More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Infusing Computing: A Scaffolding and Teacher Accessibility Analysis of Computing Lessons Designed by Novices

Authors:

Veronica Cateté,

Tiffany BarnesAuthors Info & Claims

Koli Calling '20: Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

Article No.: 36, Pages 1 - 11

https://doi.org/10.1145/3428029.3428056

Published: 22 November 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Creators of computing curricula do not always have formal pedagogical training. We investigated if exposing novice lesson designers to pedagogical best practices would result in the creation of lessons where evidence of successful use of these practices could be identified. We trained 29 high school students who were in a full-time computer science summer internship on how to create Snap! programming lessons for non-computing courses. Over the course of three weeks they developed computing-infused lessons on their choice of learning topic (science, business, language, etc.). We examined these lessons for their use of scaffolding, teacher accessibility, equity, and content. We found that students implemented many of the scaffolding techniques that they themselves experienced and created lessons that were detailed enough to be accessible for teacher use. We also identified significant relationships between both subject area and gender on equity scores, as well as an impact of collaboration on scaffolding type included. No difference in artifact quality was identified by prior student coding experience. This project represents an innovative way to engage students in learning more computer science while creating educational materials for computing in K-12 classrooms.

References

[1]

Rebecca Alber. 2014. 6 Scaffolding Strategies to Use With Your Students. edutopia.

[2]

Owen Astrachan, Tiffany Barnes, Daniel D Garcia, Jody Paul, Beth Simon, and Larry Snyder. 2011. CS principles: piloting a new course at national scale. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 397–398.

Digital Library

[3]

Alberto Bacchelli and Christian Bird. 2013. Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, San Francisco, California, USA, 712–721.

[4]

Arthur Bakker, Jantien Smit, and Rupert Wegerif. 2015. Scaffolding and dialogic teaching in mathematics education: Introduction and review. ZDM 47, 7 (2015), 1047–1065.

[5]

Tiffany Barnes, Heather Richter, Eve Powell, Amanda Chaffin, and Alex Godwin. 2007. Game2Learn: building CS1 learning games for retention. In Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 121–125.

Digital Library

[6]

Brian R Belland. 2017. Computer-based scaffolding strategy. In Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education. Springer, Heidelberg, NY, USA, 107–126.

[7]

Catherine Bovill. 2013. The Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher Education. Emerald Group Bingley, UK, Chapter Students and staff co-creating curricula: an example of good practice in higher education?, 461–475.

[8]

Catherine Bovill, Alison Cook-Sather, Peter Felten, Luke Millard, and Niamh Moore-Cherry. 2016. Addressing potential challenges in co-creating learning and teaching: Overcoming resistance, navigating institutional norms and ensuring inclusivity in student–staff partnerships. Higher Education 71, 2 (2016), 195–208.

[9]

Catherine Bovill, Kate Morss, and Catherine Bulley. 2009. Should students participate in curriculum design? Discussion arising from a first year curriculum design project and a literature review. Pedagogical Research in Maximising Education 3, 2 (2009), 17–25.

[10]

Brian Broll, Hamid Zare, and Akos Ledeczi. 2017. Creating engaging science projects with netsblox. In 2017 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B). IEEE, Raleigh, NC, USA, 105–106.

[11]

Michael Buckley, John Nordlinger, and Devika Subramanian. 2008. Socially relevant computing. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 40, 1 (2008), 347–351.

Digital Library

[12]

Philip Sheridan Buffum, Megan Hardy Frankosky, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, Eric N Wiebe, Bradford W Mott, and James C Lester. 2016. Empowering All Students: Closing the CS Confidence Gap with an In-School Initiative for Middle School Students. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 382–387.

Digital Library

[13]

CAST. 2018. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from. Center for Applied Special Technology. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

[14]

Veronica Cateté, Nicholas Lytle, Yihuan Dong, Danielle Boulden, Bita Akram, Jennifer Houchins, Tiffany Barnes, Eric Wiebe, James Lester, Bradford Mott, 2018. Infusing computational thinking into middle grade science classrooms: lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.

Digital Library

[15]

Veronica Cateté, Erin Snider, and Tiffany Barnes. 2016. Developing a rubric for a creative CS Principles lab. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 290–295.

Digital Library

[16]

Seth Chaiklin 2003. The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context 1, 2 (2003), 39–64.

[17]

Merijke Coenraad, Connor Hopcraft, Jane Jozefowicz, Diana Franklin, Jen Palmer, and David Weintrop. 2020. Helping teachers make equitable decisions: effects of the TEC Rubric on teachers’ evaluations of a computing curriculum. Computer Science Education(2020), 30.

[18]

AD Dixson and KJ Fasching-Varner. 2009. This is how we do it: Helping teachers understand culturally relevant pedagogy in diverse classrooms. In C. ComptonLilly (Eds.), Breaking the silence: Recognizing the social and cultural resources students bring to the classroom (2009), 109–124.

[19]

Yihuan Dong, Veronica Catete, Robin Jocius, Nicholas Lytle, Tiffany Barnes, Jennifer Albert, Deepti Joshi, Richard Robinson, and Ashley Andrews. 2019. PRADA: A practical model for integrating computational thinking in K-12 education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 906–912.

Digital Library

[20]

Yihuan Dong, Veronica Cateté, Nicholas Lytle, Amy Isvik, Tiffany Barnes, Robin Jocius, Jennifer Albert, Deepti Joshi, Richard Robinson, and Ashley Andrews. 2019. Infusing computing: Analyzing teacher programming products in K-12 computational thinking professional development. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 278–284.

Digital Library

[21]

Ron Eglash, Juan E. Gilbert, Valerie Taylor, and Susan R. Geier. 2013. Culturally Responsive Computing in Urban, After-School Contexts: Two Approaches. Urban Education 48, 5 (2013), 629–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913499211

[22]

Joanna Goode and Jane Margolis. 2011. Exploring computer science: A case study of school reform. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 11, 2 (2011), 1–16.

Digital Library

[23]

William Huitt. 2004. Bloom et al.’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain. Educational psychology interactive 22 (2004), 11.

[24]

Amy Isvik. 2020. FLAMES: A Socially Relevant Computing Experience for High School Students. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1428–1428.

Digital Library

[25]

Christina L Jacobs, Sonya N Martin, and Tracey C Otieno. 2008. A science lesson plan analysis instrument for formative and summative program evaluation of a teacher education program. Science education 92, 6 (2008), 1096–1126.

[26]

Robin Jocius, Deepti Joshi, Yihuan Dong, Richard Robinson, Veronica Cateté, Tiffany Barnes, Jennifer Albert, Ashley Andrews, and Nicholas Lytle. 2020. Code, Connect, Create: The 3C Professional Development Model to Support Computational Thinking Infusion. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 971–977.

Digital Library

[27]

Amy Ko. 2020. What is computing education research?Washington University. http://faculty.washington.edu/ajko/cer

[28]

Irene Lee, Fred Martin, and Katie Apone. 2014. Integrating Computational Thinking across the K–8 Curriculum. ACM Inroads 5, 4 (Dec. 2014), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1145/2684721.2684736

Digital Library

[29]

Tzu-Chiang Lin, Ying-Shao Hsu, Shu-Sheng Lin, Maio-Li Changlai, Kun-Yuan Yang, and Ting-Ling Lai. 2012. A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 10, 2(2012), 437–455.

[30]

Nicholas Lytle, Veronica Cateté, Danielle Boulden, Yihuan Dong, Jennifer Houchins, Alexandra Milliken, Amy Isvik, Dolly Bounajim, Eric Wiebe, and Tiffany Barnes. 2019. Use, Modify, Create: Comparing Computational Thinking Lesson Progressions for STEM Classes. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 395–401.

Digital Library

[31]

Nicholas Lytle, Veronica Catete, Amy Isvik, Danielle Boulden, Yihuan Dong, Eric Wiebe, and Tiffany Barnes. 2019. From’Use’to’Choose’ Scaffolding CT Curricula and Exploring Student Choices while Programming (Practical Report). In Proceedings of the 14th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–6.

Digital Library

[32]

Nicholas Lytle, Yihuan Dong, Veronica Cateté, Alex Milliken, Amy Isvik, and Tiffany Barnes. 2019. Position: Scaffolded coding activities afforded by block-based environments. In 2019 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B). IEEE Computer Society, Memphis, TN, USA, 5–7.

[33]

Jane Margolis. 2010. Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Digital Library

[34]

National Disability Authority. 2020. What is Universal Design. National Disability Authority. http://universaldesign.ie/What-is-Universal-Design/

[35]

Kimberly L Oliver, Manal Hamzeh, and Nate McCaughtry. 2009. Girly girls can play games/las niñas pueden jugar tambien: Co-creating a curriculum of possibilities with fifth-grade girls. Journal of teaching in physical education 28, 1 (2009), 90–110.

[36]

Gamze Ozogul, Zane Olina, and Howard Sullivan. 2008. Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development 56, 2(2008), 181.

[37]

Dale Parsons and Patricia Haden. 2006. Parson’s programming puzzles: a fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 52. Australian Computer Society, Inc., Hobart, Aus, 157–163.

[38]

Brian J Reiser. 2004. Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning sciences 13, 3 (2004), 273–304.

[39]

Dan Reynolds. 2017. Interactional scaffolding for reading comprehension: A systematic review. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice 66, 1 (2017), 135–156.

[40]

Linda Rising and Norman S Janoff. 2000. The Scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE software 17, 4 (2000), 26–32.

Digital Library

[41]

Bob Schroeder and Kim Pendell. 2020. Culturally Responsive & Inclusive Curriculum Resources. Portland State University Library. https://guides.library.pdx.edu/culturallyresponsivecurriculum

[42]

Sue Sentance and Andrew Csizmadia. 2017. Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies 22, 2 (2017), 469–495.

Digital Library

[43]

Deborah Stern. 1995. Teaching English So It Matters: Creating Curriculum for and with High School Students.ERIC, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.

[44]

Molly Follette Story, James L Mueller, and Ronald L Mace. 1998. The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities., 170 pages.

[45]

Jacquelyn F Sullivan, Derek Reamon, and Beverly Louie. 2003. Girls embrace technology: A summer internship for high school girls. In 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003., Vol. 1. IEEE, Westminster, CO, USA, T4D–6.

[46]

Jennifer Tsan, Kristy Elizabeth Boyer, and Collin F Lynch. 2016. How early does the CS gender gap emerge? A study of collaborative problem solving in 5th grade computer science. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 388–393.

Digital Library

[47]

David Weintrop, Elham Beheshti, MS Horn, Kai Orton, Kemi Jona, Laura Trouille, and Uri Wilensky. 2014. Defining computational thinking for science, technology, engineering, and math., 6 pages.

[48]

David Weintrop, Merijke Coenraad, Jen Palmer, and Diana Franklin. 2019. The Teacher Accessibility, Equity, and Content (TEC) Rubric for Evaluating Computing Curricula. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 20, 1 (2019), 1–30.

Digital Library

[49]

Carmen Werder and Megan Michelle Otis. 2010. Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning. Stylus, Sterling, VA, USA.

[50]

Cameron Wilson. 2014. Hour of code: we can solve the diversity problem in computer science. ACM Inroads 5, 4 (2014), 22–22.

Digital Library

[51]

Jeannette M Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33–35.

Digital Library

[52]

David Wood, Jerome S Bruner, and Gail Ross. 1976. The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry 17, 2 (1976), 89–100.

[53]

Aman Yadav, Hai Hong, and Chris Stephenson. 2016. Computational thinking for all: pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends 60, 6 (2016), 565–568.

[54]

Rui Zhi, Nicholas Lytle, and Thomas W Price. 2018. Exploring instructional support design in an educational game for K-12 computing education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 747–752.

Digital Library

Cited By

Tabarsi BReichert HLytle NCatete VBarnes T(2024)Scaffolding Novices: Analyzing When and How Parsons Problems Impact Novice Programming in an Integrated Science AssignmentProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671110(42-54)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632620.3671110
Ericson BDenny PPrather JDuran RHellas ALeinonen JMiller CMorrison BPearce JRodger SQuille KAlshaigy BBecker BQuille KLaakso M(2022)Parsons Problems and BeyondProceedings of the 2022 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3571785.3574127(191-234)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3571785.3574127
Isvik ACateté VBarnes TSchulte CBecker BDivitini MBarendsen E(2021)Investigating the Impact of Computing vs Pedagogy Experience in Novices Creation of Computing-Infused CurriculaProceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3430665.3456319(255-261)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3430665.3456319

Recommendations

Infusing technology into the elementary classroom: a school/university partnership model

A project to infuse technology into elementary school and university classrooms was implemented in two Professional Development Schools (PDS). The ultimate goal of Project PICT (Pre-service Infusion of Computer Technology) was to impact the learning and ...
Teacher Research Projects in Computing
WiPSCE '16: Proceedings of the 11th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education

The introduction of computer science (CS) to the National Curriculum for schools in England has led to a situation where teachers must develop both subject knowledge and pedagogical expertise in parallel, which presents a significant challenge. ...
Integrating Critical Analysis of Society and Technology into K-12 Computing Through Teacher Co-Design
SIGCSE 2024: Proceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2

As demand for K-12 computer science (CS) education grows, we argue that most students would be best served by CS classes that not only teach computational thinking/programming, but also challenge them to critically analyze the role of technology in ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

Koli Calling '20: Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

November 2020

295 pages

ISBN:9781450389211

DOI:10.1145/3428029

Editors:
Nick Falkner
University of Adelaide, Australia
,
Otto Seppala
Aalto University, Finland

Copyright © 2020 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 22 November 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

Koli Calling '20

Koli Calling '20: 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research

November 19 - 22, 2020

Koli, Finland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 80 of 182 submissions, 44%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
156
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)22
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 03 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Tabarsi BReichert HLytle NCatete VBarnes T(2024)Scaffolding Novices: Analyzing When and How Parsons Problems Impact Novice Programming in an Integrated Science AssignmentProceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 110.1145/3632620.3671110(42-54)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3632620.3671110
Ericson BDenny PPrather JDuran RHellas ALeinonen JMiller CMorrison BPearce JRodger SQuille KAlshaigy BBecker BQuille KLaakso M(2022)Parsons Problems and BeyondProceedings of the 2022 Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education10.1145/3571785.3574127(191-234)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3571785.3574127
Isvik ACateté VBarnes TSchulte CBecker BDivitini MBarendsen E(2021)Investigating the Impact of Computing vs Pedagogy Experience in Novices Creation of Computing-Infused CurriculaProceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3430665.3456319(255-261)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3430665.3456319

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents