Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
Computer programming tools for young children are being created and used in early childhood classrooms more than ever. However, little is known about the relationship between a teacher’s unique instructional style and their students’ ability to explore and retain programming content. In this mixed-methods study, quantitative and qualitative data were collected from N = 6 teachers and N = 222 Kindergarten through second grade students at six schools across the United States. These teachers and students participated in an investigation of the relationship between teaching styles and student learning outcomes. All participants engaged in a minimum of two lessons and a maximum of seven lessons using the ScratchJr programming environment to introduce coding. Teachers reported on their classroom structure, lesson plan, teaching style and comfort with technology. They also administered ScratchJr Solve It assessments to capture various aspects of students’ programming comprehension, which were analyzed for trends in learning outcomes. Results from this descriptive, exploratory study show that all students were successful in attaining foundational ScratchJr programming comprehension. Statistically significant findings revealed higher programming achievement in students whose educators demonstrated flexibility in lesson planning, responsiveness to student needs, technological content expertise, and concern for developing students’ independent thinking. Implications for research in the development of computational thinking strategies are discussed, as well as suggestions for successfully implementing early childhood classroom interventions with ScratchJr.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & O’Dwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers’ technology uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,37(1), 45–63. CrossRef
Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing digital experiences for positive youth development: From playpen to playground. Oxford: Cary, NC. CrossRef
Bers, M. & Kazakoff, E. (2012). Chapter 26. Developmental technologies: Technology and human development. In R. M.Lerner, M. A. Easterbrooks, J. Mistry, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, developmental psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,21(3), 355–377.
Blazer, C. (2008). Literature review: Educational technology. Research services, Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Miami-Dade: Research Services Office of Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings from AERA ‘12: The 2012 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Chikofsky, E., & Cross, J. (1990). Reverse engineering and design recovery: A taxonomy. IEEE Software,7(1), 13–17. CrossRef
Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for noncomputer scientists. Unpublished manuscript in progress, referenced in http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1993). The hundred languages of children. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education,63, 87–97. CrossRef
Flannery, L. P., Kazakoff, E. R., Bontá, P., Silverman, B., Bers, M. U., & Resnick, M. (2013). Designing ScratchJr: Support for early childhood learning through computer programming. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on interaction design and children (IDC ‘13) (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2485760.2485785.
Ford, J. H., & Il, J. R. (2015). Teaching and learning styles in quality improvement: Identification and impact on process outcomes. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice,10(Suppl 1), A12. CrossRef
Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child’s mind: the clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
Grasha, A. F. (1994). A matter of style: The teacher as expert, formal authority, personal model, facilitator, and delegator. College Teaching,42(4), 142–149. CrossRef
Grasha, A. F., & Riechmann-Hruska, S. (1996). Teaching style survey. Retrieved from http://longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html.
Hofer, M., Chamberlin, B., & Scot, T. (2004). Fulfilling the need for a technology integration specialist. The Journal,32(3), 34.
Jeon, L., Buettner, C. K., & Hur, E. (2014). Examining pre-school classroom quality in a state-wide quality rating and improvement system. Child & Youth Care Forum,43(4), 469–487. CrossRef
Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful student learning through constructivist pedagogy and technology integration. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education,7(4), 1–10. CrossRef
Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL, theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Koller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction,17(5), 494–509. CrossRef
Lee, M. S. C. (2015). Teaching Tools, Teachers' Rules: ScratchJr in the Classroom. (Unpublished master's thesis). Medford, MA: Tufts University.
Limongelli, C., Lombardi, M., Marani, A., & Sciarrone, F. (2013). A teacher model to speed up the process of building courses. In Human- computer interaction. applications and services (pp. 434–443). Berlin: Springer.
Lin, P. C., Lu, H. K., & Liu, C. H. I. A. (2013). Towards an education behavioral intention model for e-learning systems: An extension of UTAUT. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology,47(3), 1120–1127.
Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., et al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development,79(3), 732–749. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x. CrossRef
Nachshon, I. (1985). Directional preferences in perception of visual stimuli. International Journal of Neuroscience,25(3–4), 161–174. CrossRef
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). Technology and engineering literacy framework for the 2014 NAEP. National Assessment Governing Board.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal,39(3/4), 720. CrossRef
Petrina, S. (1998). The politics of research in technology education: A critical content and discourse analysis of the Journal of Technology Education, 10(1–8). doi: 10.21061/jte.v10i1.a.3.
Portelance, D. J., & Bers, M. U. (2015). Code and tell: Assessing young children’s learning of computational thinking using peer video interviews with ScratchJr. In Proceedings of IDC ‘15: The 14th international conference on interaction design and children. Boston, MA: ACM.
Pretz, K. (November 21, 2014). Computer science classes for kids becoming mandatory. The institute. http://theinstitute.ieee.org/career-and-education/preuniversity-education/computer-science-classes-for-kids-becoming-mandatory.
Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In Proceedings of IDC ‘05: The 4th international conference on interaction design and children. New York, NY: ACM.
Ringstaff, C., & Kelly, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. San Francisco, CA: WestEd RTEC.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,42(2), 27. CrossRef
Strawhacker, A. L., & Bers, M. U. (2015). “I want my robot to look for food”: Comparing children’s programming comprehension using tangible, graphical, and hybrid user interfaces. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,25(3), 293–319. CrossRef
Strawhacker, A., Lee, M., Caine, C., & Bers, M. U. (2015). ScratchJr Demo: A coding language for Kindergarten. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on interaction design and children (IDC ‘15). Boston, MA: ACM.
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20. CrossRef
Technology for All Americans Project, & International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. International Technology Education Association.
US Census Bureau. (2015, September 24). State & county QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.
US Department of Education. (2010, November 1). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.
US Department of Education. (2013, June). Private elementary and secondary enrollment, number of schools, and average tuition, by school level, orientation, and tuition: Selected years, 1999–2000 through 2011–2012. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_205.50.asp.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2015a). 2013–20 14 Private school universe survey [Data File]. https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/201314-private-school-universe-survey.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015b). Common core of data [Data File]. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/ccddata.asp.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development (M. LopezMorillas, Trans.). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15110-s13/Wing06-ct.pdf.
- Teaching tools, teachers’ rules: exploring the impact of teaching styles on young children’s programming knowledge in ScratchJr
Marina Umaschi Bers
- Springer Netherlands
- International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
Neuer Inhalt/© Velodyne Europe, dSpace, FEV, Valeo Logo/© Valeo, TE Connectivity Corporation/© TE Connectivity Corporation, Neuer Inhalt, AVL ADAS Validierung: Vielfalt autonomer Fahrszenarien absichern/© AVL, INNOVATIVE LÖSUNGEN FÜR DIE E-DRIVE VALIDIERUNG/© AVL