Top

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Published in:

16-05-2022 | Original research

The State of Computational Thinking in Libraries

Authors: David Weintrop, Mega Subramaniam, Shandra Morehouse, Nitzan Koren

Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Issue 3/2023

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

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.

previous article A Study of Mobile App Use for Teaching and Research in Higher Education

next article Pre-service Teachers' Use of General Social Networking Sites Linked to Current Scenarios: Nature and Characteristics

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

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.

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.

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.

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

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.2011040105CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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/s10798-020-09562-5CrossRef

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.2020.100199CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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/s10956-019-09796-6CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.2014.06.003CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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/10.1080/10598650.2018.1558656CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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/10.1080/10508406.2017.1307199CrossRef

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/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636070CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.2017.09.003CrossRef

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

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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/s10956-015-9581-5CrossRef

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.2016010101CrossRef

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.CrossRef

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

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.2019.04.001CrossRef

Title: The State of Computational Thinking in Libraries
Authors: David Weintrop
Mega Subramaniam
Shandra Morehouse
Nitzan Koren
Publication date: 16-05-2022
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Issue 3/2023
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Electronic ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-022-09606-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2023

Developing the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale in the Use of ICT at Home for Pre-school Distance Education During Covid-19

A Study of Mobile App Use for Teaching and Research in Higher Education

Readiness and Perception of Pacific Students to Mobile Phones for Higher Education

Use of Predictive Analytics within Learning Analytics Dashboards: A Review of Case Studies

Undergraduates' Barriers to Online Learning During the Pandemic in Greece

Transition from Traditional to Online Learning in Hong Kong Tertiary Educational Institutions During COVID-19 Pandemic

Premium Partners