Advertisement

Coding by Choice: A Transitional Analysis of Social Participation Patterns and Programming Contributions in the Online Scratch Community

  • Deborah A. FieldsEmail author
  • Yasmin B. Kafai
  • Michael T. Giang
Chapter
Part of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series book series (CULS, volume 16)

Abstract

While massive online communities have drawn the attention of researchers and educators on their potential to support active collaborative work, knowledge sharing, and user-generated content, few studies examine participation in these communities at scale. The little research that does exist attends almost solely to adults rather than communities to support youths’ learning and identity development. In this chapter, we tackle two challenges related to understanding social practices that support learning in massive social networking forums where users engage in design. We examined a youth programmer community, called Scratch.mit.edu, that garners the voluntary participation of millions of young people worldwide. We report on site-wide distributions and patterns of participation that illuminate the relevance of different online social practices to ongoing involvement in the online community. Drawing on a random sample of more than 5000 active users of Scratch.mit.edu over a 3-month time period in early 2012, we examine log files that captured the frequency of three types of social practices that contribute to enduring participation: DIY participatory activities, socially supportive actions, and socially engaging interactions. Using latent transition analysis, we found (1) distinct patterns of participation (classes) across three time points (e.g., high networkers who are generally active, commenters who focus mainly on social participation, downloaders engaging in DIY participatory activities), (2) unique migration changes in class membership across time, (3) relatively equal gender representation across these classes, and (4) importance of membership length (or age) in terms of class memberships. In the discussion, we review our approach to analysis and outline implications for the design and study of online communities and tools for youth.

Keywords

Collaboration Mass collaboration Scratch Online communities Social participation patterns Programming community 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by a collaborative grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF#1027736) to Yasmin Kafai with Mitchel Resnick and Yochai Benkler. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation, Utah State University, St. Mary’s College, or the University of Pennsylvania. Particular thanks to Anant Seethalakshmi for help with gathering data and to the Scratch Team for providing repeated feedback on analysis. An earlier version of the latent class analysis appeared in the proceedings of the Annual Conference of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Fields et al., 2013).

References

  1. Ares, N. (2008). Cultural practices in networked classroom learning environments. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. London, UK: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Black, R. W. (2008). Adolescents and Online Fanfiction. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Adolescents-Fiction-Literacies-Digital-Epistemologies/dp/082049738X
  4. Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of age in second life: An anthropologist explores the virtually human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boellstorff, T., Nardi, B., Pearce, C., & Taylor, T. L. (2013). A handbook of ethnographic methods for virtual worlds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, D. (2013). It’s complicated. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brennan, K. (2011). Mind the gap: Differences between the aspirational and the actual in an online community of learners. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning.Google Scholar
  9. Brennan, K. A. (2013). Best of both worlds: Issues of structure and agency in computational creation, in and out of school (Doctoral dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Brennan, K., Valverde, A., Prempeh, J., Roque, R., & Chung, M. (2011). More than code: The significance of social interactions in young people’s development as interactive media creators. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol. 1, pp. 2147–2156).Google Scholar
  11. Chen, M. (2012). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Leet-Noobs-Warcraft-Literacies-Epistemologies/dp/1433116103 .
  12. Collins, L. M., & Lanza, S. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis with applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Eddy, Y. C. L., Chan, C., & van Aalst, J. (2006). Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fields, D. A., Giang, M., & Kafai, Y. B. (2013). Understanding collaborative practices in the Scratch online community: Patterns of participation among youth designers. In N. Rummel, M. Kapur, M. Nathan, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), To See the World and a Grain of Sand: Learning Across Levels of Space, Time, and Scale: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings, Full Papers & Symposia (Vol. 1, pp. 200–207). Madison, WI: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2009). A connective ethnography of peer knowledge sharing and diffusion in a tween virtual world. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2010). Knowing and throwing mudballs, hearts, pies, and flowers: A connective ethnography of gaming practices. Games and Culture, 5, 88–115.Google Scholar
  17. Fields, D. A., Giang, M. T., & Kafai, Y. B. (2014). Programming in the wild: Patterns of computational participation in the Scratch online social networking forum. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 2–11). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., Strommer, A., Wolf, E., & Seiner, B. (2014). Interactive storytelling for promoting creative expression in media and coding in youth online collaboratives in Scratch. In Proceedings of Constructionism, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://constructionism2014.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/papers/3.2_2-8540.pdf
  19. Fields, D. A., Pantic, K., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). “I have a tutorial for this”: The language of online peer support in the Scratch programming community. In Proceedings of Interaction Design and Children, (IDC’15). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  20. Fields, D. A., Vasudevan, V., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). The programmers’ collective: Fostering participatory culture by making music videos in a high school Scratch coding workshop. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(5), 1–21.Google Scholar
  21. Gee, J. (2003). What videogames have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  22. Giang, M. T., Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Searle, K. A. (2012). Social interactions in virtual worlds: Patterns and participation of tween relationship play. In J. Fromme & A. Unger (Eds.), Computer games and new media cultures: A handbook on the state and perspectives of digital games studies (pp. 543–556). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grimes, S. M., & Fields, D. A. (2015). Children’s media making, but not sharing: The potential and limitations of child-specific DIY media websites for a more inclusive media landscape. Media International Australia, 154, 112–122.Google Scholar
  24. Grimes, S. M., & Fields, D. (2012). Kids online: A new research agenda for understanding social networking forums. New York. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/reports-38.html
  25. Hagenaars, J., & McCutcheon, A. (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr, B., … Tripp, L. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, geeking out: Living and learning with new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kafai, Y. B., & Fields, D. A. (2013). Connected play: Tweens in a virtual world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., & Burke, W. Q. (2010). Entering the clubhouse: Case studies of young programmers joining Scratch community. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 22, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kafai, Y. B., Heeter, C., Denner, J., & Sun, J. Y. (2008). Beyond Barbie [R] and Mortal Kombat: new perspectives on gender and gaming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lammers, J. C., Curwood, J. S., & Magnifico, A. M. (2012). Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11, 44–58.Google Scholar
  33. Luther, K., Caine, K., Ziegler, K., & Bruckman, A. (2010) Why it works (when it works): Success factors in online creative collaboration. In GROUP ’10: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 1–10). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  34. Magnifico, A. M. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition, motivation, and a writer’s audience. Educational Psychologist, 45, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maloney, J., Peppler, K., Kafai,Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008, March). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. Paper presented at the SIGCSE 2008 Conference, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  36. Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J. J., & Nao, K. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2001). Unlocking the clubhouse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Monroy-Hernández, A. (2012). Designing for remixing: Supporting an online community of amateur creators (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).Google Scholar
  39. Muthen, B. (2002). Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modeling. Retrieved from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/muthen/full_paper_list.htm
  40. Nickerson, J. V., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2011). Appropriation and creativity: User-initiated contests in Scratch. In Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS11). Google Scholar
  41. O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Reimann, P. (2009). Time is precious: Variable- and event-centered approaches to process analysis in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Hernández, A. M., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., … Kafai, Y. B. (2009). Scratch: Programming for everyone. Communications of the ACM, 52, 60–67.Google Scholar
  44. Rick, J., & Guzdial, M. (2006). Situating CoWeb: A scholarship of application. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roque, R., Kafai, Y. B., & Fields, D. A. (2012). From tools to communities: Designs to support online creative collaboration in Scratch. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 220–223). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  46. Roque, R., Rusk, N., & Resnick, M. (2016). Supporting diverse and creative collaboration in the Scratch online community. In U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, & H. Jeong (Eds.), Mass Collaboration and Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.Google Scholar
  47. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67–98). Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  48. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steinkuehler, S., & Duncan, S. (2009). Scientific habits of mind in virtual worlds. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 530–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Taylor, T. L. (2006). Play between worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webb, N., & Palincsar, A. (1996). Collaborative learning. In D. Berliner (Ed.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 345–413). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  53. Williams, D. (2005). Bridging the methodological divide in game research. Simulation & Gaming, 36, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, D., Contractor, N., Poolec, M. S., Srivastad, J., & Cale, D. (2011). The virtual worlds exploratorium: Using large-scale data and computational techniques for communication research. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Williams, D., Yee, N., & Caplan, S. (2008). Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 993–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yee, N. (2014). The Proteus paradox: How online games and virtual worlds change us-and how they don't. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah A. Fields
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yasmin B. Kafai
    • 2
  • Michael T. Giang
    • 3
  1. 1.Utah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Mount Saint Mary’s UniversityLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations