Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies

2020 Edition
| Editors: Arthur Tatnall

Design in K-5 Programming Projects, Role of

  • Jane WaiteEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10576-1_137
  • 4 Downloads

Synonyms

 Algorithm;  Design;  Model;  Plan

Design: Teaching programming is more than just teaching the syntax of a programming language, novices should be taught how to create programs, including how to design them (Soloway 1986). Design in K-5 programming projects is a creative process which takes an idea, task, or problem (a goal) and produces a design which can be implemented as code. The term design is both a verb (describing the process of creating a design) and a noun (the actual design artifact created).

The design artifact, for most young K-5 programmers, could be a remembered or recorded discussion about what they are going to make; an informal diagram, such as a storyboard, concept map, or labelled diagram; or a written note detailing their ideas. Some older learners might use flowcharts or pseudo code to more formally document their design. Within design artifacts algorithms are represented in a variety of simple ways. The algorithm can be represented by an ordered set of...

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

References

  1. Armoni M (2013) On teaching abstraction in computer science to novices. J Comp Math Sci Teach 32(3):265–284Google Scholar
  2. Bers MU (2017) Coding as a playground: programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Taylor & Francis. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iWEwDwAAQBAJ
  3. Bers MU, Flannery LP, Kazakoff ER, Sullivan A (2014) Computational thinking and tinkering: exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education 72:145–157Google Scholar
  4. Cockburn A (2002) Agile software development. Addison-Wesley, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. College Board (2017) AP Computer Science Principles: Curriculum Framework 2016-2017 USA (PDF). Retrieved 23rd April 2019 Available at: http://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/ap/ap-computerscience-principles-course-and-exam-description.pdf
  6. Csizmadia A, Curzon P, Dorling M, Humphreys S, Ng T, Selby C, Woollard J (2015) Computational Thinking a Guide for Teachers. Retrieved 23rd April 2019 Available at: http://community.computingatschool.org.uk/files/6695/original.pdf
  7. Department Of Education (2013) Computing programmes of study key stages 1 and 2 national curriculum in England. Department of Education. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study
  8. Dockrell J, Marshall C, Wyse D (2015) Education endowment fund talk for writing evaluation report and executive summary. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Projects/Evaluation_Reports/EEF_Project_Report_TalkForWriting.pdf
  9. Graham S, Perin D (2007) A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. J Educ Psychol 99(3):445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grover S, Pea R, Cooper S (2015) Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Comp Sci Educ 25(2):199–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansen A et al. (2016) Differentiating for diversity: using universal design for learning in elementary computer science education. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM technical symposium on computing science education (SIGCSE ’16). ACM, New York, 376–381.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844570
  12. K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee and Others (2016) K-12 computer science framework. Technical report. ACM, New York, Available online http://www.k12cs.org
  13. Kafai YB, Resnick M (eds) (1996) Constructionism in practice: designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  14. Kafai YB, Vasudevan V (2015) Constructionist gaming beyond the screen: middle school students’ crafting and computing of touchpads, board games, and controllers. In: Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education (WiPSCE ’15). ACM, New York, 49–54.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818334
  15. Kastl P, Romeike R (2015) Now they just start working, and organize themselves first results of introducing agile practices in lessons. In: Proceedings of the workshop in primary and secondary computing education (WiPSCE ’15). ACM, New York, 25–28.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2818314.2818336
  16. Missiroli M, Russo D, Ciancarini P (2016) Learning Agile software development in high school: an investigation. In: Proceedings of the 38th international conference on software engineering companion (ICSE ’16). ACM,New York, 293–302.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2889160.2889180
  17. Perrenet J, Groote JF, Kaasenbrood E (2005) Exploring students’ understanding of the concept of algorithm: levels of abstraction. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 37(3):64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schulte C et al. (2017) The design and exploration cycle as research and development framework in computing education. In: Global engineering education conference (EDUCON), 2017 IEEE. IEEE, 867–876. Athens, Greece Available online https://dblp.org/db/conf/educon/educon2017
  19. Schunk DH, Swartz CW (1993) Goals and progress feedback: effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemp Educ Psychol 18(3):337–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Soloway E (1986) Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Commun ACM 29(9):850–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tedre M, Denning PJ (2016) The long quest for computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling ’16). ACM, New York, 120–129.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999542
  22. Tracy B, Reid R, Graham S (2009) Teaching young students strategies for planning and drafting stories: the impact of self-regulated strategy development. J Educ Res 102(5):323–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Turkle S, Papert S (1990) Epistemological pluralism: styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs 16(1):128–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Waite J (2017) Pedagogy in teaching computer science in schools: a literature review (After the reboot: computing education in UK schools). Available at: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/computing-education/literature-review-pedagogy-in-teaching.pdf
  25. Waite J et al. (2016) Abstraction and common classroom activities. In: Proceedings of the 11th workshop in primary and secondary computing education (WiPSCE ’16). ACM, New York, 112–113.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2978249.2978272
  26. Waite J et al. (2017) K-5 teachers’ uses of levels of abstraction focusing on design. In: Proceedings of the 12th workshop in primary and secondary computing education (WiPSCE ’17). Erik Barendsen and Peter Hubwieser (Eds.). ACM, New York, 115–116.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137068
  27. Whitebread D, Basilio M (2012) The emergence and early development of self-regulation in young children. Profesorado, Revista de Currıculum y Formación del Profesorado 16(1):15–34Google Scholar
  28. Wing JM (2008) Computational thinking and thinking about computing. 366. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, London.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and Electronic EngineeringQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK