Construction, categorization, and consensus: student generated computational artifacts as a context for disciplinary reflection
 Michelle Hoda WilkersonJerde
 … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discount
Rent now* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
Get AccessAbstract
There are increasing calls to prepare K12 students to use computational tools and principles when exploring scientific or mathematical phenomena. The purpose of this paper is to explore whether and how constructionist computersupported collaborative environments can explicitly engage students in this practice. The Categorizer is a Javascriptbased interactive gallery that allows members of a learning community to contribute computational artifacts they have constructed to a shared collection. Learners can then analyze the collection of artifacts, and sort them into userdefined categories. In a formative case study of the Categorizer for a fractal activity in three middle grade (ages 11–14) classrooms, there was evidence that participating students began to evaluate fractals based on structural and mathematical properties, and afterward could create algorithms that would generate fractals with particular area reduction rates. Further analysis revealed that students’ construction and categorization experiences could be better integrated by explicitly scaffolding discussion and negotiation of the categorization schemes they develop. This led to the development of a new module that enables teachers and students to explore points of agreement and disagreement across student categorization schemes. I conclude with a description of limitations of the study and environment, implications for the broader community, and future work.
Inside
Within this Article
 Introduction
 Motivation and background
 Theoretical framework
 Design of the categorizer
 Case study: creating and analyzing fractal structure
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusions
 References
 References
Other actions
 Alligood, K. T., Sauer, T. D., & Yorke, J. A. (2000). Chaos: An introduction to dynamical systems. New York: Springer.
 Ares, N., Stroup, W. M., & Schademan, A. R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in grouplevel development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 1–24.
 Bailey, D. H., & Borwein, J. M. (2011). Exploratory experimentation and computation. Notices of the AMS, 58(10), 1410–1419.
 Baish, J. W., & Jain, R. K. (2000). Fractals and cancer. Cancer Research, 60(14), 3683–3688.
 Barr, D., Harrison, J., & Conery, L. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for everyone. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.
 Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.
 Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using agentbased modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 81–119. CrossRef
 Brady, C., White, T., Davis, S., & Hegedus, S. (2013). SimCalc and the networked classroom. In S. J. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), The SimCalc vision and contributions: Democratizing access to important mathematics (pp. 99–121). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
 Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(22), 141–178. CrossRef
 Chandrasekharan, S. (2009). Building to discover: A common coding model. Cognitive Science, 33(6), 1059–1086. CrossRef
 Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152. CrossRef
 Clark, A. C., & Ernst, J. V. (2008). STEMbased computational modeling for technology education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 34(1), 20–27.
 Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 9–13. CrossRef
 Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology. Berlin: Springer.
 Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved December 15, 2012, from http://www.corestandards.org/Math.
 de Jong, T., Weinberger, A., Girault, I., Kluge, A., Lazonder, A. W., Pedaste, M., et al. (2012). Using scenarios to design complex technologyenhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 883–901. CrossRef
 Demko, S., Hodges, L., & Naylor, B. (1985). Construction of fractal objects with iterated function systems. AC SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 19(3), 271–278. CrossRef
 Dierbach, C., Hochheiser, H., Collins, S., Jerome, G., Ariza, C., Kelleher, T., & Kaza, S. (2011). A model for piloting pathways for computational thinking in a general education curriculum. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 257–262). ACM.
 diSessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 diSessa, A. A., & Abelson, H. (1986). Boxer: A reconstructible computational medium. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 859–868. CrossRef
 Edelson, D. C., Pea, R. D., & Gomez, L. M. (1996). The collaboratory notebook. Communications of the ACM, 39, 32–33. CrossRef
 Forte, A., & Bruckman, A. (2007). Constructing text: Wiki as a toolkit for (collaborative?) learning. In International Symposium on Wikis: Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium on Wikis (Vol. 21, No. 25, pp. 31–42).
 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
 Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516. CrossRef
 Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. CrossRef
 Hambrusch, S., Hoffmann, C., Korb, J. T., Haugan, M., & Hosking, A. L. (2009). A multidisciplinary approach towards computational thinking for science majors. In ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 183–187). New York: ACM.
 Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. New York: Ablex Publishing.
 Hegedus, S. J., & MorenoArmella, L. (2009). Intersecting representation and communication infrastructures. ZDM, 41(4), 399–412. CrossRef
 HmeloSilver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., & Chernobilsky, E. (2011). Representational tools for understanding complex computersupported collaborative learning environments. Analyzing Interactions in CSCL, 12, 83–106. CrossRef
 Jackson, S., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2000). ModelIt: A design retrospective. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Advanced designs for the technologies of learning: Innovations in science and mathematics education (pp. 77–116). New York: Wiley.
 Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 Kahn, K. (1996). ToonTalk™: An animated programming environment for children. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 7(2), 197–217. CrossRef
 Khan, S. (2008). The case in casebased design of educational software: A methodological interrogation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 423–447. CrossRef
 Konold, C., & Miller, C. D. (2005). TinkerPlots: Dynamic data exploration [Computer software]. Emeryville, CA: Key Curriculum Press.
 Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. V. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Hodder Arnold.
 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. CrossRef
 Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. CrossRef
 Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538. CrossRef
 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2003). Fractal tool [computer software]. NCTM Illuminations Resource Website, Retrieved August 17, 2013, from http://illuminations.nctm.org/ActivityDetail.aspx?ID=17.
 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
 National Research Council Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
 National Research Council Committee on Science Learning, & Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. (2007). In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.), Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
 Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (2006). Exploring mathematics through construction and collaboration. In: R. K Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 389–405). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc.
 Papert, S. (1996). An exploration in the space of mathematics educations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 95–123.
 Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers at the Math Forum. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 60–95). New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
 Repenning, A., Ioannidou, A., & Zola, J. (2000). AgentSheets: Enduser programmable simulations. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3(3), 351.
 Repenning, A., Webb, D., & Ioannidou, A. (2010, March). 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 (pp. 265–269). New York: ACM.
 Resnick, M., Maloney, J., MonroyHernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. CrossRef
 Romberg, T. A., & Kaput, J. J. (1999). Mathematics worth teaching, mathematics worth understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.) Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5. CrossRef
 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledgebuilding communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283. CrossRef
 Sherin, B. L. (2001). A comparison of programming languages and algebraic notation as expressive languages for physics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 6(1), 1–61. CrossRef
 Slotta, J. D., & Aleahmad, T. (2009). WISE technology lessons: Moving from a local proprietary system to a global open source framework. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(2), 169–189. CrossRef
 Techsmith Corporation (2004). Camtasia [Computer software].
 Tissenbaum, M., Lui, M., & Slotta, J. D. (2012). Codesigning collaborative smart classroom curriculum for secondary school science. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 18(3), 327–352.
 Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Designbased research and technologyenhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. CrossRef
 White, T. (2009). Encrypted objects and decryption processes: Problemsolving with functions in a learning environment based on cryptography. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 17–37. CrossRef
 Wilensky, U. (1999). NetLogo [Computer Software]. Evanston, IL: Center for Connected Learning, Northwestern University.
 Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209. CrossRef
 Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3–19. CrossRef
 Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. CrossRef
 Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CS: AGE Publications.
 Title
 Construction, categorization, and consensus: student generated computational artifacts as a context for disciplinary reflection
 Journal

Educational Technology Research and Development
Volume 62, Issue 1 , pp 99121
 Cover Date
 20140201
 DOI
 10.1007/s1142301393270
 Print ISSN
 10421629
 Online ISSN
 15566501
 Publisher
 Springer US
 Additional Links
 Topics
 Keywords

 Computational thinking
 Constructionism
 Collaborative environments
 Middle school
 Disciplinary practices
 Mathematics education
 Industry Sectors
 Authors
 Author Affiliations

 1. Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA