research-article

Designing for Student-Directedness: How K–12 Teachers Utilize Peers to Support Projects

Authors:

Sarah Blum-Smith,

Jane KangAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 22, Issue 2

Article No.: 10, Pages 1 - 18

https://doi.org/10.1145/3476515

Published: 01 November 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Student-directed projects—projects in which students have individual control over what they create and how to create it—are a promising practice for supporting the development of conceptual understanding and personal interest in K–12 computer science classrooms. In this article, we explore a central (and perhaps counterintuitive) design principle identified by a group of K–12 computer science teachers who support student-directed projects in their classrooms: in order for students to develop their own ideas and determine how to pursue them, students must have opportunities to engage with other students’ work. In this qualitative study, we investigated the instructional practices of 25 K–12 teachers using a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews to develop understandings of how they used peer work to support student-directed projects in their classrooms. Teachers described supporting their students in navigating three stages of project development: generating ideas, pursuing ideas, and presenting ideas. For each of these three stages, teachers considered multiple factors to encourage engagement with peer work in their classrooms, including the quality and completeness of shared work and the modes of interaction with the work. We discuss how this pedagogical approach offers students new relationships to their own learning, to their peers, and to their teachers and communicates important messages to students about their own competence and agency, potentially contributing to aims within computer science for broadening participation.

References

[1]

Albert Bandura. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 28, 2 (1993), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

[2]

Paulo Blikstein and Sepi Hejazi Moghadam. 2019. Computing education: Literature review and voices from the field. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Sally A. Fincher and A. Robins (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 56–78.

[3]

Paulo Blikstein, Marcelo Worsley, Chris Piech, Mehran Sahami, Steven Cooper, and Daphne Koller. 2014. Programming pluralism: Using learning analytics to detect patterns in the learning of computer programming. Journal of the Learning Sciences 23, 4 (2014), 561–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.954750

[4]

Richard E. Boyatzis. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.

[5]

Karen Brennan. 2015. Beyond right or wrong: Challenges of including creative design activities in the classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 23, 2 (2015), 279–299.

[6]

Karen Brennan. 2021. How kids manage self-directed programming projects: Strategies and structures. Journal of the Learning Sciences. Advance online publication (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1936531

[7]

Shannon Campe, Jill Denner, Emily Green, and David Torres. 2019. Pair programming in middle school: Variations in interactions and behaviors. Computer Science Education 30, 1 (2019), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1648119

[8]

Charlie Daly and Jane Horgan. 2005. Patterns of plagiarism. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 383–387. https://doi.org/10.1145/1047344.1047473

Digital Library

[9]

Michel de Certeau. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

[10]

John Dewey. 1900. The School and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

[11]

John Dewey. 1902. The Child and the Curriculum. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

[12]

John Dewey. 1938. Experience and Education. Collier Books, New York, NY.

[13]

Eleanor Duckworth. 1972. The having of wonderful ideas. Harvard Educational Review 42, 2 (1972), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.42.2.g71724846u525up3

[14]

Katrina Falkner and Nickolas J. G. Falkner. 2012. Supporting and structuring “contributing student pedagogy” in computer science curricula. Computer Science Education 22, 4 (2012), 413–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.727713

[15]

Sally Fincher. 2015. What are we doing when we teach computing in schools? Communications of the ACM 58, 5 (2015), 24–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/2742693

Digital Library

[16]

Sally Fincher and Daniel Knox. 2013. The porous classroom: Professional practices in the computing curriculum. Computer 46, 9 (2013), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2013.261

Digital Library

[17]

Sally Fincher and Marian Petre. 1998. Project-based learning practices in computer science education. In 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Moving from “Teacher-Centered” to “Learner-Centered” Education (FIE’98). Conference Proceedings (Cat. No. 98CH36214), Vol. 3. IEEE, New York, NY, 1185–1191. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.1998.738607

Digital Library

[18]

Sally Fincher, Marian Petre, and Martyn Clark. 2001. Computer Science Project Work: Principles and Pragmatics. Springer, London.

Digital Library

[19]

Robert Fraser. 2014. Collaboration, collusion and plagiarism in computer science coursework. Informatics in Education 13, 2 (2014), 179–195.

[20]

Paulo Freire. 1970. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum, New York, NY.

[21]

Friedrich Fröbel. 1887. The Education of Man. D. Appleton, New York, NY.

[22]

Kevin Gary. 2015. Project-based learning. Computer 48, 9 (2015), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2015.268

Digital Library

[23]

Melissa Sommerfeld Gresalfi and Frank Lester. 2009. What’s worth knowing in mathematics? In Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?, S. Tobias and T.M. Duffy (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, 264–290.

[24]

Nathan Holbert, Matthew Berland, and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2020. Designing Constructionist Futures: The Art Theory, and Practice of Learning Designs. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[25]

John Caldwell Holt. 1972. Freedom and Beyond (1st ed.). E. P. Dutton, New York, NY.

[26]

Gayithri Jayathirtha and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2020. Interactive stitch sampler: A synthesis of a decade of research on using electronic textiles to answer the who, where, how, and what for K–12 computer science education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 20, 4 (2020), Article 28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3418299

Digital Library

[27]

Yasmin Kafai and Mitchel Resnick. 1996. Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in a Digital World. Mahwah, NJ.

[28]

Yasmin B. Kafai, Eunkyoung Lee, Kristin Searle, Deborah Fields, Eliot Kaplan, and Debora Lui. 2014. A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school: Introducing computational concepts, practices, and perspectives with electronic textiles. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14, 1 (2014), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576874

Digital Library

[29]

Neha Katira, Laurie Williams, Eric Wiebe, Carol Miller, Suzanna Balik, and Ed Gehringer. 2004. On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. In Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/971300.971307

Digital Library

[30]

Janet L. Kolodner, Paul J. Camp, David Crismond, Barbara Fasse, Jackie Gray, Jennifer Holbrook, Sadhana Puntambekar, and Mike Ryan. 2003. Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12, 4 (2003), 495–547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2

[31]

Siu-Cheung Kong and Yi-Qing Wang. 2019. Positive youth development from a “3Cs” programming perspective: A multi-study investigation in the university. Computer Science Education 29, 4 (2019), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1599646

[32]

Joe Krajcik and Namsoo Shin. 2014. Project-based learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 275–297.

[33]

Steinar Kvale. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

[34]

Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

[35]

Janet Liebenberg, Elsa Mentz, and Betty Breed. 2012. Pair programming and secondary school girls’ enjoyment of programming and the subject information technology (IT). Computer Science Education 22, 3 (2012), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.713180

[36]

Wendy Luttrell. 2010. Reflexive writing exercises. In Qualitative Educational Research: Readings in Reflexive Methodology and Transformative Practice, W. Luttrell (Ed.). Routledge, New York, NY, 469–480.

[37]

Andrew Luxton-Reilly and Paul Denny. 2010. Constructive evaluation: A pedagogy of student-contributed assessment. Computer Science Education 20, 2 (2010), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2010.486275

[38]

Richard E. Mayer. 2009. Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?, S. Tobias and T.M. Duffy (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, 184–200.

[39]

Nachiappan Nagappan, Laurie Williams, Miriam Ferzli, Eric Wiebe, Kai Yang, Carol Miller, and Suzanne Balik. 2003. Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming. SIGCSE Bulletin 35, 1 (2003), 359–362. https://doi.org/10.1145/792548.612006

Digital Library

[40]

Na’ilah Suad Nasir and Sepehr Vakil. 2017. STEM-focused academies in urban schools: Tensions and possibilities. Journal of the Learning Sciences 26, 3 (2017), 376–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1314215

[41]

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Cultivating Interest and Competencies in Computing: Authentic Experiences and Design Factors. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25912

[42]

National Research Council. 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9853.

[43]

Seymour Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York, NY.

Digital Library

[44]

Nichole Pinkard, Sheena Erete, Caitlin K. Martin, and Maxine McKinney de Royston. 2017. Digital youth divas: Exploring narrative-driven curriculum to spark middle school girls’ interest in computational activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences 26, 3 (2017), 477–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1307199

[45]

Heather Pon-Barry, Becky Wai-Ling Packard, and Audrey St. John. 2017. Expanding capacity and promoting inclusion in introductory computer science: A focus on near-peer mentor preparation and code review. Computer Science Education 27, 1 (2017), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2017.1333270

[46]

Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner. 1969. Teaching as a Subversive Activity. Delta, New York, NY.

[47]

Alex D. Radermacher and Gursimran S. Walia. 2011. Investigating the effective implementation of pair programming: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 655–660. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953346

Digital Library

[48]

K. Ann Renninger, Yanyan Ren, and Heidi M. Kern. 2018. Motivation, engagement, and interest: “In the end, it came down to you and how you think of the problem.” In International Handbook of the Learning Sciences, F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, and P. Reimann (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, 116–126.

[49]

Mitchel Resnick. 2017. Lifelong Kindergarten: Cultivating Creativity Through Projects, Passion, Peers, and Play. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[50]

Anthony V. Robins. 2019. Novice programmers and introductory programming. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Anthony V. Robins and Sally A. Fincher (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 327–376. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.013

[51]

Carl Rogers. 1969. Freedom to Learn. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, OH.

[52]

Kathryn Roulston. 2010. Reflective Interviewing: A Guide to Theory & Practice. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

[53]

Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, 1 (2000), 68.

[54]

Jean Ryoo, Joanna Goode, and Jane Margolis. 2015. It takes a village: Supporting inquiry- and equity-oriented computer science pedagogy through a professional learning community. Computer Science Education 25, 4 (2015), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1130952

[55]

Keith Sawyer. 2006. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper Perennial, New York, NY.

[56]

Irving Seidman. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press, New York, NY.

[57]

Beth Simon, Christopher Hundhausen, Charlie McDowell, Linda Werner, Helen Hu, and Clif Kussmaul. 2019. Students as teachers and communicators. In The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research, Anthony V. Robins and Sally A. Fincher (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 827–858. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108654555.030

[58]

Amber Solomon, Vanessa Oguamanam, Mark Guzdial, and Betsy DiSalvo. 2019. Making CS learning visible: Case studies on how visibility of student work supports a community of learners in CS classrooms. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. ACM, 3319791, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1145/3304221.3319791

Digital Library

[59]

Carolee Stewart-Gardiner, David G. Kay, Joyce Currie Little, Joseph D. Chase, John Fendrich, Laurie A. Williams, and Ursula Wolz. 2001. Collaboration vs plagiarism in computer science programming courses. In Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 406–407. https://doi.org/10.1145/364447.364790

Digital Library

[60]

Harald Søndergaard and Raoul A. Mulder. 2012. Collaborative learning through formative peer review: Pedagogy, programs and potential. Computer Science Education 22, 4 (2012), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2012.728041

[61]

Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown. 2010. A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change. CreateSpace, Lexington, KY.

[62]

Linda Werner, Jill Denner, and Shannon Campe. 2014. Children programming games: A strategy for measuring computational learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14, 4 (2014), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677091

Digital Library

[63]

Laurie Williams, Eric Wiebe, Kai Yang, Miriam Ferzli, and Carol Miller. 2002. In support of pair programming in the introductory computer science course. Computer Science Education 12, 3 (2002), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.12.3.197.8618

[64]

Aman Yadav, Sarah Gretter, Susanne Hambrusch, and Phil Sands. 2016. Expanding computer science education in schools: Understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education 26, 4 (2016), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1257418

Cited By

Mohamad NOmar HIsa NAmron M(2023)Comprehensive Supervision Platform (CSP) on Padlet as Open Educational Resources Initiative: Our ExperienceFinance, Accounting and Law in the Digital Age10.1007/978-3-031-27296-7_11(111-121)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27296-7_11

Index Terms

Designing for Student-Directedness: How K–12 Teachers Utilize Peers to Support Projects
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. K-12 education

Recommendations

Exploring Teachers' Value Beliefs of Integrating Digital Literacy in K-12 Classrooms

The purpose of the exploratory study was to investigate teacher value beliefs of integrating digital literacy into their classrooms. Participants were forty-six teachers enrolled in an educational technology course. Data was collected from online ...
Enhancing middle school students' scientific learning and motivation through agent-based learning

Facing students' decreasing motivation to pursue scientific study, schools and educators need to coordinate new technologies with pedagogical agents to effectively sustain or promote students' scientific learning and motivation to learn. Although the ...
Empirical Comparison of 3-D Virtual World and Face-to-Face Classroom for Higher Education

Many higher education institutions have set up virtual classrooms in the 3-D virtual world. In this research, the authors assess the relative effectiveness of a 3-D virtual world learning environment, Second Life, compared to traditional face-to-face ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 22, Issue 2

June 2022

312 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3494072

Editor:
Amy J. Ko
University of Washington, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

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 ACM 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].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2021

Accepted: 01 July 2021

Revised: 01 June 2021

Received: 01 February 2021

Published in TOCE Volume 22, Issue 2

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Refereed

Funding Sources

Siegel Family Endowment

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
554
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)90
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

Reflects downloads up to 10 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Mohamad NOmar HIsa NAmron M(2023)Comprehensive Supervision Platform (CSP) on Padlet as Open Educational Resources Initiative: Our ExperienceFinance, Accounting and Law in the Digital Age10.1007/978-3-031-27296-7_11(111-121)Online publication date: 12-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27296-7_11

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View full text|Download PDF

View Issue’s Table of Contents