Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3408877.3432390acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

The Effects of Providing Starter Projects in Open-Ended Scratch Activities

Published: 05 March 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Given the importance of broadening participation in the field of computing, goals of supporting personal expression and developing a sense of belonging must live alongside the goals of conceptual knowledge and developing disciplinary expertise. Integrating opportunities for students to be creative in how they enact computing ideas plays an important role when designing curricula. We examine how student creativity, as expressed through theme and the use of costumes, backdrops, and narrative in Scratch projects, is affected by using a themed starter project. Starter projects are Scratch projects that include a set of sprites and backdrops aligned to a theme (e.g. baseball), but no code. Using within-group and between-group comparisons, we establish a baseline of what students do when they are given a starter project and explore how their projects differ in the absence of a starter project. This work contributes to our understanding of the impacts of structured elements within open-ended learning tasks and how we can design computer science learning experiences for students that promote opportunities for self-expression while engaging them in computing.

References

[1]
2018. Scratch Act 1. https://www.canonlab.org/scratchact1modules
[2]
2020. Code.Org. https://curriculum.code.org/
[3]
Joel C Adams and Andrew R Webster. 2012. What do students learn about programming from game, music video, and storytelling projects?. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. 643--648.
[4]
Veno Brennan, Haduong. 2020. Assessing Creativity in Computing Classrooms. (2020).
[5]
Karen Brennan, Christian Balch, and Michelle Chung. 2014. Creative computing. Harvard Graduate School of Education (2014).
[6]
Quinn Burke and Yasmin B Kafai. 2012. The writers?workshop for youth programmers: digital storytelling with scratch in middle school classrooms. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. 433--438.
[7]
Cynthia E Coburn, William R Penuel, and Kimberly E Geil. 2013. Researchpractice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts.
[8]
Merijke Coenraad, Jen Palmer, Diana Franklin, and David Weintrop. 2019. Enacting identities: Participatory design as a context for youth to reflect, project, and apply their emerging identities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 185--196.
[9]
Merijke Coenraad, Jen Palmer, Diana Franklin, and David Weintrop. 2019. Utilizing Participatory Design to Develop a Culturally Relevant Computer Science Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1261--1261.
[10]
Merijke Coenraad, David Weintrop, Donna Eatinger, Jen Palmer, and Diana Franklin. 2020. Identifying Spheres of Influence for a Culturally Relevant Computing Curriculum through Participatory Design. (2020).
[11]
Ron Eglash, Juan E Gilbert, and Ellen Foster. 2013. Toward culturally responsive computing education. Commun. ACM 56, 7 (2013), 33--36.
[12]
Deborah A Fields, Yasmin B Kafai, Anna Strommer, Elissa Wolf, Bailey Seiner, et al. 2014. Interactive storytelling for promoting creative expression in media and coding in youth online collaboratives in Scratch. Proceedings of constructionism (2014), 19--23.
[13]
Diana Franklin, Merijke Coenraad, Jennifer Palmer, Donna Eatinger, Anna Zipp, Marco Anaya, Max White, Hoang Pham, Ozan Gökdemir, and David Weintrop. 2020. An Analysis of Use-Modify-Create Pedagogical Approach's Success in Balancing Structure and Student Agency. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 14--24.
[14]
Diana Franklin, David Weintrop, Jennifer Palmer, Merijke Coenraad, Melissa Cobian, Kristan Beck, Andrew Rasmussen, Sue Krause, Max White, Marco Anaya, et al. 2020. Scratch Encore: The Design and Pilot of a Culturally-Relevant Intermediate Scratch Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 794--800.
[15]
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.
[16]
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 (TOCE) 14, 1 (2014), 1--20.
[17]
Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2007. Using storytelling to motivate programming. Commun. ACM 50, 7 (2007), 58--64.
[18]
Caitlin Kelleher, Randy Pausch, and Sara Kiesler. 2007. Storytelling alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 1455--1464.
[19]
Anastasia Kovalkov, Avi Segal, and Kobi Gal. 2020. In the Eye of the Beholder? Detecting Creativity in Visual Programming Environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05878 (2020).
[20]
Chronis Kynigos et al. 2007. Half-baked logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design. Informatics in Education-An International Journal 6, 2 (2007), 335--359.
[21]
Gloria Ladson-Billings. 2014. Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review 84, 1 (2014), 74--84.
[22]
J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. An application of hierarchical kappatype statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics (1977), 363--374.
[23]
Irene Lee, Fred Martin, Jill Denner, Bob Coulter,Walter Allan, Jeri Erickson, Joyce Malyn-Smith, and Linda Werner. 2011. Computational thinking for youth in practice. Acm Inroads 2, 1 (2011), 32--37.
[24]
Avril Loveless. 2002. Literature review in creativity, new technologies and learning. (2002).
[25]
Brian Magerko, Jason Freeman, Tom Mcklin, Mike Reilly, Elise Livingston, Scott Mccoid, and Andrea Crews-Brown. 2016. EarSketch: A STEAM-based approach for underrepresented populations in high school computer science education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 16, 4 (2016), 1--25.
[26]
John Maloney, Mitchel Resnick, Natalie Rusk, Brian Silverman, and Evelyn Eastmond. 2010. The scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 10, 4 (2010), 1--15.
[27]
John H Maloney, Kylie Peppler, Yasmin Kafai, Mitchel Resnick, and Natalie Rusk. 2008. Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education. 367--371.
[28]
Jaeger McClure. 2020. Assessing Creativity: A palette of possibilities. [White Paper] (2020).
[29]
Tom McKlin, Brian Magerko, Taneisha Lee, Dana Wanzer, Doug Edwards, and Jason Freeman. 2018. Authenticity and personal creativity: How EarSketch affects student persistence. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 987--992.
[30]
Luis C Moll, Cathy Amanti, Deborah Neff, and Norma Gonzalez. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into practice 31, 2 (1992), 132--141.
[31]
Na'ilah Suad Nasir, Ann S Rosebery, BethWarren, and Carol D Lee. 2006. Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. (2006).
[32]
Richard Noss and Celia Hoyles. 1996. Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Vol. 17. Springer Science & Business Media.
[33]
Karen O'Quin and Susan P Besemer. 1989. The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal 2, 4 (1989), 267--278.
[34]
Seymour Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: Computers, children, and powerful ideas. NY: Basic Books (1980), 255.
[35]
Seymour Papert and Idit Harel. 1991. Situating constructionism. Constructionism 36, 2 (1991), 1--11.
[36]
Django Paris. 2012. Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational researcher 41, 3 (2012), 93--97.
[37]
Kylie Peppler, Erica Rosenfeld Halverson, and Yasmin B Kafai. 2016. Makeology: Makers as Learners (Volume 2). Vol. 2. Routledge.
[38]
Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, et al. 2009. Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (2009), 60--67.
[39]
Jean Salac, Cathy Thomas, Chloe Butler, Ashley Sanchez, and Diana Franklin. 2020. TIPP&SEE: A Learning Strategy to Guide Students through Use-Modify Scratch Activities. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 79--85.
[40]
San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Computer Science Team. 2018. SFUSD?s Creative Computing Curriculum. https://sites.google.com/sfusd.edu/ 3--5cs/green
[41]
Kristin A Searle, Deborah A Fields, Debora A Lui, and Yasmin B Kafai. 2014. Diversifying high school students? views about computing with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research. 75--82.
[42]
Megan Smith. 2016. Computer science for all. https://doi.org/10.1145/2524713. 2524716
[43]
The College Board. 2017. AP Computer Science Principles. Technical Report.
[44]
Moran Tsur and Natalie Rusk. 2018. Scratch microworlds: designing project-based introductions to coding. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 894--899.
[45]
Joshua L Weese, Russell Feldhausen, and Nathan H Bean. 2016. The impact of STEM experiences on student self-efficacy in computational thinking. (2016).
[46]
Brenda Darden Wilkerson. 2018. The evolution before the revolution. In SIGCSE'18: The 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3166085

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Specification and Scaffolding in Project-Based Learning of Systems ArchitectureProceedings of the 25th Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education10.1145/3593342.3593354(1-7)Online publication date: 4-May-2023
  • (2021)Kreatives Handeln und Bildungsorientierte visuelle Programmiersprachenmerz | medien + erziehung10.21240/merz/2021.5.465:5(36-48)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2021
  • (2021)Why Young Programmers Should Make Game Art: A Study from a Game-Making CourseInformatics in Schools. Rethinking Computing Education10.1007/978-3-030-90228-5_5(57-68)Online publication date: 3-Nov-2021

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
March 2021
1454 pages
ISBN:9781450380621
DOI:10.1145/3408877
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]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 05 March 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. K-12
  2. computer science education
  3. creativity
  4. scaffolding
  5. scratch

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

SIGCSE '21
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

Upcoming Conference

SIGCSE TS 2025
The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
February 26 - March 1, 2025
Pittsburgh , PA , USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)120
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)11
Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Specification and Scaffolding in Project-Based Learning of Systems ArchitectureProceedings of the 25th Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education10.1145/3593342.3593354(1-7)Online publication date: 4-May-2023
  • (2021)Kreatives Handeln und Bildungsorientierte visuelle Programmiersprachenmerz | medien + erziehung10.21240/merz/2021.5.465:5(36-48)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2021
  • (2021)Why Young Programmers Should Make Game Art: A Study from a Game-Making CourseInformatics in Schools. Rethinking Computing Education10.1007/978-3-030-90228-5_5(57-68)Online publication date: 3-Nov-2021

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media