Publications

This design case chronicles the efforts of an interdisciplinary team of researchers as they collaborated with middle grades science teachers and students to build and refine an epidemic disease curriculum module. The initial five-day design was delivered in five science classrooms at three nearby schools where researcher classroom observations and teacher feedback drove iterative refinements of the module’s materials. The final design of this module consisted of four instructional days of modeling and simulation activities that integrate computational thinking practices, computer science concepts, and life sciences content. The paper aims to illustrate the design motivations to address contextual constraints such as tight curricular schedules and varied levels of exposure to programming for both teachers and students. The instructional materials presented in this design case were the result of a three-year long research-practice partnership with science teachers at nearby middle schools.

One of the most efficient ways for elementary school students to gain exposure to computational thinking is when it is integrated into other disciplinary areas; however, elementary school teachers often lack the necessary resources to do this effectively. By leveraging the motivation force of narrative to engage students and the scaffolding affordances of block-based programming to support students, computationally-rich narrative-centered learning offers promise to address this need. In this work, we review design principles from prior work for engaging elementary students in computational thinking as well as results from initial pilot studies to investigate how computationally-rich narrative-centered learning in the context of science problem solving can support the integration of computational thinking into other disciplinary areas.

Elementary school teachers are increasingly looking to incorporate computational thinking (CT) into their practice. Unlike middle and high school where CT is often integrated into a single subject, elementary school teachers have the unique opportunity to integrate CT across multiple content areas. However, there is little research on the in-platform supports elementary teachers need to accomplish this integration successfully. To investigate this integration, we are iteratively developing a narrative-centered learning environment to facilitate learning outcomes in physical science via the creation of digital narratives that elicit CT. The learning environment enables students to use their science understanding to propose a solution to a problem through story creation using custom narrative-centered programming blocks that set a story’s scene, selects characters, and controls the story’s unfolding dialogue and actions. We have engaged with four upper elementary teachers to gather their perspectives on the usability of the learning environment and input on future design iterations. In this paper, we report results from a focus group study with the teachers that examines their perceptions on whether and how the learning environment facilitates story creation and if the learning environment provides learning supports for integrated science, language arts, and CT. Initial results suggest that teachers found the environment to be engaging and supportive of students’ creativity.

A growing body of research focuses on what outcomes to assess in makerspaces, and appropriate formats for capturing those outcomes (e.g. reflections, surveys, and portfolios). Linguistic analysis as a data mining technique holds promise for revealing different dimensions of learning exhibited by students in makerspaces. In this study, student reflections on makerspace projects were gathered in 2 formats over 2 years: private written assessments captured in the 3D GameLab gamification platform, and semi-public video-recorded assessments posted in the more social FlipGrid platform. Transcripts of student assessments were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC) to generate 4 summary variables thought to inform makerspace outcomes of interest (i.e. analytical thinking, authenticity, clout, and emotional tone). Comparative findings indicate that written assessments may elicit more analytical thinking about maker projects compared with less analytical conversation in videos, while video assessments may elicit somewhat higher clout scores as evidence of social scaffolding along with a much more positive emotional tone. Recommendations are provided for layering assessment approaches to maximize the potential benefits of each format, including reflective writing for social spaces, in social groups, and about design processes and procedures.