Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students

References

• Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barron, B. (2004). Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(1), 1–36.10.2190/1N20-VV12-4RB5-33VA
   Google Scholar
• Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Darling-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, … J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 11–70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Barron, B., Martin, C., Roberts, E., Osipovich, A., & Ross, M. (2002). Assisting and assessing the development of technological fluencies: Insights from a project-based approach to teaching computer science. In Proceedings of the conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 668–669). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Basawapatna, A., Koh, K. H., Repenning, A., Webb, D. C., & Marshall, K. S. (2011). Recognizing computational thinking patterns. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 245–250). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., & Grimley, M. (2009). Computer science unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. The New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 13, 20–29.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, T., Andreae, P., & Robins, A. (2012). Computer science in NZ high schools: The first year of the new standards. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education. Raleigh, NC.
   Google Scholar
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–74.
   Google Scholar
• Bornat, R. (1987). Programming from first principles. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
   Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience and school, expanded edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (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.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–272). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (p. 487). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Campe, S., Denner, J., & Werner, L. (2013). Intentional computing: Getting the results you want from game programming classes. Journal of Computing Teachers.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, L. (2006). Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to major in computer science. In Proceedings of SIGCSE (pp. 27–31). ACM, Houston, TX, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Caspersen, M. E., & Nowack, P. (2013). Computational thinking and practice: A generic approach to computing in Danish high schools. In Proceedings of the fifteenth Australasian computing education conference (Vol. 136, pp. 137–143). Sydney: Australian Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Conley, D. T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Creating systems of assessment for deeper learning. Retrieved from http://scee.groupsite.com/uploads/files/x/000/09e/76f/creating-systems-assessment-deeper-learning.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dann, W., Cosgrove, D., Slater, D., Culyba, D., & Cooper, S. (2012). Mediated transfer: Alice 3 to Java. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 141–146). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323, 66–69.10.1126/science.1167311
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denner, J., Werner, L., & Ortiz, E. (2012). Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Computers & Education, 58, 240–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Simon, B. (2008). Evaluating a new exam question: Parsons problems. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research (pp. 113–124). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• DiSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• du Boulay, B. (1986). Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 57–73.10.2190/3LFX-9RRF-67T8-UVK9
   Google Scholar
• Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutierrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp. 303–328). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809989
   Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., Lam, D. P., Meyer, X. S., & Nix, S. E. (2012). How does expansive framing promote transfer? Several proposed explanations and a research agenda for investigating them. Educational Psychologist, 47, 215–231.10.1080/00461520.2012.695678
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ericson, B., & McKlin, T. (2012). Effective and sustainable computing summer camps. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 289–294). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Fidge, C., & Teague, D. (2009). Losing their marbles: Syntax-free programming for assessing problem-solving skills. In Proceedings of the eleventh Australasian conference on computing education-volume 95 (pp. 75–82). Sydney: Australian Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Fields, D. A., Giang, M., & Kafai, Y. (2014). Programming in the wild: Trends in youth computational participation in the online Scratch community. In Proceedings of the 9th workshop in primary and secondary computing education (pp. 2–11). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Fields, D. A., Searle, K. A., Kafai, Y. B., & Min, H. S. (2012). Debuggems to assess student learning in e-textiles. Proceedings of the 43rd SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education. ACM Press, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Fincher, S. (1999). What are we doing when we teach programming? In Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999 (Vol. 1, pp. 12A4-1–12A4-5). New York, NY: IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. (2003). Learning and transfer: A general role for analogical encoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 393–408.10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glass, A. L., & Sinha, N. (2013). Providing the answers does not improve performance on a college final exam. Educational Psychology, 33, 87–118.10.1080/01443410.2012.723864
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goode, J., Chapman, G., Margolis, J., Landa, J., Ullah, T., Watkins, D., & Stephenson, C. (2013). Exploring computer science. Retrieved from http://www.exploringcs.org/curriculum
   Google Scholar
• Greening, T. (1998). Computer science: Through the eyes of potential students. In Proceedings of the 3rd Australasian conference on computer science education (pp. 145–154). ACM, The University of Queensland, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42, 38–43.10.3102/0013189X12463051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzdial, M. (2004). Programming environments for novices. Computer Science Education Research, 2004, 127–154.
   Google Scholar
• Hewner, M. (2013). Undergraduate conceptions of the field of computer science. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international ACM conference on international computing education research (pp. 107–114). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Hewner, M., & Guzdial, M. (2008). Attitudes about computing in postsecondary graduates. In Proceeding of ICER 2008 (pp. 71–78). ACM, Sydney, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Kurland, D. M., & Pea, R. D. (1985). Children's mental models of recursive logo programs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 235–243.10.2190/JV9Y-5PD0-MX22-9J4Y
   Google Scholar
• Kurland, D. M., Pea, R. D., Clement, C., & Mawby, R. (1986). A study of the development of programming ability and thinking skills in high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 429–458.10.2190/BKML-B1QV-KDN4-8ULH
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., … Werner, L. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2, 32–37.10.1145/1929887
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2012). Building upon and enriching grade four mathematics standards with programming curriculum. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 57–62). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, C. M. (2013). Online curriculum. Retrieved from http://colleenmlewis.com/Scratch
   Google Scholar
• Lister, R., Fidge, C., & Teague, D. (2009). Further evidence of a relationship between explaining, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 41(3), pp. 161–165). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Lopez, M., Whalley, J., Robbins, P., & Lister, R. (2008). Relationships between reading, tracing and writing skills in introductory programming. In Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on computing education research (pp. 101–112). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Maloney, J., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y. B., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. Proceedings of SIGCSE ‘08. ACM Press, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, C. D. (2004). Draw a computer scientist. Working group reports on innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE-WGR’04) (pp. 11–12). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (1989). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. In E. Soloway & J. C. Spohrer (Eds.), Studying the novice programmer (pp. 129–159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2010). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. In Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on computing education research (ICER ‘10) (pp. 69–76). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, A., Purchase, H. C., & Hamer, J. (2009). Computing science: What do pupils think? In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education (ITiCSE’09) (p. 353). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Monroy-Hernández, A., & Resnick, M. (2008). Feature: Empowering kids to create and share programmable media. Interactions, 15, 50–53.10.1145/1340961
   Google Scholar
• Moskal, B., Lurie, D., & Cooper, S. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of a new instructional approach. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 36, 75–79.10.1145/1028174
   Google Scholar
• Myers, B. A., Ko, A. J., & Burnett, M. M. (2006). Invited research overview: End-user programming. In CHI’06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 75–80). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2011). Committee for the workshops on computational thinking: Report of a workshop of pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, D., & Haden, P. (2006). Parson’s programming puzzles: A fun and effective learning tool for first programming courses. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian conference on computing education (Vol. 52, pp. 157–163). Sydney: Australian Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 423–451.10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2, 137–168.10.1016/0732-118X(84)90018-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pea, R. D., Soloway, E., & Spohrer, J. (1987). The buggy path to the development of programming expertise. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 9, 5–30.
   Google Scholar
• Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N., & Simmons, R. (1988). Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming. Review of Educational Research, 58, 303–326.10.3102/00346543058003303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, P., Cooper, S., & Stephenson, C. (2012). Computer science K-8: Building a strong foundation. CSTA voice special issue, 13–14.
   Google Scholar
• Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st acm technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE ‘10) (pp. 265–269). New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, R., & Caperton, I. H. (2011). Contrasts in student engagement, meaning-making, dislikes, and challenges in a discovery-based program of game design learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 267–289.10.1007/s11423-011-9191-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robins, A., Rountree, J., & Rountree, N. (2003). Learning and teaching programming: A review and discussion. Computer Science Education, 13, 137–172.10.1076/csed.13.2.137.14200
   Google Scholar
• Royal Society. (2012). Shut down or restart: The way forward for computing in UK schools. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/education/policy/computing-in-schools/report/
   Google Scholar
• Rutstein, D., Snow, E., & Bienkowski, M. (2014). Computational thinking practices: Analyzing and modeling a critical domain in computer science education. Paper presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Philadelphia, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475–5223.10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–51). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 759.10.1037/a0025140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129–184.10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. (2013). The royal society of Edinburgh/British computer society computer science exemplification project. In Proceedings of ITiCSE’13 (pp. 313–315). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.10.3102/0013189X015002004
   Google Scholar
• SRI International. (2013). Exploring CS curricular mapping. Retrieved from http://pact.sri.com/?page_id=1380
   Google Scholar
• Tai, R., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Career choice: Enhanced: Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.10.1126/science.1128690
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taub, R., Ben-Ari, M., & Armoni, M. (2009). The effect of CS unplugged on middle-school students’ views of CS. In SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 41(3), pp. 99–103). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Touretzky, D. S., Marghitu, D., Ludi, S., Bernstein, D., & Ni, L. (2013). Accelerating K-12 computational thinking using scaffolding, staging, and abstraction. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 609–614). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Vihavainen, A., Paksula, M., & Luukkainen, M. (2011). Extreme apprenticeship method in teaching programming for beginners. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 93–98). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• von Hippel, E., & Tyre, M. J. (1995). How learning by doing is done: Problem identification in novel process equipment. Research Policy, 24(1), 1–12.10.1016/0048-7333(93)00747-H
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., & Kawamoto, D. C. (2012). The fairy performance assessment: Measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE ‘12) (pp. 215–220). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for supervision and curriculum development. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49, 33–36.10.1145/1118178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking – What and why? The Link Magazine, Spring. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved from http://link.cs.cmu.edu/article.php?a=600
   Google Scholar
• Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2007). What is computing? Bridging the gap between teenagers’ perceptions and graduate students’ experiences. In Proceedings of ICER 2007 (pp. 39–50). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Zur Bargury, I. (2012). A new curriculum for junior-high in computer science. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education. (pp. 204–208). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Zur-Bargury, I., Pârv, B., & Lanzberg, D. (2013). A nationwide exam as a tool for improving a new curriculum. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 267–272). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar