Abstract
In order to compete in a global economy, higher education institutions, K-12 schools, government officials, school districts, teachers, and afterschool programs must provide students with opportunities to acquire computational thinking and twenty-first century skills. In the United States, thousands of new jobs in areas such as computer science, database administration, software development, and information research open each year; yet, there are not enough American students graduating with those degrees, thus having to fill computing positions with international workers. In addition, other professional fields such as healthcare, education, financial services, and administration are becoming more technology dependent, requiring their employees to acquire computational skills. Recognizing this need, and the often-disheartening lack of opportunities outside the classroom for students to be inspired and to acquire computational skills, the College of Education at the University of West Georgia opened a coding club for kids 7–17 in the spring of 2014 named uCode@UWG. This chapter presents those efforts, and the current status of the program.
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
A is for Algorithm (2014). The economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/international/21601250-global-push-more-computer-science-classrooms-starting-bear-fruit.
Afterschool Alliance (2011). Evaluations backgrounder: A summary of formal evaluations of afterschool programs’ impact on academics, behavior, safety and family life. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/EvaluationsBackgrounder2011.pdf.
Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barrows, H. S. (1992). The tutorial process. Springfield, IL: Southern Illinois University School of Medicine.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83, 39–43.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539–551.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting. British Columbia: Vancouver.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2016–17 Edition, Computer and Information Research Scientists. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm.
Burke, P. J. (2006). Interaction in small groups. In J. DeLamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 363–387). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Christenson, S. L. (2003). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 454–482.
CoderDojo (2013). About Coder Dojo. Retrieved from http://coderdojo.com.
D’Alba, A., Huett, K., Remshagen, A., & Rolka, C. (2015). uCode@UWG: Building kids’ interest in STEM-C. In D. Slykhuis & G. Marks (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference (pp. 96–99). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Dumas, J., & Albin, J. (1986). Parent training outcome: does active parental involvement matter? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24(2), 227–230.
Fahy, P. J. (2006). Online and face-to-face group interaction processes compared using Bales’ interaction process analysis (IPA). European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Patrick_J_Fahy.htm.
Georgia Department of Education (2015). Quick facts about Georgia public education. Retrieved from https://www.gadoe.org/.
Google (2010). Google in education: A new and open world for learning. Retrieved from: http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/edu/pdf/Google_EDU_Report_FULL.pdf.
Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (1995). Parental involvement in children’s education: Why does it make a difference? Teachers College Record, 95, 310–331.
Hoover-Dempsey, K., & Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.
Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Battiato, A. C., Walker, J. M. T., Reed, R. P., DeJong, J. M., & Jones, K. P. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36, 195–209.
Jeynes, W. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42, 82–110.
Keyton, J. (2003). Observing group interaction. In R. Y. Hitokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication: Theory and practice (pp. 256–266). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.
Krishnamurthi, A., Ottinger, R., & Topol, T. (2013). STEM learning in afterschool and summer programming: An essential strategy for STEM education reform. In T. Peterson (Ed.), Expanding minds and opportunities: Leveraging the power of afterschool and summer learning for student success. Collaborative Communications Group. Retrieved from http://www.expandinglearning.org/expandingminds.
Krishnamurthi, A., Ballard, M., Noam, G. (2014). Examining the impact of afterschool STEM programs. Paper commissioned by the Noyce Foundation. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED546628.pdf.
Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Education Research Journal, 43(2), 193–218.
National Science Foundation (2014). College Board launches new AP Computer Science Principles course. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=133571.
Office of the Press Secretary (2016). FACT SHEET: President Obama announces computer science for all initiative. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/30/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-computer-science-all-initiative-0.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123.
Parker, F., Boak, A., Griffin, K., Ripple, C., & Peay, L. (1999). Parent-child relationship, home learning environment, and school readiness. School Psychology Review, 28(3), 413–425.
Smith, M. (2016). Computer science for all. In The White House. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all.
Solomon, G. (2003). Project-base learning: A primer. Technology and Learning, 23(6), 20–26.
Synder, M., & Swann, W. (1978). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 148–162.
The College Board (2015). National Summary Report. Retrieved from http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/participation/ap-2015.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
Tretten, R., & Zachariou, P. (1995). Learning about project-based learning: Self-assessment preliminary report of results. San Rafael, CA: The Autodesk Foundation.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). W. K. Kellogg Foundation logic model development guide. Retrieved from: https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide.
Williams, B., Williams, J., & Ullman, A. (2002). Parental involvement in education. London: Department for Education and Skills.
Wing, J. (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, 366, 3717–3725.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the following University of West Georgia units for support of uCode@UWG operations during the first 2 years: the College of Education, the College of Science and Mathematics, Information Technology Services, the Office of Research and Sponsored Projects, and UWG Online. In addition, the authors appreciate the tireless dedication of uCode@UWG mentors and volunteers, without whom there would be no program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Overview of Sessions from August 2014 Through April 2016
Overview of Sessions from August 2014 Through April 2016
Month and year | No. of sessions | Sessions offered | No. of mentors | No. of volunteers | No. of coders | Median age | Sex |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
August 2014 | 2 | Scratch; HTML | 4 | 3 | 44 | 11 | 19 fem. 25 male |
September 2014 | 2 | Java; HTML and CSS | 5 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 4 fem. 3 male |
October 2014 | 2 | Java; HTML and CSS | 5 | 3 | 42 | 12 | 22 fem. 20 male |
November 2014 | 3 | Java; Scratch; Snap + Finch Robots | 4 | 3 | 20 | 11 | 7 fem. 13 male |
December 2014 | 4 | Java; Scratch; Snap + Finch Robots; Hour of Code | 3 | 3 | 23 | 10 | 12 fem. 11 male |
January 2015 | 4 | Java; Scratch; Snap + Finch Robots; Code Academy | 5 | 5 | 20 | 11 | 9 fem. 11 male |
March 2015 | 3 | Java; Scratch; Snap + Finch Robots | 3 | 4 | 22 | 11 | 10 fem. 12 male |
April 2015 | 1 | Minecraft Modding with JavaScript | 3 | 8 | 24 | 13 | 9 fem. 15 male |
Average numbers for Year1 | 4 | 4.2 | 25.2 | ||||
September 2015 | 2 | Python: Shapes and Turtles; Python: Puzzles and Games | 7 | 2 | 41 | 11 | 18 fem. 23 male |
October 2015 | 2 | Python: Shapes and Turtles; Python: Puzzles and Games | 8 | 2 | 30 | 11 | 13 fem. 17 male |
November 2015 | 2 | Python: Shapes and Turtles; Python: Puzzles and Games | 7 | 2 | 22 | 11 | 8 fem. 14 male |
February 2016 | 3 | Web Design; Scratch; Java Programming in Minecraft | 10 | 2 | 51 | 12 | 22 fem. 29 male |
March 2016 | 3 | Web Design; Scratch; LittleBits | 11 | 2 | 29 | 11 | 12 fem. 17 male |
April 2016 | 2 | Web Design; Scratch | 7 | 2 | 19 | 12 | 8 fem. 11 male |
Average numbers for Year2 | 8.3 | 2 | 32 | ||||
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
D’Alba, A., Huett, K.C. (2017). Learning Computational Skills in uCode@UWG: Challenges and Recommendations. In: Rich, P., Hodges, C. (eds) Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52690-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52691-1
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)