
project these variabilities onto high school CS curriculum using modern
technologies of two types. The first type is educational robotics as
direct facilities for learning for introducing interdisciplinary knowledge
(i.e., scientific, engineering, and technological ones the robotics highly
promotes) in a high (secondary) school. The second type (borrowed
from software engineering) is supporting technologies for the
automated preparation, design, and use of the content and learning
processes. The supporting technologies include high-level modelling
aiming at defining and expressing the learning variabilities at a high
abstraction level through feature models and then providing
transformations of those into the executable code of the teaching
content using meta-programming techniques. Note that we have
integrated those technologies seamlessly using conventional software
only.
Since 2018, when the book [ŠB18] appeared, many innovations
have taken place in STEM and CS education research and practice
worldwide. We have also accumulated new knowledge and new
scientific results due to our intensive research in this field. The core of
that is the novel or extended approaches we have developed since that
time. Those rely on the concepts we have introduced in the title as Big
Concepts. Why do we use the term “Big Concepts” and what they are?
We will present a more extended motivation for using this term later.
Here, the reader should accept the following terms (Internet of Things
(IoT), Data Science (DS) and its sub-field Big Data (BD), Artificial
Intelligence (AI), Integrated STEM Thinking (ISTEMT), and Smart
Education) as Big Concepts (further BCs) either intuitively from the
context, or his/her previous knowledge. Note that we define ISTEMT as
a compound (ISTEMT = Computational Thinking (CT) + Design Thinking
(DT) + Data Thinking (DtT) + Scientific Thinking (ST)). In other words, it
aggregates all known so far movements, i.e., CT movement [Win06,
DT19, MRR+22], DT movement [LSG+19], and DtT movement
[BVW+21, MRR+22] supplemented by Scientific Thinking.
What is the role of STEM, CS, and robotics? Whether, or not they are
BCs? Of course, in our vision, they are BCs too; however, their role is
different. For developing the concept and content of this new book, we
put STEM-driven Computer Science Education at the centre. We treat this
paradigm (STEM, CS, and Robotics) as our object here for investigation,
research, and practice from the perspective of evolutionary changes
under the impact of the content taken from the field of BCs such as IoT,
DS, and AI. In other words, this book aims to show how BCs can
contribute to extending, enforcing, and enhancing STEM-driven CS
education at the K–12 level at least in this decade of the twenty-first
century. Note that regarding the term ‘Big Concept’, one can meet in the
literature the term ‘Big Ideas’ [RAE16, Boo19, MRR+22] or “Big
Computer Science” [Cer17] used in similar contexts.
 At the very beginning, we need to motivate and explain yet two
important aspects. (1) What is the way for introducing BCs into this
educational paradigm? (2) How to measure and evaluate the
evolutionary changes based on those concepts? Regarding the first
aspect, it is worth reminding how it is difficult to introduce new
courses without governmental initiatives and support into the K–12
curriculum due to administrative and other reasons. A more reasonable
way is to change and extend the already existing relevant courses
because this largely depends on the teacher’s readiness and vision. Of
course, this way has own restrictions on the extent and scope of the
new content. We argue that it is impossible to cover a large portion of
the relevant content for any BC within the existing courses such as
Computer Programming, Robotics, etc. Therefore, for extending the
existing courses, typically we rely on introductive and more engaging
themes for the relevant BC. Those need to be adapted to the student’s
level and their previous knowledge. We admit the relevance of BCs to
STEM-CS education. Note that, in our case, some BCs (ISTEMT/CT,
Smart Education) do not have specific content. We argue that it is
possible to deliver these concepts by providing teaching content
regarding other BCs. In addition, we will describe the evolutionary
model in this chapter as a framework for systematically introducing
BCs throughout this book.
Regarding the second aspect, we have developed and researched the
integrated STEM-CS skills model [BŠK+22]. It covers multiple skills (CT
skills, design thinking, scientific thinking, and other skills) and
competencies integrated into a unified model needed for learners to
provide self-adaptation and self-preparation for managing and
overcoming the challenges in the twenty-first century. This model
serves as an instrument to evaluate the obtained new knowledge based
on BCs.
The aim of this chapter is (i) to outline the context of our research
and (ii) to motivate and develop the evolutionary model for change
based on BCs along with guidelines for implementing this model so that
it would be possible to formulate tasks and content of the entire book.
Tasks of this chapter are:
(i) Definition of education evolution. (ii) Characterisation of basic
attributes of computing evolution. (iii) Evolution of integrated STEM
education, (iv) Short glance to computational thinking skills. (v)
Development of the evolutionary model explaining the way we
introduce BCs into STEM-driven CS education. (vi) Formulation of
objectives, content, and contribution of our research.

1.2 A Short Glance to Education Evolution

Section 1.2 outlines an educational context for the evolutionary model
for change and its representation. Typically, the evolution of a physical
system (e.g., a software system) is a process of continuous change from
a lower, or simpler, worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
[GT03]. That happens over time by affecting many factors. Changes in
education in our age are an inseparable part of the technology
evolution, though technological innovations in the past stimulated
progress in education too. Currently, technology influences education in
many ways. Perhaps, the commonly used term “Technology-Enhanced
Learning” explains and motivates well the influence of technology on
education. Now technology evolves extremely rapidly from traditional
systems (computers, Internet, mobile phones, robotics, etc.) to more
advanced systems (cloud computing, the IoT, AI systems, and Learning
Analytics, to name a few). Therefore, the educational sector should be
ready to accept and adopt the new capabilities of modern technology.
CS educational research and practice, like other educational fields, is
not a purely physical system but a compound of the physical-social sub-
systems. Nevertheless, the above-given definition of the term evolution
of a physical system through continuous changes is general enough, and
it is valid in many other contexts, including education. In the education
literature, researchers often use the term transformation to define
evolutionary aspects in this field. The compound term ‘short glance to
education evolution’ means a restricted vision of changes in education
in the twenty-first century with regard to two concepts, i.e., Education
4.0 and Smart Education. Let us look at the context of emerging the first
concept. Matt Church [Chu20], the Founder of Thought Leaders,
describes the evolutionary changes in education from the teacher’s
perspective in this way. He introduces three periods (Education 1.0,
Education 2.0, and Education 3.0) and interprets these periods simply
using general terms and saying:
 Education 1.0: I’ll deliver content at my pace and in my way and
you will learn if you can. Education 2.0: I’ll adjust how and what
I teach so that it gives you the best chance for success.
Education 3.0: I’ll provide you with the resources and content
you need so you can learn what you need, in a way that works
for you, whenever and wherever you are. I will then make myself
available to help you apply that learning in a useful manner. If
you are in the business of educating others, you need to
understand the changes and evolve.

Education 1.0 relates to teacher-centred education. Education 3.0

relates to student-centred education, and Education 2.0 is an
intermediate case. The education community focuses now on a more
extensible vision to define the education evolution by introducing the
term Education 4.0. Linkedin [www.​linkedin.​com/​pulse/​education-
40] defines Education 4.0 as “a purposeful approach to learning that
lines up with the fourth industrial revolution and about transforming the
future of education using advanced technology and automation”. The
foundation of Education 4.0 is creativity and the need to prepare
students to take on challenges head-on. It is easy to understand the
adoption of these highlighted four terms by the education community
at large if we look at the history of the Industry Revolutions because
those have always echoed the needed changes in education. History
knows four periods of Industry Revolutions: Industry 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and
Industry 4.0. Industry 1.0 began in the eighteenth century using steam
power and mechanization of production. Industry 2.0 started in the
nineteenth century by applying electricity and assembly line production.
Industry 3.0 began in the 70s of the twentieth century through partial
automation using programmable controls and computers. Industry 4.0
covers the present times with advancements in production automation.
The essential feature of Industry 4.0 is the wide networking and smart
factories, in which production systems, components and people
communicate via a network, and production is nearly autonomous. Note
that the term Industry 4.0 originates from the German ‘Industry 4.0’
proposed in 2011 as the initiative to strengthen the competitiveness of
the German manufacturing industry [HPO15]. Industry 4.0 is “the
technical integration of Cyber-Physical Systems into manufacturing and
logistics and the use of the Internet of Things and Services in industrial
processes” [SR20]. The characterising features of Industry 4.0 are (i)
automated manufacturing; (ii) augmented reality, (iii) cloud computing,
(iv) Big Data, (v) IoT, and (vi) AI and machine learning [DMG+22].
Looking at the future, researchers envision Industry 5.0 and Industry
6.0 to come. According to Duggal et al. [DMG+22], Industry 5.0 will deal
with personalisation and synergy between human and machine labour.
Industry 6.0 will be one of renewable energy, machine independence,
interplanetary resource gathering and manufacturing, and quantum
control.
In terms of recent changes, it is possible to characterise education
evolution broadly by a set of attributes that have been changing over
time. These include changes in teaching philosophy and theories,
changes in the teacher and student roles, used approaches, outcomes of
learning, changes in motivation to learn, and changes in available
information sources, facilities, and technology. In this context, let us
look at the evolutionary changes in the transition from Education 3.0 to
Education 4.0. Relying on the more extended model [MNN+21], we
compare the evolutionary aspects of education in two periods (late
twentieth century and present times) and summarise those in Table
1.1. By making a juxtaposition of both the industrial revolution and
education evolution, the paper [MNN+21] proposes the concept of
Education 4.0 in higher education and defines it as follows.

Education 4.0 is the current period in which Higher Education

institutions apply new learning methods, innovative didactic and
management tools, and smart and sustainable infrastructure
mainly complemented by new and emerging ICTs to improve
knowledge generation and information transfer processes.
Combining these resources during teaching-learning processes
will support the training and development of desirable critical
competencies in today’s students.
Table 1.1 Education trends in the late twentieth century and present times

Attributes of Characteristics of Characteristics of Education 4.0 Period:

education Education 3.0 Period: present times
late twentieth century
Attributes of Characteristics of Characteristics of Education 4.0 Period:
education Education 3.0 Period: present times
late twentieth century
Philosophy Heutagogical Heutagogicala, peeragogicalb and
connectivity
cybergogicalc
Educator role Orchestrator, curator, Mentor, coach, collaborator, reference
collaborator
Student role Active, “knowledge Active, high independence, trajectory designer,
ownership”, initial and knowledge creator
independent
Approaches used Co-constructed, teacher- Mostly student-centred, personalised,
centred, student-centred collaborative, or mixed
Learning/teaching Learning by doing, face- Learning by doing, active learning Inquiry-
methods to-face, blended learning based, problem-based
Learning outcome Prepared for practice and Training of key competencies both soft and
and knowledge scenario analysis hard, including computational thinking and
and skills integrated interdisciplinary skills
Enabler to learn Computer and wide use ITCs tools and platforms powered by IoT, AI,
of Internet BD, LAd
Information and Texts, case studies, Based on online sources
learning resources second-hand
experiences, LO, GLO
Facilities used Blended and flexible Cyber and physical spaces both shared and
physical shared spaces individual
Industrial Internet access, Connectivity, digitalization, virtualization,
technology automatization, and pedagogical assistants (chatbots)
control

a Heutagogy is the pedagogy based on the management of self-managed

learners
b Peeragogy is the pedagogy based on the management of collaborative

learning
c Cybergogy is the pedagogy based on using cyber technologies
d IoT—Internet of Things , AI—Artificial Intelligence, BD—Big Data, LA

—Learning Analytics
Adapted from [MNN+21]

Now we return to considering the concept of Smart Education.

Nowadays the word ‘smart’ is routinely used by the educational
research community to form a long list of new terminology like Smart
Education, Smart Learning, Smart School, Smart University, Smart
Learning Environment, Smart Cities, etc. (Uskov et al. [UBH+18], Liu et
al. [LHW17]). It is applied not only to teaching content, educational
organisations, and environments, but also to actors involved (Smart
teacher, Smart student). Perhaps one of the earliest announcements on
smart education comes from the “Promotion Strategy for Smart
Education” declared by Ju-Ho Lee, Minister of Education, Science and
Technology, Korea in 2011 [Lee11]. According to this announcement,

Smart Education is a customized learning system that enhances

the capacity of learners in the twenty-first century, by moving
away from uniform to individualized education, from
standardized to diversified knowledge, and from admission-
oriented to creativity-based learning. Smart Education will
become a momentum for the innovation of the overall education
system, including its environment, contents, teaching method,
and evaluation.

The International Association of Smart Learning Environments

considers smart learning as a more general term by defining it as “an
emerging area alongside other related emerging areas such as smart
technology, smart teaching, smart education, smart-e-learning, smart
classrooms, smart universities, smart society. The challenging
exploitation of smart environments for learning together with new
technologies and approaches such as ubiquitous learning and mobile
learning could be termed smart learning”. Therefore, we can accept this
as an expression of the dynamic nature of the contemporary evolution
of the educational domain, which is now also often characterised in
terms of transformation [LHW17, BWM+17]. To characterise Smart
Education, Uskov et al. [UBH+18] introduce the term smartness level by
defining it through the following attributes (Adaptation. Sensing or
Getting Data (or Big Data). Inferring or Processing Data or Making
Logical Conclusions. Self-Learning. Anticipation. (Self-Optimization and
Self-Organisation). We do not intend to provide a more comprehensive
discussion on this topic; instead, we need to highlight one important
aspect. With maturing of fast-changing domains, they need to be
conceptualised to better understood and optimised for their
stakeholder. In this regard, Hoel and Mason [HM18] propose a
framework and some guidelines for introducing standardisation into
Smart Education.
The systematic literature review given by Martin et al. [MAK19]
aims at finding out how the term “Smart Education” is used, what the
implications are, and what the prospects are. The main findings of this
paper are statements. (i) The number of papers on this topic grows
continuously. (ii) The following technologies (IoT, Big Data, Artificial
Intelligence approaches) dominate among analysed papers. (iii) Smart
Education covers all levels, with a bigger focus in higher education. (iv)
There are wide research opportunities in creating Smart Education
Systems in terms of connectivity, security, predictability, and data
visualisation.
Gua et al. [GLG21] present a systematic overview of Smart
Education literature research. Based on this analysis, the authors
created a structural map for Smart Education knowledge and proposed
a theoretical framework for Smart Education. We present this
framework in a shortened version below.

Smart education is a system of smart educators, smart students,

and smart educational intermediary factors. The relationship
between the three main factors is independent and interrelated.
Smart educators organize and lead smart educational activities.
They grasp the educational purposes and adopt appropriate
educational contents and smart means. They create the
necessary smart educational environment and regulate the
smart learners and the entire smart educational process.

Next, this framework highlights. “Smart education is always built

around the smart learners. A smart environment based on artificial
intelligence and other technologies can meet learners’ needs for
personalized education. Teachers control and regulate the student by
mastering, controlling, and regulating intermediary links. Students
develop themselves and react to instruction by using, absorbing, and
inheriting intermediary links as media. Teachers and students are
connected and interact with each other via the transmission, connection,
harmony, regulation, and extradition of smart intermediary factors”.
Smart intermediary factors include material factors (equipment,
location, medium, etc.) and non-material factors (content such as
knowledge, skills, emotions; activities; purpose; method; behaviour;
management; technology such as IoT, cloud computing, and big data;
and evaluation). We recommend the following references [Sha19,
BSL+20] for more intensive research on Education 4.0. Readers can
learn more about Smart Education from Proceedings of SEEL-16, -17,
-18, -20, and -22 conferences.
In summary, we conclude with the following findings. (1) Though
this analysis is restricted, two terms (Education 4.0 and Smart
Education) characterise well the current transformative or evolutionary
changes in education. (2) Both terms rely largely on technologies (Big
Data, AI, IoT, etc.) and therefore motivate our choice of using the term
Big Concepts well. (3) In this book, we are interested in the present
education period, with a specific focus on innovations introduced
through Big Concepts into STEM-driven robot-based CS education. (4)
The presented short glance at education evolution serves us as a wide
pedagogical context to define and research the evolutionary model—the
main goal of this chapter.

1.3 A Short Glance to Computing Evolution

There are two terms, computer science and computing, in the literature
to define the modern computational technology aspects. Computing
refers to a branch of engineering science that studies the algorithmic
processes to describe and transform information. Allison [All21]
defines computing from the educational context as “a discipline
combining knowledge, skills, and attitudes, which includes aspects such as
computational thinking, an ability to use different tools and software,
programming, an understanding of the role of technology in society, or
using technology to solve business problems”.
Further, we prefer the term computer science. At this point, we need
to look at computer science (CS) broadly from the perspective of its role
and evolution. In comparison to, e.g., mathematics, physics, etc., CS is a
modern science (for debates of CS as science, see [TD17]). CS brings the
basic skills and knowledge needed for our lives in the digital age that is
rapidly changing. The advancement of technology is the primary source
and driving force to stimulate, support, and drive changes. CS stands for
the core discipline to take a theoretical background of modern
technology and innovations, thus contributing to changes in our
dynamic world. For a general understanding of current innovations, we
need to add to CS yet another component—Information
Communication Technology (ICT). Broadly, the Association for
Computing Machinery (ACM) defines CS as “the study of the theory,
design, implementation, and performance of computer software and
computer systems, including the study of computability and computation
itself”. This definition does not cover ICT aspects explicitly but provides
that implicitly. ICT with its capabilities of the Internet, cloud computing
(CC), Internet of Things (IoT), mobile communication, and more, is to
be broadly thought of as “computer software and computer systems” of
a specific kind with varying capabilities. In order words, these
technologies have emerged due to the extremely rapid evolution of CS.
However, the first independent discipline that has grown from the roots
of CS was software engineering—the field of software systems. That is
another significant component of the perception of modern technology
mentioned in the ACM definition. The next prominent event in
computing history was the separation of data managing processes from
computational processes in the middle of the eighties of the last
century. That was possible due to the advent of high-speed and large-
capacity storage devices such as discus. Technologically, those devices
enabled the creation of Data Basis (DB) and Data Management Systems
(DMS), the core of Information Systems, to support various applications
at that time and later. Those systems were predecessors of the present
Big Data systems, a sub-field of CS.
Therefore, CS is a broad and heterogeneous field. It evolves
extremely rapidly in multiple dimensions and sub-fields. Take, for
example, aspects of human–computer interaction and computers’
ability to model human brains. In this context, it is worth reminding the
old Turing’s idea on computer (machine) intelligence formulated in
1951 at the dawn of CS [Tur50]. That was indeed a far-reaching idea at
that time. Later it sparked and grounded the advent of Artificial
Intelligence (AI), the modern CS branch, now considered as an
independent discipline with high promises and expectations. AI is
indeed a Big Concept in multiple aspects. Firstly, from the perspective of
CS itself. It is so because AI transforms our traditional understanding of
the basic CS terms such as program, algorithm, and data. How has this
understanding evolved over time? We discuss that shortly from the
perspective of computer programming below.
Perhaps the simplest way to describe the traditional vision of the
essence of programming (in terms of basic concepts) is to look at the
program’s structure and functionality. To do that abstractly, we present
the following formula:
(1.1)
This formula is a slightly changed title of the famous Virth’s book
“Algorithms + Data Structure = Program” published in 1976 [Vir76].
This formula defines the structure of a program as a compound of the
data structure and algorithm. The algorithm is thought of as a set of
operations typically predefined and sequenced in advance by humans;
data structure is a feasible representation of a given data to perform
operations defined by the algorithm. Here, the reader needs to
interpret the sign ‘ + ’ (meaning operation or process) in two ways: (i)
explicitly as a structural composition of a program and (ii) implicitly as
a process of executing the program in some computing environment to
define its functionality. Taking into account the efforts in computing
history to automate programming (we mean the advent of high-level
programming languages and the theory of compilers in the fifties of the
last century [AU77], including compilers generators [Ter97]), it is
possible to generalise (1.1) as follows:
(1.2)
Here, the term metaprogram can be interpreted abstractly as a
compiler of any high-level programming language [She01], as a
program generator (in terms of homogenous or heterogeneous meta-
programming [ŠD12]), or even as a system of constructing compilers
[Ter97]. The term Program as Data has the meaning of a lower-level
program here. The latter stands for an argument for a meta-algorithm
to provide higher-level manipulations identified in (1.2) as the doubled
plus sign. Meta-algorithm is not much different from the interpretation
in (1.1); however, it donates the higher-level operations here. You can
learn more about the origins of meta-programming and its evolution
from [ŠD12, see this Chap. 1, pp. 5–11].
Looking at the history of computing (e.g., software evolution in the
late 20th and the beginning of the twenty-first century), we can extend
this meta-vision also to models and meta-models in terms of Product
Line (PL) programming and program/model transformations [HHU08]
as follows:
(1.2a)
The PL-based (PLB) program denotes a family of programs
developed using PL methodologies. Those prevailed at the end of the
previous century and the beginning of this century [Sch06] and are
prevailing so far [MSR+19, QVR+20]. In summary, these abstract
formulae reflect the efforts of the CS research community to lift the
program development process to the ever-higher level of abstraction.
That enabled the automation to come into the field to cope with the
ever-growing complexity of tasks and systems. By repeating the symbol
plus in formulae (1.2 and 1.2a), we express the growth of complexity.
The triple sign ‘plus’ in (1.2a) also means adding the third abstraction
level (in comparison to (1.2)).
Let us return to the AI concepts. In terms of AI and CS
(programming) evolution, we can rewrite formulae (1.1) and (1.2) for a
simplified understanding of AI in this way:
(1.3)
Here, the AI-based model is quite different from traditional program-
based systems. This model provides a decision or problem-solving
autonomously, typically without human intervention. Machine learning,
for example, is a new algorithm type to manipulate data accepted from
an environment in large amounts (identified as Big Data sets here) and
to provide a self-learning procedure using that data for autonomous
decision-making. The sign ‘⊕’ indicates the cardinally new form of the
relationship between data and algorithm. Therefore, with the advent of
AI, the technology advancement moves from the pre-programmed
automated systems (abstractly described by (1.1)–(1.2a)) to
autonomous systems (here represented by (1.3)), where the human
intervention either is minimised or not presented at all.
Secondly, concerning both CS and AI, we need to outline their role in
a broader context for the future development of the economy (Industry
4.0) and society as a whole. Already, AI is the core technology to drive
Industry 4.0. The main challenge for the implementation of the
Industry 4.0 initiatives, however, is to manage the so-called “Reskilling
Revolution” [WEF21] in the right way. Finally, knowing the role of IoT in
Industry 4.0 [MNN+21] and preserving the used notation so far, we
introduce the IoT model and define it as follows:

(1.4)

In formula (1.4), the sign ‘*’ means the physical and logical
aggregation among indicated items. This model defines the core
components of the IoT in a very simplified manner. Note that we
presented a short vision of computing evolution from the perspective of
our previous [ŠD12, ŠB18] and current research. One can find more
extensive research on this topic in [DT19, TD16], for example, from the
perspectives of the evolution of computational thinking.
In summary, we conclude. (1) Computing/CS evolves with ever-
growing acceleration and impacts society. (2) This evolution has
resulted in the continuous complexity growth of computing systems.
(3) CS evolution can be characterised by the efforts to manage the
complexity growth by adding ever-higher abstraction levels. (4) All
citizens, especially the young generation, have to be prepared to
understand and accept those changes. (5) In this regard, STEM-driven
CS education is the relevant approach to learning for understanding,
accepting, and implementing the newest achievements in computing.
(6) Broadly, this is about skills and knowledge the young generation
needs in the twenty-first century for “unlocking a Reskilling
Revolution” [WEF21].

1.4 A Short Glance to STEM Evolution

Currently, STEM is important for many reasons. First, STEM allows
students to acquire interdisciplinary knowledge suited to their future
employment and career. Second, the future workforce educated in
STEM disciplines will promote the development and prosperity of
nations. Third, STEM helps to address issues related to humans and the
natural environment. Next, STEM can provide diverse opportunities to
facilitate students’ learning through design and can enhance their
design thinking [LSG+19], computational thinking, creativity,
collaborative skills, and competencies needed in the twenty-first
century. Finally, the integrated STEM approach aims to find
relationships between different STEM subjects and provide a relevant
context for learning the contents. Kelley and Knowles [KK16] argue that
engineering design is a critical factor to integrated STEM (“When
considering integrating STEM content, engineering design can become
the situated context and the platform for STEM learning”). Therefore, a
variety of perspectives, approaches, visions, and definitions of STEM
exist now. Despite this diversity, however, there is a consensus around
the following issues:
(i)
using integrated STEM instruction (Bryan et al. [BMJ+15], English
[Eng16]),
(ii)
exploiting real-world contexts to engage students in authentic
and meaningful learning (Bryan et al. [BMJ+15], Kelley and
Knowles [KK16]),
(iii)
employing student-centred pedagogies, including inquiry-based
learning and design thinking (Bryan et al. [BMJ+15], Kelley and
Knowles [KK16]),
(iv)
supporting the development of twenty-first century
competencies such as creativity, collaboration, communication,
and critical thinking (Bryan et al. [BMJ+15]) and
(v)
making connections among STEM disciplines explicit to students
(Burrows et al., [BLB+18], English [Eng16], Kelley and Knowles
[KK16]).
Next, we focus on definitions and some terminological issues of
STEM. According to [ALV+21], the acronym STEM was first used in
2001 by the director of the Education and Humanities division of the
National Science Foundation, Judith A. Ramaley, about the curricula of
the disciplines involved. Since then, it has been gaining importance at
both political (economic, social) and educational levels. STEM is an
interdisciplinary teaching paradigm that integrates all four disciplines
(Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) into a single,
cross-disciplinary program, which offers instruction to solve real-world
tasks with a focus on inquiry-based teaching/learning methods.
The National Science Teacher Association defines STEM as an
“interdisciplinary approach to learning, where rigorous academic
concepts are coupled with real-world lessons as students apply science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics in contexts that make
connections between school, community, work, and the global enterprise
enabling the development of STEM literacy and with it the ability to
compete in the new economy”. (https://​www.​nsta.​org/​topics/​stem). Hsu
and Fang define STEM education as an educational approach in which
the contents of the disciplines involved may be addressed (1) as a
group of isolated ideas (multidisciplinary); or (2) as ideas integrated
into the process of real-world problem-solving (interdisciplinary and
cross-disciplinary) [HF19]. Currently, researchers highlight and focus
on integrative STEM. According to Aguilera et al. [ALV+21], the terms
“integrative” or “integrated” to STEM are redundant, as the acronym
already alludes to disciplinary integration. According to Martín-Páez et
al. [MAP+19], STEM should be defined, as the educational approach
that promotes the integration of the content (concepts, skills, and/or
attitudes) originating from science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics in the resolution of real-world problems.
The driving force to advance STEM is the “STEM workforce”. In this
regard, the National Science Foundation (USA) [NSB15] highlights that
the STEM skills and “STEM workforce” are of the highest importance for
the 21st economy by saying:
1.
“The STEM workforce is extensive and critical to innovation and
competitiveness. It is also defined in various ways and is made up of
many sub-workforces.”
2. “STEM knowledge and skills enable multiple, dynamic pathways to
STEM and non-STEM occupations alike. Assessing, enabling, and
h i kf h i i l h ll
 strengthening workforce pathways is essential to the mutually
reinforcing goals of individual and national prosperity and
competitiveness.”
STEM research evolves rapidly now. This process includes the
following stages: (1) originating in traditional disciplines, (2) emerging
in political agendas, (3) establishing in the education systems, and (4)
evolving towards integrated pedagogies (Zhou et al. [ZGW+22]).
Starting since the 1990s, the National Science Foundation (1996) first
introduced the acronym ‘SMET’ to define an instructional innovation in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Later, in 2001, the
acronym STEM emerged due to J. Ramaley.
Currently, integrated STEM education is the latest development
stage; again, there is no consensus among researchers on what the term
“integrated STEM”, in essence, means with multiple visions proposed.
The report prepared by the Committee on Integrated STEM Education
[HPS14] has developed a descriptive framework that includes four
interdependent large components (Goals, Nature and Scope of
Integration, Outcomes, and Implementation) each containing a set
of sub-components. Goals for Students include (STEM literacy twenty-
first century competencies, STEM workforce readiness, Interest and
engagement, and Making connections). Goals for Educators include
(Increased STEM content knowledge, and Increased pedagogical content
knowledge). Nature and scope of integration cover (Type of STEM
connections, Disciplinary emphasis and Duration, size, and complexity of
initiative). This report emphasises “connections” between and among
the STEM subjects. “Between and among” refers to connections
between any two STEM subjects (e.g., most commonly math and
science) and those among three or more. Outcomes for Students
covers (Learning and achievement, twenty-first century competencies,
STEM course taking, educational persistence, and graduation rates,
STEM-related employment, STEM interest, Development of STEM identity,
and Ability to make connections among STEM disciplines) Outcomes for
Educators include (Changes in practice and Increased STEM content
and pedagogical content knowledge). Kelly and Knowles define
integrated STEM education as “the approach to teaching the STEM
content of two or more STEM domains, bound by STEM practices within
an authentic context for the purpose of connecting these subjects to
enhance student learning” [KK16].
Bryan et al. [BMJ+15], for example, define integrated STEM as “the
teaching and learning of the content and practices of the interdisciplinary
knowledge which include science and/or mathematics through the
integration of the practices of engineering and engineering design of
relevant technologies”. Nadelson and Seifert [NS17] define integrated
STEM education as “the seamless amalgamation of content and concepts
from multiple STEM disciplines, where knowledge and process are jointly
considered and applied in a problem-based context”. Cheng and So
[CS20] consider a typology of integration in STEM learning as a
combination of three items (i) content integration, (ii) pedagogical
integration, and (iii) learner integration. Content integration covers
different types of content and knowledge taken from the four STEM
domains or/and subject knowledge (e.g., physics, chemistry, computers,
etc.). Pedagogical integration covers learning approaches such as
inquiry-based, cognitive integration, etc. Learner integration covers
special education needs and diverse abilities integration.
Roehrig et al. [RDE+21] propose an integrated STEM framework
that includes seven key characteristics: (a) focus on real-world
problems, (b) centrality of engineering, (c) context integration, (d)
content integration, (e) STEM practices, (f) twenty-first century skills,
and (g) informing students about STEM careers. In the context of the
Australian education system, Zhou et al. [ZGW+22] define integrated
STEM education as “the science of teaching across two or more STEM-
related subjects to address and solve authentic problems through design
solutions. Its three attributes include (i) transdisciplinary integration, (ii)
authentic contexts, and (iii) design problem-solving”. Vasquez and
English [Eng16] define four integration levels. (1) Disciplinary, when
students learn concepts separately in each discipline. (2)
Multidisciplinary, when students learn disciplines yet separately but
with the reference to a common theme. (3) Interdisciplinary, when
students learn concepts from two or more disciplines that are tightly
linked to deepening knowledge and skills. (4) Transdisciplinary, when
students are undertaking real-world problems, apply knowledge from
two or more disciplines enabling to shape the learning experiences.
 Currently, STEM evolves (i) towards a higher degree of integration
among the basic disciplines, or (ii) by adding new ones such as Art or
Social. Trevallion D. and Trevallion T. indicate a few variations of STEM,
mainly STEAM (adding Art to traditional components), STEMM (adding
Medicine component), and D-STEM (focus on Design in STEM
education) and evaluate their role in the STEM curriculum in secondary
education [TT20]. Problems of the integrated STEM are typically ill-
structured and require knowledge from multiple disciplines.
According to Cheng and So [CS20], the current movement and
related initiatives of STEM learning are suffering from a vague and
unclear conception of integration in STEM learning in school. It has set
a tight limitation to its further development as well as the discussion
among policymakers, educators, teachers, change agents, researchers,
social leaders, and other stakeholders who have put high expectations
on the role of STEM learning in students’ future development as well as
to the innovation and technology development of the society/nation. As
a result, the authors proposed a typology with three categories
(content integration, pedagogical integration, and learner integration),
six subcategories, and four related basic models of integration in STEM
learning. Subcategories include (subject integration, domain
integration, method integration, cognitive integration, special education
needs, and diverse ability integration in STEM learning). Depending on
the extent of content and pedagogical integration, that is a new
comprehensive framework for conceptualising and managing various
types of STEM learning in the school curriculum locally and
internationally. Cheng‘s and So‘s four models follow [CS20].
Model I covers total integration (i.e., High integration in content,
High integration in pedagogy, Maximised exposure in content and
pedagogy, and the Highest complexity in learning).
Model II covers content integration—pedagogy separation (i.e., High
integration in content, Low integration in pedagogy, Maximised
exposure in content, and High complexity in content but low
complexity in pedagogy).
Model III covers content separation—pedagogy integration (i.e., Low
integration in content, High integration in pedagogy, Maximised
exposure in pedagogy, High complexity in pedagogy but low
complexity in content).
 Model IV covers total separation and includes (Low integration in
content, Low integration in pedagogy, Limited exposure in content
and pedagogy, Separated and fragmented learning, and Lowest
complexity in learning).
Authors evaluate the level of integration (“high”, “low”) by taking
some examples from practice, however, without a more precise
indication. STEM knowledge includes epistemological knowledge,
procedural knowledge, and technical knowledge associated with each
STEM discipline (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)
and how associated ideas, concepts, principles, and theories overlap
and interrelate [Boo19]. Procedural knowledge provides the foundation
for acquisition, application, and practice of the STEM skills such as
measuring data, ascertaining its precision, validity, and reliability, or
selecting and displaying data. Learners obtain procedural knowledge
through investigative and hands-on activities progressively and
dynamically in or/and outside the classrooms. Technical knowledge
relates to applying knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values to a specific
field, career, or task, such as software engineering. STEM competence
refers to an individual’s ability to apply STEM knowledge, skills, and
attitude appropriately in everyday life, the workplace, or educational
context. It should not be confined and developed within the traditional
boundaries of discrete bodies of knowledge (e.g., physics competence
or computing competence). STEM competence covers both the ‘know-
what’ (the knowledge, attitudes, and values associated with the
disciplines) and the ‘know-how’ (the skills to apply that knowledge,
taking account of ethical attitudes and values to act appropriately and
effectively in a given context). In the information age of the 4IR, STEM
(i.e., the ‘know-what’ and the ‘know-how’) encompasses the traditional
components of knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes and the all-
important expansion of information, big data, and technology. It is
important not to view these components as isolated or ‘stand-alone’
but in a connected, contextualised, and holistic manner [Boo19].
Next, the other trend in the integrated STEM paradigm is the
enhanced focus on engineering and design (English and King [EK15],
English [Eng18]). Design is an interdisciplinary domain that uses
approaches, tools, and thinking skills that help designers to devise
more and better ideas for creative solutions (Danah et al. [DRM17]).
Typically, design is an engineering activity. From the engineer’s mind-
set, design is a process of generating abstract ideas and then moving to
concrete ones, seeking out design patterns, experimenting, testing, and
rethinking to find the needed solution. “Design and Technology should
be used as the platform for integrating STEM and creative design, and for
raising the profile of engineering in schools”—the report [Fin16] of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineering states.
The design promotes creativity and design thinking. Therefore, the
design-based approaches that develop the student’s ability in design
thinking are at the heart of engineering education and STEM education
too. Razzouk and Shute [RS12] define design thinking as “an analytic
and creative process that engages a person in opportunities to
experiment, create and prototype models, gather feedback, and redesign”.
Li et al. [LSG+19] argue that design and design thinking are important to
creativity and innovation not only in engineering and technology, in the
current movement of developing and implementing integrated STEM
education but also for everyone (similarly to computational thinking,
the far-reaching concept proposed by Wing [Win06]). According to Li et
al., design thinking can and should be viewed, from a broader
perspective; that is as a model of thinking in school education to help
nurture and develop creativity and innovations for every student in the
twenty-first century. The authors (Li et al. [LSG+19]) (i) call for
students’ learning in STEM education through design, (ii) emphasise
the benefits of design practices for integrated STEM education, and (iii)
call for developing students’ design thinking not only in Technology and
Engineering but also in Mathematics and Science. The authors’
concluding observation is methodologically valuable to highlight.

Systematic studies on students’ design thinking and its

development, especially in and through STEM education, would
help provide important foundations for developing sound
educational programs and instruction.

Note that concerning the design movement in education,

researchers use other terms with a close or similar meaning, such as
Do-it-yourself, Maker initiatives (Halverson and Sheridan [HS14],
Papavlasopoulou et al. [PGJ17]), or Design sprint (Arce et al. [ASL+22]).
Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy (STEL) promotes
STEM education, where technology and engineering play a critical role
as subject integrators. Integration of science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) in project-based learning is an ideal
approach, with the benefits of enhancing student learning and twenty-
first century competencies [HKB+20].
As a concluding remark, we present the OECD Learning Framework
2030, the Future of Education and Skills 2030 project that distinguishes
four different types of knowledge. (i) Disciplinary knowledge includes
subject-specific concepts and detailed content, such as that learned in
the study of mathematics and language, for example. (ii)
Interdisciplinary knowledge involves the concepts and content of one
discipline/subject to the concepts and content of other
disciplines/subjects. (iii) Epistemic knowledge is the understanding of
how expert practitioners of disciplines work and think. This knowledge
helps students find the purpose of learning, understand the application
of learning, and extend their disciplinary knowledge. (iv) Procedural
knowledge is the understanding of how something is done, the series of
steps or actions taken to accomplish a goal (www.​oecd.​org/​education/​
2030-project/​teaching-and-learning/​learning/​knowledge/​Knowledge_​
for_​2030.​pdf).

1.5 A Short Glance to Computational Thinking

Skills
Computational thinking (CT) is one of the most needed skills in the
twenty-first century. The primary source to provide this skill lies within
computer science (CS) disciplines such as programming. CT skill needs
for everyone, not only for computing professionals. Many papers,
reports, and discussions with different visions on this topic exist now.
Here, we aim to motivate CT as a Big Concept at large. We do that by (i)
presenting a variety of existing definitions, (ii) analysing worldwide
initiatives, (iii) showing the research intensiveness in the field, and (iv)
outlining the relationship of CT with STEM, CS, and robotics.

Definitions of CT. As there is a great interest and many driving forces

to advance CT, the research stream in this field is very diverse and
intensive. Multiple visions, attitudes, concepts, frameworks, and
initiatives exist. Despite that, there is no unique understanding of the
concept itself. In addition, this understanding evolves rapidly along
with computing technology advances and challenges of the twenty-first
century and the context of use. This understanding goes through
definitions firstly. It is reasonable to have a starting point for
considering the CT topics. Many researchers accept J. Wing‘s seminal
paper “Computational Thinking” (published in Communication of the
ACM, in 2006) as a reference point. We do the same. J. Wing emphasises
that the roots of CT are within computer science (CS) by saying
[Win06]:

Computational thinking involves solving problems, designing

systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on the
concepts fundamental to computer science. Computational
thinking includes a range of mental tools that reflect the breadth
of the field of computer science. Informally, computational
thinking describes the mental activity in formulating a problem
to admit a computational solution. The solution can be carried
out by a human or machine, or more generally, by combinations
of humans and machines.

She indicates the following characteristics of CT: (i) Conceptualising,

not programming. (ii) Fundamental, not rote skill. (iii) A way that
humans, not computers, think. (iv) Complements and combines
mathematical and engineering thinking. (v) Ideas, not artifacts. (vi) For
everyone, everywhere.
The ideas expressed in this paper have sparked a new wave of
discussions on the CT role. Aho [Aho11] provides a more concise and
precise definition by stating that CT is “the thought processes involved in
formulating problems so their solutions can be represented as
computational steps and algorithms.” He, therefore, emphasises the
need to connect CT with computational models. Later, in the essay
published on March 6, 2011, Wing provides a more extended panorama
on CT issues [Win11] as compared to her paper [Win06]. This
panorama includes such topics as CT and Other Disciplines, CT in Daily
Life, Benefits of CT, and CT in Education. She finalises her essay by
saying.

Computational thinking is not just or all about computing. The

educational benefits of being able to think computationally
transfer to any domain by enhancing and reinforcing intellectual
skills. Computer scientists see the value of thinking abstractly,
thinking at multiple levels of abstraction, abstracting to manage
complexity, abstracting to deal with scale, etc. We know the
value of these capabilities. Our immediate task ahead is to better
explain to non-computer scientists what we mean by
computational thinking and the benefits of being able to think
computationally.

Denning and Tedre [DT19], the other famous proponents of CT

ideas, classify research efforts in CT into three periods. The first covers
the pre-Wing period (before 2006) identified as the “evolution of
computing’s disciplinary ways of thinking and practicing”. The second
covers the Wing‘s initiatives (roughly 2006–2015) defined as
“educational research and efforts in computing”. The third identified as
the post-Wing period is defined as the “emergence of computational
science and digitalization of society”. These authors define CT as a
distilled product of many existing attitudes and visions in this way. CT
is (i) “the mental skills and practices for designing computations that get
computers to do jobs for” and (ii) “explaining and interpreting the world
as a complex of information processes” [DT19].
Selby and Woollard define CT as a cognitive or thought process that
reflects “the ability to think in abstractions, the ability to think in terms
of decomposition, the ability to think algorithmically, the ability to think
in terms of evaluations, and the ability to think in generalizations”
[SW13]. As there is no universal definition, often researchers define CT
depending on the context. For example, Digital Technologies Hub 2018
states: “Computational thinking describes the processes and approaches
we draw on when thinking about how a computer can help us to solve
complex problems and create systems”. In the context of the
International Computer and Information Literacy Study (2018),
Fraillon et al. [FAS+18] define CT in this way. CT is “an individual’s
ability to recognize aspects of real-world problems, which are
appropriate for the computational formulation, and to evaluate and
develop algorithmic solutions to those problems so that the solutions
could be operationalized with a computer”. Based on the existing CT
literature, interviews with mathematicians and scientists, and
exemplary computational, the paper [WBH+16] presents a definition of
CT for mathematics and science classrooms in the form of a taxonomy.
The latter consists of four main categories: data practices, modelling
and simulation practices, computational problem-solving practices, and
systems thinking practices. The International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE) and the Computer Science Teachers Association
(CSTA) developed an operational definition: “Computational thinking
(CT) is a problem-solving process that includes (but is not limited to) the
following characteristics: (i) Formulating problems in a way that enables
us to use a computer and other tools to help solve them. (ii) Logically
organizing and analyzing data. (iii) Representing data through
abstractions such as models and simulations. (iv) Automating solutions
through algorithmic thinking (a series of ordered steps). (v) Identifying,
analyzing, and implementing possible solutions with the goal of achieving
the most efficient and effective combination of steps and resources. (vi)
Generalizing and transferring this problem-solving process to a wide
variety of problems. These skills are supported and enhanced by a
number of dispositions or attitudes that are essential dimensions of CT;
they include the following:
Confidence in dealing with complexity
Persistence in working with difficult problems
Tolerance for ambiguity
The ability to deal with open-ended problems
The ability to communicate and work with others to achieve a common
goal or solution”.
Looking at these and other definitions [CC19] it is possible, for
example for practical use, to express CT through the following list of
categories: Abstraction, Algorithm, Data, Patterns (structural or
component vision), Automation, Decomposition, Parallelization,
Simulation, Analysis, and Generalization.
 Worldwide initiatives to promote computing and CT. As stated
in [Kon18], there are multiple examples and efforts to develop CT skills
worldwide in K–12 education:
In the USA (CS curriculum (2003 and new K–12 CS framework
(2016)).
In England, a new computing curriculum (2014).
In Japan, computer programming is compulsory for all levels of
schools.
In Singapore (CT-based curriculum for K–12 in 2014).
In India (a new CS curriculum was in 2013 and textbooks with CT
curricula used by 300 schools from K1-8 in 2016).
In China, the inclusion of CT in the K–12 curriculum goes from 2013.
In South Korea (high schools adopted coding as an elective course,
2018).
In Finland, the core coding curricula with CT, 2016).
In Estonia, (an initiative to bring programming to K–12 began in
2012).
This list of initiatives is by no means comprehensive. For other
initiatives, see [Iye19]. The report [BCD+16] discusses the most
significant CT developments for compulsory education in Europe and
provides a comprehensive synthesis of evidence, including implications
for policy and practice. Among other key issues, the report focuses on
the following questions. How can teachers be trained to effectively
integrate CT into their teaching practice? Should CT be addressed
within a specific subject (e.g., CS, as part of STEM), or as a cross-
curricular topic? What does it mean to assess CT? What is needed to
further the CT agenda in compulsory education settings? The
philosophy of the project includes three issues: (i) Developing computer
fluency, not just computer literacy. (ii) Developing thinking process skills,
not just content mastery. (iii) Highlighting the interconnectedness of
knowledge, not just addressing a topic in isolation.
The paper [KAL19] focuses on pre-Wing’s period of CT research
initiatives in K–12 (computing without the use of the term CT) and
summarises:
 One common approach to incorporating computation into the
K–12 curriculum is to emphasize computer literacy, which
generally involves using tools to create newsletters, documents,
Web pages, multimedia presentations, or budgets. A second
common approach is to emphasize computer programming by
teaching students to program in particular programming
languages such as Java or C++. A third common approach
focuses on programming applications such as games, robots, and
simulations

The paper [Eic19] presents a research module on CT as a part of the

international comparative study considered as an international option
for the first time in ICILS 2018. Countries with education systems,
which participated in this forum, were able to choose whether they
wanted to take part in this additional module. The option included
computer-based tests, two test modules for each student, in the domain
of computational thinking for Grade 8 students as well as additional
computational-thinking-related questions and items in the study’s
questionnaires for students, teachers, school principals, and IT
coordinators. Palt and Pedaste [PP20] propose a model for developing
CT skills in three stages (1) defining the problem, (2) solving the
problem, and (3) analysing the solution. Each stage consists of ten CT
skills: problem formulation, abstraction, problem reformulation,
decomposition, data collection and analysis, algorithmic design,
parallelisation and iteration, automation, generalisation, and
evaluation. Berglund et al. [BDD+21] present the issues of the
international project in cooperation between the European and South
Asia institutions in STEM–CT education.
Research intensiveness in CT. The interest in researching CT
issues grows extremely rapidly, especially in the last decade, and
identified as the “CT movement”. To illustrate that, the paper [RZN+18]
presents the results of searching publications using the keyword
“computational thinking” from only three databases. Such a search has
resulted in 2296 (IEEE), 15,387 (Springer) and 43,729 (Science Direct)
published articles about CT found in academic journals. Based on
reading abstracts of 6326 articles, the authors of this paper have
selected and analysed 12 articles in three dimensions (CT concepts, CT
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
abdominal appendages in the male serve as copulatory organs. For
the distribution, etc., of these forms see p. 213.
Fam. 3. Parastacidae.—This family includes the Crayfishes of
the Southern Hemisphere, viz. Parastacus from South America,
Astacopsis and Engaeus from Australia, Paranephrops from New
Zealand, and Astacoides from Madagascar. These genera agree with
the Potamobiidae in the union of the podobranchs with the
epipodites, and in the free condition of the last thoracic segment, but
there are generally four pleurobranchs, the gills are without a
lamina, the filaments have terminal hooks, and there are no sexual
appendages in the male. For distribution, etc., see also p. 213.
The larval development in the Crayfishes is still more abbreviated
than in the Lobsters, the Mysis stage being passed through within the
egg-membranes. The young, when they hatch out, are furnished with
hooks upon the chelipedes, by which they anchor themselves to the
pleopods of the mother.

Tribe 2. Eryonidea.

These are remarkably archaic animals of great rarity, though they

were common enough in Triassic seas, and have come down to us as
fossils from those times, being thus among the oldest Decapoda
known. They only survive now as deep sea species, and the genus
discovered by the Challenger,[131] Willemoesia (Fig. 105), confirmed
the expectations of the Challenger naturalists that the abysses of the
ocean would contain relics from older periods which had managed to
survive where the competition was not so keen. The genus
Willemoesia is very widely distributed, being dredged up from below
a thousand fathoms in the Indian Ocean, the Mediterranean, North
and South Atlantic, and the Pacific oceans. All the walking legs are
chelate, and the animal is quite blind, as are all the Eryonidea, the
eye-stalks being fused with the carapace.
Only a single family Eryonidae is recognised.
 Fig. 105.—Willemoesia inornata, × ⅓.
(From a figure prepared for Professor
Weldon.)

Tribe 3. Peneidea.—Tribe 4. Caridea.

 We will now consider the Shrimps and Prawns, since in them
occurs the most complete metamorphosis found in the Decapoda.
The Peneidea are distinguished from the ordinary Prawns and
Shrimps (Caridea) by having the first three instead of the first two
pereiopods chelate. The genus Peneus affords several species which
are of commercial value as objects of food; the edible Prawns of the
Mediterranean belong to this genus, while in the North Sea two of
the Caridea, viz. the Shrimp, Crangon vulgaris, and the Prawn,
Palaemon serratus, are the forms very commonly eaten. Both
subdivisions are well represented in the deep sea fauna from all parts
of the world. Glyphocrangon spinulosa (Fig. 110, p. 164) is a deep
sea Shrimp with eyes that have lost their pigment, and with the body
covered with spines, while the last abdominal segment is fused with
the telson to form a sharp bayonet-like process at the hind end of the
body. Some of the deep-sea Prawns of the Indian Ocean are
described by Alcock[132] as possessing peculiar secondary sexual
characters. Thus Parapeneus rectacutus ♂ has one lash of the first
pair of antennae peculiarly bent to form a clasping organ, while
Aristaeus crassipes has a hook on the end of the third maxillipede.
In the latter the females have much longer rostra than the males, and
are in general more powerfully built, so that they seem to have
usurped the proper functions of the male, and probably engage in
combats with one another over his person.
As a general rule the Shrimps and Prawns occur in large shoals in
the shallow waters of the littoral zone, and they have a remarkable
power of adapting their colours to the surroundings in which they
happen to be at any particular moment.[133] This is brought about by
the variously coloured chromatophores, which contract and expand
in obedience to a stimulus transmitted through the eyes of the
animal. A number of the Palaemonidae go up rivers into fresh water,
while one family, the Atyidae, live in the completely fresh water of
rivers and inland lakes. The Peneidea undergo a very complete
metamorphosis which is primitive in respect to the order of
formation of the segments from before backwards. The larva hatches
out as a Nauplius (Fig. 106), which by the orderly addition of
segments behind is converted into the Protozoaea (Fig. 107),
possessing two pairs of biramous maxillipedes. It should be noted
that the maxillae, which are foliaceous in the adult, are laid down in
this condition in the larva, and this principle holds good throughout
 Crustacean metamorphosis, viz.
that when a limb is foliaceous in
the adult it is foliaceous in the
larva, and when biramous in the
adult it is biramous in the larva.
Whilst the rest of the thoracic
limbs are still rudimentary, the
sixth pair of pleopods are being
precociously developed (Fig.
108), being the only precociously
formed limbs in the Peneidea,
though the abdominal segments
are fully marked off before the
thoracic segments, and so must
be considered as precocious in
Fig. 106.—Nauplius larva of Peneus, sp. development. When the biramous
× 25. (From Balfour, after F. Müller). thoracic limbs are completed the
abdominal biramous pleopods are
added, beginning from in front
backwards. Thus the Mysis stage (Fig. 109) is reached, which
resembles in all particulars the adult condition of the Schizopoda.
The adult Prawn develops from this stage by the loss of some or all of
the exopodites on the thoracic pereiopods.
Some of the Peneid larvae take on very peculiar forms, e.g. the
Zoaeae of the Sergestidae,[134] which often develop the most
wonderful spines all over the body.
Fig. 107.—Protozoea larva of Peneus,
sp. × 25. (From Balfour, after F.
Müller.)
Fig. 108.—Zoaea larva of Peneus, sp. ×
25. A, A′, 1st and 2nd antennae; Ab.6,
6th abdominal appendage; Mxp, 2nd
maxillipede; T, 4th–8th thoracic
appendages (future walking legs).
(After F. Müller.)
 Fig. 109.—Mysis stage in the development of Peneus, sp. A.2, 2nd
antenna; Ab.6, 6th abdominal appendage; T, telson; Th, the
biramous thoracic appendages. (After Claus.)

The Caridea have a greatly abbreviated metamorphosis, the larva

hatching out at a late Zoaea stage with all three pairs of maxillipedes
fully formed and with a fully segmented abdomen. The succeeding
thoracic limbs are added in order from before backwards, though the
sixth pair of pleopods appear precociously as in the Peneidea. The
other swimmerets do not begin to develop until the thoracic limbs
are complete. Some Caridea show a yet more abbreviated
metamorphosis, e.g. the fresh-water Palaemonetes varians of S.
Europe, which hatches out at the Mysis stage.
We see, therefore, in the metamorphosis of the Macrura several
apparently primitive features. In the first place, a free swimming
Nauplius stage is preserved in certain forms, identical in all respects
with the Nauplius of the Entomostraca. Secondly, the thoracic limbs
when they are first developed are biramous, thus giving rise to the
characteristic Mysis stage which links the Macrura on to the
“Schizopoda.” Thirdly, the order of differentiation of the segments is
typically from in front backwards, the only precociously developed
appendage being the sixth abdominal. None of these characters are
reproduced in the higher Decapoda in which there is never a free-
living Nauplius, the first larval stage being the Zoaea; a number of
the thoracic pereiopods, and usually all of them, are uniramous from
the start; and the whole of the abdominal segments with their limbs
tend to be precociously developed before the hinder thoracic
segments make a distinct appearance.

Tribe 3. Peneidea.[135]

The third legs are chelate except in genera in which the legs are
much reduced. The third maxillipedes are seven-jointed, the second
maxillipedes have normal end-joints, and the first maxillipedes are
without a lobe on the base of the exopodite. The pleura of the first
abdominal segment are not overlapped by those of the second. The
abdomen is without a sharp bend. The branchiae are usually not
phyllobranchs.
Fam 1. Peneidae.—The last two pairs of legs are well developed,
and there is a nearly complete series of gills. Cerataspis,[136] a pelagic
form. Parapeneus, Peneus, Aristaeus, etc.
Fam. 2. Sergestidae.—The last or last two pairs of legs are
reduced or lost. The gill-series is incomplete or wanting. Sergestes
possesses gills, and the front end of the thorax is not greatly
elongated. Lucifer has no gills, and the front of the thorax is greatly
elongated, giving a very anomalous appearance to the animal. All the
members of this family are pelagic in habit.
Fam. 3. Stenopodidae.—One or both legs of the third pair are
longer and much stouter than those of the first two pairs. On a
number of small anatomical points this family, including the littoral
genus Stenopus from the Mediterranean and other warmer seas and
Spongicola commensal with Hexactinellid sponges from Japan, is
separated by some authors in a Tribe by itself.

Tribe 4. Caridea.

The third legs are not chelate. The third maxillipedes are 4–6
jointed, the end-joint of the second maxillipede nearly always lies as
a strip along the end of the joint before it, and the first maxillipedes
have a lobe on the base of the exopodites. The pleura of the second
abdominal segment overlap those of the first. The abdomen has a
sharp bend; the branchiae are phyllobranchs.
Fam. 1. Pasiphaeidae.—In this family the end-joint of the
second maxillipedes is normally formed, and exopodites are usually
present on all the thoracic limbs. Rostrum small or wanting. Rather
numerous genera are known, most of which inhabit the deep sea,
though a few come into the littoral zone. Pasiphaea chiefly in the
deep sea, Leptochela in the tropical littoral zone.
Fam. 2. Acanthephyridae.—The end-joint of the second
maxillipede is modified as in other Caridea, and the rostrum is very
strong and serrate, but in the presence of exopodites, and in the form
of the mouth-parts, this family agrees with the preceding. It is also a
characteristic deep-sea family. Acanthephyra, Hymenodora,
Nematocarcinus, etc.
Fam. 3. Atyidae.—This is an entirely fresh-water family,
especially characteristic of the rivers and lakes of the tropics, some of
the forms being exceedingly large and taking the place of the
Crayfishes in these waters. Characteristic of this family is the fact
that the fingers of the chelae are spoon-shaped, and carry peculiar
tufts of bristles. Exopodites are present on the thoracic limbs of some
of the genera (Troglocaris, Xiphocaris from Australia and the Malay
Islands, Atyephyra from S. and W. Europe), but are absent in others.
Caridina, widely spread and common in Indo-Malay and Africa;
Atya from West Indies, West Africa, and Pacific Islands.
Fam. 4. Alpheidae.[137]—The exopodites are absent, and the
rostrum is absent or very feeble. The chelae are powerful, and usually
very asymmetrically developed. Alpheus has an enormous number of
species which live chiefly in the tropical seas, where they haunt
especially the coral-reefs, making their homes among the coral or in
sponges, etc. Although occurring in the Mediterranean they
penetrate very rarely into colder seas.
Fam. 5 Psalidopodidae.—This family, characterised by the
absence of chelae on the second thoracic limbs, which carry instead a
terminal brush of hairs, and by the rudimentary condition of the
eyes, is represented by the genus Psalidopus from the deep waters of
the Indian Ocean.
 Fam. 6. Pandalidae.—The first thoracic limb is without chelae,
only six-jointed. The rostrum is large and toothed. The genus
Pandalus has numerous representatives in the northern littoral, P.
annulicornis being one of the prawns most commonly met with in
the fish-markets.
Fam. 7. Hippolytidae.—The first and second thoracic limbs
bear chelae, the carpus of the second being divided into two or more
segments. The first pair of chelae are not distinctly stronger than the
second. Virbius has many species in the littoral zone of all seas, and
one species, V. acuminatus, is pelagic. Hippolyte also has numerous
littoral forms distributed all over the world, but chiefly in the arctic
or subarctic seas. H. varians, common on the English coasts, shows
interesting colour-reactions to its surroundings.[138]
Fam. 8. Palaemonidae.—
The first two pairs of legs are
chelate, the carpus of the second
not being subdivided. Palaemon
serratus, a very common prawn
in the British littoral.
Palaemonetes in the brackish and
fresh waters of Europe and N.
America.
Fam. 9.
Glyphocrangonidae.—The first
pair of legs are subchelate, the
carpus of the second pair is
subdivided, and the rostrum is
long. Glyphocrangon (Fig. 110)
with numerous species entirely
confined to deep water.
Fam. 10. Crangonidae.—
Fig. 110.—Glyphocrangon spinulosa,
from the right side, × 1. (From an
The first pair of legs are
original drawing prepared for Professor subchelate, the carpus of the
Weldon.) second pair is not subdivided,
and the rostrum is short.
Crangon vulgaris is the common
Shrimp of the North Sea.
 Tribe 5. Loricata.

The Loricata include the

Langouste (Palinurus) of the
Mediterranean coasts, which
replaces there the Lobster of the
North Sea as an article of food,
and the peculiarly shaped
Scyllarus arctus (Fig. 111), which
is also prized in the
Mediterranean as a delicacy. The
bright red “Crayfishes,” Panulirus
and Iasus, of the Australian
coasts are also largely used as
food. Besides its peculiarity in
shape, S. arctus has remarkable
scales on the second antennae in
place of flagella. The larva
hatches out as the so-called
Phyllosoma, which must be
regarded as a greatly flattened
and modified[139] Mysis stage.
Fig. 111.—Dorsal view of Scyllarus In the embryo of Palinurus just
arctus, × ½. (From an original figure before hatching (Fig. 112) we can
prepared for Professor Weldon.) recognise the limbs of the head
and thorax normally developed in
order. There are present three
thoracic limbs, besides the maxillipedes. When the Phyllosoma
hatches out the first maxillipedes have become quite rudimentary,
and the second much reduced, while the second antennae and
second maxillae are also reduced in size. The metamorphosis is
completed by the re-development of the limbs and segments that
have been secondarily suppressed during larval life, and by the
appearance of the pleopods.
This process is again met with in the Squillidae (p. 143), but it
resembles the suppression, in so many Decapodan metamorphoses,
of anterior limbs and the precocious development of segments and
limbs lying posteriorly. In the ordinary Decapoda, however, the
suppressed limbs are merely not
formed till later; while in the
Loricata the limbs develop in the
correct order, and subsequently
degenerate. It is natural to
wonder whether the condition of
affairs in the Loricata represents
the primitive process, and
whether the precocious
development of segments in the
other Decapoda owes its origin to
these animals having once had
the direct mode of development
when the segments were formed
in the proper order, and to their
having subsequently acquired the
larval stages first of all by the
degeneration, and then by the
suppression of certain segments
which were not of use during Fig. 112.—Embryonic area of
larval life. The complete developing Palinurus quadricornis.
metamorphosis, however, of the Ab.1, 1st abdominal segment; E,
Peneidea, in which the segments compound eye; E′, median simple eye;
L, upper lip; L′, lower lip; M, mandible;
and limbs appear in the right Mx.1, Mx.2, 1st and 2nd maxillae;
order, rather goes to show that Mxp.1, 1st maxillipede; T, 6th
this is the primitive mode of (antepenultimate) thoracic appendage.
development in the Decapoda, (After Claus.)
and that the disarrangement in
the order of appearance of the
segments, both in the Squillidae and in the Loricata and other
Decapods, has been independently acquired in the two cases to meet
the needs of the larval existence.
Fam. 1. Palinuridae.—The cephalothorax is subcylindrical, the
eyes are not enclosed in separate orbits formed by the edge of the
carapace, and the second antennae possess flagella. Palinurus, with
P. elephas, the European Rock Lobster or Langouste. Iasus with two
species in the Antarctic littoral; Panulirus in the tropical littoral.
 Fam. 2. Scyllaridae.—The
cephalothorax is depressed, the
eyes are enclosed in separate
orbits formed by the edge of the
carapace, and the second
antennae have flat scales in the
place of flagella. Scyllarus (Fig.
111), with the European S. arctus;
Ibacus in rather deep water with
several species, chiefly found in
the southern hemisphere.
Fig. 113.—Phyllosoma larva of
Palinurus, sp. × 5. Ab, Abdomen; Mxp,
3rd maxillipede; T, antepenultimate
(6th) thoracic appendage. (After Claus.)

Tribe 6. Thalassinidea.

This tribe is included by some authors in the Anomura, and held to

be closely related to the Galatheidea, but the unreduced abdomen is
carried straight and unflexed, and gives a very Macrurous
appearance to the animal. The Anomurous characters are the
frequent reduction or absence of the antennal scale, the fact that only
the first two pairs of pereiopods are ever chelate, and the reduced
series of gills. The body is symmetrical, but the first pair of chelae is
always highly asymmetrical. The posterior pairs of pereiopods,
although small, are not characteristically reduced as in the Anomura.
The animals belonging to this Tribe attain two or three inches in
length, and generally burrow in sand or mud either in the littoral
zone or in deeper waters; at the same time they can swim with
considerable activity by means of the pleopods.
Fam. Callianassidae.—Callianassa subterranea is common at
Naples, Gebia littoralis in the North Sea.

Sub-Order 2. Anomura
 In this division are included the so-called Hermit-lobsters and
Hermit-crabs, in which the condition of the abdomen is roughly
intermediate between that of the Macrura and that of the Brachyura.
It is not much reduced in size, and the pleopods of the sixth pair are
fairly well developed, but it is usually carried flexed towards the
thorax, and is never a powerful locomotory organ as in the Macrura.
The antennal scale, if present at all, is a mere spine, not the large
leaf-like structure of the Macrura; and there is never a partition
between the two first antennae as in the Brachyura.
The last or last two pairs of pereiopods are reduced, and are turned
on to the dorsal surface or carried inside the branchial chamber; but
this curious character is met with again in certain Brachyura
(Dromiacea and Oxystomata).

Tribe 1. Galatheidea.[140]

These are symmetrical crabs with a long carapace; the abdomen,

which is as broad as the carapace, is always carried flexed under the
thorax, and the sixth pair of pleopods are expanded to form with the
telson a fan-like tail. The most anterior pereiopods are always much
elongated and chelate; while the last pair are much reduced, and
either turned up on to the dorsal surface, or else carried in the
branchial chamber. The exact meaning of this last characteristic in
these forms is doubtful; some of the species are said to carry shells
temporarily upon their backs, a proceeding probably assisted by the
last pair of thoracic limbs, while in others their limbs may be used for
cleaning out the branchial chamber. Most of the Galatheidea, for
instance, the common Porcellana and Galathea, are littoral animals,
and may be found hiding under stones and in crevices on the shore;
but a number occur in deep water, e.g. Munida and Munidopsis.
The shallow-water species have ordinarily developed eyes; the
various species of Munida, which occur in fairly deep but by no
means abyssal regions, have usually very large and highly pigmented
eyes; while in Munidopsis, which is characteristic of very deep water,
the eyes are degenerate and colourless, as shown in Fig. 114.
The Zoaeae, or young larval stages of the Galatheidea, are
characterised by the immense length of the spines upon the carapace
(Fig. 115). The
young Zoaea
which hatches
out from the
egg resembles
in other
respects that
of the
Brachyura.
The
Metazoaea,
however,
differs from
that of the
Brachyura in
the fact that
the third
maxillipede is
first present as
a biramous
swimming
organ, and at
its first Fig. 114.—Dorsal view of Munidopsis
appearance is hamata, × ½. (From an original figure
not developed prepared for Professor Weldon.)
in its
definitive form. The other thoracic limbs are not
schizopodous when they appear, and indeed in
nearly all respects the development proceeds as in
the Brachyura.
Fam. 1. Aegleidae.—The gills are
trichobranchiae, and there are eight
arthrobranchs. There are no limbs on the second
abdominal segment of the male. The abdomen is
not carried folded on to the thorax. The first two
characteristics separate this family from all the
other Galatheidea. Aeglea laevis, a fresh-water
species from the rivers of temperate S. America, is
the sole representative.
 Fam. 2. Galatheidae.—The abdomen is not
Fig. 115.—Zoaea of folded against the thorax. The members of this
Porcellana, × 20. T,family are often littoral in habit (Galathea, Fig.
Telson. (After
Claus.)
116), but often go down into great depths
(Munidopsis, Fig. 114).
Fam. 3.
Porcellanidae.—The abdomen
is folded against the thorax, and
the body has a crab-like form.
These are always littoral in habit,
never descending into the depths.
Pachycheles in the tropics,
Porcellana with numerous
species in all seas, P. platycheles
being a common British species.

Fig. 116.—Dorsal view of Galathea

strigosa, × ½. (From an original figure
prepared for Professor Weldon.)

Tribe 2. Hippidea.

The Mole-crabs have the habit of burrowing in sand, and their

limbs are peculiarly modified into digging organs for this purpose
(see Fig. 117). In other respects they are seen to be closely related to
the Galatheidea by the form of the carapace, the condition of the
abdomen, and the reduced last thoracic limbs.
In Albunea, which is found in the Mediterranean, the first
antennae[141] are greatly lengthened and apposed to one another, and
by means of a system of interlocking hairs they form a tube down
which the water is sucked for respiration. The object of this
arrangement is to ensure a supply of clear water, filtered from
particles of sand, when the crab is buried beneath the surface, on
these occasions the tip of the antennal tube being protruded above
the surface of the sand. An exactly similar tube is used by the true
Crab Corystes cassivelaunus, which has similar burrowing habits,
but here the tube is formed from the second antennae and not from
the first, so that the tubes in the two cases afford beautiful instances
of analogous or homoplastic structures between which there is no
homology (see p. 189).
Fam. 1. Albuneidae.—The first legs are subchelate; the carapace
is flattened, without expansions covering the legs. Albunea with
several species in the Mediterranean, West Indies, and Indo-Pacific.

Fig. 117.—Remipes scutellatus, dorsal and ventral views, × 1.

(From original drawings prepared for Professor Weldon.)

Fam. 2. Hippidae.—The first legs are simple, the carapace is

subcylindrical with expansions covering the legs. Remipes (Fig. 117)
and Hippa in tropical or sub-tropical seas.

Tribe 3. Paguridea.[142]
 The ordinary Hermit-crabs, common on the English as on every
coast, are characterised by the fleshy asymmetrical abdomen from
which all the hard matter has disappeared, and which is carried
tucked away in an empty Gasteropod shell. The abdomen is spirally
wound in accordance with the shape of the shell, and a firm
attachment is effected by means of the sixth pair of pleopods,
especially that of the left side, which is fashioned into the form of a
hook and is curled round the columella of the shell; this attachment
is so secure that in trying to pull a Hermit-crab out of its shell the
body is torn apart before the hold gives way. The other pleopods are
in a much reduced condition, being generally altogether absent from
the right side of the abdomen, and often greatly reduced on the left
side, especially in the male, though in the female they are still used
for the attachment of the eggs.
The last two pereiopods are much reduced and are concealed
inside the shell, which they help to carry. The great chelae are usually
asymmetrically developed, that on the right side being much larger
than that on the left, and often serving the purpose of shutting the
entrance to the shell when the crab is withdrawn inside.
The constant association of a large group of animals like the
Hermit-crabs with the appropriated empty houses of another group
is sufficiently curious, but it does not stop there. In almost every case
there are present one or more Sea-anemones growing on the outside
of the shell, and each kind of Hermit-crab generally carries a special
kind of Anemone. Thus at Plymouth, Eupagurus bernhardus is
generally symbiotic with Sagartia parasitica, or else with a colony of
Hydractinia echinata, while E. prideauxii is usually associated with
Adamsia palliata. In the latter case the shell is frequently absorbed,
so that the Anemone comes to envelop the crab like a blanket.
Instead of Anemones carried turret-like and imposing aloft, or
enveloping the inmate of the shell like a blanket, some of the
Hermits have Sponges, an unexpected association; and it is a
common sight at Naples to find the little red round Sponge,
Suberites, running around animated by its Hermit within. It is held
that Anemone and crab mutually assist one another, that the
Anemone stings the crab’s enemies, and that the Hermit-crab carries
the Anemone to new feeding-grounds. It is also said that when a crab
grows too big for its shell, and is forced to seek another, it persuades
the Anemone to loosen its attachment to the deserted shell and to be
transplanted to the new one, and that there is something mesmeric
in its power, because nobody else can pull an Anemone off a shell
without either cutting it off at the base or tearing it to pieces. Other
animals as well sometimes enter into this partnership. At Plymouth a
Polychaet worm, Nereis fucata, frequently inhabits the Whelk’s shell,
together with Eupagurus bernhardus, and puts out its head for a
share of each meal; and at Naples the Amphipod Lysianax punctatus
is almost always present in the shells of Eupagurus prideauxii.
Besides the ordinary twisted Pagurids which inhabit Gasteropod
shells, there are a few which preserve the symmetry of the body. The
interesting Pylocheles miersii[143] (Fig. 118), taken by the
Investigator in the Andaman Sea at 185 fathoms, inhabits pieces of
bamboo; it is perfectly symmetrical, with well-developed pleopods
and symmetrical chelae, which, when the animal is withdrawn,
completely shut up the entrance to its house (Fig. 118, A).
It is doubtful whether this animal ever inhabited a spiral shell or
not in its past history; but there is no doubt that a number of peculiar
crabs, which caused the older systematists much trouble, are
Pagurids, derived from asymmetrical shell-haunting ancestors that
have secondarily taken to a different mode of life, and lost, or
partially lost those characteristics of ordinary Hermit-crabs which
are associated with life in a spiral shell. These are the Lithodidae and
the “Robber-crab,” Birgus latro, of tropical coral islands.
Although the Robber-crab and the Lithodidae bear a certain
superficial resemblance to one another in that they lead a free
existence, and have reacquired to a great extent their symmetry, yet
it is clear that they have been independently derived from different
groups of asymmetrical Hermit-crabs, and that their resemblance to
one another is due to convergence.
Birgus latro (Fig. 119), a gigantic crab, frequently over a foot in
length, lives on land, and inhabits the coasts of coral islands in the
Indian and Pacific Oceans where cocoa-nut trees grow. It feeds on
the pulp of the cocoa-nut, which it extracts by hammering with its
heavy chela on the “eye-hole” until room is made for the small chela
to enter and extract the pulp. There is not the slightest doubt that the
animal often ascends the cocoa-nut trees for the purpose of picking
the nuts, a fact illustrated by a fine photograph by Dr. Andrews,
exhibited in the Crustacean
Gallery in the Natural History
Departments of the British
Museum. It uses the husk of the
nut to line its burrow, and it is
said to have the habit of putting
its abdomen into the nut-shell for
protection and carrying it about
with it. Owing to its terrestrial
mode of life, the branchial
chamber is highly modified, being
divided into two portions—a
dorsal space, the lining of which
is thrown into vascular ridges and
folds for aerial respiration, and a
lower portion where the
rudimentary branchiae are
situated. Although the Robber-
crab lives ordinarily on land, it
must be supposed that these
branchiae are of some service; the
young are hatched out as ordinary
Zoaeas in the sea, and go through
a pelagic existence before seeking
the land. At the present time the Fig. 118.—Pylocheles miersii, × 1. A,
Robber-crab is confined to the End view of a piece of mangrove or
Pacific and the islands of the bamboo, the opening of which is closed
by the great chelae (c) of the Pagurid;
Indian Ocean, wherever the B, the animal removed from its house.
cocoa-nut grows. It seems, (After Alcock.)
however, that its association with
the cocoa-nut is a comparatively
modern one. Mr. C. Hedley, of Sydney, who has had great experience
of the Pacific Islands, informs me that the cocoa-nut is not, as is
usually supposed, a native of these coral islands, but has been
introduced, probably from Mexico, by the Polynesian mariners
before the discovery of America by Columbus. Before the
introduction of the cocoa-nut the Robber-crab must have fed on
some other tree, possibly the Screw Pine, Pandanus.