nach oben

TechTrends

Erschienen in:

26.11.2020 | Original Paper

An Examination of a Group of Middle School Students’ Engagement during a Series of Afterschool Computing Activities in an Urban School District

verfasst von: Brendan Calandra, Maggie Renken, Jonathan David Cohen, Timothy Hicks, Tuba Ketenci

Erschienen in: TechTrends | Ausgabe 1/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In this study, the authors analyzed data from a sample of thirty-two middle school students from an urban school district in the southeastern United States who used MIT’s App Inventor to design, create, and remix mobile apps during an afterschool program for one school year. This paper focuses on computer science learning outcomes as measured by an assessment created by the authors. Findings indicated a linear relation between the number of apps a participant created during the given afterschool program and their level of accuracy on the assessment. Findings and discussion should be of interest to both researchers and practitioners.

Vorheriger Artikel CAFE: An Instructional Design Model to Assist K-12 Teachers to Teach Remotely during and beyond the Covid-19 Pandemic

Nächster Artikel Enhancing STEM Majors’ College Trigonometry Learning through Collaborative Mobile Apps Coding

Asprey, W. (2016). Participation in computing: The National Science Foundation’s expansionary programs. Switzerland: Springer.CrossRef

Ayer, T., Cohen, C., & Calandra, B. (2018). Computational thinking assessment. In Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) 2018 conference. NY: New York.

Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada, 1–25. ScratchEd. http://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/resources/new-frameworks-studying-and-assessing-development-computational-thinking.html

Code.org (2019, January). Promote computer science. Retrieved from https://code.org/promote

Cohen, J., Renken, M., & Calandra, B. (2017). 21st century skills and the ICT workplace: Do urban middle school students feel prepared? Tech Trends., 61(4), 380–385.CrossRef

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ericson, B., & McKlin, T. (2012). Effective and sustainable computing summer camps. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 289–294. ACM Digital: Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/2157136.2157223.CrossRef

Goode, J. (2008). Increasing diversity in K-12 computer science: Strategies from the field. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 40, 362–366.CrossRef

Google Inc. & Gallup Inc. (2016). Diversity gaps in computer science: Exploring the underrepresentation of girls, Blacks and Hispanics. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/PG34aH

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

Guzdial, M. (2015). What’s the best way to teach computer science to beginners? Communications of the ACM, 58(2), 12–13.CrossRef

Guzdial, M., Ericson, B., Mcklin, T., & Engelman, S. (2014). Georgia computes! An intervention in a US state, with formal and informal education in a policy context. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(2), 13.

Howard, A. (2016). Why fixing tech’s gender and racial gaps is more crucial than ever. Tech Republic Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-fixing-techs-gender-and-racial-gaps-is-more-crucial-than-ever/.

K–12 Computer Science Framework. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org

Kafai, Y., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRef

Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2017). Computational participation: Teaching kids to create and connect through code. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 393–405).

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRef

Kong, S., Abelson, H., & Lai, M. (2019). Introduction to computational thinking education. In S. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 1–10) Springer Open.CrossRef

Lachney, M. (2016). Culturally responsive computing as brokerage: Toward asset building with education-based social movements. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(4), 1–20.

Lachney, M. (2018). Computational communities: African-American cultural capital in computer science education. Computer Science Education, 27(3–4), 175–196.

Lee, W. (2015). How tech’s lack of diversity leads to racist software. In SFGate Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/How-tech-s-lack-of-diversity-leads-to-racist-6398224.php.

Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with scratch. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education, 367–371. ACM Digital: Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352260.CrossRef

Margulieux, L., Ketenci, T. A., & Decker, A. (2019). Review of measurements used in computing education research and suggestions for increasing standardization. Computer Science Education, 29(1), 49–78.CrossRef

Mouza, C., Marzocchi, A., Pan, Y.-C., & Pollock, L. (2016). Development, implementation, and outcomes of an equitable computer science after-school program: Findings from middle-school students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 84–104.CrossRef

Patton, E. W., Tissenbaum, M., & Harunani, F. (2019). MIT app inventor: Objectives, design, and development. In S. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 31–49) Springer Open.

Rankin, Y., & Thomas, J. (2017). Moving students of color from consumers to producers of technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRef

Resnick, M. (2019). Mitchel Resnick: Designing for wide walls. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@mres/designing-for-wide-walls-323bdb4e7277

Roman-Gonzales, M., Moreno-Leon, J., & Robles, G. (2019). Combining assessment tools for a comprehensive evaluation of computational thinking interventions. In S. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 79–98) Springer Open.

Ryoo, J., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2015). It takes a village: Supporting inquiry- and equity-oriented computer science pedagogy through a professional learning community. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 351–370.CrossRef

Saran, C. (2017). Lack of diversity risks creating big gaps in AI. In Computer weekly Retrieved from http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450411202/Lack-of-diversity-risks-creating-big-gaps-in-AI.

Scott, K. A., Sheridan, K. M., & Clark, K. (2015). Culturally responsive computing: A theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 412–436.CrossRef

Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158.CrossRef

Stevens, J. P. (1999). A modern approach to intermediate statistics (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wang, J. (2017). Is the U.S. education system ready for. CS for All? Communications of the ACM, 60(8), 26–28.CrossRef

Weintrop, D. (2019). Block-based programming in computer science education. Communications of the ACM, 62(8), 22–25.CrossRef

Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–25.CrossRef

Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205–220). Springer.

Titel: An Examination of a Group of Middle School Students’ Engagement during a Series of Afterschool Computing Activities in an Urban School District
verfasst von: Brendan Calandra
Maggie Renken
Jonathan David Cohen
Timothy Hicks
Tuba Ketenci
Publikationsdatum: 26.11.2020
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: TechTrends / Ausgabe 1/2021
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Elektronische ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00557-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2021

Examining Decision-Making Processes and Heuristics in Academic Help-Seeking and Instructional Environments

Developing, Enacting and Evaluating a Learning Experience Design for Technology-Enhanced Embodied Learning in Math Classrooms

Learning Technology Models that Support Personalization within Blended Learning Environments in Higher Education

Micro-Credentials and Badges in Education: a Historical Overview

CAFE: An Instructional Design Model to Assist K-12 Teachers to Teach Remotely during and beyond the Covid-19 Pandemic

Innovation and Reform on Technology Empowered Education: The 24th Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education