ExploringComputationalThinkingConcepts,Practices,andDispositionsinK-12ComputerScienceandEngineering
By
AmandaM.Bell
Thesis
SubmittedtotheFacultyofthe
GraduateSchoolofVanderbiltUniversity
inpartialfulfillmentoftherequirements
forthedegreeof
MASTEROFSCIENCE
in
Learning,Teaching,andDiversity
May31,2018
Nashville,Tennessee
Approved:
MelissaS.Gresalfi,Ph.D.
DouglasB.Clark,Ph.D.
CoreyE.Brady,Ph.D.
ii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
Introduction................................................................................................................................................................1ComputationalThinkinginSociety..............................................................................................................2CTvs.CSvs.Programming...............................................................................................................................4ContextsofFocus:ComputerScienceandEngineering......................................................................6
TheoreticalFramework.........................................................................................................................................8LiteratureSearch...................................................................................................................................................14ComputationalThinkinginComputerScience.........................................................................................15Concepts................................................................................................................................................................15Practices................................................................................................................................................................16Dispositions.........................................................................................................................................................20LearningCTConceptsandPracticesinK-12ComputerScience.................................................22CTIdentityDevelopmentandDispositionsinK-12ComputerScience....................................26
ComputationalThinkinginEngineering.....................................................................................................31Concepts................................................................................................................................................................32Practices................................................................................................................................................................32Dispositions.........................................................................................................................................................36LearningCTPracticesinK-12Engineering...........................................................................................37CTIdentityDevelopmentandDispositionsinK-12Engineering................................................39
Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................41Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................44REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................................45
1
Introduction
Increasingly,educatorsandpolicymakersvaluecomputerscience(CS)educationfor
itsabilitytopreparestudentsforthegrowingnumberofjobsincomputingfieldsandfor
itspotentialtoequiplearnerswithproblem-solvingskillsandtechnologicalknowledge.
WhilethetraditionalmethodoflearningCSthroughprogrammingteachesstudentsabout
programminglanguagesandalgorithms,studentsshouldalsohaveaccesstotheconcepts
andpracticescomputerscientistsusetosolveproblems,referredtoascomputational
thinking(CT).CTempowerslearnerstouseprogrammingasatooltogenerateinnovative
solutionstoproblems,tobecomethoughtfultechnologyusersintheireverydaylives,to
applylogicalthinkingtoavarietyofsituations,andtoprepareforjobsusingtechnology
acrossavarietyoffields.
NewinitiativesinCSeducationcallfortheintegrationofCTintoK-12schools.
PresidentObama’sComputerScienceforAllinitiativearticulatedtheneedtoexposeall
studentsto“computationalthinkingskillsthatarerelevanttomanydisciplinesand
careers”(Smith,2016).CTwasoneofthefivemainconceptualstrandsinthe2011K-12CS
standardsdevelopedbytheComputerScienceTeachersAssociation(CSTA).NowCSTA,
alongwiththeAssociationforComputingMachinery(ACM),areupdatingtheCSstandards
andintegratingCTthroughouttheconceptsandpractices(CSTA&ACM,2016).Atthesame
time,CSTAandtheInternationalSocietyofTechnologyinEducation(ISTE)createda
toolkittohelpteachersandschoolleadersadvocateforanddevelopaCTcurriculum(ISTE
&CSTA,2011).Theseinitiativesdemonstrateeducators’andpolicymakers’focusonCTas
animportantpartofCSeducationforallstudents.
TakingCTlearningastepfurther,manyresearchersarebeginningtoexplorethe
integrationofCTwithSTEM(science,technology,engineering,andmathematics)fieldsand
otherdisciplines.TheNextGenerationScienceStandards(NGSS)alsoincludeexamplesof
CTintheirscienceandengineeringpracticesforgradesK-12(NGSS,2013).By
incorporatingCTintoexistingschoolsubjects,researchershopetoaddressseveralfactors
thathinder“CTforall”efforts:(1)allstudentswouldbeexposedtoCTifitispartoftheir
coresubjectsratherthananelectivecomputingcourse;(2)itwouldsavetimetoteachCT
duringanexistingsubjectratherthanaddingacoursetobusyschoolschedules;(3)itmay
2
beeasiertotrainteachersifCTisincorporatedaspartofwhattheyalreadydo;and(4)not
allschoolshaveaccesstoadvancedtechnologytosupportCSclasses(Hornetal.,2014;Hu,
2011;Sneider,Stephenson,Schafer,&Flick,2014;Weintropetal.,2016;Wilensky,Brady,
&Horn,2014).Infact,astudyexaminingschool-wideintegrationofcomputingatthe
elementarylevelfoundthatclassroomteacherscouldonlyteachcomputingbyintegrating
itintotheircontentareasbecausethepre-existingcurriculumwastootime-consumingto
introducecomputingonitsown(Israeletal.,2015).
DespitetheseinitiativesinK-12education,researchersstilldonothaveastrong
consensusaboutwhatCTisandhowitisappliedindifferentcontexts.Abetter
understandingofhowpeopleuseCTinavarietyoffieldsisnecessarytomeaningfully
integrateCTacrossschoolsubjects(Grover&Pea,2018).Furthermore,inordertoengage
allstudentsinCT,notjustthosepredisposedtocomputing,researchersneedto
understandhowstudentscanlegitimatelyparticipateinaCTlearningcommunitythrough
richlyvariedexperiences.Therefore,myquestionsinthispaperare:whatdoesCTlook
likeindifferentcontexts,andhowdolearnersengageinCTinthesedifferentK-12
learningcommunities?Inthesectiontitled“ContextsofFocus”below,IdiscusswhyI
chosetoexploreCTinthecontextofcomputerscienceandengineeringinthispaper.My
goalistoexpandideasofwhatitmeanstobeacompetentcomputationalthinkerby
identifyingelementsofCTfromCSthendiscussinghowpeopleuseCTskillsinother
disciplinesoutsideCS.
ComputationalThinkinginSociety
Computersarenolongeraspecializedtoolbutarepervasiveinoursociety.
Therefore,“theabilitytoextendthepowerofhumanthoughtwithcomputersandother
digitaltoolshasbecomeanessentialpartofoureverydaylivesandwork”(Barr,Harrison,
&Conery,2011,p.23).ComputerscientistsemployCTskillstoaskquestionsandsolve
problemsacrossdisciplinesusingcomputers.AtaworkshoporganizedbytheNational
ResearchCouncilin2009todiscussthescopeandnatureofCT,attendeesarguedthatCTis
“comparableinimportanceandsignificancetothemathematical,linguistic,andlogical
reasoningthatsocietytodayagreesshouldbetaughttoallchildren”(NationalResearch
Council,2010,p.3).
3
Thisemphasisontheimportanceofcomputinginoursocietyisnotnew.For
decades,therehavebeenappealsforwidespreadintegrationofcomputingskillsintoall
levelsandtypesofeducation(Weintropetal.,2016).In1962,Perlis,thefirstrecipientof
theACMTuringAward,claimedthatallundergraduatesshouldlearnprogramming
(Guzdial,2008).Papert(1980)laterarguedforintroducingaliteracyofcomputingto
children,andheusedCTtodescribetheabilityofcomputingtoempowerideas(Papert,
1996).diSessa(2000)calledforanewformofcomputationalliteracythatchangestheway
weallcommunicate,learn,andlivewithtechnology.Morerecently,therehasbeena
resurgenceininterestinCTfromtheperspectiveof21stcenturyskillspreparingstudents
forajobmarketthatincreasinglyinvolvestechnologycreationanduse(Grover&Pea,
2013;Wing,2006).
However,participationincomputingfieldsremainslowintheU.S.By2024,there
couldbeapredicted1.1millionjobsincomputingfields(NationalCenterforWomenand
InformationTechnology,2017),butlessthan17,000peoplegraduatedwithcomputer
scienceorprogrammingdegreesin2015,includingfewerthan3,000women(Snyder,
2016).Exposingstudentstocomputersciencebeforetheyentercollegeisessentialfor
increasingthenumberandvarietyofcomputingmajors,asstudentsare8timesmorelikely
tomajorincomputerscienceaftertakinganAPCScourseinhighschool(Mattern,Shaw,&
Ewing,2011).Furthermore,jobsincomputingtendtobeintellectuallyrewardingandhigh
paying;themedianannualwagewasover$80,000in2015,muchhigherthantheoverall
medianannualwageforalljobsof$36,000(BureauofLaborStatistics,2017).Butthevast
majorityofthosejobsareheldbymen.Theproportionofwomenincomputingjobshas
actuallydecreasedsince1990,downto25%in2015(NCWIT,2017).Just7%ofworkersin
computingin2014identifiedasBlackand7%asHispanic(Beckhusen,2016).Thehigh
wagesofcomputingjobshighlightsthevalueoursocietyplacesonthatwork,butthe
diversityofparticipationinthosejobsislimited.“Ifthepopulationofpeoplecreating
softwareismorecloselymatchedtothepopulationusingsoftware,thesoftwaredesigned
andreleasedwillprobablybettermatchusersneeds”(Kelleher&Pausch,2005,p.131).
Computerscientistsandengineersdesigntoolsthatareintegraltolivesacrosstheworld,
soitmakeslittlesensethatthevastmajorityofthosedesignersonlyrepresentonetypeof
4
person.Thechallengewefacetodayisbothtoincreaseengagementintechnological
creationandtoensurethefieldisrepresentativeofourdiversepopulation.
StereotypesofwhatCSjobsentailandtheimageofloner,nerdy,maleprogrammers
stillperpetuateandunderminediversityincomputingfields.Stereotypesoftenserveas
gatekeepersforwomeninparticular,hinderinglearning(Cheryan,Master,&Meltzoff,
2015)anddecreasingsenseofbelonging(Master,Cheryan,&Meltzoff,2016).K-12schools
playanimportantroleinintroducingavarietyofstudentstoCSandpotentiallychanging
theirperceptionsofwhatCSisandwhocanparticipateinit.
CTvs.CSvs.Programming
ThelinesbetweenCT,CS,andprogrammingcansometimesbeblurredin
educationalcontexts.ThebestarticulationoftheinterconnectionsamongthethreeIhave
foundisablogpostwrittenbysoftwareengineer,author,andstartupco-founderYevgeniy
Brikman.Ratherthanlearningprogramming,Brikman(2014)articulatestheimportanceof
learningtothink.First,programmingisjustwhatitsoundslike:writingcode,whetheron
paperoronthecomputer.Programminginvolvesspeakingaparticularlanguagetoa
computertogetthecomputertodosomething.Itcouldinvolvecreatingapieceof
software,anapp,awebsite,oritcouldbeassimpleasusingacomputertocalculatea
multiplicationproblem.Programmingisatooltohelpsolveaproblemorperforma
computation.Itisacommontoolusedbycomputerscientists,butprogrammingdoesnot
definewhatcomputerscienceis.Thebrainisalsoatoolforcomputation;itcanthink
logically,solveproblems,andruncalculations.
Computerscience,ontheotherhand,isabroaddisciplinethatincludessoftware
engineering,algorithmdesign,problemsolving,computationaltheory,artificial
intelligence,informationtheory,logic,andmore.Everydisciplineinvolvesparticularways
ofthinking,andpartoflearningtoparticipateinafieldinvolveslearningthosewaysto
think.Forinstance,physicsgivesusaparticularwayofthinkingaboutthephysicalworld
throughcalculusandintermsofmatter,motion,andforces.Chemistrygivesusawayof
thinkingaboutmatterintermsofstructure,properties,andreactions.Computational
thinkingreferstothewaysofthinkingcomputerscientistsuse.TheideaofCTisto
articulatehowcomputerscientiststhinkandsolveproblemssootherscanlearntothinkin
5
asimilarway.Programmingisjustonetoolforexercisingthatwayofthinking,inthesame
waychemistsperformexperimentsusingtesttubes(Brikman,2014).
Whilechemistrymayinvolveitsownwayofthinkingabouttheworld,theskills
chemists’usealsoleakintootherfieldsofstudy,likephysics,biology,medicine,and
engineering.Forinstance,biochemistryisahybridfieldthattakestheabilitytothinkabout
chemicalprocessesandappliesittolivingcreatures.AccordingtotheUKBiochemical
Society,thiscross-applicationhascontributedsignificantadvancesintheareasofhealth,
disease,technology,andmore(BiochemicalSociety,2017),demonstratingthatapplying
disciplinarythinkingskillsacrosscontextscreatesinnovativesolutionsandtechnological
advances.Inmuchthesameway,theabilitytothinklogicallyandcomputationallycanleak
outsidetheCSfieldandhelpsolveproblemsinotherendeavors.Regardlessofthesubject
matter,theconstantincreaseintechnologyacrossdifferentculturesstrengthensthecall
foranunderstandingofhowpeopleuseCTtothinkwithandsolveproblemsthrough
technology.
Computerliteracyisanothertermpeopleusearoundcomputingprofessions,butit
oftencanrefertotheknowledgeofspecificprograms,likeWordorAdobePhotoshop,and
componentsofcomputers,likeusingamouseandkeyboard.Someresearchersusethe
termcomputationalliteracy,whichisclosertoCTbutnotexactlythesame.Whilereading
andwritingarefundamentaltoeducation,diSessa(2000)arguesthatcomputational
literacyisalsocrucialtocreatingknowledgeablepeople.Inmuchthesamewaythe
inventionoftheprintingpresschangedmainstreamliteracy,theproliferationofcomputers
changesourcurrentstructuresofliteracyandwhatitmeanstobealiterateperson.
Computationalliteracyisa“materialintelligence”thatismediatedbymaterialssuchas
symbolsandrepresentations,itinvolvesthewayswethinkinthepresenceofthose
materials,anditisasocialendeavor,developingwithotherindividualsacrosstimeand
space(diSessa,2000).Thefirstpillarofcomputationalliteracy--materials--issimilarto
thenotionofprogrammingasatoolandprogramminglanguagesasaninscriptionor
symbolsystemofacomputer-basedliteracy.Thesecondpillar--mentalprocesses--
includesthewaysinwhichpeoplethinkandsolveproblemswithcomputersand
programmingtools,whichcapturestheessenceofCT.Thethirdpillar--socialaspects--
goesbeyondthecollaborativeprocessescentraltoCTtodescribethewaysinwhich
6
knowledgebuildsoverlongperiodsoftimeandwiththehelpofmanydifferentpeople.
Therefore,computationalliteracyincludesCTbuthasthemoreambitiousgoalof
fundamentallychangingmoderneducation,whichgoesbeyondthescopeofthispaper.
However,educatorsareincreasinglyfocusedonteachingCTratherthanjust
programming.WhereaslearningtoprogramgivesstudentstoolsforexercisingCT,learning
howtothinklikeacomputerscientisthelpsstudentsadapttoconstantlychanging
technologicalinnovationsandcomputingproblems.Whileresearchersarestillworkingto
buildaclearoperationaldefinitionofCT(Grover&Pea,2013),manyagreewiththeideaof
CTas“solvingproblems,designingsystems,andunderstandinghumanbehavior,by
drawingontheconceptsfundamentaltocomputerscience”(Wing,2006,p.33).CTisaway
ofthinkingthatallowspeopletocreatealgorithmsorsolutionstoproblemsinsuchaway
thattheycanbecarriedoutbyacomputationalagent,whetherthatisacomputerora
human(Brennan&Resnick,2012).Computationalparticipationisanothertermusedto
emphasizethesocialandcreativepracticesatthecoreofwhatcomputerscientistsdo
(Kafai,2016).ComputationalparticipationisalsoaformofdiSessa’s(2000)thirdpillar,
withitsfocusonthesocialaspectsofcomputing.Ultimately,asstudentslearnCT,they
developwaysofparticipatingincommunitiesoflearnersandcomputationalthinkers
(NationalResearchCouncil,2010).
ContextsofFocus:ComputerScienceandEngineering
WithinitiativeslikeCSforAllandtheinclusionofCTincomputing,science,and
engineeringeducationstandards,educatorsneedwaystogetallstudents,notjustthose
predisposedtocomputers,engagedinCTskills.Manypublicandprivatefundingagencies
supportSTEMandSTEAM(integratingartsintoSTEMsubjects)projects,highlightingthe
public’sinterestinengagingstudentsinmultidisciplinaryexperiencesthatfocusonnotjust
computingbutalsointegratingthoseskillsacrossscience,mathematics,engineering,and
thearts(Feldman,2015;Handelsman&Smith,2016;Jagodzinski,2016).Researchaimedat
betterunderstandinghowthesesubjectsintersectisessentialforcreatinglearning
environmentsthattrulyembodyinterdisciplinarymindsetsandallowstudentstoapply
problemsolvingstrategiesacrossdisciplines.WhileCTiscloselytiedtotheT(Technology)
inSTEAMthroughitsrootsincomputing,inthispaper,Iseektoimproveunderstandingsof
7
CTwhileadvancingitsintegrationwithotherdisciplinesbyexploringconnectionstoother
STEAMsubjects,namely,engineering.
ToexploreapplicationsofCTintechnology,Ifocusoncomputerprogrammingasa
toolforengaginginCTskills.ProgrammingisacommoneducationaltoolforCT.Itprovides
manyproblem-solvingactivitiesandempowersstudentstolearnthroughcreatingtheir
ownartifactsthatcanbesharedwithothers(Papert,1980).Inotherwords,programming
canintroducestudentstothetoolsusedbyprofessionalcomputerscientists,butitcanalso
empowerstudentstouseCTskillstosolveavarietyofcomputationalproblems.Designers,
researchers,andeducatorshavedevelopednumeroustoolsforlearningprogramming,
bothwithandwithoutcomputers.
Ichosetoexploreengineering(theEinSTEAM)astheseconddisciplinarycontext
fordefiningCTforseveralreasons.Giventherecentincreaseinengineeringeducationin
U.S.classrooms(Catterall,2013;NationalAcademyofEngineeringandNationalResearch
Council,2009;Robelen,2013),itisimportanttounderstandhowengineeringconnectsto
otherschoolsubjects,includingCS.Engineeringcanimprovestudentlearninginother
STEAMcontextsbyconnectingdisciplinaryconceptsandpracticestoreal-worldproblems
(Catterall,2013;NAE&NRC,2009).Atthesametime,engineering“canprovideawayto
integratetheSTEMdisciplinesmeaningfully”(Mooreetal.,2014,p.2)byapplyingskills
frommathematics,science,andCStocreatesolutionstoproblems.Thus,engineeringmay
beapowerfulcontextforlearningandapplyingCTconceptsandpractices.Onebranchof
engineering,softwareengineering,ispartofthecomputersciencefieldandinvolves
significantprogrammingwork.Butbeyondsoftwareengineering,recentNGSSstandards
illustratedconnectionsbetweenCTandbroaderengineeringpractices(NGSS,2013).CT
andCSeducationhaverootsinconstructionism,whichemphasizeslearningthroughthe
design,buildinganddiscoverypracticesatthecoreofengineering(Lucas,Hanson,Claxton,
&CentreforRealWorldLearning,2014;Papert,1980).ItthenfollowsthatCTwouldhave
deepconnectionstoengineeringprocesses,makingtheengineeringfieldastrong
candidateforexploringwhatCTisandhowitoverlapswithdifferentdisciplines.
8
TheoreticalFramework
BylookingathowCTisre-contextualizedinCSandengineering,Iseekto
understandhowstudentscanengageinCTinrichandmeaningfulways.Bothstudentswho
likeprogrammingandthosewithinterestsoutsidecomputingshouldbeabletoparticipate
inthepracticesofCTandtakeonlegitimaterolesintheCTlearningcommunity.Iam
curiousabouthowstudentscanparticipateinCTinrichandmeaningfulwaysandhow
participationrelatestostudents’interestsin,experienceswith,andbeliefsabout
computing.Therefore,inthenextsections,Idrawonperspectivesofsituatedlearningand
legitimateperipheralparticipation(Lave&Wenger,1991)tounderstandwhatitmeansto
beacomputationalthinkerindifferentcontexts.
Historically,researchineducationfocusedonunderstandingtheknowledge
studentsacquireandhowtheylearnit.Thedevelopmentofsituativetheories
demonstratesthatknowledgeandpracticesaretiedtogether,andtheactivitiespeople
engageinarecentraltoandmakeuptheknowledgebeingdeveloped(Cobb&Bowers,
1999).Insituativeperspectives,learninginvolvesachangeinparticipationwithasetof
resourcesoractivitiesinadditiontochangesinwaysofthinking(Gresalfi,Martin,Hand,&
Greeno,2009;Hand&Gresalfi,2015;Lave&Wenger,1991;Nasir&Cooks,2009).Essential
tothisframeworkistheideathatproductivelearninghappensthroughlegitimate
peripheralparticipation(LPP),thatis,whenpeoplehaveaccesstothecorepracticesofa
communityofpractitionersandopportunitiestoparticipatemorefullyovertime(Lave&
Wenger,1991).LPPaskswhatkindsofsocialsituationsprovideacontextforlearning,
ratherthanwhatcognitiveprocessestakeplaceintheindividual.LPPdescribes
engagementinsocialpracticeasdistributedamongco-participantsinalearningcontext,
withafocusonparticipationinthesocialworld.Inthisway,learningoccursthrough
interactionsincommunitiesofpracticebothinsideandoutsidetheformalclassroom.
Communitiesofpractice(CoP)aregroupsofpeopleengaginginasimilarcraftor
profession(Lave&Wenger,1991;Wenger,2010).Throughsharinginformationand
experiences,memberslearnfromeachotheranddeveloptheiridentitiesinrelationtoa
broadercommunity.PeopleinaCoPareactivepractitioners,asopposedtoacommunityof
interestthatinvolvespeoplewithasharedinterestwithoutdependenceonexpertiseor
9
practice(Wenger,2010).CoPsinvolverelationsamongpeople,activities,andtheworld
acrosstimeandspace.Differentcommunitiesoverlapwithoneanother,andpeopleare
membersofmultiplecommunitiesatatime.
Duringthelearningprocess,thecommunityitselfchanges.Itisnotjustthenovice
wholearns,buttheexpertandtheskillitselfalsochangeinsomeway.LPPmoveslearners
towardfullerparticipationinacommunity.Peoplestartbyparticipatingintasksthatare
meaningfulandproductivetothecommunitybuthaveminimalrisk.Throughthiswork,
novicesslowlybecomefamiliarwiththelanguages,tasks,andpracticesofacommunity.As
theycontinuetoparticipateovertime,theytakeonmoreaspectsandresponsibilities,and
theirparticipationbecomesmorecentraltothefunctioningofthecommunity.The
legitimateperipheralnatureimpliesthatlearnerscanchangeperspectivesinthe
communityaspartoflearninganddevelopingidentities,andthereisnosinglecoretothe
community.Therearedifferentwaysofbeingfullparticipants.
AsanexampleoflearningthroughLPP,wecanthinkaboutthetrajectoryofa
doctoralstudent.Firstyeargraduatestudentsworkingasresearchassistantsmaystartby
readingpaperswrittenbytheiradvisorsandcorrectingtyposorfillinginmissing
referencesinthebibliography.Thisworkisnecessaryandimportant,whichallowsthe
newcomertocontributetotheacademiccommunityeveninaperipheralway,butitisnot
toocostlyifmistakesaremade.Overtime,thegraduatestudentmaycontributetowriting
apaperwithanadvisor,collectdatawitharesearchteam,theneventuallyconducttheir
ownresearchandpublishtheirownpapers.Intheirfirstyearofstudy,astudentmaynot
feellikeanimportantmemberofthecommunity,butoveryearsofbecomingafuller
participant,theymaydevelopacloserrelationshipandsenseofbelongingwiththe
academiccommunity.Inthisway,thegraduatestudentsarelearning,changingtheirforms
ofparticipationandroleswithinthecommunity,andconstructingidentitiesinrelationto
thecommunityofacademicpractitionersintheirfield.Itmaynotalwaysfeellikeitto
graduatestudents,butaslongastheyhaveaccesstoexpertmentorsandauthentic
practices,theyareslowlytransformingtheiridentitiesandlearningtobecomereal
researchersandfullmembersofthefield.Thus,learninginvolvesbecomingamemberofa
communityandresultsinachangeinrelationshipwithrespecttoacommunity.A
10
newcomer’s“changingknowledge,skill,anddiscoursearepartofadevelopingidentity”
(Lave&Wenger,1991,p.122).
Manyscholarspointtoissuesofidentityascriticaltolearningandengagement(e.g.
Boaler&Greeno,2000;Hand&Gresalfi,2015;Holland,Lachicotte,Skinner,&Cain,1998;
Wenger,1998).Inmathematicseducation,researchershavearguedfortheimportanceof
understandinghowstudentsdevelopviewsofthemselvesasmembersinthedisciplineand
ascapableoflearninganddoingmathematics(Martin,2000;Nasir,2002;Nasir&de
Royston,2013).Howlearnersviewthemselvesaffectshowtheyengageinlearning
contexts,andtheirengagementisshapedbytheopportunitiesaffordedforparticipation
(Nasir&deRoyston,2013).
InLPP,identityandlearningareinextricablytiedtochangesinparticipationwith
resourcesandactivitiesinaparticularsocialcontext(Greeno&Gresalfi,2008;Hand&
Gresalfi,2015;Lave&Wenger,1991;Nasir&Cooks,2009).Inotherwords,bothlearning
andidentityaretheresultofparticipationincommunitiesofpractice(Wenger,1998).
Identitiesformthroughparticipation,andlearninginvolvesbecomingalegitimate
participantandmemberofthecommunity(Lave&Wenger,1991).Learninginvolvesa
shiftinparticipationwithartifactsorresources,whilethewaysinwhichresourcesare
usedandparticipationoccursdependonthelearner’sidentity(Nasir&Cooks,2009;
Gresalfietal.,2009).Learninginvolveschangesinwaysofactinginrelationtothenorms
andresourcesofacommunity,andatthesametime,identityaffectswhatpeoplelearn,
howtheyengage,andwhattheychoosetopursue(Bishop,2012).
Identities“playafundamentalroleinenhancing(ordetractingfrom)ourattitudes,
dispositions,emotionaldevelopment,andgeneralsenseofself”(Bishop,2012,pp.34–35).
Ratherthanasingle,staticsenseofself,identityisamixtureofchangingrepresentations
negotiatedbasedonhowpeopleviewthemselves,howtheyarepositionedbyothers,their
engagementwithnorms,practices,culturaltools,pastexperiences,waysofparticipating,
feelingsandbeliefs,andtheparticularsocialcontext(Bishop,2012;Gee,2000;Hand&
Gresalfi,2015;Hollandetal.,1998;Wenger,1998).Anyindividualhasmanyidentities
acrosscommunitiesthatarenegotiatedandinformeachother(Hollandetal.,1998).
Individualscancontroltheiridentitiesinsomewaysbuttheyarelimitedbyrelationsof
structureandpowerinthebroadercontextofparticipation(Brickhouse&Potter,2001).A
11
studentmayclaimanidentitybuttheirinteractionswithothersmayadjustthestrengthor
formofthatidentityasitisenactedovertimeandspace.
CSlearningcontexts,suchastheclassroomorinformalclub,areparticular
communitiesofpracticewherelearningoccursthroughchangesinparticipationinrelation
tothenormsandpracticesofthecommunity.Atthesametime,identitiesdevelop
accordingto“whostudentsare,whotheycanbe,andwhotheywanttobe,assanctioned
bythenormsoftheclassroom”(Tan,CalabreseBarton,Kang,&O’Neill,2013,p.1145).
Identityinvolveshowpeopleseethemselvesinrelationtothecommunity,butalsohow
othersseethemandhowtheyareallowedtoparticipateandcontributetothecommunity.
Bothindividualandsharedidentitiesarecontinuouslynegotiatedthroughinteractionwith
othersandthroughengaginginthepracticesofacommunity. Students’engagement,
persistence,andgoalsmediatebothidentityandlearning(Nasir&Cooks,2009).
Nasir&Hand(2008)usetheterm“practice-linkedidentities”torefertothisnotion
ofidentityasasenseofselftiedtoactivity.These“aretheidentitiesthatpeoplecometo
takeon,construct,andembracethatarelinkedtoparticipationinparticularsocialand
culturalpractices”(p.147).Thisviewofidentityistiedtothenotionofengagement.
Variouspracticesafforddifferenttypesofengagement,whichsupportpractice-linked
identitydevelopmentindifferentways.Forinstance,whenanindividualfeelsaclose
connectionbetweentheirdevelopingsenseofselfandthepracticesofacommunity,the
individualismorelikelytobeengagedandtoparticipateintensely(Nasir&Hand,2008).
Hence,somesettingssupportengagementforparticularindividualsbetterthanothersdo.
Atthesametime,someactivitiesmayaffordmorewaysofparticipatingthanothers,
allowingstudentstoengageindifferentways.Thisinturnsupportsstudentstosee
themselvesascapableofparticipatinginthosepracticesanddevelopingaproductivesense
ofselfinrelationtotheparticularcommunity.
Asworkonidentityconstructionreveals,membershipinacommunityismediated
bythepossibleformsofparticipationpeoplehaveaccessto,includingphysicalandsocial
tools.Learnersmusthaveopportunitiestousethetoolsandparticipateintheactivitiesofa
communitytodevelopunderstandingandasenseofbelonging.Forinstance,ifnovicescan
directlyobserveexpertpractice,thentheyhaveabetterunderstandingoftheorganization
ofthecommunityandwheretheirworkfitsin.Butifnewcomershavelittleaccesstothe
12
toolsandbroadercommunity,theycanstagnateinthesameroleovermanyyearsand
neverachievefullerparticipation(Lave&Wenger,1991).Thus,accesstoresourcesand
opportunitiestolearnareessential.Therefore,wemustfirstunderstandwhatthe
community’stoolsandactivitiesarebeforewecandesignforlearning.Inthecaseof
integratingCTintoK-12schools,researchersmustfirstidentifythecentralcharacteristics
oftheprofessionalcomputingcommunity,includingthedomainofknowledge,the
practicesoractivities,andthewaysofapproachingactivitywithinthecommunity.
IntheLPPframework,changesinparticipationoccurinthreedifferentways.First,
thetoolsorresourcespeopleleveragetosolveproblemschangeastheydevelopnew
knowledgeandbetterunderstandings.Insteadoftools,Iusethetermconceptsinthis
papertoreflectthelanguagemostresearchersusetoclassifywhatpeoplelearnwhenthey
engageinCT(e.g.Barr&Stephenson,2011;Brennan&Resnick,2012;Weintropetal.,
2016).Learningalsoinvolvesengagingindisciplinarypractices.Thatis,learnersmakeuse
ofthecoreactivitiesorprocessesusedbythecommunity.Finally,overtime,learners
developidentitiestowardsthedisciplinarycommunity.Theactivitieschildrenexperience
informalandinformallearningcontextshelpformtheiridentitiesinrelationtodifferent
disciplines,whichaffectsthewaysinwhichstudentsusetheirknowledgeandapproach
newproblems(Boaler,2002).Boaler(2002)callsthistypeofidentitya“disciplinary
relationship.”Theseidentitiesdescriberelationshipstoothers,waysofbeing,orviewsof
oneselfinrelationtothediscipline.Inthispaper,Iusethetermdispositionstoconnectthis
typeofdisciplinaryidentitywithworkonproductivedispositions.Researchonproductive
dispositionsclaimsthatstudentsneedtodevelopthinkingskillsalongwiththeappropriate
dispositionstousethoseskills(Gresalfi&Cobb,2006;McLeod,1992;Schoenfeld,1992).
Makinguseofknowledgedependsonthepracticesstudentshaveengagedinandwhether
theyhaveaproductiverelationshipordispositiontowardsthediscipline(Boaler,2002).
MyuseofthetermdispositionalsocorrespondswithBrennanandResnick’s(2012)focus
ondispositionsintheirassessmentsofCTskills.
Asmentionedbriefly,thisframeworkofconcepts,practices,anddispositions
correspondswithhowmanyresearchersnowtalkaboutCTineducationalcontexts(Barr&
Stephenson,2011;Brennan&Resnick,2012;Shute,Sun,&Asbell-Clarke,2017;Weintrop
etal.,2016).CTconceptsarenotionsorideasusedastoolsintheconstructionof
13
algorithmsandproblemsolutions.CTpracticesincludeprocessesofconstructing
algorithmsorsolutions.Whileconceptsdescribeknowledgeandunderstandings,practices
describehowpeopleparticipateanduseconceptswhilecreatingsolutionprocesses.Atthe
sametime,learners’dispositionstowardsCTaffecttheirengagementandwaysof
participatinginactivitiesinvolvingCT.Learnersneednotonlytheskillsandknowledgeof
acommunitybutalsotheinclinationtorecognizewhenskillsareusefulandthewillingness
tousethem(Halpern,1999).BrennanandResnick(2012)refertotheseunderstandingsof
oneselfandrelationshipswiththedisciplineofCTas“perspectives.”However,inthispaper
Iusethemorefamiliarterm“dispositions”asitconnectstoworkonproductive
engagementandproductivedisciplinaryrelationshipsinthebroaderfieldofeducation.
Iusethesecategoriesofconcepts,practices,anddispositionstodescribewhatit
meanstoknowandparticipateinCTindifferentcontexts.Inotherwords,participatingin
CTinvolvesusingoneormoreoftheCTpractices,andknowingCTinvolvesunderstanding
CTconceptsorbeingabletodescribeandengageinCTpractices.Atthesametime,CT
dispositionsaffectwhetherpeoplecanproductivelyengageinthosepracticesanddevelop
understandingsofCTconcepts.
Inthispaper,IdrawontheframeworkofLPPwiththegoalofbroadeningideasof
whatitmeanstobecompetentorlegitimatecomputationalthinkers.First,Idescribethe
waysinwhichresearchersdefineCTinCScontexts,andthenIlooktoengineeringtosee
howpeopleinthefieldlegitimatelyuseCTpracticeswhendesigningsolutionstoproblems.
ByhighlightingtheoverlapsbetweenCTandotherdisciplines,Iillustratehowpeoplecan
legitimatelyengageinCTandactascompetentcomputationalthinkersoutsidethe
traditionalboundariesofcomputing.WhileIseparatelearningandidentityinthesections
belowonCTinengineeringandCStobetterstructureandclarifytheliteraturereview,
learningandidentityareintricatelytiedtogetherinLPP.Theyinfluenceoneanother,and
bothchangeasaconsequenceofparticipation.
14
LiteratureSearch
IfirstwantedtolookathowresearchersandpolicymakerscharacterizeCTandCT
learninginCSandinengineering.FortheCTinCStrack,Istartedwithhighlycitedanchor
readings,includingWing(2006;2008)andGrover&Pea(2013),andIcollectedarticles
basedontheircitationsaswellasarticlescitingthem.Icontinuedlookingatthose
subsequentarticles’citationstofindfurtherwork.MuchofwhatIfound,especiallyfor
empiricalwork,camefromconferenceproceedings.IthensearchedforCTeducation
standards,andIlookedfornationalCSstandardswithCTembeddedinthem.
ForCTinengineering,therewerenoanchorpaperstobasethesearchon,andI
foundadearthofworkonlearningengineeringinK-12ingeneral.Therefore,Iextended
mysearchbeyondCTspecificallytoarticlesthattalkaboutgeneralengineeringpractices.I
alsosearchedfornationalengineeringeducationstandardsthatincorporateCTandfocus
ondesign,sincedesigniswheretheoverlapwithCTappliesacrossengineeringfields.
IdidnotfindmanypapersintheCSorCTfieldsthattalkedaboutidentityintheway
Iconceptualizeithere.Instead,Ifoundpaperslookingatbeliefs,motivation,andinterest,
soIincludethoseconstructsinmyliteraturereviewonCTidentitybelow.Ontheother
hand,thereisasignificantamountofliteratureaboutidentityinengineeringfields.
However,almostalltheworkfocusesonadults(collegestudentsandprofessionals)and
primarilyaroundbeliefandidentification,whichisdifferentfromtheconceptualization
basedonparticipationthatIuseinthispaper.Iusetheexistingliteraturetohighlight
potentialfindingsrelatedtoCTidentityfromworkonbeliefs,interest,andmotivationinCS
andengineering,andIpointtoopportunitiesforfurtherexploration.
15
ComputationalThinkinginComputerScience
Followingtheideathatlearningtoprogramalsohelpspeoplelearnhowtothink,
thissectionaimstoidentifysomeoftheconceptsandpracticesinvolvedinlearningto
thinkcomputationallythroughcomputerprogramming.CTandprogrammingaredeeply
intertwinedhere,aseffortstodefineCThavestartedbylookingattheskillsprogrammers
usetosolveproblemsandformulatesolutions.Inthiscontext,“solution”referstothe
processofcomingtoananswerratherthantheansweritself.Whilealgorithmsor
programsarenotanswersontheirown,theyaresolutionsthatcanbecarriedoutbya
computationalagenttoproduceananswertoaquestionorproblem.
Concepts
Inessence,“analgorithmisanabstractionofastep-by-stepprocedurefortaking
inputandproducingsomedesiredoutput”(Wing,2008,p.3718).SinceCThelpssolve
problemsbycreatingalgorithms,abstractionisatitscore(Wing,2006;2008).Abstraction
involvesdecidingwhattopayattentiontoandwhattoignoreinrepresentingand
processingdata(Weintropetal.,2016).Forexample,whenyouwanttoprintsomething
fromyourcomputer,youonlyneedtoworryaboutfindingthe“print”button;youdonot
needtothinkaboutorunderstandthemechanicsbehindhowaprinterworks,howdatais
senttotheprinter,etc.Inessence,muchoftheprintingprocessisina“blackbox”that
userscanignore;youneedonlyseethe“print”buttononyourcomputerscreen.Therefore,
“theprintcommandisanabstractionthatshowstheuseronlywhatheorsheneedstosee”
(NationalResearchCouncil,2004,p.16).
WhileabstractioniscentraltoCT,itisstillabroadconceptanddoesnothelp
educatorsunderstandhowtoimplementCTandwhattopayattentionto.Some
researchershavesuggestedthatCTissimilartonotionsofproceduralthinkingdeveloped
bySeymourPapert(NationalResearchCouncil,2010).Proceduralthinkinginvolves
thinkinginandaboutproceduresforperformingactions.Thesecouldbeeverydayactions
likegivingsomeonedirectionsormorecomplextaskslikedevelopingprogramming
algorithms.Proceduralthinkinghelpspeoplebreakdowncomplextasksintosmaller
componentsanddebugerrorsinthesolutionprocesses(Papert,1980).
16
UsingScratch,ablock-basedprogramminglanguagedevelopedbasedonprinciples
fromPapert’sLogolanguage,BrennanandResnick(2012)specifiedtheconnections
betweenCTandproceduralthinking.Specifically,CTconceptsthatprogrammersuseto
thinkprocedurallyandcreatealgorithmsinclude:(i)creatingandfollowingsequencesof
instructions;(ii)parallelinstructions(executingmultiplesetsofinstructionsatthesame
time);(iii)usingandorganizingdata;(iv)operatingondata;and(v)elementsofcontrol
flowlikeloopingsetsofinstructions,conditionals(ifthisistruethendothis),andevents
(whenthishappensthendothis)(Brennan&Resnick,2012;CSTA,2017;Grover&Pea,
2013).AnanalysisofprogrammerswithyearsofexperienceintheScratchonline
community(https://scratch.mit.edu)showedthattheymakeuseofawidevarietyof
Scratchblocksthatinvolvealloftheconceptslistedabove(Brennan&Resnick,2012).
Furthermore,Bersandcolleagues(2014)demonstratedthatchildrenasyoungasfourcan
engageintheseCTconcepts,likesequencinginstructionsandcontrolflow,through
tangibleprogrammingactivities.Thus,evennoviceprogrammerscanlegitimately
participateintheCTcommunitybyaccessingthesecoreconceptsthroughCSeducation.
Practices
Beyondunderstandingprogrammingconcepts,CTisultimatelyawayofthinking
thatdescribes“processesofconstruction”(Brennan&Resnick,2012,p.6)usedtosolve
problems.Solvingproblemsusingproceduralthinkingfromprogramminginvolvesactively
developing,representing,testing,anddebuggingproceduresoralgorithms(Papert,1980).
TheseproceduralthinkingpracticesmapontosimilarCTpractices.First,developing
proceduresoralgorithmsinCTinvolvesthepracticeofbeingincrementalanditerative
(Brennan&Resnick,2012;CSTA,2017;Grover&Pea,2018;Shute,Sun,&Asbell-Clarke,
2017).Forexample,designinganalgorithmisnotaconsecutiveprocessbutinvolves
adaptingplansandgoingthroughcyclesofbrainstormingandcreating.Evenexperienced
programmersarelikelytomakeerrorswhentheyfirstwritenewprocedures,sorevisionis
expectedandnotanindicationofsomeone’slackofprogrammingability.Instead,both
noviceandexpertprogrammerscodealittlebit,tryitout,andadjustitormoveforward
basedonwhattheyfindandthenewideastheygenerate(Brennan&Resnick,2012).
Hence,theprocessinvolvesiteratingonsolutionideas.
17
Anotherpracticemanyprogrammersusewhendevelopingproceduresinvolves
reusingorremixingsolutionsfromothers(Brennan&Resnick,2012;CSTA,2017.
“Remixing”involvesstartingwithaproceduresomeoneelsehaswrittenandchangingitin
somewaytoachieveanewgoal.Newtechnologiesallowprogrammerstoeasilyexchange
ideas,accesseachother’swork,andengageinreusingandremixingpractices.Stack
Overflow(http://stackoverflow.com/)isjustoneexampleofapopularonlinecommunity
whereprogrammersofalllevelshelpeachothersolveproblemsandsharesamplesofcode.
Scratchalsohasitsownonlinecommunity(https://scratch.mit.edu/)forprogrammersto
view,commenton,andremixeachother’sprojects.Thesecommunitiesgivelearners
accesstotheknowledge,skills,andworkofmoreexperiencedmembersofthecommunity.
Newcomersandoldtimerscanexchangethoughts,andnewcomerscandevelopan
understandingofthekindsofparticipationtheyaremovingtowardsastheyseeexamples
ofoldtimers’workandthekindsofinteractionsthatareconsideredlegitimateinthelarger
communityofpractitioners.Hence,theseresourcessupportlearningandprogression
towardfullerparticipationintheprogrammingandCTcommunity(Lave&Wenger,1991).
Duringtheiterativedevelopmentprocess,programmerstestanddebugtorefine
theirsolutions(Papert,1980).“Debugging”isaprocessoffindingandfixingerrors(Berset
al.,2014;Brennan&Resnick,2012;CSTA,2017;Grover&Pea,2013;2018;Shute,Sun,
Asbell-Clarke,2017).Debuggingstartsbyrecognizingthatsomethingisnotworkingas
expected,theninvolveschoosingtocontinueworkingtowardstheoriginalgoalorchanging
thedesiredgoal.Iftheprogrammerdecidestofixtheproblem,theywilldevelop
conjecturesaboutwhatcausedtheproblem,thenfinallyattempttosolvetheproblem.This
four-stepdebuggingprocedurecanevenbeusedbykindergarten-agedchildren(Bersetal.,
2014),showingthatthiscorepracticeisaccessibletonovicecomputationalthinkers.
Alongwithdevelopingsolutions,representingproceduresorsolutionssotheycan
becarriedoutbyacomputationalagentisacorepartofCT.Inprogramming,the
computationalagentisusuallyamechanicalcomputer.Programmersuseseveralrelated
skillsinthisprocess.Oneskillinvolvesreworkingproblemssotheycanbesolvedbya
computer(ISTE&CSTA,2011;Wing,2006).Evenafterdevelopinganideathatsolvesa
problem,proceduresmustbespecific,clear,andwritteninaparticularwaydependingon
theprogramminglanguageandcomputationalagent.Inmanycases,efficiencyofsolutions
18
isanimportantconsideration.Thepracticeofworkingtowardsefficientsolutionsinvolves
addressingconstraintssuchastimeittakesasolutiontocompute,thespacetheprogram
takestorunandstore,andeventhesimplicityofinstructionssotheycanbereusedand
understoodbyothers(Barr,Harrison,&Conery,2011;Grover&Pea,2013;Wing,2008).
ThesecoreCTpracticesfundamentallydependonthecomputationalagentbeingusedto
carryoutthesolution,soprogrammersmustconsiderandusetheminvariouswaysacross
programmingcontexts.Thus,partoflearningtoparticipateintheprogramming
communityinvolvesdevelopingtheabilitytoadaptpracticesofdesignindifferent
situations.Thisisespeciallytrueaslearnersgainexpertiseandmovebeyondasingle
programminglanguageorenvironment.
Becauseexpertprogrammersmustadapttomanydifferentenvironments,
especiallytokeepupwiththechangingtechnologiesandlanguagesusedtocreate
programs,itishelpfuliftheirsolutionscantransferacrossavarietyofproblems.Hence,
someresearchersnowidentifythepracticeofgeneralizingasolutionintoaproblem
solvingprocessasanimportantpartofCT(Barr,Harrison,&Conery,2011;Hu,2011;
Shute,Sun,Asbell-Clarke,2017).Insteadofaspecificsolutionthatonlyappliestoa
particularcomputationalagentorprogramminglanguage,thesegeneralprocessesareless
formalandspecificsotheycanbeadaptedtodifferentenvironments.Forinstance,overthe
years,programmershavedevelopedgeneralalgorithmsforsortinglistsofnumbers.
Programmerslearnthesealgorithmsandexplainhowtheyworkusingpseudo-code,
imagesanddiagrams,orparagraphsoftext.Withthatgeneralunderstandingofthe
algorithmsforsortingnumbers,programmerscanthenconsidertheenvironmentand
constraintstheyhave,choosewhichalgorithmismostappropriate,andcodeitinthe
specificprogramminglanguagetheyneed.Fornovicesthen,itdoesnotmakesenseto
memorizetheproceduresforsortingnumbersinmanydifferentlanguages.Instead,
learnersshoulddevelopknowledgeofgeneralsortingalgorithmsandengageinthe
practiceofreformulatingandspecifyingthosealgorithmsacrosscontexts.
Thispracticeofgeneralizingsolutionsrelatestotheideaofmodularizingcode.In
modularizing,programmersbreaktheproblemdownintosimplertasksandgrouplinesof
codeaccordingtothefunctionstheyperform(CSTA,2017).Thesegroupsareoftencalled
“functions”or“methods”inobject-orientedprogramming.Asanexampleofmodularization
19
inanoviceprogrammingcontext,theScratchlearningenvironmentallowslearnersto
engageinthispracticeofmodularizationbycreatingseparatestacksofcodethatrunin
responsetoaneventthatoccursinthelargerprogram.Forinstance,BrennanandResnick
(2012)illustratehowalearnerintheScratchcommunityusesmodularizationtosplither
codeintothreestacks.Thefirststackcontrolsanobject’smovement,thesecondstack
control’sitsvisualappearance,andthethirdstackcontrolsothereventsthatoccurin
responsetotheobject,likeresettingalevelinthegamewhentheobjectcollideswith
something.Inthisexample,thelearneralsousestheconceptofparallelproceduresasall
threeofherstacksaresettostartwhentheyreceivethesameeventcommand.
Modularizationisatypeofabstractioninwhichprogrammersbuildsomething
complicatedbycombiningsmallerpartstogether(Brennan&Resnick,2012;CSTA,2017).
Thepracticeofrepresentingandusingdataalsodrawsonabstraction(Barr,Harrison,&
Conery,2011;CSTA,2017;Grover&Pea,2013;Hu,2011;NRC,2010;Wing,2006;ISTE&
CSTA,2011;Shute,Sun,&Asbell-Clarke,2017).“Allinformationstoredandprocessedbya
computingdeviceisreferredtoasdata…Asstudentsusesoftwaretocompletetasksona
computingdevice,theywillbemanipulatingdata”(CSTA,2017,p.2).Twoways
programmerscommonlyworkwithdifferentrepresentationsofdataisbyusingdifferent
datatypesandstructures,likearraysandlists,andbytransformingdatatomakeitmore
usable(CSTA,2017).Whilenewcomersdonottypicallystartoutbylearningdata
structures,childrencanworkwithdataintheformofvariables.Forinstance,inScratch,
learnerscanexplicitlyusevariablestostoreinformationandperformcalculations.
Variablescanstoredataintheformofnumbersortext.Scratchuserscanalsochooseto
displaythedataindifferentways,usingasimplebarshowingthevalueofthevariable,
havingcharacterssaythevalueofavariable,orbychangingavisualorauditoryoutputin
responsetoadatavalue.Inthisway,novicescanparticipateinalegitimatebutperipheral
formofthedatausepracticeuntiltheydevelopfullerunderstandingsofdatain
computationalcontexts.
ThissectiondiscussedseveralCTpracticesfromprogramming,namely:being
incrementalanditerative,reusingorremixingsolutionsfromothers,testingand
debugging,representingproceduressotheycanbecarriedoutbyacomputationalagent,
generalizingasolutionintoaproblemsolvingprocess,modularizing,andrepresenting
20
data.ThenextsectiondivesintothedispositionsCTresearchersarebeginningtorecognize
fromstudyingprogramming.
Dispositions
CTdispositionsaffectlearners’viewsofthemselves,theirwaysofparticipating,
theirattitudestowardstechnology,andtheirperspectivesonCT.Productivedispositions
helplearnersengageandmakeprogressintheirlearningastheyshifttowardsfuller
participationinthecommunity.Drawingonprogrammingandcomputerscienceata
meetingtodevelopanoperationaldefinitionofCT,researchersandeducatorscalled
attentiontoseveralrelevantdispositions.Thesedispositionsincludedealingwith
complexity,persistingondifficultproblems,dealingwithambiguityandopen-ended
problems,andcollaboratingwithothersonasharedgoal(Barr,Harrison,&Conery,2011;
Barr&Stephenson,2011;ISTE&CSTA,2011).BrennanandResnick(2012)usedexamples
fromprogramminginScratchtodescribetwoadditionalCTdispositions:using
computationforself-expressionandquestioningtheworldaboutandwithtechnologies.
First,itisnotclearexactlywhatthedifferencesarebetweenthedispositionslabeled
asdealingwithcomplexity,dealingwithopen-endedproblems,andpersistingondifficult
problems.Theyallseemtooverlap,andtheyareallmentionedtogetherseveraltimesin
theCSTAK-12ComputerScienceStandards(CSTA,2013).Theyallinvolvecharacteristics
likepatience,adaptability,acceptingchallenges,andabilitytotinkerortrythingsout
(CSTA,2013).Theydescriberecognizedwaysofapproachingproblemsandcharacteristics
ofsuccessfulproblemsolversfromotherfields,includingmetacognitiveskillsandbeliefs
(Lester,1994;Mayer,1998).Therefore,thesethreeCTdispositionscanbecombinedto
describeproductivecharacteristicsforapproachingopen-endedandcomplexproblemsin
programming(CSTA,2013).Moreresearchisneededtounderstandwhatthese
dispositionsentail,howtheyaffectlearningandengagement,andhowtofosterthem
productivelyineducationalprogrammingenvironments.
Thenextdispositionhighlightstheimportanceofcollaborationinprogrammingand
CT.CollaborationoccursinbothK-12classrooms,suchasthroughpairprogrammingand
groupprojects,andintheworkplace,alsoinpairprogrammingandthroughdivisionsof
labor(Grover&Pea,2018).Ineducationalcontexts,collaborationgivesstudentsaccessto
21
othersinthecommunityasaresourceforlearningthroughaskingquestions,observing
practices,anddevelopingabroadoverviewofotherrolesandwaysofparticipatinginCT
(Lave&Wenger,1991).Foryounglearners,theseconnectionscanoccurwhencreating
projectsbothwithothersandforothers(Brennan&Resnick,2012).Forinstance,
collaboratingwithothersallowsnoviceprogrammerstoaskquestionsoftheirpeers,reuse
others’code,andcreatelastingpartnerships.Bycreatingprojectsforotherstouse,
learnersmustengageinnewskillsandconceptsinvolvedinunderstandingtheiraudience,
definingtheirgoals,anddisseminatingtheirwork.Asanotherexample,theScratchonline
communitysupportssimilarcollaborationsamongparticipantsofalllevels(Brennan&
Resnick,2012;Resnicketal.,2009).Inordertocollaborateintheseways,participants
mustbeabletogiveeachotherfeedback,makeuseoffeedbackintheirwork,understand
differentperspectives,andcreatebothsocialandworkingrelationshipswithother
membersoftheprogrammingcommunity(CSTA,2013;2017).Thesedispositionshelp
learnerstakeonnewrolesastheyproductivelyengagewithotherprogrammersand
computationalthinkers.
Whilelearningtoprogram,studentsshouldalsodevelopadispositiontowards
expressingideaswithtechnology.Ratherthanjustconsumingexistingtechnologies,like
browsingtheInternetortextingfriends,programmerscanactuallycreateandadapt
technologiestosolveproblemsinnewways(CSTA,2017;Grover&Pea,2018).For
programmers,“computationissomethingtheycanusefordesignandself-expression.A
computationalthinkerseescomputationasamedium”forcreativityandexploration
(Brennan&Resnick,2012,p.10).Experiencedprogrammerswithwell-developed
knowledgeandskillscancreatemanydifferenttypesofprojectsdependingontheir
interests,professionalwork,andconfidenceintheirabilities.Butevennovicescanexpress
themselvesthroughprogramminginScratchbycreatingsimplestoriesandbyimporting
theirowncontentlikemusic,images,andvoicerecordings(Resnicketal.,2009).
Finally,programmershavetheabilitytoaskquestionsabouttechnologyandwith
technology.Ratherthantakingtechnologyforgranted,programmerscanusecomputation
tomakesenseofhowtechnologieswork,theirlimitations,andhowtoimprovethemin
responsetoreal-worldsituations(Brennan&Resnick,2012).Fornovices,thiscanstartout
asadispositiontowardswonderinghowthingswork.Oritcandevelopovertimeas
22
programmersrealizetheirabilitiestoadapttechnologiesfortheirownandothers’needs.
Questioningempowerscomputationalthinkerstomodifytechnologies,considerthe
affordancesandconstraintsofexistingtools,anddiscusstheimpactsoftechnologyonthe
world(CSTA,2013;2017).
LearningCTConceptsandPracticesinK-12ComputerScience
Inthispaper,Iamconceptualizinglearningasachangeinparticipationina
communityofpracticethatoccursthroughinteractionswiththetools,practices,and
participantsinacommunity.ButthatconceptualizationisnothowresearchersinCS
alwaystalkaboutlearning.EarlyideasofCTcamefromsuggestionsthatwhilelearningto
programcomputers,studentsalsolearnpowerfulthinkingskillsapplicabletobroader
problems(Papert,1980;Nickerson,1983).Inthe1980s,manyresearchersinterestedin
programmingeducationclaimedtoalsoengagechildreningeneralproblem-solvingskills,
supportedbyqualitativeanalysesandcasestudies(e.g.Gorman,Jr.&Bourne,Jr.,1983;
Papert,1980;Soloway,1986;Yelland,1995).However,quantitativestudiesonthe
cognitiveeffectsoflearningprogramminglanguages,includingproblemsolving,creativity,
logicalreasoning,andmore,showedmixedresults(Gorman,Jr.&Bourne,Jr.,1983;
Kalelioglu&Gülbahar,2014;Pea,1983;Pea&Kurland,1984;Pea,Kurland,&Hawkins,
1985;Swan,1989).Mostofthechangestostudents’thinkingskillsappearedwhenthe
skillswereassessedinaneartransfertaskorwerecloselyrelatedtothespecific
programminglanguagestudentslearned(Clements&Gullo,1984;Mayer,Dyck,&Vilberg,
1986;MidianKurland,Pea,Clement,&Mawby,1986).Thisisnotsurprisingfroma
situativeperspectiveinwhichknowledgeandunderstandingarefundamentallytiedtothe
contextandpracticesinwhichpeopleparticipate.Furthermore,muchofthisworkstudied
theeffectsoflearningaspecificprogramminglanguage,andresultssuggestthatgeneral
problemsolvingandthinkingpracticesmaynotspontaneouslyarisefromlearninga
programminglanguageonitsown(Pea,1983).Thisfindingconfirmsworkinmathematics
educationthatspecifiesthatskills(inthiscase,beingabletouseaparticularprogramming
language)andpractices(inthiscase,CTpractices)arenotthesamething(Greeno,1991).
Incontrast,recentworkonCTfavorsinstructionongeneralthinkingskillsinthe
contextofprogrammingorotherdisciplinesinordertodevelopcomputationalthinkers
23
whocansolveproblemsindifferentcontexts.Inotherwords,CTemphasizesthe
importanceoflearningpracticeswhilesolvingproblemsindifferentenvironmentsrather
thanlearningaprogramminglanguageandhopingthepracticesarise.Inthissense,theact
ofprogrammingisausefultoolforsupportingengagementinCT(Grover&Pea,2013).
Programmingaffordsopportunitiesforchildrentothinkabouttheirownthinkingbecause
they“mustmakeprocessesexplicitinordertoteachthecomputerhowtoperformagiven
task”(Cejka,Rogers,&Portsmore,2006,p.712).Forexample,researchoncreatingdigital
gamesthroughprogrammingdemonstratedpositiveeffectsonmotivation,creativity,
problemsolving,andcriticalthinking(e.g.CarolynYang&Chang,2013).
Thevalueoflearningprogramming,beyondpreparingadiverseworkforcein
computing,comesfromempoweringchildrentocreatetheirownsolutionsanduseCT
skillstosolvepersonallymeaningfulproblems.Thissoundspromisingintheory,butwhat
dostudentsactuallylearnbyengaginginCTthroughprogramming?Andwhatdoweknow
aboutstudents’identitydevelopmentinrelationtoCTwhenengagedinthecontextof
programming?MuchoftheworkonCThasfocusedondesigninglearningenvironmentsto
supportCTconceptsandpractices.Thispaperaskshowthesedesignscansupportthe
apprenticeshipofpeopleintotheCTcommunityusingLPP.
Studiesofeducationalprogrammingenvironmentshaveshownthatevenyoung
newcomerstotheCTcommunitycanengageinCTpractices.Tangibleprogramming
environments,whichusephysical(ratherthandigital)blockstocode,haveshownpromise
forpreschoolandkindergarten-agedchildren.Theseenvironmentsallowlearnerstoeasily
createafunctioningprojectwithlittleintroductiontime(Bers,2010;Horn&Jacob,2007;
Kelleher&Pausch,2005;Wang,Wang,&Liu,2014;Wyeth&Purchase,2002).
Programminglanguageswithsimplesyntacticalstructuresgivenewcomersimmediate
accesstolegitimateconceptsandskills(Resnicketal.,2009),creatingaspaceforlearning
throughLPP.
Forexample,5-9yearoldchildrenusingT-Maze,amaze-buildingandpuzzle-
solvingprogrammingenvironmentusingphysicalblocks,wereabletousetheCTpractices
ofabstraction,automation,andproblemdecomposition(Wang,Wang,&Liu,2014).
Childrenunderstoodtherelationshipbetweenphysicalblocksofcodeandvirtualsquares
inthemazeonthescreen,aformofabstractinginformation.Fromevidenceinstudents’
24
talk,researchersconcludedthatstudentsrealizedthecomputerautomatedtheirprograms
inthevirtualspacebyexecutingtheinstructionstheycreatedusingthephysicalblocks.In
termsofconcepts,studentslearnedtocreatesequentialinstructions,andresearcherslater
introducedtheconceptofloopstochildren.Additionally,therewassomeevidenceof
problemdecomposition,suchaswhenastudentseparatedthemazeproblemintotwosub-
problems:movingforwardandturning.Whiletangibleprogrammingispromisingfor
introducingCTtoyoungchildren,itisnotclearhowlearnerswhostartwithtangible
programmingmovetowardsbecomingfullerparticipantsinthecommunityovertime.We
needtoconsiderhowtoconnectCTskillsacrossdifferenteducationaltoolssostudentscan
buildontheirCTlearningastheyusemoreadvancedprogrammingenvironments,like
professionaltext-basedlanguages.
Studieswithmiddleschoolstudentsusingvisualprogrammingtools(digitalblock-
basedenvironments)havealsodemonstratedsomesuccessfulCTlearning.Forexample,
StorytellingAliceisamixtureofblock-basedandtext-basedprogrammingthatallows
learnerstocreatedetailedstoriesandgames.Asearlyasfifthgrade,studentsusing
StorytellingAlicecanapplytheCTconceptsofloops,conditionals,sequencesof
instructions,variables,anddatatypes(Kelleher&Pausch,2007).Evenwithintwohoursof
usingthetoolinonestudy,allstudentswereabletocreateaworkingsequentialprogram,
andsomeusedloopsandvariables(Kelleher&Pausch,2007).
OtherresearchonScratch,ablock-basedprogrammingtool,hasshownthat
learnersofallagesandexperiencelevelscanengageinalmostalloftheCTconceptsand
practicesdiscussedabove(Brennan&Resnick,2012).UsingtheScratchonlinecommunity
(https://scratch.mit.edu/),novicescandevelopabroadpictureofwhatthecommunity
doesandwheretheirlearningmighttakethemastheyparticipatemorefullythroughLPP.
Thesedifferentrolesandopportunitiestoengageleaveopenquestionsabouthowthe
variationsaffectstudentlearning.InwhatwaysdolearnersuseCTindifferentroleswithin
theprogrammingcommunity(e.g.peoplewhoremixworkmightlearndifferentconcepts
andskillsthanthosewhoalwaysmaketheirownprojects)?Onestudylookedatamountof
participationintheScratchonlinecommunityandfoundnocorrelationbetweenlevelof
involvement(includingamixtureofdownloadingprojects,commenting,remixing,and
friendingotherusers)andtypesofCTconceptsusedintheusers’projects(Fields,Giang,&
25
Kafai,2014).Notmuch,ifany,workhasbeendoneonacloserleveltounderstandthe
relationshipbetweendifferentwaysofparticipatinginthecommunityandstudents’CT
learning.
Remixingalsoplaysaroleinlearning.Throughremixingothers’projects,
newcomersareexposedtodifferentwaysofsolvingproblemsandcanseestrategiesused
byold-timersinthecommunity.Learnerscanalsopracticetheirownskillsinalow-stakes
environmentbystartingwithprojectsthatalreadyworkandbuildingoffthemtoaddnew
code.InScratch,theremixedprojectsareautomaticallysavedinanewfile,soanychanges
donotaffecttheoriginalcreator’swork,whichlowersthepressurefornewcomersto
produceaccurateandefficientwork.Notsurprisingly,themorelearnersremixothers’code
inScratch,themoreCTconceptstheyuseintheirownprojects(Dasguptaetal.,2016).
Atthesametime,astudyofover5,000usersintheScratchonlinecommunityfound
thatlengthofmembershipintheprogrammingcommunitydoesnotalwayspredictthe
amountofprogrammingconceptsused(Fields,Giang,&Kafai,2014).Inotherwords,some
peoplewithlessthanoneyearofexperiencewithScratchusedjustasmanyCTconcepts,
likeloops,conditionals,variables,andBooleans,asold-timerswithyearsofexperiencein
Scratch.However,mostgirlsinthestudyremainedatthebeginnerlevelinScratch,only
usingsimpleloopsintheirprojects,whilemoreboyscreatedprojectsusingseveral
differentCTconcepts.
Tosummarize,workonlearningCTinprogrammingcontextsdemonstratesthat
childrenasyoungasfivecanlearnCTconcepts,andvisualprogrammingtoolsworkwellto
introduceCTconceptstonewcomersinmiddleschoolgradesandabove.Visualtoolsallow
newcomerstoquicklyparticipateinlegitimatewaysbycreatingnewprojectswithout
memorizingcomplicatedsyntax.Onlinecommunities,likeScratch,supportavarietyof
typesofparticipation.Withinthosecommunities,learnerscanparticipateontheperiphery
byremixingexistingprojects,ortheycanengageinotherlegitimatetypesofparticipation
bycommenting,sharing,and“friending”otherusers.Regardlessofthelevelof
participation,learnersinScratchusemanyCTconcepts.Infact,Scratchhasbeenshownto
supportavarietyoflearnerstoparticipateinCTconcepts,practices,anddispositions.
Thestudiesreviewedabove,focusingonlearningCTthroughCS,includeamixture
ofin-schoolandout-of-schoolcontexts.However,thein-schoolstudiesdonotexplainhow
26
theactivitieswereintegratedintotheclassroomsystem.ToimplementCTinstructionin
waysthatencouragediversityandmeaningfullearning,weneedabetterunderstandingof
theroleoftheteacher,theintegrationofCTactivitiesintothedisciplineoftheoverall
course,andclassroomnorms.Additionally,mostofthisworkonCTlearninghasfocusedon
CTconceptsratherthanpracticesordispositions.Thenextsectiondiscussessome
connectionstoCTdispositionsandidentitydevelopment,butmoreresearchneedsto
explorehowlearnersparticipateinCTpracticesandhowtheirparticipationchangesover
timeastheybecomefullermembersofthecommunity(or,inmanycases,chooseto
distancethemselvesfromtheCScommunity).
FromresearchonlearningCTthroughprogramming,weseethattherearedifferent
wayslearnerscanlegitimatelyengageinCTpracticesanduseCTconcepts.Therearemany
rolesforcomputationalthinkerswithintheprogrammingcommunity,includingcreating
algorithms,debuggingprojects,andmanagingothers’work.Thesevariationsinrolesand
waysofparticipatingintheCTcommunityinvitequestionsaboutidentitydevelopment.
Forinstance,howdodifferenttypesofprogrammingprojectsaffectstudents’identity
developmentinrelationtoCT,especiallyinrelationtostudents’priorinterestsand
experiences?Somescholarshaveusedstorytellingtocapturegirls’interestsin
programming(e.g.Kelleher,2009;Pinkard,Erete,Martin,&McKineydeRoyston,2017),
butitisnotclearwhetherandhowthoseinitiallearningexperiencesleadtolong-term
identitydevelopmentandproductiverelationshipswithcomputing.Additionally,itisnot
clearhowparticipatingindifferentroleswhilelearningCTthroughprogrammingsupports
identityandpersistenceinthefield.Canwechangestudents’viewsofwhatcomputational
thinkersdoandbroadenparticipationincomputingbyexposingstudentstothevarietyof
meaningfulandlegitimatewaystoparticipate?Thisisanopenquestioninthefield.Maybe
someonewhodislikescreatingproceduresbutenjoystestingandlookingforerrorsin
others’workwillbesurprisedtolearnthatfindingerrorsstillinvolvesCTskills,andthen
learntorecognizethemselvesasacomputationalthinker.
CTIdentityDevelopmentandDispositionsinK-12ComputerScience
Iconceptualizeidentityinthispaperasthedevelopmentofdispositionsor
regularitiesinthewayspeopleparticipateinpracticesandtheirviewsofthosepractices
27
andthemselvesinrelationtoacommunity.Todate,littleresearchhasfocusedonidentity
towardsCTasitisconceptualizedhere,butsomestudieshaveexploredstudents’interests
andmotivationsinCTlearningenvironments.Idrawontheliteratureoninterestand
motivationherebecauseitinfluencespeople’sviewsofthedisciplineandtheirviewsof
themselves,bothpartoftheframeworkofidentityfromLPP.Specifically,interestand
motivationhavebeenshowntoleadtomeaningfulengagementandincreasedpersistence,
whicharerelatedtofeelingsofcompetence,productivedisciplinaryrelationships,and
productivesenseofselfinrelationtothediscipline(Kaplan&Flum,2009;McCaslin,2009;
Potvin&Hasni,2014;Renninger,2009;Waterman,2004;Wigfield&Wagner,2005).
HavingareasonforlearningCTandasocialcontextforusingitareimportantfor
motivatingstudentsandaddressingsociologicalbarrierstolearning(Kelleher&Pausch,
2005).ByseeingCTasatoolforaccomplishingtheirowngoals,studentshaveagencyover
whattheycreateandhowtheyengagewithcomputersinandbeyondtheclassroom.The
goalistocreatepositiveexperiencesandtosupportstudentstofeelasenseofbelongingin
thecommunitybyexploringfactorsrelatedtoidentityanddispositions.
SeveraldesigncharacteristicsofCSlearningenvironmentshavebeenshownto
supportthedevelopmentofproductiveelementsofidentity,includingcommunities,
mentorsandrolemodels,collaborativework,andprogrammingcontextslikestoriesor
games.First,asanexampleofcommunity,theScratchonlinecommunityisaplacewhere
peoplecanengageinCTinmanydifferentways.Itisacommunityoflearnersand
practitionersofalldifferentlevelsofexperience,makingitanimportantresourcefor
learningandidentitydevelopmentthroughLPP.Whenuserscreateprojects,postonline,
commentonothers’work,orremixexistingprojects,they’reengaginginaformof
apprenticeshiplearningbyparticipatinginthecommunityandinteractingwithother,
moreexperiencedpractitioners.MembersoftheScratchcommunitycantakeondifferent
rolesandparticipateindifferentways,dependingonwhattheyareinterestedinand
wheretheirpriorexperiencestakethem.Thesechoicesforparticipationgivestudents
someagencyovertheirownengagementandallowstudentstodefinetheirroleswhilestill
actingaslegitimatemembersofthecommunity.However,moreresearchisneededto
understandhowthesedifferentrolesaffectwhatstudentslearn.Someonewhospends
moretimecommentingonandcritiquingprojectswouldmostlikelydevelopdifferentskills
28
andunderstandingsfromsomeonewhocreatesprojectsbutdoesn’tengagein
commenting.ItseemslikelythatK-12educatorswouldwantstudentstoexploreallthe
rolestosupportthedevelopmentofdifferentconceptsandpractices,butitisalso
importantthateducatorsvaluestudents’interestsandpreferencesforparticipationso
studentscanparticipateinlegitimaterolesinthelearningcommunity.
HighlightingthesocialnatureofcomputinginenvironmentslikeScratch,withits
onlinecommunity,cancreatepositive,gender-inclusiveeducationalexperiencesfor
newcomers(Mark,1992;Resnicketal.,2009).Eveninteractionswithfictionalcharacters
cansupportpositivedisciplinaryrelationships.Forinstance,inDigitalYouthDivas,
researchersdesignedcharacterstoimitateactualmiddleschoolgirlswithavarietyof
interests,bodytypes,andstories(Pinkard,Erete,Martin,&McKineydeRoyston,2017).
Therelatablecharactersandsituationsofferideationalresourcestosupportgirls’
identificationwithCT.Researchersfoundthenarrativesmotivatedgirlstoworkon
projects,whilethecharactersprovidedacommunityofrelatable(butfictional)girls
interestedinSTEM,ignitingandconfirmingstudents’owninterestsinSTEMfields
(Pinkardetal.,2017).Thestudydidnotreportonparticipants’useofCTconceptsand
practices.Buttheresultsdidpointtoseveralfactorsrelatedtoidentityanddispositions,
includinggirls’increasedinterestsinworkingontheprojects,opportunitiestoexercise
agencyindesignchallenges,andchangesinviewsofthemselvesinrelationtoSTEM.
TeachingCTthroughprogrammingstories,dances,andgamesareotherpopular
waystoconnecttostudents’interestsandcreategender-inclusivelearningenvironments.
OnestudyusingthelanguageAlicetoprogramcharacterstoperformadanceshowed
increasedmotivationforsomegirlsintheclass,butit’snotclearwhattheylearnedabout
programmingorCT(Dailyetal.,2014).Otherresearchhasshownthatstorytellingisa
particularlyinterestingcontextforgirlslearningtoprogramandcanincreasethetimethey
spendpersistingonaprogrammingproject(Kelleher,2009;Kelleher&Pausch,2007).
ProgrammingstoriesalsoallowslearnerstodevelopproductiveCTdispositions.Students
canexpressthemselvesthroughtheirstories,developingadispositiontowardsusing
computationaltoolsforexpression.Studentscanalsousecomputationaltoolstoconnect
withothers,bysharingtheirstorieswithfriends,family,andtheirclassroompeers,to
developproductivedispositionsforcollaboration.
29
Alongwithopportunitiestoshareprojects,theDigitalYouthDivasprogram
structuresin-personmentorshipandconversationswithpeersintothecurriculum
(Pinkardetal.,2017).Studentstalkinformallywhileworkingontheirprojects,butthey
alsoparticipateinstructuredcheck-inswithmentorsatthebeginningofeachlesson.
Mentorsshareculturalconnectionswithstudentsandencourageengagement,goalsetting,
andcommunication.Digitalmaterialsbuiltintothenarrativeenvironmentmediate
discussionsandrelationshipbuilding.Conversationswithmentorsandfictionalcharacters
intheonlinenarrativeencouragestudentstoreflectontheirSTEMexperiencesandracial
andsocialissuesrelatedtoSTEM.Researcherspointtoapotentiallinkbetweentheseon-
andofflineconversationswithasenseofconnectionandpositiveengagementwithina
classroomSTEMlearningcommunity(Pinkardetal.,2017).Futureresearchshouldexplore
theroleofthispersonalmentorshipinCTforK-12students.Howcanteachersincorporate
mentorsintotheirclassrooms?Itmightbedifficultforsometeachers,particularlythosein
ruralcommunities,tohaveaccesstomentorsandrolemodelswithprofessionalexperience
inCT.Inthoseinstances,mentors’closesocialandculturalconnectionswithstudents
wouldbeparticularlyimportant.Virtualmentorshipsorevenpenpalsmightbeawayof
supportingstudentswhodon’thaveaccesstoin-personrolemodels.Howlongdo
mentorshipexperiencesneedtolast,andhowcantheybeimplementedinwaysthattruly
affectstudents’viewsofthemselvesandinterestsinpersistinginCT?
Besidesmentorship,pairprogrammingisanothercommonin-personcollaborative
programmingtask,buildingtheCTdispositionforcollaborationandcommunication.Pair
programminginvolvestwopeopleworkingatacomputeratthesametime.Oneperson
actsasthe“driver”bytypingatthecomputerwhiletheotheractsasthe“navigator”by
observingandcritiquingthedriver.Bothparticipantscollaborateonsolvingproblemsand
oftenswitchroles(Williamsetal.,2002).Whilemakingprogrammingamorecollaborative
experience,pairprogrammingalsogivesauthoritytostudentsastheysolvetheirown
problems.Thistypeofinteractionallowsstudentstolearnfromdifferencesineachother’s
knowledgeandexperiences.Ratherthanaskinganexpertfortheanswer,studentscan
workwiththeirpeerstosolveaproblemorsearchforanswersfromothersources,like
onlineforums.Botharevaluableskillsinprofessionalcomputationalwork,soitlegitimizes
students’rolesascomputationalproblemsolvers.Pairprogramminginclassroomsettings
30
apprenticesstudentsintotheactofpairprogrammingthatalsooccursinprofessional
settings.Byworkingtogethertodevelopsolutions,studentscanseethemselvesascapable
ofparticipatingintheCTcommunity.Thisisincontrastwithexpectingananswerfroman
expertTA,whichpositionsstudentsaslesscompetentandlessqualifiedtoparticipate
legitimatelyinthecommunityofpractitioners.Mostpairprogrammingresearchfocuseson
college-levelcourses,buthowsuccessfulisitformiddleorhighschoolstudents?
Intentionallypairingstudentswithdifferentkindsofknowledgeorexperiencesin
programmingmighthelpthemcollaborateandlearnfromeachother,butwhathappensin
anintroductorycoursewhenstudentshavenopriorcomputingexperience?Whatisthe
roleoftheinstructorinsupportingproductivecollaborations,andwhatshouldthe
instructordowhenstudentsstruggle?Theseareallimportantquestionstothinkaboutif
pairprogrammingisgoingtosupportavarietyoflearnersinK-12settings.
Non-stereotypicalapproachestoprogramminginstruction,likethestorytellingand
danceexampleshere,canpotentiallyreducegenderdisparitiesincomputationalsubjects
bysparkinggirls’interests.TheDigitalYouthDivasprogramalsodemonstratedthevalue
ofrolemodels,whetherrealorfictional,forinterestandpersonalidentityconstruction
(Pinkardetal.,2017).Additionally,arecentstudyfoundthatevenreducingstereotypical
objectsincomputingclassrooms(e.g.replacingStarWarsposters,electronicparts,and
techmagazineswithart,plants,andgeneralmagazines)canincreasegirls’senseof
belongingandinterestinahighschoolcomputingcoursewithoutloweringboys’existing
interests(Master,Cheryan,&Meltzoff,2016).Non-stereotypicallearningenvironments,
activities,androlemodels–alldesignedtominimizeandchallengestereotypes-affect
students’senseofbelonginginCTcontexts(Cheryan,Master,&Meltzoff,2015).
Muchofthisworkfocusesonmotivationandinterest,particularlyforgirls,butitis
notclearhowthesedifferentapproachesaffectlong-termidentitydevelopmentand
persistenceinCT.Thereisalsoalackofresearchonmarginalizedracialgroupsin
computing.Futureworkshouldconsidertheintersectionofrace,gender,andother
institutionalfactorsthatinfluencestudents’experiencesandidentitiesbothinsideand
outsidetheclassroom.Totrulybreakawayfromstereotypicalviewsofcomputational
thinkers,researchersneedtolookevenbeyondprogrammingtoseehowlearnerscan
engageinCTinothercontexts.
31
ComputationalThinkinginEngineering
AccordingtotheRoyalAcademyofEngineering,engineeringcoversmanydifferent
industries,frombuildingstofoodtomedicine,anditinvolvesmakingthingsworkand
designingsolutionstomeettheneedsofsociety(Brophy,Klein,Portsmore,&Rogers,2008;
RoyalAcademyofEngineering,2017).SomeresearchersseeCTasawayofthinkingthat
createsabridgebetweencomputerscienceandengineering(NRC,2010).CT“inherently
drawsonengineering,giventhat[computerscientists]buildsystemsthatinteractwiththe
realworld”(Wing,2006,p.35).Computationalthinkingandengineeringbothinvolve
solvingproblemsandmakingthings(Wing,2008),butengineeringisinherently
constrainedbythephysicalworldinwaysthatCTisnot(Shute,Sun,Asbell-Clarke,2017;
Wing,2010).Engineeringdesignthinking“focusesonproductspecificationandthe
requirementsimposedbyboththehumanandtheenvironment—i.e.,practicalproblems.
CTisnotalwayslimitedbyphysicalconstraints,enablingpeopletosolvetheoreticalaswell
aspracticalproblems”(Shute,Sun,Asbell-Clarke,2017,p.8).Thisdistinctionismeantto
highlighttheideathatpeoplecanthinkcomputationallyaboutproblemsinimaginative
wayswithoutbeingtiedtorulesofthephysicalworld,whileengineersultimatelyaimto
implementtheirideasinthephysicalworldsotheirworkcannotbeseparatedfromthose
constraints.However,whenpeopleuseCTtocreateproceduresforacomputationalagent
tocarryout,whetherthatagentisamechanicalcomputerorthehumanbrain,theymust
considerthecapabilitiesoftheagent.Asanexampleofsomeoneconsideringthe
limitationsandcapabilitiesofacomputationalagent,aprogrammerusingScratchcould
notmakeawordprocessingsoftwareorawebsite,buttheycouldmakeastoryorgame.If
animportantpartofCTisconsideringandtestingsolutionswithacomputationalagent,
thenitdoesoverlapwithengineeringinitsconsiderationofthephysicalanddigitalworld.
Educatorsandpolicymakersarestartingtorecognizetheseconnectionsbetween
designinginCTandengineering.TheNGSSnowincludeaCTprogressionwithintheirK-12
engineeringstandards(NGSS,2013).Additionally,researchalreadyshowsthatengaging
studentsindesignisusefulforlearning.Design-basedactivitiescanhelplearnersdevelop
deepconceptualunderstandingsandinquiryskills(Crismond,2001;Kimmeletal.,2006;
Kolodneretal.,2003;Roth,1995;Sadler,Barab,&Scott,2007).Tobetterunderstandthe
32
roleofCTindesign,thenextsectiondrawsonLPPtoexplorehowengineersuseCT
concepts,practices,anddispositionsintheirwork.Thediscussionalsomentionssome
waysinwhichlearnerscanaccessthoseskillsthroughengineeringeducation.
Concepts
InspecifyingtheconceptsfromCT,researcherslookedtoprogramminginsteadof
thebroadfieldofcomputersciencewithitsmanydifferentdomainsofknowledge.
Similarly,itisdifficulttolistthespecificconceptsinvolvedinengineeringbecauseit
encompassesmanydifferentsub-fieldswiththeirowncoreconcepts.Engineersuse
conceptsfromacrossSTEMdisciplines,withprogrammingincludedasoneoftheareas
someengineersmaydrawon(Brophy,Klein,Portsmore,&Rogers,2008;RoyalAcademyof
Engineering,2017).Inparticular,softwareengineeringinvolvescomputerprogrammingin
thedevelopmentandmaintenanceofcomputersoftware.Thus,softwareengineersusethe
CTconceptsfromprogrammingdescribedabove,butbeinganexpertengineermayinvolve
knowingmanyotherSTEMconceptsoutsidethescopeofCT.
However,engineersdouseCTconceptsrelatedtodatacollection,organization,and
representation.Whentestingdifferentdesigns,engineerscollectdatatodeterminethebest
optionthatmeetstheconstraintsoftheproblem(NRC,2012).Bothengineersand
computerscientistsusetechnologytocollectandinterpretdata.Theymustunderstand
howtocollectthedata,howtousetheappropriatetools,howtoappropriatelyorganizethe
data,andhowtointerprettheresults.
SincethispaperfocusesonhowpeopleuseCTindifferentdisciplines,itisoutside
thescopeofthisworktospendtimedescribingalltheotherconceptsusedbyengineers.
Instead,therestofthissectionlooksatbroaderprocessesofdesignandproblemsolving
usedacrossengineeringfieldstogenerateanoverviewofCTpracticesanddispositionsin
thecontextofgeneralengineeringskills,particularlythosespecifiedinlearningstandards
andcurricula.
Practices
CentraltotheworkofengineersistheEngineeringDesignProcess(Haik,
Sivaloganathan,&Shahin,2015).Thisistheiterativeprocessengineersusetodesign
33
artifactsbasedonspecificneedsorgoals(NASA’sBest,2016).Itisacyclicalprocessthat
includesidentifyingaproblemoraskingaquestion,imaginingasolution,designinga
prototype,testingthedesigns,andimprovingthesolution(EiE,2017a;NASA’sBest,2016;
NGSS,2013).OneCTpracticefromprogramminginvolvesgeneralizingsolutionsintoa
problemsolvingprocessthatcanbeappliedtoavarietyofproblems(Barr,Harrison,&
Conery,2011;Hu,2011),whichiswhattheEngineeringDesignProcessalreadyis.Itisa
wayofsolvingproblemsthatengineerscandrawoninanysituation.Ultimately,CTisalso
aboutdesigningsolutionstoproblems,andeachoftheseelementsoftheEngineering
DesignProcessoverlapwithotherCTpracticesusedincreatingcomputerprograms.
First,engineersstartbyidentifyingaproblemorquestiontheywanttoaddress.In
bothprofessionalandeducationalenvironments,theproblemmaybedefinedbythe
engineerormaybeassignedbyanotherperson,likeamanager,funder,orteacher.Inany
case,theengineermustworktounderstandtheconstraintsofthesituationandlearnabout
howothershaveapproachedsimilarproblems(EiE,2017a).Theremaybelimitationsin
thematerialsthatcanbeused,thenumberofprototypesthatcanbetested,andthe
timeframeforcompletingtheproject.Thegoalinthisphaseistoaskquestionsofaclient
andaboutpriorapproachestosimilarproblemstounderstandtheprobleminasmuch
detailaspossible(NASA’sBest,2016).Thesamecanbetrueaboutsolvingprogramming
problemsusingCT,althoughthereareusuallyfewerphysicalconstraintstoconsider
(Shute,Sun,Asbell-Clarke,2017).Bothnoviceandexpertprogrammersmustidentifya
problemanddefinetheirgoalsatthebeginningofthecomputationalproblem-solving
process.Inprogramming,someofthisworkmayinvolvereworkingtheproblemintoone
thatcanbesolvedbyacomputer(ISTE&CSTA,2011;Wing,2006),whileinengineering,it
mayinvolvereworkingtheproblemintoonethatcanbesolvedwiththeavailable
materialsandwithincurrenttechnologicalcapabilities.
Thesecondandthirdpartsofthedesignprocessinvolveimaginingasolutionand
implementingthesolutionbycreatingamodelorprototype.Thesearetheprocessesof
buildingsomethinginengineeringorwritingaprocedureinprogramming.Whilecreating
designs,bothprogrammersandengineershavetoconsidertheefficiencyoftheirsolutions,
apracticemanylabelaspartofCT(Barr,Harrison,&Conery,2011;Grover&Pea,2013;
Wing,2008).Engineershavetoconsiderlimitationsonmaterials,cost,andtimetoboth
34
buildandworkefficiently.AnotherCTpracticebothengineersandprogrammersusein
designisreusingothers’work(Brennan&Resnick,2012).Todevelopideas,engineerscan
drawonpreviousattemptstosolvethesameproblemorexistingsolutionsfromrelated
problems.Toengageinthispractice,engineeringstudentscangivefeedbackandsuggest
ideastotheirpeers,andtheycaninvestigaterelateddesignscreatedbymoreexperienced
engineers.Forinstance,inabridge-designtask,studentsdonothavetostartfromscratch
butcanlooktoreal-worldbridgesforideasaboutmaterials,functionality,andstrength.
ThefinaltwoelementsoftheEngineeringDesignProcessaretestingandrefining
designs.Engineersmayrelyonmodelsorsimulationswhentestingdesigns.Bothtypesof
abstractionsarealsoconsideredpartofCT(Grover&Pea,2013;Hu,2011;NRC,2010;
Wing,2006;ISTE&CSTA,2011).Additionally,engineersmayworkwithdata
representationstoorganizetheoutcomesoftheirtrials,anotherpracticeinCT(Barr,
Harrison,&Conery,2011;Grover&Pea,2013;Hu,2011;NRC,2010).Butthecentral
componentoftestingandrefininginengineering,likeinCT,isthedebuggingprocess(Bers
etal.,2014;Brennan&Resnick,2012;Grover&Pea,2013).Engineersdebugtheir
prototypesbyfindingandfixingerrorsandpreparingthemforfurthertesting.This
practicedrivestheiterativenatureofthedesignprocess.Debuggingalsooffers
opportunitiesforproductivestruggleandfailure,whichhaveshowntohelpstudents
developmetacognitiveskillsandperformbetteronotheropen-endedproblemsolving
tasks(Bullmaster-day,2015;Hung,Chen,&Lim,2009;Kapur,2008).Specifically,“the
stepsoftestingandimproving,whichrequiredebugging,areparticularlyimportantin
establishingalearningenvironmentwherefailure--ratherthanimmediatesuccess--is
expectedandseenasnecessaryforlearning.WiththeEngineeringDesignProcess,children
arenotexpectedto‘getitright’thefirsttime”(Bersetal.,2014,p.149).Debuggingallows
studentstogetthingswrongbutstilllegitimatelyparticipateinCTandengineering.Infact,
testingsolutionsgivesstudentsaspacetotinkerbybuildingthingsonthefringesof
professionalengineeringwhilealsoapprenticingintoacorepracticeoftheengineeringand
CTcommunities.Inotherwords,theprocessesoftestingandrefiningallowlearnersto
participatebothlegitimatelyandperipherallyinCTandengineeringdisciplines(Lave&
Wenger,1991).
35
Engineersengageinthepracticeofreusingandremixingothers’workwhen
troubleshootingorreverseengineeringexistingdesigns.“Troubleshootingandreverse
engineeringrequireinvestigatingsomeoneelse’sdesignstoeitherrepairit,replicateit,or
refineit”(Brophyetal.,2008,p.375).Engineeringstudentsengaginginthisprocessshould
evaluatethequalityofanexistingproductbyanalyzingtheoriginaldesigner’sintentions
andconstraints.
ToexposelearnerstothepracticesoftheEngineeringDesignProcess,curriculaare
usuallycreatedtomovestudentssystematicallythroughallphasesoftheprocess(EiE,
2017a).However,professionalengineersmayworkwithinacoupleofthephases,andthen
passtheirworkontootherengineerstocontinuetheprocess.Thus,theworkbecomes
morespecializedasengineerstakeondifferentroleswithinthecommunity.Thephases
themselvesareflexibleandcanbecompletedindifferentordersandinmultipleways.
WhenconsideringconnectionsbetweenengineeringandCT,engineersindifferentroles
willusedifferentCTpracticesintheirworkdependingonhowtheyusetheEngineering
DesignProcess.Inotherwords,itmakessensethatengineeringstudentsmayusesomeCT
practicesbutnotothers.Educatorswanttoexposenovicestoallthecorepracticesusedby
theengineeringcommunity,buttheyshouldalsoconsiderthedifferentwaysof
legitimatelyactingasanengineer.Studentscanstillbecompetentcomputationalthinkers
eveniftheydonotmakeuseofalltheCTpracticesintheirwork.Ifastudentdoesnotlike
thedebuggingortestingprocess,theyshouldnotbediscouragedfrombeinganengineeror
computationalthinker.Instead,educatorsshoulddemonstratethatthereareotherwaysof
legitimatelyparticipating.Studentscouldspecializeindefiningproblemsorcreating
solutionsandstillhaveimportantrolesascomputationalthinkersintheengineering(or
programming)communities.
Evenyoungchildrencanengageinplanning,making,andevaluatingtheirsolutions
indesign-basedengineeringactivities(Fleer,1999;2000).InFleer’sstudy,preschool
childrenweregivenanopen-endedtasktodesignahomeforamythicalcreaturethe
teacherimaginedlivinginhergarden.Youngchildrenoftenbegintheseactivitieswithan
unspecifieddesigngoalthatemergesastheybuildthings(Brophyetal.,2008;Johnsey,
1995).Bysecondgradehowever,studentswhohavebeenengagingindesignprocessesfor
severalyearsareabletoplantheirdesignsbyconsideringmaterialsandconstraintsofthe
36
task(Roden,1999).Thisworkdemonstratesthatitisreasonablefornovicestoengagein
makingandtestingpracticesfirst,since“thenaturalcycleofiterativedesignplaces
studentsinacontinuouscycleoftestandevaluation”(Brophyetal.,2008,p.373).After
gainingsomeexperiencewiththedesigncycle,thenlearnerscanpracticeplanningtheir
designsandspecifyingtheirgoalsaheadoftime.Contentknowledgealsoseemstoaffect
thenumberofiterationsofthedesigncycle.Expertshavemorepriorknowledgeand
experiencestodrawonwhenplanningtheirdesigns,sotheyaremorelikelythannovices
tocomeupwithanaccurateplanthefirsttime(Roth,1996;Wineburg,1991).However,
likewithdebuggingprograms,evenexpertsareexpectedtofinderrorsandmakechanges
throughcyclesofdesign.
Dispositions
OneofthedispositionsBrennanandResnick(2012)identifiedasimportantto
learningCTinprogrammingistheabilitytodealwithopen-endedproblems.Similarly,
designingsolutionstoopen-endedproblemsiscentraltotheworkofengineering.“Design
andtroubleshootingrepresentthetypesofill-structured,oropen-ended,problemson
whichengineersenjoyspendingintellectualenergy”(Brophyetal.,2008,p.371).
Engineersservingdifferentrolesinthedesigncyclehavetorespondtoopen-ended
problemsindifferentways.Somemayfocusonplanningandbrainstormingsolutions,
whileothersmayfocusontestinganddebuggingsolutions.Likecomputerscientists,
engineersmustwelcomeopen-endedproblemsasachallengeandpersistinsolvingthem.
Butthisraisesaquestionabouttransferability.Ifstudentsdevelopthedispositionto
persistonengineeringproblems,willtheyalsopersistonopen-endedproblemsinCSand
otherdisciplines?Thedispositionmaystartoutascontext-specific,butasitbecomespart
oflearners’identitiesovertime,theymaybeabletousesimilarapproachestoproblemsin
differentcontexts.Longitudinalstudiesareneededtoinvestigatetheconstructionof
dispositionsoveryearsoflearningandidentitydevelopment.
QuestioningisanotherCTdispositionfromprogrammingthatoverlapswiththe
coreofengineering.Thegoalofengineeringistoaddresssocialneedsandsolveproblems
throughdesign.Ratherthantakingexistingtoolsandtechnologiesasgiven,engineersask
howtheycanimproveandre-conceptualizethosetoolstosolvenewproblemsand
37
improvesolutionstooldproblems(NGSS,2013).Theyalsousetechnologiesaspartofthe
designprocess,tomodelsituationsandtestsolutions.Thus,engineersaskquestionsboth
aboutandwithtechnologies.Moreresearchisneededtounderstandwhetherandhow
studentslearningCSandengineeringdevelopthesequestioningmindsets.Isita
dispositionthatallstudentsdevelopwhentheyseetheycancreatenewthingswith
technology,oraresomestudentsmoreapttolookattechnologyinthiswaythanothers
are?Itseemslikethelatterismorelikely,sincethedispositionalignswithmasculineforms
ofcompetenceandstereotypesofmakersthatenjoytakingthingsaparttoseehowthey
work.However,thisbroaderviewofquestioninginCTinvolvesaskingnotonlyhow
technologiesworkbutalsowhatnewtechnologieswecancreate.
StereotypesinbothengineeringandCSincludevisionsoflonelyindividualsworking
ontheirowntosolveproblems.EarlierIdescribedhowtheabilityandwillingnessto
collaboratewithothersisactuallyanimportantmindsetofcomputationalthinkersinCS,
andthesamecanbesaidinengineering.LearningtocollaboratewithothersisbuiltintoK-
12engineeringeducationstandardsandcurricula(EiE,2017b;NRC,2012;NGSS,2013).
Collaborationandcommunicationwithothersarealsoconsideredengineering“habitsof
mind”orattitudesassociatedwithengineering(NAE&NRC,2009).Multipleengineers
oftenworkonthesameproblembydesigningandtestingdifferentideas,then
collaboratingtochoosethemostpromisingsolution(NRC,2012).Engineersmustlearnto
evaluateandcompareeachother’sideasandformulateargumentsbasedondataand
testing.Theyalsoneedtocommunicatetheirideasclearlysotheirsolutionscanbe
understoodbyoutsideclientsaswellasengineersservingotherrolesinthedesignprocess
(NRC,2012).
LearningCTPracticesinK-12Engineering
LearningengineeringinK-12anditsintegrationwithotherSTEMdisciplinesis
understudied(Mooreetal.,2014;Rogers,Wendell,&Foster,2010),includingtheideaof
learningCTthroughengineering.K-12engineeringeducationisstillquitenewandnot
widelyimplementedintheU.S.(NAE&NRC,2009).Inthecurriculathathavebeen
developedforK-12engineering,thecontentcentersondesign(NAE&NRC,2009).
Likewise,theprevioussectionoutliningtheconnectionsbetweenCTandengineering
38
demonstratesthatmostoftheoverlapsoccurintheengineeringdesignprocess.Sowhatdo
weknowaboutlearningtheengineeringdesignprocessinK-12?Weknowverylittleabout
it,actually.Researchinengineeringeducationtendstofocusonthepresentationof
educationaltoolsorcurricula,oronidentitydevelopment.Veryfewengineeringeducation
studieshavefocusedonstudents’understandingsofconceptsandpractices.Researchers
suggestthatengineeringlearningoccursbestwhenstudentshaveextendedtimetodesign
anditerateonprojects(Rogers,Wendell,&Foster,2010)andwhentools(e.g.software,
computationaltools)aremeaningfullyintegratedintoproblem-solvingactivities(NAE&
NRC,2009).However,thereislittleempiricalevidencetobackthoseclaims.
TheideaoflearningCTthroughengineeringisagapintheliteratureandan
importantspaceforfutureexploration.Thesmallamountofresearchthatexistsoccursin
thecontextofe-textiles,andthatworkisframedaslearningCTthroughcraftratherthan
engineering(Kafaietal.,2010;2013;2014;Kafai,Searle,Martinez,&Brayboy,2014;Fields,
Searle,&Kafai,2016;Luietal.,2016;Rodeetal.,2015;Searle,Fields,Lui,&Kafai,2014).I
touchontheliteraturebrieflyherebecauseitisaformofengineering;engineersuse
scienceconceptstodesignsolutionstoproblems,ande-textilesprojectsdrawoncircuitry
andmaterialsscienceconceptsthroughdesign.
E-textilesallowmakerstoincorporateelectronichardware(e.g.lights,sensors,
microcomputers,andbuzzers)intofabricdesigns.Onestudyusinge-textileswithhigh
schoolstudentsshowedthatstudentsusedseveralCTconceptsandpracticesintheirwork,
includingsequences,conditionals,loops,variables,remixing,anddebugging(Kafaietal.,
2014).However,studentsinthatstudyprogrammede-textileprojectsusingArduinocode.
Thus,theCTskillsstudents’employedlargelyoccurredinthecontextofprogramming,
withtheexceptionofdebugging,whichstudentsengagedinthroughoutthedesignprocess.
LittleisknownabouthowstudentsuseCTconceptsandpracticesinengineeringactivities
withoutcomputerprogrammingandhowstudents’participationchangesovertimeasthey
becomemembersoftheengineeringcommunity.Thus,anopenquestionis,howmight
studentsengageinCTinwaysthatarelegitimatetotheengineeringcommunityandthus
supportstudentstolearnthroughmeaningfulparticipation?
39
CTIdentityDevelopmentandDispositionsinK-12Engineering
Whilefewstudiesofengineeringhavedeeplyconsideredlearning,morehave
focusedonstudents’identitiesinrelationtoengineering.Muchoftheworkonengineering-
relatedidentitieshasstudieduniversitylevelengineeringstudentsandtheirpersistencein
engineeringoccupations(e.g.McGee&Martin,2011;Meyersetal.,2012;Pierrakosetal.,
2009;Tate&Linn,2005),oronprofessionalidentitiesofworkingengineers(e.g.Anderson
etal.,2010;Hatmaker,2013;Jorgenson,2002).Onthecollegelevel,senseofbelongingand
recognitionaffectstudents’identificationwithengineering(Meyersetal.,2012).
Additionally,universitystudentswhopersistinengineeringmajorstendtohavemore
knowledgeoftheprofession,greaterexposuretoengineering(e.g.throughfamilymembers
orfriends),andsomeproductiverelationshipswithengineeringfacultyandpeers
(Pierrakosetal.,2009).Persistenceisalsoinfluencedbytheintersectionofacademicand
socialidentities,illustratedinstudiesfocusingontherolesofgenderandracein
engineeringprograms(Tate&Linn,2005).Althoughthisresearchonuniversityand
professionalengineersisahelpfulstartingpointinresponsetopipelineissues,researchers
needabetterunderstandingofhowK-12engineeringeducationaffectsstudents’viewsof
engineering,developmentofproductivedispositions,andsenseofselfinrelationto
engineering.
Asanexampleofhowdesignactivitiescanaffecthighschoolstudents’viewsand
identities,workonlearningCTwithe-textilesinhighschoolclassroomsdemonstratesthat
alternativewaysofapproachingCTcanchangestudents’perceptionsofcomputingand
theirviewsofthemselvesinrelationtocomputing(Kafaietal.,2013).Aftermaking
projectsusingprogrammablee-textilesmaterials,highschoolstudentssawCSasmore
relevanttotheirlives,gainedconfidenceintheirprogrammingskills,anddevelopedbetter
understandingsofwhatthecomputingfieldinvolves(Kafaietal.,2014).Furthermore,e-
textilesactivitieshavebeenshowntoengageallstudents,regardlessofraceorgender,in
CT(Kafaietal.,2013;2014).Whilethisworkconnectstoengineeringdesignprocesses,it
stillexplicitlyengagesstudentsinCTthroughcomputerprogramming.Questionsremain
abouthowstudentsuseCTinengineeringcontextswithoutprogramming,andhowother
engineeringactivitiesaffectstudents’perceptionsofCTandtechnologyfields.
40
Otherstudiesinhighschoolanduniversityengineeringhavedrawnexplicitlyon
LPPtostudyaspectsofidentitydevelopment.InonestudyusingLPPasaframeworkto
lookatuniversityengineeringstudents’engagementinindustrialvocationwork,Jawitz,
Case,andAhmed(2005)foundthatopportunitiestoparticipatelegitimatelyinmeaningful
activityinfluencedstudents’senseofbelongingandviewsofthemselvesinrelationto
engineering.Notsurprisingly,thementoringorsupervisingengineerssignificantly
influencedaccesstomeaningfulactivities,andtheyaffectedeachstudent’ssenseofselfby
advocatingfororagainstthestudent’sroleasalegitimateparticipant.Inanotherstudy
lookingatmentorshipinahighschoolcontext,researchersdemonstratedthat
communitiesofpracticeareessentialforsupportingpersistenceinscienceandengineering
fieldsthroughmentorshipandrolemodels(Aschbacher,Li,&Roth,2010).Alongwith
outsidementors,K-12teachershavesignificantinfluenceoverstudents’identity
developmentandlearningintheirrolesasmentorsandsupervisors.Thus,itisimperative
thatresearcherstakeintoaccounttheroleoftheteacherinfacilitatinglegitimate
participationforalllearnerstodevelopproductiveidentitiesascomputationalthinkers.
Whilementorsclearlyinfluencelearningandidentity,moreresearchisneededto
understandhowtoimplementmentorshipcommunitiesthatsupportproductive
engagementandsenseofbelongingforstudentsevenbeforetheyreachhighschool.In
general,fewstudieshavefocusedonlearningandidentitydevelopmentinengineering
withelementaryandmiddleschoolstudents(Capobianco,Diefes-Dux,Mena,&Weller,
2011),whichisnotsurprisinggiventhelackofemphasisonformalengineeringinstruction
foryoungchildren.
41
Discussion
Thegoalofthispaperwastodevelopabetterunderstandingoftheconcepts,
practices,anddispositionsinvolvedinCTandhowpeoplecanlearnitbylookingathowCT
isdefinedinCSthenexploringtheoverlapswithanothercontext,namelyengineering.I
choseengineeringbecauseofitstiestootherSTEMcontentareasandtheabilityto
practicallyapplySTEMcontent,includingCS,throughengineeringdesignproblems,along
withthefactthatCTisbeginningtoappearinK-12engineeringeducationstandards.
EngineeringoffersanopportunitytounderstandhowpeopleuseCTinconnectionwith
otherSTEMdisciplinesthatdonotnecessarilyinvolvemechanicalcomputersorcomputer
programming.
FrommyreviewofliteraturedefiningCTinCScontexts,IidentifiedcommonCT
concepts,practices,anddispositionsthatoverlapwithCS.ThenIexploredhowthose
elementsofCToverlapwiththeliteratureondesignprocessesinengineering.First,CT
conceptsthatoverlapwithbothCSandengineeringinclude:datacollection,organization,
andrepresentation(manyotherconceptsfromCSandprogrammingaretraditionally
includedinCTbutdonotnecessarilyoverlapwithdifferentengineeringfields).Second,CT
practicesthatoverlapwithbothCSandengineeringinclude:(i)generalizingsolutionsinto
aproblemsolvingprocess,(ii)reworkingtheproblemsoitcanbesolvedbya
computationalagent,(iii)consideringefficiencyandperformanceconstraints,(iv)reusing
orremixingothers’work,(v)creatingandusingabstractions,and(vi)debuggingand
testingsolutions.Finally,CTdispositionsthatoverlapwithbothCSandengineering
include:(i)dealingwithopen-endedproblems,(ii)questioningaboutandwith
computationaltools,and(iii)collaboratingandcommunicatingwithothers.
MuchoftheoverlapbetweenCTasitisdefinedinCSanditsapplicationin
engineeringcanbeseenintheengineeringdesignprocess.Sothisbegsthequestion,isCT
reallyjustdesignthinkingorproblemsolving?Theanswertothisquestionisnot
completelyclearfromthecurrentliteratureonCT.Withoutaclear,agreed-uponvisionof
whatwewantstudentstolearnaboutCT,it’shardtoarticulatewhatthosedifferences
reallyare.Therecentintroductionoftheterm“computationalmaking”(Rodeetal.,2015),
withtiestomakerspacesandthemakermovement,shiftsCTevenmoreinthedirectionof
42
designandcreation.Giventheconcepts,practices,anddispositionsexploredhere,itseems
likeCTmightbeaspecificformofproblemsolvingordesign,withsomespecificconcepts
thatcomefromCSandprogramming.ItcouldbethatCTaddslogicalthinkinganddatause
conceptstotraditionaldesignpracticesanddispositions.Inotherwords,CTseemstobe
aboutlogicalthinking(manyoftheconceptsfromCS)plusdesignpractices.CTmay
potentiallybeausefulcombinationofconcepts,practices,anddispositionsthatprepares
studentsforjobsacrossfieldsinvolvingdesignandproblemsolving.Buttheseandrelated
claimsaboutCT’sabilitytoempowerchildrentosolveproblems(e.g.ISTE&CSTA,2011;
Papert,1980;Wing,2006)arehighlytheoreticalatthispoint,untilmoreworkcanbedone
todefineCTinuseanddistinguishitfromotherformsofthinking.
Ingeneral,moreresearchonCTlearningandidentitydevelopmentinK-12contexts
isneeded.MostresearchonCTinK-12hasoccurredininformaleducationsettings(Lye&
Koh,2014).GiventherecentdevelopmentofCTinK-12educationalstandards,suchasin
theCSTAandISTEComputerScienceStandardsandintheNextGenerationScience
Standards,CTisclearlybecomingpartofformalK-12educationforall,notjustanelement
ofselectafter-schoolactivities.Thus,researchersneedtounderstandhowtodesignforin-
schoollearningenvironmentsandtoproductivelyincorporateCTintoclassrooms.
TherehasbeensomeempiricalworkonlearningCTinprogrammingorCScontexts,
butvirtuallynothinginK-12engineering.ResearchinCSdemonstratesthatyoungchildren
canlearnCTconceptsusingvisualandblock-basedprogrammingtools,andonline
communitiesofpracticesupportdifferentformsoflegitimateparticipationandroles
withinthecommunity.StudiesusingScratchinparticularhavedemonstratedthatstudents
inavarietyofgradelevelscanengageinalmostalltheCTconcepts,practices,and
dispositionslistedinthispaper.However,wedon’tknowmuchabouthowtheselearning
toolsareintegratedintoK-12classroomsystemsandhowclassroomscansupport
engagementinmeaningfulactivitiesthatcontinuetolegitimizestudents’rolesin
communitiesthatuseCT.Inthecaseofengineering,educatorsarejustbeginningto
incorporateengineeringinK-12classroomsacrosstheU.S.,sotherearefewempirical
studiesonlearningengineeringinK-12classrooms,letalonelearningCTthrough
engineering.ThereisworkonlearningCTwithe-textiles,butthosestudiesareframedas
CTinthecontextofcraftratherthanengineering.Additionally,thatworklooksatCT
43
learningthroughprogramminginArduino,soitisstillunclearhoworwhatstudentslearn
aboutCTinengineering(orevencraft)contextsthatdonotinvolveprogramming
mechanicalcomputers.
Whenitcomestoidentitydevelopment,relevantliteratureinbothCSand
engineeringhighlightsthefactthatCTeducation“isnotjustamatterofquantitybutalso
oneofqualityofengagement”(Fields,Giang,&Kafai,2014,p.8).Researchershave
contextualizedproblemsinnarratives,dance,andgamestomotivatestudentsto
participateinCT.Somestudieshavedemonstratedstudents’productiveengagementinCT
dispositionswhenprogrammingstoriesorgames,includingexpressingideas,collaborating
andcommunicatingwithothers,andaskingquestionswithcomputationaltools.However,
itisnotclearhowframingCTthroughthesecontextsaffectslong-termpersistence,beliefs
aboutCT,andstudents’viewsofthemselvesinrelationtoCT.
MentorshipalsoplaysasignificantroleinidentitydevelopmentthroughLPPinboth
CSandengineeringcontexts.Mentorsshapestudents’viewsaboutwhatCTis,whocan
participateinit,andwhethertheyhaveaccesstolegitimateroleswithinthecommunity.
Giventheimportantroleteachersplayasmentorsandsupervisors,weneedmoreresearch
tounderstandhowteacherscanimplementandbepartofsuccessfulmentorship
communitiesinK-12settingstosupportmeaningfulparticipationforallstudents,notjust
thosealreadyrepresentedbythemajorityofCSandengineeringprofessionals.
WhilethispaperillustratesthatCToverlapswithdesignprocessesindisciplines
otherthanCS,engineeringisstillamale-dominatedprofession.Only14%ofengineersin
2016identifiedasfemale(TheEconomicsDaily,2017).Totrulyexpandnotionsof
competenceandparticipationinCTforstudentswhodonotalreadymatchwiththe
stereotypesintechnologyfields,thisworkneedstoconnectCTwithcontextsthatare
dominatedbyothergroupsofpeople.Therefore,IplantoexploreCTintraditionally
femininecontextsofcraftinfuturework.
44
Conclusion
ResearchintoCTinSTEMandevenhumanitiesinK-12contextsisjustbeginningto
emerge.Thisisanimportantareaforfutureworkthathasthepotentialtoexpandaccessto
CTlearningopportunities.ItwillalsohelprefinethedefinitionofCTandimprove
understandingsofwhatCTlookslikeindifferentcontexts.ThewayDeannaKuhn
describedscientificthinkinghelpsexplainhowresearchersmightexpandtheroleofCTin
K-12educationandourlives.Kuhnexplained,
Scientificthinkingtendstobecompartmentalized,viewedasrelevantandaccessibleonlytothenarrowsegmentofthepopulationwhopursuescientificcareers.Ifscienceeducationistobesuccessful,itisessentialtocounterthisviewandestablishtheplacethatscientificthinkinghasinthelivesofallstudents.Atypicalapproachtothisobjectivehasbeentotrytoconnectthecontentofsciencetophenomenafamiliarinstudents’everydaylives.Anultimatelymorepowerfulapproachmaybetoconnecttheprocessofsciencetothinkingprocessesthatfigureinordinarypeople’slives(1993,p.333).
Byconnectingscientificprocessestothethinkingprocessesinoureverydaylives,it
highlightstherelevanceofscientificthinking,pointstotheneedtoengageinthepracticeof
thinkingtoenhancethequalityofthinking,andmakessocialdialogueaplacetoexternalize
thinkingstrategies(Kuhn,1993).Inthisviewofthinkingprocesses,itisokay,andeven
ideal,thatCToverlapswithotherprocesses,includingdesignthinking,problemsolving,
criticalthinking,systemsthinking,andalgorithmicthinking,becauseitconnectstheways
inwhichcomputerscientiststhinktootherthinkingprocessespeopleuseinavarietyof
contexts.AfocusonthinkingprocessesdemandsworkonthenatureandroleofCTin
contextsoutsideofcomputing,withavarietyoflearners,andineverydayprocesses.Itis
stillunclearwhattheroleofcomputersinengaginginCTreallyis,andwhetherpeoplecan
legitimatelypracticeCTwithoutmechanicalcomputers(Weintropetal.,2016).Thiswork
connectingCTtoothercontextswilladvancethefieldtowardsaricherunderstandingof
theconceptsandpracticescollectedunderCT,manyofwhicharenotyetclearlydefined,
andthepracticalutilityofCTasaconstructwithinK-12education.
45
REFERENCES
Anderson,K.J.B.,Courter,S.S.,McGlamery,T.,Nathans-Kelly,T.M.,&Nicometo,C.G.(2010).Understandingengineeringworkandidentity:across-caseanalysisofengineerswithinsixfirms.EngineeringStudies,2(3),153-174.
Aschbacher,P.R.,Li,E.,&Roth,E.J.(2010).Isscienceme?Highschoolstudents’identities,participationandaspirationsinscience,engineering,andmedicine.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,47(5),564–582.
Barr,B.D.,Harrison,J.,&Conery,L.(2011).ComputationalThinking :ADigitalAge.Learning&LeadingwithTechnology,5191(March/April),20–23.
Barr,V.,&Stephenson,C.(2011).BringingcomputationalthinkingtoK-12.ACMInroads,2(1),111–122.
Beckhusen,J.(2016).OccupationsinInformationTechnology:AmericanCommunitySurveyReports(Vol.1980).Washington,D.C.:U.S.CensusBureau.
Bers,M.U.(2010).TheTangibleKroboticsprogram:Appliedcomputationalthinkingforyoungchildren.EarlyChildhoodResearchandPractice,12(2),1–20.
Bers,M.U.,Flannery,L.,Kazakoff,E.R.,&Sullivan,A.(2014).Computationalthinkingandtinkering:Explorationofanearlychildhoodroboticscurriculum.ComputersandEducation,72,145–157.
BiochemicalSociety(2017).Whatisbiochemistry?Retrievedfromhttp://www.biochemistry.org/?TabId=456.
Bishop,J.P.(2012).“She’sAlwaysBeentheSmartOne.I’veAlwaysBeentheDumbOne”:IdentitiesintheMathematicsClassroom.JournalforResearchinMathematicsEducation,43(1),34–74.
Boaler,J.(2002).Thedevelopmentofdisciplinaryrelationships:knowledge,practice,andidentityinmathematicsclassrooms.FortheLearningofMathematics,22(1),42–47.
Boaler,J.,&Greeno,J.G.(2000).Identity,agency,andknowinginmathematicsworlds.Multipleperspectivesonmathematicsteachingandlearning,171-200.
Brennan,K.,&Resnick,M.(2012).Newframeworksforstudyingandassessingthedevelopmentofcomputationalthinking.InannualAERAmeeting,Vancouver,BC,Canada(pp.1–25).
Brickhouse,N.W.,&Potter,J.T.(2001).YoungWomen’sScientificIdentityFormationinanUrbanContext.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,38(8),965–980.
46
Brikman,Y.(2014).Don’tlearntocode.Learntothink.[Blogpost].Retrievedfromhttps://www.ybrikman.com/writing/2014/05/19/dont-learn-to-code-learn-to-think/.
Brophy,S.,Klein,S.,Portsmore,M.,&Rogers,C.(2008).AdvancingEngineeringEducationinP-12Classrooms.JournalofEngineeringEducation,(July),369–387.
Bullmaster-Day,M.L.(2015).ProductiveStruggleforDeeperLearning.TriumphLearning.
BureauofLaborStatistics(2017).Computerandinformationtechnologyoccupations.Retrievedfromhttps://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm.
Capobianco,B.M.,Diefes-Dux,H.A.,Mena,I.,&Weller,J.(2011).WhatisanEngineer?ImplicationsofElementarySchoolStudentConceptionsforEngineeringEducation.JournalofEngineeringEducation,100(2),304–328.
CarolynYang,Y.T.,&Chang,C.H.(2013).Empoweringstudentsthroughdigitalgameauthorship:Enhancingconcentration,criticalthinking,andacademicachievement.ComputersandEducation,68,334–344.
Catterall,J.(2013).GettingrealabouttheEinSTEAM.TheSTEAMJournal,1(1),Article6.
Cejka,E.,Rogers,C.,&Portsmore,M.(2006).KindergartenRobotics:UsingRoboticstoMotivateMath,Science,andEngineeringLiteracyinElementarySchool.InternationalJournalofEngineeringEducation,22(4),711–722.
Cheryan,S.,Master,A.,&Meltzoff,A.N.(2015).Culturalstereotypesasgatekeepers:Increasinggirls’interestincomputerscienceandengineeringbydiversifyingstereotypes.FrontiersinPsychology,6(FEB),1–8.
Clements,D.H.,&Gullo,D.F.(1984).EffectsofComputerProgrammingonYoungChildren’sCognition.JournalofEducationalPsychology,76(6),1051–1058.
Cobb,P.,&Bowers,J.(1999).Cognitiveandsituatedlearningperspectivesintheoryandpractice.Educationalresearcher,28(2),4-15.
Crismond,D.(2001).Learningandusingscienceideaswhendoinginvestigate-and-redesigntasks:Astudyofnaive,novice,andexpertdesignersdoingconstrainedandscaffoldeddesignwork.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,38(7),791–820.
CSTA.(2013).CSTAK-12ComputerScienceStandards:MappedtoCommonCoreStateStandardsforMathematicalPractice.Retrievedfromhttp://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CSTA_Standards_Mapped_to_CommonCoreStandards.pdf
47
CSTA.(2017).CSTAK-12ComputerScienceStandards.Retrievedfromhttp://www.csteachers.org/page/standards
CSTA&ACM(2016).InterimCSTAK-12computersciencestandards.NewYork,NY:CSTA&ACM.Retrievedfromhttps://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.csteachers.org/resource/resmgr/Docs/Standards/2016StandardsRevision/INTERIM_StandardsFINAL_07222.pdf.
Daily,S.B.,Leonard,A.E.,Jörg,S.,Babu,S.,&Gundersen,K.(2014).DancingAlice:Exploringembodiedpedagogicalstrategiesforlearningcomputationalthinking.InProceedingsofthe45thACMtechnicalsymposiumonComputerscienceeducation-SIGCSE’14(pp.91–96).Atlanta,GA:ACM.
Dasgupta,S.,Hale,W.,Monroy-Hernandez,A.,&Hill,B.M.(2016).RemixingasaPathwaytoComputationalThinking.InCSCW(pp.1438–1449).SanFrancisco,CA.
diSessa,A.(2000).ChangingMinds:Computers,Learning,andLiteracy.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
EiE(EngineeringisElementary)(2017a).Theengineeringdesignprocess.Retrievedfromhttps://www.eie.org/overview/engineering-design-process.
EiE(EngineeringisElementary)(2017b).Trajectoriesforpreschool-middleschoolengineeringactivities.Retrievedfromhttps://eie.org/overview/engineering-trajectories.
Feldman,A.(2015).STEAMrising:WhyweneedtoputtheartsintoSTEMeducation.Slate.Retrievedfromhttp://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/06/steam_vs_stem_why_we_need_to_put_the_arts_into_stem_education.html.
Fields,D.A.,Giang,M.,&Kafai,Y.(2014).Programminginthewild.InProceedingsofthe9thWorkshopinPrimaryandSecondaryComputingEducationon-WiPSCE’14(pp.2–11).Berlin,Germany.
Fields,D.A.,Searle,K.A.,&Kafai,Y.B.(2016).DeconstructionKitsforLearning:Students’CollaborativeDebuggingofElectronicTextileDesigns.InFabLearn(pp.82–85).Stanford,CA.
Fleer,M.(1999).Children’salternativeviews:Alternativetowhat?InternationalJournalofScienceEducation,21(2),119–35.
Fleer,M.(2000).Workingtechnologically:Investigationsintohowyoungchildrendesignandmakeduringtechnologyeducation.InternationalJournalofTechnologyandDesignEducation,10(1),43–59.
48
Gee,J.P.(2000).Chapter3:Identityasananalyticlensforresearchineducation.Reviewofresearchineducation,25(1),99-125.
Gorman,H.,&Bourne,L.E.(1983).LearningtothinkbylearningLOGO:Rulelearninginthird-gradecomputerprogrammers.BulletinofthePsychonomicSociety,21(3),165–167.
Greeno,J.G.(1991).Numbersenseassituatedknowinginaconceptualdomain.JournalforResearchinMathematicsEducation,22(3),170–218.
Greeno,J.G.,&Gresalfi,M.S.(2008).Opportunitiestolearninpracticeandidentity.InP.A.Moss,D.C.Pullin,J.P.Gee,E.H.Haertel,&L.J.Young(Eds.),Assessment,Equity,andOpportunitytoLearn.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gresalfi,M.S.,&Cobb,P.(2006).Cultivatingstudents’discipline-specificdispositionsasacriticalgoalforpedagogyandequity.Pedagogies,1(1),49–57.
Gresalfi,M.,Martin,T.,Hand,V.,&Greeno,J.(2009).Constructingcompetence:ananalysisofstudentparticipationintheactivitysystemsofmathematicsclassrooms.EducationStudiesinMathematics,70(1),49–70.
Grover,S.,&Pea,R.(2013).ComputationalThinkinginK-12:AReviewoftheStateoftheField.EducationalResearcher,42(1),38–43.
Grover,S.,&Pea,R.(2018).ComputationalThinking:Acompetencywhosetimehascome.InS.Sentance,E.Barendsen,&C.Schulte(Eds.),ComputerScienceEducation:PerspectivesonTeachingandLearning.London:Bloomsbury.
Guzdial,M.(2008).Education:Pavingthewayforcomputationalthinking.CommunicationsoftheACM,51(8),25–27.
Haik,Y.,Sivaloganathan,S.,andShahin,T.M.(2015).EngineeringDesignProcess(3rdEd.).Boston,MA:CengageLearning.
Halpern,D.F.(1999).Teachingforcriticalthinking:Helpingcollegestudentsdeveloptheskillsanddispositionsofacriticalthinker.Newdirectionsforteachingandlearning,1999(80),69-74.
Hand,V.,&Gresalfi,M.(2015).TheJointAccomplishmentofIdentity.EducationalPsychologist,50(3),190–203.
Handelsman,J.andSmith,M.(2016,February11).STEMforall[Blogpost].TheWhiteHouseBlog.Retrievedfromhttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/02/11/stem-all.
Hatmaker,D.M.(2013).Engineeringidentity:Genderandprofessionalidentitynegotiationamongwomenengineers.Gender,Work&Organization,20(4),382-396.
49
Holland,D.,Lachicotte,W.,Skinner,D.,&Cain,C.(1998).Identityandagencyinculturalworlds.History.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Horn,M.S.,Brady,C.,Hjorth,A.,Wagh,A.,&Wilensky,U.(2014,June).Frogpond:Acodefirstlearningenvironmentonevolutionandnaturalselection.InProceedingsofthe2014conferenceonInteractiondesignandchildren(pp.357-360).ACM.
Horn,M.S.,&Jacob,R.J.K.(2007).DesigningTangibleProgrammingLanguagesforClassroomUse.InProceedingsofthe1stInternationalConferenceonTangibleandEmbeddedInteraction(pp.159-162).ACM.
Hu,C.(2011).Computationalthinking–Whatitmightmeanandwhatwemightdoaboutit.ITiCSE’11:Proceedingsofthe16thAnnualJointConferenceonInnovationandTechnologyinComputerScienceEducation(pp.223–227).
Hung,D.,Chen,V.,&Lim,S.H.(2009).Unpackingthehiddenefficaciesoflearninginproductivefailure.LearningInquiry,3(1),1–19.
Israel,M.,Pearson,J.N.,Tapia,T.,Wherfel,Q.M.,&Reese,G.(2015).Supportingalllearnersinschool-widecomputationalthinking:Across-casequalitativeanalysis.ComputersandEducation,82(March),263–279.
ISTE,&CSTA.(2011).OperationalDefinitionofComputationalThinking.Retrievedfromhttps://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.csteachers.org/resource/resmgr/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf.
Jagodzinski,A.(2016,June30).STEAMontherise:Thegrowingimportanceofartseducation[Blogpost].ArtForce.Retrievedfromhttp://artforce.org/steam-on-the-rise/.
Jawitz,J.,Case,J.,&Ahmed,N.(2005).Smilenicely,makethetea-ButwillIeverbetakenseriously?Engineeringstudents’experiencesofvacationwork.InternationalJournalofEngineeringEducation,21(1),134–138.
Johnsey,R.(1995).Theplaceoftheprocessskillmakingindesignandtechnology:Lessonsfromresearchintothewayprimarychildrendesignandmake.InProceedingsoftheIDATER95:InternationalConferenceonDesignandTechnologyEducationalResearchandCurriculumDevelopment,Loughborough,UK.
Jorgenson,J.(2002).Engineeringselves:Negotiatinggenderandidentityintechnicalwork.ManagementCommunicationQuarterly,15(3),350-380.
Kafai,Y.B.(2016).FromcomputationalthinkingtocomputationalparticipationinK–12education.CommunicationsoftheACM,59(8),26–27.
50
Kafai,Y.B.,Lee,E.,Searle,K.,&Fields,D.(2014).Acrafts-orientedapproachtocomputinginhighschool:Introducingcomputationalconcepts,practices,andperspectiveswithelectronictextiles.ACMTransactionsonComputingEducation,14(1),1–20.
Kafai,Y.B.,Peppler,K.A.,Burke,Q.,Moore,M.,&Glosson,D.(2010).Fröbelʼsforgottengift:Textileconstructionkitsaspathwaysintoplay,designandcomputation.InInteractionDesignandChildren,Barcelona,Spain.
Kafai,Y.B.,Searle,K.,Martinez,C.,&Brayboy,B.(2014).EthnocomputingwithElectronicTextiles:CulturallyResponsiveOpenDesigntoBroadenParticipationinComputinginAmericanIndianYouthandCommunities.InSIGCSE/14,Atlanta,GA.
Kafai,Y.B.,Searle,K.,Fields,D.A.,Kafai,Y.,Searle,K.,Fields,D.,&Lui,D.(2013).Cupcakecushions,ScoobyDooshirts,andsoftboomboxes:E-textilesinhighschooltopromotecomputationalconcepts.InSIGCSE’13(pp.311–316),Denver,CO.
Kalelioǧlu,F.,&Gülbahar,Y.(2014).TheeffectsofteachingprogrammingviaScratchonproblemsolvingskills:Adiscussionfromlearners’perspective.InformaticsinEducation,13(1),33–50.
Kaplan,A.,&Flum,H.(2009).Motivationandidentity:Therelationsofactionanddevelopmentineducationalcontexts–Anintroductiontothespecialissue.EducationalPsychologist,44(2),73-77.
Kapur,M.(2008).Productivefailure.CognitionandInstruction,26(3),379–424.
Kelleher,C.(2009).Barrierstoprogrammingengagement.AdvancesinGenderandEducation,1,5–10.
Kelleher,C.,&Pausch,R.(2005).Loweringthebarrierstoprogramming:Ataxonomyofprogrammingenvironmentsandlanguagesfornoviceprogrammers.ACMComputingSurveys,37(2),83–137.
Kelleher,C.,&Pausch,R.(2007).Usingstorytellingtomotivateprogramming.CommunicationsoftheACM,50(7),58.
Kimmel,H.,Carpinelli,J.,Alexander,L.B.,andRockland,R.(2006).Bringingengineeringintok-12schools:Aproblemlookingforsolutions?InProceedingsoftheAmericanSocietyforEngineeringEducationAnnualConferenceandExposition,Chicago,IL.
Kolodner,J.L.,Camp,P.J.,Crismond,D.,Fasse,B.,Gray,J.,Holbrook,J.,Puntambekar,S.,andRyan,M.(2003).Problem-basedlearningmeetscase-basedreasoninginthemiddle-schoolscienceclassroom:Puttinglearningbydesign™intopractice.JournaloftheLearningSciences,12(4),495–547.
51
Kuhn,D.(1993).ScienceasArgument :ImplicationsforTeachingandLearningScientificThinking.ScienceEducation,77(3),319–337.
Lave,J.,&Wenger,E.(1991).Situatedlearning:Legitimateperipheralparticipation.Cambridge,U.K.:Cambridgeuniversitypress.
Lester,F.K.(1994).Musingsaboutmathematicalproblem-solvingresearch:1970-1994.Journalforresearchinmathematicseducation,25(6),660-675.
Lucas,B.,Hanson,J.,Claxton,G.,andCentreforReal-WorldLearning(2014).Thinkinglikeanengineer:Implicationsfortheeducationsystem.UK:RoyalAcademyofEngineering.
Lui,D.,Litts,B.K.,Widman,S.,Walker,J.T.,&Kafai,Y.B.(2016).CollaborativeMakerActivitiesintheClassroom:CaseStudiesofHighSchoolStudentPairs’InteractionsinDesigningElectronicTextiles.InFabLearn(pp.74–77),Stanford,CA.
Lye,S.Y.,&Koh,J.H.L.(2014).Reviewonteachingandlearningofcomputationalthinkingthroughprogramming:WhatisnextforK-12 ?ComputersinHumanBehavior,41,51–61.
Mark,J.(1992).Beyondequalaccess:Genderequityinlearningwithcomputers.Women’sEducationalEquityActPublishingCenterDigest,1-2-7.
Martin,D.B.(2000).MathematicsSuccessandFailureamongAfrican-AmericanYouth:TheRolesofSociohistoricalContext,CommunityForces,SchoolInfluence,andIndividualAgency.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Master,A.,Cheryan,S.,&Meltzoff,A.N.(2016).Computingwhethershebelongs:Stereotypesunderminegirls’interestandsenseofbelongingincomputerscience.JournalofEducationalPsychology,108(3),424–437.
Mattern,K.D.,Shaw,E.J.,&Ewing,M.(2011).AdvancedPlacement®ExamParticipation:IsAP®ExamParticipationandPerformanceRelatedtoChoiceofCollegeMajor?ResearchReportNo.2011-6.CollegeBoard.
Mayer,R.E.(1998).Cognitive,metacognitive,andmotivationalaspectsofproblemsolving.InstructionalScience,26,49–63.
Mayer,R.E.,Dyck,J.L.,&Vilberg,W.(1986).Learningtoprogramandlearningtothink:what’stheconnection?CommunicationsoftheACM,29(7),605–610.
McCaslin,M.(2009).Co-RegulationofStudentMotivationandEmergentIdentity.EducationalPsychologist,44(2),137–146.
McGee,E.O.,&Martin,D.B.(2011).‘‘YouWouldNotBelieveWhatIHavetoGoThroughtoProveMyIntellectualValue!"StereotypeManagementamongAcademicallySuccessful
52
BlackMathematicsandEngineeringStudents.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,48(6),1347–1389.
McLeod,D.B.(1992).Researchonaffectinmathematicseducation:Areconceptualization.InD.A.Grouws(Ed.),Handbookofresearchonmathematicsteachingandlearning(pp.575-596).Macmillan.
Meyers,K.L.,Ohland,M.W.,Pawley,A.L.,Silliman,S.E.,&Smith,K.A.(2012).Factorsrelatingtoengineeringidentity.GlobalJournalofEngineeringEducation,14(1),119–131.
MidianKurland,D.,Pea,R.D.,Clement,C.,Mawby,R.,&Mawby,R.A.(1986).Astudyofthedevelopmentofprogrammingabilityandthinkingskillsinhighschoolstudents.JournalofEducationalComputingResearch,2(4),429–458.
Moore,T.J.,Glancy,A.W.,Tank,K.M.,Kersten,J.A.,&Smith,K.A.(2014).AFrameworkforQualityK-12EngineeringEducation:ResearchandDevelopment.JournalofPre-CollegeEngineeringEducation,4(1),Article2.
NASA’sBEST(2016).Theengineeringdesignprocess.NASA.Retrievedfromwww.nasa.gov/foreducators.
Nasir,N.I.S.(2002).Identity,goals,andlearning:Mathematicsinculturalpractice.Mathematicalthinkingandlearning,4(2-3),213-247.
Nasir,N.I.S.,&Cooks,J.(2009).Becomingahurdler:Howlearningsettingsaffordidentities.Anthropology&EducationQuarterly,40(1),41-61.
Nasir,N.S.,&deRoyston,M.M.(2013).Power,identity,andmathematicalpracticesoutsideandinsideschool.JournalforResearchinMathematicsEducation,44(1),264–287.
Nasir,N.S.,&Hand,V.(2008).Fromthecourttotheclassroom:Opportunitiesforengagement,learning,andidentityinbasketballandclassroommathematics.JournaloftheLearningSciences,17(2),143–179.
NationalAcademyofEngineering(NAE)andNationalResearchCouncil(NRC).(2009).EngineeringinK-12Education:UnderstandingtheStatusandImprovingtheProspects.Washington,D.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress.
NationalCenterforWomenandInformationTechnology(NCWIT).(2017).BytheNumbers.Retrievedfromhttps://www.ncwit.org/resources/numbers.
NationalResearchCouncil(NRC).(2004).ComputerScience:ReflectionsontheField,ReflectionsFromtheField.Washington,D.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress.
NationalResearchCouncil(NRC).(2010).ReportofaWorkshopontheScopeandNatureofComputationalThinking.Washington,D.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress.
53
NationalResearchCouncil(NRC).(2012).AframeworkforK-12scienceeducation:Practices,crosscuttingconcepts,andcoreideas.Washington,D.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress.
NGSS.(2013).ScienceandEngineeringPractices.Washington,D.C.:TheNationalAcademiesPress.
Nickerson,R.S.(1983).Computerprogrammingasavehicleforteachingthinkingskills.Thinking:TheJournalofPhilosophyforChildren,4(3/4),42-48.
Papert,S.(1980).Mindstorms:Children,computers,andpowerfulideas.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.
Papert,S.(1996).AnExplorationintheSpaceofMathematicsEducations.InternationalJournalofComputersforMathematicalLearning,1(1),95–123.
Pea,R.D.(1983).LogoProgrammingandProblemSolving.InAmericanEducationalResearchSymposium(pp.2–10),Montreal,Canada.
Pea,R.D.,&Kurland,D.M.(1984).Onthecognitiveeffectsoflearningcomputerprogramming.NewIdeasinPsychology,2(2),137–168.
Pea,R.D.,Kurland,D.M.,&Hawkins,J.(1985).LogoandtheDevelopmentofThinkingSkills.InM.Chen&W.Paisley(Eds.),ChildrenandMicrocomputers:ResearchontheNewestMedium(pp.193–317).Sage.
Pierrakos,O.,Beam,T.K.,Constantz,J.,Johri,A.,&Anderson,R.(2009).OntheDevelopmentofaProfessionalIdentity:EngineeringPersistersVsEngineeringSwitchers.In39thASEE/IEEEFrontiersinEducationConference(pp.1–6),SanAntonio,TX.
Pinkard,N.,Erete,S.,Martin,C.K.,&McKinneydeRoyston,M.(2017).DigitalYouthDivas:ExploringNarrative-DrivenCurriculumtoSparkMiddleSchoolGirls’InterestinComputationalActivities.JournaloftheLearningSciences,26(3),477-516.
Potvin,P.,&Hasni,A.(2014).Interest,motivationandattitudetowardsscienceandtechnologyatK-12levels:asystematicreviewof12yearsofeducationalresearch.StudiesinScienceEducation,50(1),85–129.
Renninger,K.A.(2009).InterestandIdentityDevelopmentinInstruction:AnInductiveModel.EducationalPsychologist,44(2),105–118.
Resnick,M.,Maloney,J.,Monroy-Hernández,A.,Rusk,N.,Eastmond,E.,Brennan,K.,…Kafai,Y.(2009).Scratch:ProgrammingforAll.CommunicationsoftheACM,52,60–67.
Robelen,E.W.(2013).K-12BolstersTiestoEngineering.EducationWeek,32(26),1-18.
54
Rode,J.A.,Weibert,A.,Marshall,A.,Aal,K.,VonRekowski,T.,ElMimoni,H.,&Booker,J.(2015).FromComputationalThinkingtoComputationalMaking.InUbiComp(pp.239–250),Osaka,Japan.
Roden,C.(1999).Howchildren’sproblemsolvingstrategiesdevelopatkeystage1.TheJournalofDesignandTechnologyEducation,4(1),21–27.
Rogers,C.B.,Wendell,K.,&Foster,J.(2010).AReviewoftheNAEReport,EngineeringinK-12Education.JournalofEngineeringEducation,(April),179–181.
Roth,W.M.(1995).From“wigglystructures”to“unshakytowers”:Problemframing,solutionfinding,andnegotiationofcoursesofactionsduringacivilengineeringunitforelementarystudents.ResearchinScienceEducation,25(4),365–381.
Roth,W.M.(1996).Knowledgediffusioninagrade4–5classroomduringaunitoncivilengineering:Ananalysisofaclassroomcommunityintermsofitschangingresourcesandpractices.CognitionandInstruction,14(2),179–220.
RoyalAcademyofEngineering(2017).Whatisengineering?Retrievedfromhttp://www.raeng.org.uk/education/what-is-engineering.
Sadler,T.,Barab,S.,andScott,B.(2007).Whatdostudentsgainbyengaginginsocioscientificinquiry?ResearchinScienceEducation,37(4),371–91.
Schoenfeld,A.H.(1992).Learningtothinkmathematically:Problemsolving,metacognition,andsensemakinginmathematics.InD.Grouws(Ed.),HandbookforResearchonMathematicsTeachingandLearning(pp.334–370).NewYork,NY:Macmillan.
Searle,K.A.,Fields,D.A.,Lui,D.A.,&Kafai,Y.B.(2014).Diversifyinghighschoolstudents’viewsaboutcomputingwithelectronictextiles.InICER(pp.75–82),Glasgow,UK.
Shute,V.J.,Sun,C.,&Asbell-Clarke,J.(2017).Demystifyingcomputationalthinking.EducationalResearchReview,22,142-158.
Smith,M.(2016,January30).Computerscienceforall[Blogpost].TheWhiteHouseBlog.Retrievedfromhttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all.
Sneider,C.,Stephenson,C.,Schafer,B.,&Flick,L.(2014).Computationalthinkinginhighschoolscienceclassrooms.TheScienceTeacher,81(5),53-59.
Snyder,T.D.(2016).DigestofEducationStatistics:2015.NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.
Soloway,E.(1986).Learningtoprogram=learningtoconstructmechanismsandexplanations.CommunicationsoftheACM,29(9),850–858.
55
Swan,K.(1989).Programmingobjectstothinkwith:Logoandtheteachingandlearningofproblemsolving.InAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,SanFrancisco,CA.
Tan,E.,CalabreseBarton,A.,Kang,H.,&O’Neill,T.(2013).DesiringacareerinSTEM-relatedfields:Howmiddleschoolgirlsarticulateandnegotiateidentities-in-practiceinscience.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,50(10),1143–1179.
Tate,E.D.,&Linn,M.C.(2005).HowDoesIdentityShapetheExperiencesofWomenofColorEngineeringStudents?JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,14(5/6),483–493.
TheEconomicsDaily(2017).Womeninarchitectureandengineeringoccupationsin2016.BureauofLaborStatistics.Retrievedfromhttps://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/women-in-architecture-and-engineering-occupations-in-2016.htm.
Wang,D.,Wang,T.,&Liu,Z.(2014).Atangibleprogrammingtoolforchildrentocultivatecomputationalthinking.TheScientificWorldJournal,2014.
Waterman,A.S.(2004).FindingSomeonetoBe:StudiesontheRoleofIntrinsicMotivationinIdentityFormation.Identity:AnInternationalJournalofTheoryandResearch,4(3),209–228.
Weintrop,D.,Beheshti,E.,Horn,M.,Orton,K.,Jona,K.,Trouille,L.,&Wilensky,U.(2016).DefiningComputationalThinkingforMathematicsandScienceClassrooms.JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,25(1),127–147.
Wenger,E.(1998).Communitiesofpractice:Learning,meaning,andidentity.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Wenger,E.(2010).Communitiesofpracticeandsociallearningsystems:Thecareerofaconcept.InC.Blackmore(Ed.),SocialLearningSystemsandCommunitiesofPractice(pp.179–198).London:Springer.
Wigfield,A.,&Wagner,A.L.(2005).Competence,motivation,andidentitydevelopmentduringadolescence.InA.J.Elliot&C.S.Dweck(Eds.),HandbookofCompetenceandMotivation(pp.222–239).NewYork:GuilfordPress.
Wilensky,U.,Brady,C.E.,&Horn,M.S.(2014).FosteringComputationalLiteracyinScienceClassrooms.CommunicationsoftheACM,57(8),24–28.
Wineburg,S.S.(1991).Historicalproblemsolving:Astudyofthecognitiveprocessesusedintheevaluationofdocumentaryandpictorialevidence.JournalofEducationalPsychology,83,73–87.
56
Williams,L.,Wiebe,E.,Yang,K.,Ferzli,M.,&Miller,C.(2002).InSupportofPairProgrammingintheIntroductoryComputerScienceCourse.ComputerScienceEducation,12(3),197–212.
Wing,J.M.(2006).Computationalthinking.CommunicationsoftheACM,49(3),33–35.
Wing,J.M.(2008).Computationalthinkingandthinkingaboutcomputing.PhilosophicalTransactionstheRoyalSocietyofLondonA,366(1881),3717–3725.
Wyeth,P.,&Purchase,H.C.(2002).TangibleProgrammingElementsforYoungChildren.InCHI’02extendedabstractsonHumanfactorsincomputingsystems(pp.774–775).ACM.
Yelland,N.J.(1995).Encouragingyoungchildren’sthinkingskillswithLogo.ChildhoodEducation,71(3),152–155.
