[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

The State of Computational Thinking in Libraries

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computational thinking is an essential 21st-century skill that all youth should develop in order to navigate and succeed in an increasingly computational world. For all youth to have hands-on opportunities to develop essential computational thinking skills, libraries and informal learning environments play a critical role. This is especially true for youth who attend schools where computational learning opportunities are limited or altogether absent. This article presents an analysis of responses from 59 library staff members to the following questions: What is computational thinking? How is computational thinking being facilitated in libraries? And, what are the goals of the computational thinking programs being offered by libraries? The analysis reveals the multifaceted ways that library staff conceptualize computational thinking and the range of ways computational thinking is being integrated into library programs. This work advances our understanding of the current state of computational thinking in libraries. In doing so, we seek to guide library staff on ways to support the computational thinking learning that is currently happening and create new ways to help bring the powerful ideas of computing to broader audiences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited.

Notes

  1. We use the terms “programming” and “programs” in this paper to describe structured activities offered in libraries (e.g., “library programs” or “CT programming”). This is a common vernacular in library scholarship.

  2. The phrase “CT in public libraries” is intended to be inclusive of all library programs and activities offered by public libraries at the library, online, and in other community spaces.

References

  • Abelson, H., & diSessa, A. A. (1986). Turtle geometry: The computer as a medium for exploring mathematics. The MIT Press.

  • ALA. (2008). Mission & Priorities. American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/aboutala/missionpriorities.

  • ALA. (2016). Future ready with the library. American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/yalsa/future-ready-library.

  • ALA. (2020). State of America’s libraries report 2020. American Library Association. http://www.ala.org/news/state-americas-libraries-report-2020.

  • Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: implications for teacher knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, M., & Lee, V. R. (2011). Collaborative strategic board games as a site for distributed computational thinking. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 1(2), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijgbl.2011040105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertot, J. C., Sarin, L. C., & Percell, J. (2015). Re-envisioning the MLS: Findings, issues, and considerations. University of Maryland, College Park, College of Information Studies. Accessed August, 27, 2015.

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage.

  • Braun, L., Ciotti, S., & Peterson, S. (2017). Make do share: Sustainable STEM programming for and with youth in public libraries. Kitsap Regional Library. http://www.krl.org/makedoshare.

  • Braun, L., & Visser, M. (2017). Ready to code: Connecting youth to CS opportunity through libraries. Libraries Ready to Code.

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. American Education Researcher Association, Vancouver, Canada. http://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf.

  • Curzon, P., Bell, T., Waite, J., & Dorling, M. (2019). Computational thinking. In The Cambridge handbook of computing education research (pp. 513–546).

  • Davis, K., Subramaniam, M., Hoffman, K. M., & Romeijn-Stout, E. L. (2018). Technology use in rural and urban public libraries: Implications for connected learning in youth programming. In Proceedings of the connected learning summit (CLS ’18) (pp. 47–56).

  • Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresang, E. T. (2013). Digital age libraries and youth: Learning labs, literacy leaders, radical resources. In The information behavior of a new generation: Children and teens in the 21st century (pp. 93–116).

  • Ehsan, H., Rehmat, A. P., & Cardella, M. E. (2020). Computational thinking embedded in engineering design: Capturing computational thinking of children in an informal engineering design activity. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09562-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einarsson, Á. M., & Hertzum, M. (2020). How is learning scaffolded in library makerspaces? International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 26, 100199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garmer, A. K. (2014). Rising to the challenge: Re-envisioning public libraries. Aspen Institute.

  • Garvin, M., Killen, H., Plane, J., & Weintrop, D. (2019). Primary school teachers’ conceptions of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 899–905). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287376.

  • Google Inc., & Gallup Inc. (2017). Computer science learning: Closing the Gap: Rural and Small Town School Districts. Google & Gallup. http://goo.gl/hYxqCr.

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidara, M. (2018). Rethinking computational thinking for public libraries’ youth programs: Challenges and recommendations. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice, 6(2), 75–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadad, R., Thomas, K., Kachovska, M., & Yin, Y. (2020). Practicing formative assessment for computational thinking in making environments. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09796-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M. M., Clarke-Midura, J., Shumway, J. F., & Lee, V. R. (2018). An initial examination of designed features to support computational thinking in commercial early childhood toys (Vol. 2).

  • Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1990). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, K., Subramaniam, M., Kawas, S., Scaff, L., & Davis, K. (2016). Connected libraries: Surveying the current landscape and charting a path to the future. The Connected Lib Project. https://connectedlib.ischool.uw.edu/.

  • Holbert, N., & Wilensky, U. (2011). FormulaT racing: Designing a game for kinematic exploration and computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 7th games, learning, & society conference.

  • Horn, M. S., Brady, C., Hjorth, A., Wagh, A., & Wilensky, U. (2014a). Frog pond: A codefirst learning environment on evolution and natural selection. In Proceedings of the 2014a conference on interaction design and children (pp. 357–360). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2610491.

  • Horn, M. S., Solovey, E. T., Crouser, R. J., & Jacob, R. J. K. (2009). Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 975–984).

  • Horn, M. S., Weintrop, D., & Routman, E. (2014b). Programming in the pond: A tabletop computer programming exhibit. In Proceedings of the extended abstracts of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1417–1422). https://doi.org/10.1145/2559206.2581237.

  • IMLS. (2019). Public libraries in the United States—Fiscal Year 2016. Institute of Museum and Library Services.

  • Ito, M., Arum, R., Conley, D., Gutiérrez, K., Kirshner, B., Livingstone, S., Michalchik, V., Penuel, W. R., Peppler, K., Pinkard, N., Rhodes, J., Salen Tekinbas, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J., & Watkins, S. C. (2020). The connected learning research network: Reflections on a decade of engaged scholarship. Connected Learning Alliance. https://clalliance.org/publications/the-connected-learning-research-network-reflections-on-a-decade-of-engaged-scholarship/.

  • Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J., & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. http://dmlhub.net/.

  • Kay, A., & Goldberg, A. (1977). Personal dynamic media. Computer, 10(3), 31–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, K., & Abbas, J. (2015). Competencies for information professionals in learning labs and makerspaces. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science Online, 56(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.12783/issn.2328-2967/56/2/3.

  • Koh, K., Abbas, J., & Willett, R. (2018). Makerspaces in libraries. Reconceptualizing Libraries: Perspectives from the Information and Learning Sciences, 17–36.

  • Lee, T. Y., Mauriello, M. L., Ahn, J., & Bederson, B. B. (2014). CTArcade: Computational thinking with games in school age children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2014.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R. (2019). Libraries will be essential to the smart and connected communities of the future. In V. R. Lee & A. L. Phillips (Eds.), Reconceptualizing libraries: Perspectives from the information and learning sciences. Routledge.

  • Lee, V. R., & Phillips, A. L. (2018). Reconceptualizing libraries: Perspectives from the information and learning sciences. Routledge.

  • Lee, V. R., & Recker, M. (2018). Paper circuits: A tangible, low threshold, low cost entry to computational thinking. TechTrends, 62(2), 197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. (2017). Libraries as facilitators of coding for all. Knowledge Quest, 45(3), 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesiti, L. A., Parkes, A., Paneto, S. C., & Cahill, C. (2019). Building capacity for computational thinking in youth through informal education. Journal of Museum Education, 44(1), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2018.1558656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, L. E., & Anderson, J. L. (2020). Hidden no more: Using museum exhibits of underrepresented scientists to engage students in computational thinking (pp. 1416–1421). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/215907/.

  • Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Cultivating interest and competencies in computing: authentic experiences and design factors (p. 25912). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25912.

  • National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. The National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council. (2011). Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. The National Academies Press.

  • Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children to be mathematicians versus teaching about mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 3(3), 249–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books.

  • Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic Books.

  • Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Vol. 1). Routledge.

  • Pinkard, N., Erete, S., Martin, C. K., & de Royston, M. M. (2017). Digital youth divas: exploring narrative-driven curriculum to spark middle school girls’ interest in computational activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(3), 477–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1307199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkard, N., Martin, C. K., & Erete, S. (2020). Equitable approaches: Opportunities for computational thinking with emphasis on creative production and connections to community. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(3), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prato, S. C. (2017). Beyond the computer age: A best practices intro for implementing library coding programs. Children and Libraries, 15(1), 19–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Real, B., & Rose, R. N. (2017). Rural libraries in the United States: Recent strides, future possibilities, and meeting community needs. Office for Technology Policy at the American Library Association. Accessed July, 17, 2020.

  • Resnick, M., Silverman, B., Kafai, Y., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., & Silver, J. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santo, R., Vogel, S., & Ching, D. (2019). CS for What? Diverse visions for computer science education in practice. CSforALL.

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication, 25(3), 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, K., & McClain, A. (2020). Libraries: Connecting Family Learning Across Settings (p. 2). Joan Ganz Cooney Center. https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/jgcc_librariesconnectinglearning.pdf.

  • Subramaniam, M., Hoffman, K.M., Davis, K. & Pitt, C. (2021). Designing a connected learning toolkit for public library staff serving youth through the design-based implementation research method. Library and Information Science Research, 43(1).

  • Subramaniam, M., Kodama, C., Baylen, D., Burton, M., Fabicon, J. K., Hincks, K., Moniz, R., Smith, D., & Visser, M. (2019). Computational thinking in libraries: Case studies of youth programs in action. The American Library Association’s Office for Information Technology Policy.

  • Subramaniam, M., Koren, N., Morehouse, S., & Weintrop, D. (2022). Capturing computational thinking in public libraries: An examination of assessment strategies, audience, and mindset. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 096100062210841.

  • Subramaniam, M., Scaff, L., Kawas, S., Hoffman, K. M., & Davis, K. (2018). Using technology to support equity and inclusion in youth library programming: Current practices and future opportunities. The Library Quarterly, 88(4), 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. G., Moore, J., Visser, M., & Drouillard, C. (2018). Incorporating computational thinking into library graduate course goals and objectives. School Library Research, 21.

  • Thompson, K. M., Jaeger, P. T., Taylor, N. G., Subramaniam, M., & Bertot, J. C. (2014). Digital literacy and digital inclusion: Information policy and the public library. Rowman & Littlefield.

  • Tsarava, K., Moeller, K., & Ninaus, M. (2018). Training computational thinking through board games: The case of crabs & turtles. International Journal of Serious Games, 5(2), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v5i2.248

  • Tzou, C., Bell, P., Bang, M., Kuver, R., Twito, A., & Braun, A. (2019). Building expansive family STEAM programming through participatory design research. In V. R. Lee & A. L. Phillips (Eds.), Reconceptualizing libraries: Perspectives from the information and learning sciences. Routledge.

  • Vickery, J. (2014). Youths teaching youths: Learning to code as an example of interest-driven learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(5), 361–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, S., Santo, R., & Ching, D. (2017). Visions of computer science education: Unpacking arguments for and projected impacts of CS4All initiatives. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education—SIGCSE ’17 (pp. 609–614). https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017755.

  • Warner, J. R., Fletcher, C. L., Torbey, R., & Garbrecht, L. S. (2019). Increasing capacity for computer science education in rural areas through a large-scale collective impact model. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 1157–1163). https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287418.

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., Holbert, N., Horn, M. S., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Computational thinking in constructionist video games. International Journal of Game-Based Learning, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGBL.2016010101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., Morehouse, S., & Subramaniam, M. (2021). Assessing computational thinking in libraries. Computer Science Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1874229.

  • Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo.

  • Wing, D., & Meyers, E. (2014). Easy as Pi: Designing a library program to support computational thinking in preteens. BCLA Browser: Linking the Library Landscape, 6(3).

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, J., & Roque, R. (2019). A review of computational toys and kits for young children. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 21, 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services, USA under Grant # LG-14-19-0079-19.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    David Weintrop

  2. College of Information Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

    David Weintrop, Mega Subramaniam & Nitzan Koren

  3. Library of Congress, DC, Washington, USA

    Shandra Morehouse

Authors
  1. David Weintrop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mega Subramaniam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shandra Morehouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nitzan Koren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Weintrop.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Computational Thinking in Libraries Focus Group and Interview Protocol

Appendix: Computational Thinking in Libraries Focus Group and Interview Protocol

1.1 Introduction

Thank you for participating in our research study today. This interview will last 45—60 min [OR This focus group will last 75–90 min] and we will ask you to answer a few questions about your library, your responsibilities at your library, the population that you serve, current efforts in programming, specifically technology-based programming, existing challenges and constraints, your personal experiences with computational thinking and coding programs, and best practices that your library has for assessing the impact of your programs. You will be providing valuable feedback that will help our research team develop a suite of assessment instruments we hope will capture computational thinking learning that is happening in libraries nationwide. Before we begin, there are a few things we need to go over with you.

1.2 Consenting Process

[XXXX]

1.3 Start of Interview

  1. 1.

    Could you describe where you work, what your position is, and what you do at your library?

  2. 2.

    Could you describe the size of your library? How many staff work with youth programming?

  3. 3.

    What types of youth programming does your library offer?

  4. 4.

    Could you describe the youth population/s you work with at the library [prompt with gender, race/ethnicity, specific geographical location, SES, academic background, etc.]?

    1. 4.1

      Is there any population/s that you would like to serve better?

      Shifting to questions about CT—starting with presenting a definition to provide a shared understanding for future questions.

  5. 5.

    Are you familiar with the term computational thinking? If so, how do you define it? Where have you come across the term? Have you received any training related to computational thinking? If so, where?

    1. 5.1

      We are aware that there are so many definitions of CT out there, and it is really hard to find a definition that works for everyone, but the way we will be using the term computational thinking is referring to the concepts and practices associated with using computers and technology to solve problems. CT practices include problem decomposition, developing and using abstractions, debugging, defining algorithms, and concepts related to programming such as loops and variables. Does this definition match how you think about CT?

  6. 6.

    Can you talk about why CT programs are important for children and/or teens?

  7. 7.

    Are you currently running any programs or activities that are related to computational thinking? If so, could you describe them? [Prompt: If they are having trouble realizing that their programs are CT programs, reference back to the answers to question 2 by highlighting the technical programs that they had mentioned]

  8. 8.

    Do your programs build off of each other or are they standalone programs? [probe for how this affects assessment, retention, etc.]

  9. 9.

    What are the youth populations that participate in CT programs that you offer (if you are currently offering CT programs, that is?) [Probe for age, race/ethnicity, gender]

  10. 10.

    What types of resources do you use when you are designing these types of programs? What curriculum or resources do you use? What do you use it for? [Probe for what do you use it for: Is this for your own knowledge development, activity planning, handouts, or things you have the kids use/do? Technology used?]. Why do you use this resource?

  11. 11.

    What challenges or constraints do you face with your CT programming in your library?

  12. 12.

    If you have run CT programming—what are your goals for those programs? If you haven’t run CT programming—if you did, what would your goals be?

  13. 13.

    What skills and attitudes are you hoping to develop as a result of the program [Probe: dig more into what they are interested in seeing evidence of in their programs (shifts or development in knowledge, perceived futures, perceptions, skills, etc.]?

  14. 14.

    Next, we are going to ask you a few questions about how you know if your programs have been successful.

  15. 15.

    How do you know if your program is successful? [Probes: What does success mean to you? How do you measure learning? What do you use to measure the success of your programs? How did you decide on this set of measures? Were there other measures you considered?]

  16. 16.

    What do you do with the information/data you collect? Who is the audience [prompt for administrators, funders, internal professional learning and program improvement]? How do you share the success of your programs with your stakeholders?

  17. 17.

    How else would you like to measure the success of your program? Why are these metrics useful?

1.4 Conclusion

“Thank you very much for participating in the session today. Your feedback will be very beneficial and help our team understand how to improve youth-connected learning experiences in libraries. Unless you have any other thoughts, I will now turn off the recording.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weintrop, D., Subramaniam, M., Morehouse, S. et al. The State of Computational Thinking in Libraries. Tech Know Learn 28, 1301–1324 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09606-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09606-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation