Search for: All records

Abstract Increasing access to computational ideas and practices is one important reason to integrate computational thinking (CT) in science classrooms. While integrating CT into science classrooms broadens exposure to computing, it may not be enough to ensure equitable participation in the science classroom. Equitable participation is crucial because providing students with an environment in which they are able to fully engage and participate in science and computing practices empowers students to learn and continue pursuing CT and science. To foreground equitable participation in CT‐integrated curricula, we undertook a research project in which researchers and teachers examined teacher conceptualizations of equitable participation and how teachers design for equitable participation by modifying a lesson that introduces computational modeling in science. The following research questions guided the study: (1) What are teachers' conceptualizations of equitable participation? (2) How do teachers design for equitable participation through co‐design of a CT‐integrated unit? Our findings suggest that teachers conceptualized and designed for equitable participation in the context of a CT‐integrated curriculum across three primary dimensions: accessibility, inclusion, and relevancy. Our contributions to the field of science teaching and learning are twofold: (1) obtaining an initial understanding of how teachers think about and design for equitable participation is crucial in order to support teachers in their pursuit of creating equitable learning experiences for CT and science learners, and (2) our findings show that we can study teacher conceptualizations and their design choices by examining specific modifications to a CT‐integrated science curriculum. Implications are discussed. 

Abstract This paper reports on the first iteration of the Computational Thinking Summer Institute, a month‐long programme in which high school teachers co‐designed computationally enhanced mathematics and science curricula with researchers. The co‐design process itself was a constructionist learning experience for teachers resulting in constructionist curricula to be used in their own classrooms. We present three case studies to illustrate different ways teachers and researchers divided the labour of co‐design and the implications of these different co‐design styles for teacher learning and classroom enactment. Specifically, some teachers programmed their own computational tools, while others helped to conceptualise them but left the construction to their co‐design partners. Results indicate that constructionist co‐design is a promising dual approach to curriculum and professional development but that sometimes these two goals are in tension. Most teachers gained considerable confidence and skills in computational thinking, but sometimes the pressure to finish curriculum development during the institute led teachers to leave construction of computational tools to their co‐design partners, limiting their own opportunities for computational learning. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic?Computational tools can support constructionist science and math learning by making powerful ideas tangible.Supporting teachers to learn computational thinking and to use constructionist pedagogies is challenging.What this paper adds?Constructionist co‐design is a promising approach to simultaneously support curriculum development and professional development, but there are tensions to navigate in trying to accomplish both goals simultaneously.Implications for practice and/or policyDesigners of professional development should consider constructionist co‐design as an approach but should be aware of potential tensions and prepare for them.