Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 247–271 | Cite as

Coding to Create: A Subtext of Decisions as Early Adolescents Design Digital Media

  • Julia Hagge
Original research
  • 127 Downloads

Abstract

Full participation in the twenty-first century requires the skills, strategies, and dispositions necessary to adapt to changing technologies influencing all aspects of life. Online programming communities provide a space for youth to create, collaborate, and share as they engage in computational participation. A recent development in the digital composition practices of youth is the use of coding to create digital media. This article reports on a descriptive case study focused on five early adolescents engaged in Scratch, an online programming community. In what ways do early adolescents make decisions in the design of digital media as they engage in programming-as-writing? The data collected included participant created digital media products, interviews, and observations. Based upon a content analysis of the digital media products and an inductive analysis of the interviews and observations data, participants demonstrated decisions connected to the design of projects created, decisions focused on the function of projects, and decisions connected with meaning. A typography represents the decisions made by participants as they created projects in Scratch. The participant experiences in Scratch are representative of a shift in the literacy practices of youth toward the creation of digital media within virtual social places as they engage in computational participation.

Keywords

Coding Programming Computational participation Literacy Design Digital media 

References

  1. Albers, P., & Harste, J. C. (2007). The arts, new literacies, and multimodality. English Education, 40(1), 6–20.Google Scholar
  2. Alley, K. (2013). Playing in “Trelis Weyr”: Investigating collaborative practices in a “Dragons of Pern” role-play-game forum (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest. (3566424).Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, K. T., Stewart, O. G., & Kachorsky, D. (2017). Seeing academically marginalized students’ multimodal designs from a position of strength. Written Communication, 34(2), 104–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breaux, C. (2017). Why making? Computers and Composition, 44, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan, K., Monroy-Hernandez, A., & Resnick, M. (2010). Making projects, making friends: Online community as catalyst for interactive media creation. New Directions in Youth Development, 128, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruce, D. L. (2008). Visualizing literacy: Building bridges with media. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24, 264–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke, Q. (2012). The markings of a new pencil: Introducing programming-as-writing in the middle school classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(2), 121–135.Google Scholar
  9. Burke, Q. (2017). DIY zones for Scratch design in class and club. In S. Humble (Ed.), Creating the coding generation in primary schools: A practical guide for cross-curricular teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Burke, Q., O’Byrne, I., & Kafai, Y. (2016). Computational participation: Understanding coding as an extension of literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(4), 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2015). The challenge of 21st century literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(3), 271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chisholm, J. S., & Trent, B. (2013). Digital storytelling in a place-based composition course. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(4), 307–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cole, S. (1995). Ruth Landes and the early ethnography of race and gender. In R. Behar & D. A. Gordon (Eds.), Women writing culture (pp. 166–185). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dennis, D. V. (2014). Fostering independence: Assessing student development. In M. Mueller, D. Tippins, & A. Stewart (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (responsibility) (pp. 53–61). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeVane, B., Steward, C., & Tran, K. M. (2016). Balancing expression and structure in game design: Developing computational participation using studio-based design pedagogy. Educational Technology, 56(3), 42–47.Google Scholar
  17. Dezuanni, M. (2015). The building blocks of digital media literacy: Socio-material participation and the production of media knowledge. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47(3), 416–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Domingo, M. (2011). Analyzing layering in textual design: A multimodal approach for examining cultural, linguistic, and social migrations in digital video. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Domingo, M. (2014). Transnational language flows in digital platforms: A study of urban youth and their multimodal text making. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 9(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Domingo, M., Jewitt, C., & Kress, G. (2014). Multimodal social semiotics: Writing in online contexts. In P. Kate & R. Jennifer (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of contemporary literacy studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellison, T. L. (2017). Digital participation, agency, and choice: An African American youth’s digital storytelling about Minecraft. Journal of Adolescent Literacy, 61(1), 25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fincher, S., & Utting, I. (2010). Machines for thinking. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–7.Google Scholar
  24. Greenhow, C., Robelia, E., & Hughes, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gruba, P. (2006). Playing the videotext: A media literacy perspective on video-mediated L2 listening. Language Learning and Technology, 10(2), 77–92.Google Scholar
  26. Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hagge, J. (2017). Scratching beyond the surface of literacy. Gifted Child Today, 40(3), 154–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hatzipanagos, S., & John, B. A. (2017). Do institutional social networks work? Fostering a sense of community and enhancing learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ho, C. M. L., Anderson, K. T., & Leong, A. (2011). Introduction. In C. Ho, K. Anderson, & A. Leong (Eds.), Transforming literacies and language: Multimodality and literacy in the new media age (pp. 1–6). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  32. Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Body, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., et al. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kafai, Y. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K-12 Education. Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D., Roque, R., Burke, W. Q., & Monroy-Hernandez, A. (2012). Collaborative agency in youth online and offline creative production in Scratch. Research and Practice in Technology Enhance Learning, 7(2), 63–87.Google Scholar
  38. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). New learning: a charter for change in education. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kress, G. (2006). What is English for? English in Education, 40(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kress, G., & Domingo, M. (2013). Multimodal and ethnographic semiotic analysis of digital communication environments. Training presented at the MODE Summer School from London Knowledge Lab, London.Google Scholar
  42. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Lapp, D., Moss, B., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Envisioning literacies through a lens of teaching and learning. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2012). Rereading “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies”: Bodies, Texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  47. Martin, N. M., & Lambert, C. S. (2015). Differentiating digital writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Eastmond, E. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 16:1–16:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martin, N. M. (2008). Digital literacy and the “digital society”. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 151–176). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  50. Mayer, R. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Retrieved from http://files.onearmedman.com/fordham/mayer2005ch3.pdf. Accessed 22 April 2016.
  51. McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2013). The impact of embedding multiple modes of representation within writing tasks on high school students’ chemistry understanding. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Science, 41(1), 217–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McLean, C. A., & Rowsell, J. (2013). (Re)designing literacy teacher education: A call for change. Teaching Education, 24(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  54. Mills, K. (2011). I’m making it different to the book: Transmediation in young children’s multimodal and digital texts. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(3), 56–65.Google Scholar
  55. Nelson, M. E. (2006). Mode, meaning, and synaesthesia in multimedia L2 writing. Language, Learning and Technology, 10(2), 56–76.Google Scholar
  56. Nelson, M. E., & Johnson, N. H. (2014). The shape of joy, the colour of fear: Multimodal abduction in the foreign language classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 9(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017). Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rowsell, J. (2013). Working with multimodality: Rethinking literacy in a digital age. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  61. Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for the digital age. New York, NY: O/R Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shanahan, L. E. (2013). Composing “kid-friendly” multimodal text: When conversations, instruction, and signs come together. Written Communication, 30(2), 194–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sheridan, M. P., & Rowsell, J. (2010). Design literacies: Learning and innovation in the digital age. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Sung, W., Ahn, J., & Black, J. B. (2017). Introducing computational thinking to young learners: Practicing computational perspectives through embodiment in mathematics education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22, 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Traylor, S. (2008). Scratch that: MITs Mitchel Resnick says kids should do it for themselves. Technology and Learning, 29(1), 27–28.Google Scholar
  66. Utting, I., Cooper, S., Kolling, M., Maloney, J., & Resnick, M. (2010). Alice, Greenfoot, and Scratch—A discussion. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Willis, G. (1999). Cognitive interviewing: A how to guide. Short course presented at the 1999 Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  68. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yang, Y. C., & Chang, C. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 68, 334–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and LearningThe Ohio State University at MarionMarionUSA

Personalised recommendations