Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3501385.3543964acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicerConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

”How does the computer carry out digitalRead()?” Notional Machines Mediated Learner Conceptual Agency within an Introductory High School Electronic Textiles Unit

Published: 03 August 2022 Publication History

Abstract

Learners in computing classrooms must develop and adopt viable conceptions of program dynamics to read, write, and debug programs within a given programming context. Learners find support in notional machines, or simplified notions about underlying program behavior within a programming context, that educators provide them. While prior studies have examined students’ use of notional machines to trace program execution during interviews or quizzes, learners’ interactions with them within classrooms is understudied. Framing learning with notional machines as a sociocultural process, I conducted an interaction analysis of high school students’ learning across eight class periods during a 14-week introductory computing electronic textiles online unit to answer the questions: (1) How did students interact with program dynamics during the unit? (2) Did notional machines support students with computing conceptual agency? If so, how? Findings revealed that learners interacted with program dynamics in agentic ways as they adopted notional machines to reason, ask questions about, reveal and revise their notions of program execution. While prior studies have explored notional machines’ affordance for mental model development, this study revealed their situated nature and their role in making program dynamics visible and accessible for sustained joint exploration within classrooms. Findings from this analysis make a three-fold contribution: they highlight the mediating role of notional machines in supporting agentic learner interaction with program dynamics, their role in sustaining joint meaning-making within computing classrooms, and their evolving nature as a result of continuous interactions between the learners and the teacher.

References

[1]
Cathy Angelillo, Barbara Rogoff, and Pablo Chavajay. 2007. Examining shared endeavors by abstracting video coding schemes with fidelity to cases. Video research in the learning sciences(2007), 189–206.
[2]
Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2004. Situated learning in computer science education. Computer Science Education 14, 2 (2004), 85–100.
[3]
Michael Berry. 2015. The Design and Implementation of a Notional Machine for teaching Introductory Programming. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Kent.
[4]
Janet Bowers, Paul Cobb, and Kay McClain. 1999. The evolution of mathematical practices: A case study. Cognition and instruction 17, 1 (1999), 25–66.
[5]
Karen Brennan and Mitchel Resnick. 2012. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American educational research association, Vancouver, Canada, Vol. 1. 25.
[6]
Peter Checkland and Sue Holwell. 1998. Action research: its nature and validity. Systemic practice and action research 11, 1 (1998), 9–21.
[7]
Paul Cobb and Janet Bowers. 1999. Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational researcher 28, 2 (1999), 4–15.
[8]
John W Creswell and Cheryl N Poth. 2016. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
[9]
Kathryn Cunningham, Sarah Blanchard, Barbara Ericson, and Mark Guzdial. 2017. Using tracing and sketching to solve programming problems: Replicating and extending an analysis of what students draw. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on international computing education research. 164–172.
[10]
Quintin Cutts, Judy Robertson, Peter Donaldson, and Laurie O’Donnell. 2017. An evaluation of a professional learning network for computer science teachers. Computer Science Education 27, 1 (2017), 30–53.
[11]
Sharon J Derry, Roy D Pea, Brigid Barron, Randi A Engle, Frederick Erickson, Ricki Goldman, Rogers Hall, Timothy Koschmann, Jay L Lemke, Miriam Gamoran Sherin, 2010. Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The journal of the learning sciences 19, 1 (2010), 3–53.
[12]
Paul E Dickson, Tim Richards, and Brett A Becker. 2022. Experiences Implementing and Utilizing a Notional Machine in the Classroom. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 850–856.
[13]
Benedict du Boulay, Tim O’Shea, and John Monk. 1981. The black box inside the glass box: presenting computing concepts to novices. International Journal of man-machine studies 14, 3 (1981), 237–249.
[14]
Frederick Erickson 1985. Qualitative methods in research on teaching. Institute for Research on Teaching.
[15]
Frederick Erickson 2006. Definition and analysis of data from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. Handbook of complementary methods in education research 3 (2006), 177–192.
[16]
Sally Fincher, Johan Jeuring, Craig S Miller, Peter Donaldson, Benedict Du Boulay, Matthias Hauswirth, Arto Hellas, Felienne Hermans, Colleen Lewis, Andreas Mühling, 2020. Notional Machines in Computing Education: The Education of Attention. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 21–50.
[17]
Dedre Gentner and Donald R Gentner. 1983. Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. Mental models 99(1983), 129.
[18]
Joanna Goode, Gail Chapman, and Jane Margolis. 2012. Beyond curriculum: the exploring computer science program. ACM Inroads 3, 2 (2012), 47–53.
[19]
James G Greeno. 2012. Concepts in activities and discourses. Mind, Culture, and Activity 19, 3 (2012), 310–313.
[20]
James G Greeno and Yrjö Engeström. 2006. Learning in activity. na.
[21]
Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher 42, 1 (2013), 38–43.
[22]
Mark Guzdial, Shriram Krishnamurthi, Juha Sorva, and Jan Vahrenhold. 2019. Notional Machines and Programming Language Semantics in Education (Dagstuhl Seminar 19281). In Dagstuhl Reports, Vol. 9. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.
[23]
Rogers Hall and JG Greeno. 2008. Conceptual learning. 21st century education: A reference handbook 1 (2008), 212–221.
[24]
Gayithri Jayathirtha, Deborah Fields, Yasmin B Kafai, and Joseph Chipps. 2020. Supporting making online: the role of artifact, teacher and peer interactions in crafting electronic textiles. Information and Learning Sciences(2020).
[25]
Brigitte Jordan and Austin Henderson. 1995. Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The journal of the learning sciences 4, 1 (1995), 39–103.
[26]
A Susan Jurow. 2004. Generalizing in interaction: Middle school mathematics students making mathematical generalizations in a population-modeling project. Mind, Culture, and Activity 11, 4 (2004), 279–300.
[27]
Yasmin Kafai, Chris Proctor, and Debora Lui. 2020. From theory bias to theory dialogue: embracing cognitive, situated, and critical framings of computational thinking in K-12 CS education. ACM Inroads 11, 1 (2020), 44–53.
[28]
Yasmin B Kafai, Deborah A Fields, Debora A Lui, Justice T Walker, Mia S Shaw, Gayithri Jayathirtha, Tomoko M Nakajima, Joanna Goode, and Michael T Giang. 2019. Stitching the Loop with Electronic Textiles: Promoting Equity in High School Students’ Competencies and Perceptions of Computer Science. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1176–1182.
[29]
Shriram Krishnamurthi and Kathi Fisler. 2019. 13 Programming Paradigms and Beyond. The Cambridge handbook of computing education research (2019), 377.
[30]
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
[31]
Jasmine Y Ma. 2016. Designing disruptions for productive hybridity: The case of walking scale geometry. Journal of the Learning Sciences 25, 3 (2016), 335–371.
[32]
Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW(2019), 1–23.
[33]
Roy D Pea. 1986. Language-independent conceptual “bugs” in novice programming. Journal of educational computing research 2, 1 (1986), 25–36.
[34]
Yizhou Qian and James D Lehman. 2016. Correlates of Success in Introductory Programming: A Study with Middle School Students. Journal of Education and Learning 5, 2 (2016), 73–83.
[35]
Wolff-Michael Roth and Yew-Jin Lee. 2007. “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of educational research 77, 2 (2007), 186–232.
[36]
Anna Sfard. 1998. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational researcher 27, 2 (1998), 4–13.
[37]
Juha Sorva. 2013. Notional machines and introductory programming education. Trans. Comput. Educ 13, 2 (2013), 1–31.
[38]
Juha Sorva, Ville Karavirta, and Lauri Malmi. 2013. A review of generic program visualization systems for introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 13, 4 (2013), 1–64.
[39]
Preston Tunnell Wilson, Kathi Fisler, and Shriram Krishnamurthi. 2018. Evaluating the tracing of recursion in the substitution notional machine. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1023–1028.
[40]
Lev Semenovich Vygotsky and Michael Cole. 1978. Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.

Cited By

View all

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICER '22: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research - Volume 1
August 2022
372 pages
ISBN:9781450391948
DOI:10.1145/3501385
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 03 August 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. electronic textiles
  2. learner agency
  3. notional machines
  4. secondary computing
  5. student interaction

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

ICER 2022
Sponsor:
ICER 2022: ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
August 7 - 11, 2022
Lugano and Virtual Event, Switzerland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 189 of 803 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

ICER 2025
ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research
August 3 - 6, 2025
Charlottesville , VA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 234
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)124
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)25
Reflects downloads up to 26 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media