Open Journal Systems

Classroom Talk and Computational Thinking

Craig W Jenkins

Abstract


This paper is part of a wider action research project taking place at a secondary school in South Wales, UK.  The overarching aim of the project is to examine the potential for aspects of literacy and computational thinking to be developed using extensible ‘build your own block’ programming activities.  This paper examines classroom talk at an extracurricular programming club and focuses in particular on dialogue relating to computational thinking.  Learners spent a number of weeks carrying out an activity designed using the Snap programming tool.  The activity was themed around language and the task was to devise a collection of fixed-form poetry.

The findings are in two parts.  First is a dialogue analysis using the SEDA coding scheme.  This analysis revealed a number of learner interactions showing evidence of reasoning.  Second, examples of talk sequences are provided in order to examine how the reasoning identified in the interactions relate to what we may recognise as computational thinking.  The paper concludes by considering how dialogic approaches in the classroom potentially have an important role to play in the process of teaching young people to think computationally.


Keywords


computational thinking;snap;dialogic teaching;digital competence;seda

References


Alexander, R. (2006) Towards Dialogic Teaching. 3rd edn. New York: Dialogos.

Black, T. (2002) Understanding Social Science Research. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Resnick, M. and Brennan, K. (2012) ‘New Frameworks for Studying and Assessing the Development of Computational Thinking’, Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada, 13-17 April. Washington, DC: AERA [Online]. Available at: http://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/files/ Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf (Accessed 28 October 2013).

Chong, J., Plummer, R., Leifer, L., Klemmer, S., Eris, O. and Toye, G. (2005) ‘Pair Programming: When and Why it Works’, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG 2005), Sussex, Brighton, 29 June – 1 July. Sussex: University of Brighton [Online]. Available at: http://www.ppig.org/papers/17th-chong.pdf (Accessed: 22 September 2015).

Cockburn, A. and Williams, L. (2000) ‘The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming’, Proceedings of the First International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering (XP2000), Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, 21 – 23 June. Calgary, CA: University of Calgary [Online]. Available at: http://collaboration.csc.ncsu.edu/laurie/ Papers/XPSardinia.PDF (Accessed: 22 September 2015).

Estyn. (2016) Inspection under section 10 of the Schools Inspection Act 1996: School X. Cardiff: Estyn.

Goldenberg, E. and Feurzeig, W. (1987) Exploring Language with Logo. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lyle, S. (2008) ‘Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from Classroom Practice’, Language and Education, 22(3), pp. 222-240.

Mönig, J. and Harvey, B. (2009) ‘Bringing “No Ceiling” to Scratch: Can One Language Serve Kids and Computer Scientists?’, Constructionism 2010, Paris, France, 16-21 August. Paris, France: AUP [Online]. Available at: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/BYOB.pdf (Accessed 29 October 2013).

Sharples, M. (1985) Cognition, Computers and Creative Writing. West Sussex: Ellis Horwood.

Welsh Government (2011) Raising School Standards [Online]. Available at: http://gov.wales/docs/dcells/ publications/110629raisingschoolstandardsen.pdf (Accessed: 8 August 2016).

Welsh Government (2016) Draft Digital Competence Framework [Online]. http://learning.gov.wales/docs/learningwales/publications/160611-draft-digital-competence-framework.xlsx (Accessed: 8 August 2016).

Wing, J. (2006) ‘Computational Thinking’, Communications of the ACM, 49(3), pp. 33–35.


Full Text: PDF

DOI: 10.21585/ijcses.v1i4.15

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2017 Craig W Jenkins
x
Message