Abstract
This work arises from the concern that investigations into children’s computing have largely focused on learning to code as an isolated competency. This approach frames technology as a means to an end and unnecessarily narrows conceptual activity in the classroom to the (re)production of computational abstractions. Our approach is to argue for considering computational modeling and programming as part of a larger ensemble of STEM work in the elementary classroom, broadening and deepening what it means to code to include multiple forms and genres of representations. The distinction between focusing on computing as an isolated competency and our approach can be understood in light of diSessa’s distinction between “material intelligence” and “literacies.” DiSessa (2001) argued that while material intelligence can be understood as meaningful use of a technology, literacies are a lens through which we create, understand, and communicate with the world. It is our view that in elementary classrooms, computational modeling and programming can cease to exist merely as material intelligence and become a core component of scientific practice, particularly when activity is structured in certain ways.
This research was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF CAREER Award #1150320), awarded to Pratim Sengupta. Feedback from two anonymous reviewers is gratefully acknowledged.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arnosky, J. (2008). Wild tracks! A guide to Nature’s footprints. New York: Sterling Children’s Books.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.
Basu, S., Biswas, G., Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Kinnebrew, J. S., & Clark, D. (2016). Identifying middle school students’ challenges in computational thinking-based science learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 11(1), 13.
Berland, M. (2016). Making, tinkering, and computational literacy. Makeology: Makers as Learners, 2, 196–205.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19(6), 418–427.
Dickes, A. C., Kamarainen, A., Metcalf, S. J., Gün‐Yildiz, S., Brennan, K., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2019). Scaffolding ecosystems science practice by blending immersive environments and computational modeling. British Journal of Educational Technology.
diSessa, A. A. (1991). An overview of boxer. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10(1), 3–15.
diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Farris, A. V., Dickes, A. C., & Sengupta, P. (2019). Learning to Interpret Measurement and Motion in Fourth Grade Computational Modeling. Science & Education, 1–30.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013a). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013b, March). Using a discourse-intensive pedagogy and android’s app inventor for introducing computational concepts to middle school students. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 723–728). New York: ACM.
Guzdial, M. (1994). Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(1), 001–044.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays (W. Lovitt, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.
Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: Toward third-generation theories of expertise. In K. A. Ericsson & J. Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and Limits (pp. 301–335). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2018). National educational technology standards for teachers.
Kafai, Y., & Harel, I. (1991). Learning through design and teaching: Exploring social and collaborative aspects of constructionism. In I. Hare & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 85–106). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kim, B., & Reeves, T. C. (2007). Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science, 35(3), 207–256.
Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.
Maloy, R. W., & LaRoche, I. S. (2014). We, the students and teachers: Teaching democratically in the history and social studies classroom. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1987). Information technology and education: Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22–30.
Papert, S. (1988). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. In Children in the information age (pp. 3–18). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Peppler, K., & Kafai, Y. (2005). Creative coding: Programming for personal expression. Retrieved August, 30(2008), 314.
Repenning, A., Basawapatna, A., & Klymkowsky, M. (2013, September). Making educational games that work in the classroom: A new approach for integrating STEM simulations. In Games Innovation Conference (IGIC), 2013 IEEE International (pp. 228–235). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. V. (2018). Toward a phenomenology of computational thinking in STEM. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in STEM: Research highlights (pp. 49–72). New York: Springer.
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A.C., & Farris, A.V. Voicing Code in STEM: A Dialogical Imagination. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Forthcoming 2020.
Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., Farris, A. V., Karan, A., Martin, D., & Wright, M. (2015). Programming in K-12 science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 58(11), 33–35.
Sengupta, P., Kinnebrew, J. S., Basu, S., Biswas, G., & Clark, D. (2013). Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 351–380.
Sherin, B., diSessa, A. A., & Hammer, D. (1993). Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 91–118.
Simon, H. A. (1983). Why should machines learn?. In Machine learning (pp. 25-37). Morgan Kaufmann.
Stenner, P. (1998). Heidegger and the subject: Questioning concerning psychology. Theory and Psychology, 8(1), 59–77.
Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice (Vol. 9). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vee, A. (2013). Understanding computer programming as a literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(2), 42–64.
Vergnaud, G. (2009). The theory of conceptual fields. Human Development, 52(2), 83–94.
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.
Whitehouse.gov. (2016). Computer science for all.
Wilensky, U. (1995). Paradox, programming, and learning probability: A case study in a connected mathematics framework. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14(2), 253.
Wilensky, U. (1999). {NetLogo}.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
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.
Woolf, B. P. (2010). Building intelligent interactive tutors: Student-centered strategies for revolutionizing e-learning. Morgan Kaufmann.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dickes, A.C., Farris, A.V. (2019). Beyond Isolated Competencies: Computational Literacy in an Elementary Science Classroom. In: Sengupta, P., Shanahan, MC., Kim, B. (eds) Critical, Transdisciplinary and Embodied Approaches in STEM Education. Advances in STEM Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29489-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29489-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29488-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29489-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)