Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albers, P., & Harste, J. C. (2007). The arts, new literacies, and multimodality. English Education, 40(1), 6–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of designs for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breaux, C. (2017). Why making? Computers and Composition, 44, 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, D. L. (2008). Visualizing literacy: Building bridges with media. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24, 264–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2015). The challenge of 21st century literacies. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(3), 271–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, J. S., & Trent, B. (2013). Digital storytelling in a place-based composition course. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(4), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fincher, S., & Utting, I. (2010). Machines for thinking. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagge, J. (2017). Scratching beyond the surface of literacy. Gifted Child Today, 40(3), 154–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, E. R., & Sheridan, K. M. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K-12 Education. Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). New learning: a charter for change in education. Critical Studies in Education, 53(1), 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, G. (2006). What is English for? English in Education, 40(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapp, D., Moss, B., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Envisioning literacies through a lens of teaching and learning. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2012). Rereading “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies”: Bodies, Texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, N. M., & Lambert, C. S. (2015). Differentiating digital writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(2), 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean, C. A., & Rowsell, J. (2013). (Re)designing literacy teacher education: A call for change. Teaching Education, 24(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nelson, M. E. (2006). Mode, meaning, and synaesthesia in multimedia L2 writing. Language, Learning and Technology, 10(2), 56–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowsell, J. (2013). Working with multimodality: Rethinking literacy in a digital age. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushkoff, D. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for the digital age. New York, NY: O/R Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, L. E. (2013). Composing “kid-friendly” multimodal text: When conversations, instruction, and signs come together. Written Communication, 30(2), 194–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, M. P., & Rowsell, J. (2010). Design literacies: Learning and innovation in the digital age. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traylor, S. (2008). Scratch that: MITs Mitchel Resnick says kids should do it for themselves. Technology and Learning, 29(1), 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, G. (1999). Cognitive interviewing: A how to guide. Short course presented at the 1999 Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Baltimore, MD.

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y. C., & Chang, C. (2013). Empowering students through digital game authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 68, 334–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State University at Marion, 237D Morrill Hall, 1465 Mount Vernon Avenue, Marion, OH, 43302, USA

    Julia Hagge

Authors
  1. Julia Hagge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Hagge.

Appendix: Sample Interview Guide

Appendix: Sample Interview Guide

  1. 1.

    Why did you decide to join Scratch?

  2. 2.

    What are some things you like to do in Scratch?

  3. 3.

    How do you communicate with Scratch members?

  4. 4.

    Q: Why did you create Grace’s House? What was your objective?

  5. 5.

    Q: Tell me about Grace and her connection to Studio Starland.

  6. 6.

    Q: How did you decide upon Blue Fairy Forest as the beginning music?

  7. 7.

    SLIDE 1: How did you decide upon the colors to use? Why did you decide to have the letters bounce?

  8. 8.

    SLIDE 2: (1) Why did you decide to have Grace say “Hiya” (instead of “Hi” or “Hello”)? (2) What were you thinking as you created the inside of Grace’s house? (3) How did you decide upon the shape of Grace’s eyes? (4) Tell me about the items on her dress.

  9. 9.

    SLIDE 3: What did you want Grace to communicate?

  10. 10.

    SLIDE 4: Why did you choose to add the aquarium and flower after the conversation with Grace? Why did you decide to include interactive features? How did decide upon the features to include?

  11. 11.

    SLIDE 5: At what point during the design of Grace’s house did you decide to make Blaze interactive?

  12. 12.

    SLIDE 6: Why are Sparks’ eyes different in the discussion box?

  13. 13.

    SLIDE 7: How did you create the effect of turning off the light in Grace’s bedroom? Why did you keep the arrow and cat bright?

  14. 14.

    SLIDE 8: What made you decide to include a wardrobe activity? How did you determine the wardrobe choices? Describe how you implemented the coding for the wardrobe activity. What were you thinking as you created the items for Grace’s wardrobe? What prompted you to create a 4th of July outfit for Grace?

  15. 15.

    SLIDE 9: Why did you choose to show Grace with her hair down?

  16. 16.

    SLIDE 10: What made you think to program the radio? How did you select each song to by played on the radio? What does the grey arrow on the TV represent?

  17. 17.

    SLIDE 11: Why did you decide to include tv channels? Tell me about this tv channel. Why did you decide to include Scratch? How did you determine what to include in the image?

  18. 18.

    SLIDE 12: Why did you use the orange on the counters? Ask additional questions regarding the design.

  19. 19.

    SLIDE 13: It is interesting to note the face on the cat food box contains eyes, nose, and mouth while Grace’s cats found throughout the house only contain eyes. Can you tell me more about that?

  20. 20.

    Q: What changes or additions did you make based upon comments received from Scratch members?

  21. 21.

    Tell me about the Math Bulletin board. What was your purpose in creating it?

  22. 22.

    In the notes and credits section you stated, “I found this somewhere in my unshared projects just sitting there”. What made you decide to publish Math Bulletin Board?

  23. 23.

    SLIDE 14: How did you decide upon the colors to use? Why did you select those shapes? Why did you have the shapes move? How did you select the music? Why did you choose this song?

  24. 24.

    SLIDE 15: How did you decide upon the content to include within each shape?

  25. 25.

    SLIDE 16: Why did you decide to include a quiz? How did you decide upon the questions to ask in the quiz? Describe how you were able to make the quiz interactive. How did you implement the coding for this?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hagge, J. Coding to Create: A Subtext of Decisions as Early Adolescents Design Digital Media. Tech Know Learn 23, 247–271 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9359-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9359-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation