Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis

Computers and Education

Volumn 82, Issue , 2015, Pages 263-279

  Israel, Maya ^a   Pearson, Jamie N ^a   Tapia, Tanya ^a   Wherfel, Quentin M ^a   Reese, George ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Computational thinking; Computing; Content integration; Diverse learners; Struggling learners

Indexed keywords

SCAFFOLDS;

COMPUTATIONAL THINKINGS; COMPUTING; DIVERSE LEARNERS; IMPLEMENTATION MODELS; INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT; PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; STRUGGLING LEARNERS;

EDUCATION COMPUTING;

EID: 84919792760     PISSN: 03601315     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Agalianos, A., Noss, R., &Whitty, G. (2001). Logo in mainstream schools: the struggle over the soul of an educational innovation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425690120094449.
2. Anybody can learn. (2014). Retrieved from https://code.org.
3. Armoni, M. (2011). The nature of CS in Ke12 curricula: the roots of confusion. ACM Inroads, 2 (4), 19-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2038876.2038883.
4. Aschbacher, P. R., Li, E., & Roth, E. J. (2010). Is science me? High school students' identities, participation and aspirations in science, engineering, and medicine. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 564-582.
5. Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computers games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 765-782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9184-z.
6. Bouras, C., Poulopoulos, V., & Tsogkas, V. (2008). PeRSSonal's core functionality evaluation: enhancing text labeling through personalized summaries. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 64(1), 330-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2007.07.007.
7. Burke, Q., & Kafai, Y. B. (2014). Decade of game making for learning: From tools to communities. Handbook of digital games (pp. 689-709). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ 9781118796443.ch26.
8. Clark, J., Rogers, M. P., Spradling, C., & Pais, J. (2013). What, no canoes? Lessons learned while hosting a scratch summer camp. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28, 204-210.
9. Computer Science Education Week. (2014). Retrieved from http://csedweek.org.
10. Computer Science Teachers Association (2003). Retrieved from http://csta.acm.org.
11. Computer Science Teachers Association (2010). Retrieved from http://csta.acm.org.
12. Computer Science Unplugged. (2010). Computer Science Unplugged Creative Commons Attributions-Noncommercial-No Derivatives Works 3.0 License. Retrieved from http://csunplugged.org/.
13. DonorsChoose.org. (2000e2014). Donors choose: teacher ask. You choose. DonorsChoose.org. Retrieved from http://www.donorschoose.org/.
14. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5e6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: a case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.016.
15. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231) http://ctndisseminationlibrary.org/PDF/ nirnmonograph.pdf.
16. Gardner, M. K., & Feng, W. C. (2010, June). Broadening accessibility to computer science for K-12 education. In Proceedings of the fifteenth annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 229-233). ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1822090.1822155.
17. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
18. Good, J. (2011). Learners at the wheel: novice programming environments come of age. International Journal of People-Oriented Programming, 1(1), 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijpop.2011010101.
19. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in Ke12 a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12463051/0013189x12463051.
20. Harel Caperton, I. (2010). Toward a theory of game-media literacy: playing and building as reading and writing. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations (IJGCMS), 2(1), 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jgcms.2010010101.
21. Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: what do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79(2), 181-193.
22. Hug, B., & Reese, G. (2006). How technology integration in mathematics and science teaching can occur: the role of the maverick teacher. Teaching Education, 17(2), 167-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210600680390.
23. International Society for Technology in Education and The Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 thinking operational-definition-flyer.pdf. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
24. Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., et al. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Presented at the Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting, Orlando, FL.
25. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. MIT Press.
26. Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2005). A case for ubiquitous, integrated computing in teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 391-412. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/14759390500200213.
27. Kwon, D. Y., Kim, H. S., Shim, J. K., & Lee, W. G. (2012). Algorithmic bricks: a tangible robot programming tool for elementary school students. Education, IEEE Transactions on, 55(4), 474-479. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TE.2012.2190071.
28. Lambert, L., & Guiffre, H. (2009). Computer science outreach in an elementary school. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 24(3), 118-124.
29. Lee, Y. J. (2011). Empowering teachers to create educational software: a constructivist approach utilizing Etoys, pair programming and cognitive apprenticeship. Computers & Education, 56(2), 527-538. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.018.
30. Liao, Y. K. C., & Bright, G. W. (1991). Effects of computer programming on cognitive outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 251-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/E53G-HH8K-AJRR-K69M.
31. Lin, J. M. C., Yen, L. Y., Yang, M. C., & Chen, C. F. (2005, June). Teaching computer programming in elementary schools: a pilot study. In National Educational Computing Conference.
32. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 669-685.
33. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from "Case Study Research in Education". 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
34. Montague, M., & Applegate, B. (2001). Middle school students' perceptions, persistence, and performance in mathematical problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 215-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1511165.
35. National Research Council. (2008). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades Ke8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
37. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
38. Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no impact: snapshot surveys of educational technology in K# x2013; 12. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 15-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782400.
39. Nunez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., González-Pumariega, S., Roces, C., Alvarez, L., Gonzalez, P., et al. (2005). Subgroups of attributional profiles in students with learning difficulties and their relation to self-concept and academic goals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 86-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 5826.2005.00124.x.
40. Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 53-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121408329171.
41. Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert, & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1-11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
42. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
43. Scratch-Ed Featured Resources. (year). Retrieved from http://scratched.media.mit.edu/resources.
44. Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: a theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18, 351-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-.
45. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
46. Valadez, J. R., & Durán, R. P. (2007). Redefining the digital divide: beyond access to computers and the Internet. The High School Journal, 90(3), 31-44.
47. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., et al. (2014). Defining computational thinking for science, technology, engineering, and math. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2014), Philadelphia, USA.
48. Welcome to EtoysIllinois.org!. (n.d.). EtoysIllinois. Retrieved from http://etoysillinois.org/.
49. Wilson, A., & Moffat, D. C. (2010). Evaluating scratch to introduce younger schoolchildren to programming. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Psychology of Programming Interest Group (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Leganés, Spain.
50. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215.
51. Wolfe, T. J. (2011, SeptembereOctober). Students teaching students. Learning & Leading with Technology, 39(2), 32+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE %7CA268962259&v=2.1&u=uiuc-uc& it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=e3b2bc28b3992394cac53a1fecb0e365. e3b2bc28b3992394cac53a1fecb0e365.