skip to main content


Search for: All records

Award ID contains: 1742140

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. Abstract  
    more » « less
  2. Over the past decade, initiatives around the world have introduced computing into K–12 education under the umbrella of computational thinking. While initial implementations focused on skills and knowledge for college and career readiness, more recent framings include situated computational thinking (identity, participation, creative expression) and critical computational thinking (political and ethical impacts of computing, justice). This expansion reflects a revaluation of what it means for learners to be computationally-literate in the 21st century. We review the current landscape of K–12 computing education, discuss interactions between different framings of computational thinking, and consider how an encompassing framework of computational literacies clarifies the importance of computing for broader K–12 educational priorities as well as key unresolved issues. 
    more » « less
  3. de Vries, E. ; Hod, Y. ; Ahn, J. (Ed.)
    While making physical computational artifacts such as robots or electronic textiles is growing in popularity in CS education, little is known about student informal conceptions of these systems. To study this, we video-recorded think-aloud sessions (~10 minutes each) of 22 novice CS high school students explaining their understanding of everyday physical computing systems and qualitatively analyzed transcripts and student drawings for their structural, behavioral, and functional understanding of these systems. Most students identified the presence of programs in making these systems functional but struggled to account them structurally and behaviorally. A few students pointed out probable programming constructs in shaping underlying mechanisms, drawing from their prior programming experiences. To integrate these systems in computing education, we call for pedagogical designs to address the invisibility of computation—both of structural interconnections and of program execution. 
    more » « less
  4. de Vries, E. ; Hod, Y. ; Ahn, J. (Ed.)
    Mindsets play an important role in persevering in computer science: while some learners perceive bugs as opportunities for learning, others become frustrated with failure and see it as a challenge to their abilities. Yet few studies and interventions take into account the motivational and emotional aspects of debugging and how learning environments can actively promote growth mindsets. In this paper, we discuss growth mindset practices that students exhibited in “Debugging by Design,” an intervention created to empower students in debugging—by designing e-textiles projects with bugs for their peers to solve. Drawing on observations of four student groups in a high school classroom over a period of eight hours, we examine the practices students exhibited that demonstrate the development of growth mindset, and the contexts where these practices emerged. We discuss how our design-focused, practice-first approach may be particularly well suited for promoting growth mindset in domains such as computer science. 
    more » « less
  5. Comprehending programs is key to learning programming. Previous studies highlight novices’ naive approaches to comprehend ing the structural, functional, and behavioral aspects of programs. And yet, with the majority of them examining on-screen program ming environments, we barely know about program comprehension within physical computing—a common K-12 programming context. In this study, we qualitatively analyzed think-aloud inter view videos of 22 high school students individually comprehending a given text-based Arduino program while interacting with its corresponding functional physical artifact to answer two questions: 1) How do novices comprehend the given text-based Arduino pro gram? And, 2) What role does the physical artifact play in program comprehension? We found that novices mostly approached the program bottom-up, initially comprehending structural and later functional aspects, along different granularities. The artifact provided two distinct modes of engagement, active and interactive, that supported the program’s structural and functional comprehension. However, behavioral comprehension i.e. understanding program execution leading to the observed outcome was inaccessible to many. Our findings extend program comprehension literature in two ways: (a) it provides one of the very few accounts of high school students’ code comprehension in a physical computing con text, and, (b) it highlights the mediating role of physical artifacts in program comprehension. Further, they point directions for future pedagogical and tool designs within physical computing to better support students’ distributed program comprehension. 
    more » « less
  6. In this paper, we present an iteration on a “reconstruction kit” for e-textiles, a flexible-state construction kit that allows for rapid deconstruction and reconstruction of sewn, programmable circuits. The reconstruction kit was redesigned to be more modular and was tested in more computationally and spatially challenging debugging and design situations. by four pairs of˛ students familiar with e-textiles taking an introductory computer science course in a U.S. high school. Analyzing think-aloud protocols of the four sessions, we examined affordances and limitations of how student debugged and designed with the reconstruction kit and in which ways collaborative interactions were supported. 
    more » « less
  7. Much attention has focused on designing tools and activities that support learners in designing fully finished and functional applications such as games, robots, or e-textiles to be shared with others. But helping students learn to debug their applications often takes on a surprisingly more instructionist stance by giving them checklists, teaching them strategies or providing them with test programs. The idea of designing bugs for learning—or debugging by design—makes learners again agents of their own learning and, more importantly, of making and solving mistakes. In this paper, we report on our first implementation of “debugging by design” activities in a classroom of 25 high school students over a period of eight hours as part of a longer e-textiles unit. Here students were asked to craft buggy circuits and code for their peers to solve. In this paper we introduce the design of the debugging by design unit and, drawing on observations and interviews with students and the teacher, address the following research questions: (1) What did students gain from designing and solving bugs for others? (2) How did this experience shape students’ completion of the e-textiles unit? In the discussion, we address how debugging by design contributes to students’ learning of debugging skills. 
    more » « less
  8. Gresalfi, M. ; Horn, I. (Ed.)
    Much attention has focused on student learning while making physical computational artifacts such as robots or electronic textiles, but little is known about how students engage with the hardware and software debugging issues that often arise. In order to better understand students’ debugging strategies and practices, we conducted and video-recorded eight think- aloud sessions (~45 minutes each) of high school student pairs debugging electronic textiles projects with researcher-designed programming and circuitry/crafting bugs. We analyzed each video to understand pairs’ debugging strategies and practices in navigating the multi- representational problem space. Our findings reveal the importance of employing system-level strategies while debugging physical computing systems, and of coordinating between various components of physical computing systems, for instance between the physical artifact, representations on paper, and the onscreen programming environment. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and designing instruction and tools for learning with and debugging physical computing systems. 
    more » « less
  9. Gresalfi, M. ; Horn, I. (Ed.)
    The design of most learning environments focuses on supporting students in making, constructing, and putting together projects on and off the screen, with much less attention paid to the many issues—problems, bugs, or traps—that students invariably encounter along the way. In this symposium, we present different theoretical and disciplinary perspectives on understanding how learners engage in debugging applications on and off screen, examine learners’ mindsets about debugging from middle school to college students and teachers, and present pedagogical approaches that promote strategies for debugging problems, even having learners themselves design problems for others. We contend that learning to identify and fix problems—debug, troubleshoot, or get unstuck—in completing projects provides a productive space in which to explore multiple theoretical perspectives that can contribute to our understanding of learning and teaching critical strategies for dealing with challenges in learning activities and environments. 
    more » « less
  10. B. Tangney, J. Bryne (Ed.)
    Much attention has focused on designing tools and activities that support learners in designing fully finished and functional applications such as games, robots, or e-textiles to be shared with others. But helping students learn to debug their applications often takes on a surprisingly more instructionist stance by giving them checklists, teaching them strategies or providing them with test programs. The idea of designing bugs for learning—or debugging by design—makes learners again agents of their own learning and, more importantly, of making and solving mistakes. In this paper, we report on our first implementation of “debugging by design” activities in a classroom of 25 high school students over a period of eight hours as part of a longer e-textiles unit. Here students were asked to craft buggy circuits and code for their peers to solve. In this paper we introduce the design of the debugging by design unit and, drawing on observations and interviews with students and the teacher, address the following research questions: (1) What did students gain from designing and solving bugs for others? (2) How did this experience shape students’ completion of the e-textiles unit? In the discussion, we address how debugging by design contributes to students’ learning of debugging skills. 
    more » « less