Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contesting sociocomputational norms: Computer programming instructors and students’ stancetaking around refactoring

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 02 October 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Working solutions to problems are not definitive end points. As a result, code that is technically correct can still be treated as needing revising – a practice in computer programming known as refactoring. We document how late elementary to middle school students and their undergraduate instructors weigh the possibility of refactoring working code in an informal summer computer science workshop. We examined a 20-min stretch of classroom activity in which multiple coding approaches were explicitly evaluated as alternative routes to the same code output. Our theoretical framework draws on the stance triangle, amplifying and attenuating inequity, and an extension of sociomathematical norms. Using the method of interaction analysis, we transcribed and analyzed stretches of talk, gesture, and action during whole class dicourse and small group interactions involving 4–6 students. We investigated how instructors and students introduced, characterized, applied, and contested sociocomputational norms through stancetaking in classroom discourse, which shaped whose voices contributed to the discussion and whose ideas were treated as impactful and praiseworthy in the classroom. Because it is within these discourse spaces that instructors and students interpret and reinterpret sociocomputational norms about what is valued in programming approaches, educational researchers and teachers might attend to these conversation dynamics as one route to fostering more supportive and inclusive learning spaces.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. This phrase “Leave well enough alone” may have originated in Aesop’s fable, “The Fox and the Hedgehog.” The example we use here is borrowed from the Cambridge English Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/leave-well-enough-alone).

  2. This phrase has often been attributed to St. Jerome; however, this attribution has been contested.

References

  • Abrahamson, D., & Sánchez-García, R. (2016). Learning is moving in new ways: The ecological dynamics of mathematics education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1143370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, N. S. R., Mendes, T. S., de Mendonça, M. G., Spínola, R. O., Shull, F., & Seaman, C. (2016). Identification and management of technical debt: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 70, 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, M. G. (2018). Hackers, Computers, and Cooperation: A Critical History of Logo and Constructionist Learning. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274287

  • Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaler, J. (2008). Promoting ‘relational equity’ and high mathematics achievement through an innovative mixed-ability approach. British Educational Research Journal, 34(2), 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701532145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

  • Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2019). Designing for rightful presence in STEM: The role of making present practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(4–5), 616–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1591411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1995). Producing equal-status interaction in the heterogeneous classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032001099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cress, U., Rosé, C., Wise, A. F., & Oshima, J. (Eds.). (2021). International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 19). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3

  • Dahn, M., & DeLiema, D. (2020). Dynamics of emotion, problem solving, and identity: Portraits of three girl coders. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 362–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1805286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahn, M., Deliema, D., & Enyedy, N. (2020). Art as a point of departure for understanding student experience in learning to code. Teachers College Record, 122(8), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812012200802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielak, B. (2022). How Code Takes shape: Studying a student’s program evolution. Cognition and Instruction, 40(2), 266–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2022.2044330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danish, J. A., Enyedy, N., Saleh, A., & Humburg, M. (2020). Learning in embodied activity framework: A sociocultural framework for embodied cognition. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(1), 49–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09317-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLiema, D., Dahn, M., Flood, V. J., Asuncion, A., Abrahamson, D., Enyedy, N., & Steen, F. (2020). Debugging as a context for fostering reflection on critical thinking and emotion. In E. Manalo (Ed.), Deeper Learning, Dialogic Learning, and Critical Thinking (1st ed., pp. 209–228). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429323058-13

  • DeLiema, D., Hufnagle, A., Rao, V. N. V., Baker, J., Valerie, J., & Kim, J. (2023). Methodological innovations at the intersection of video-based educational research traditions: Reflections on relevance, data selection, and phenomena of interest. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 46(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2021.2011196

  • DeLiema, D., Kwon, Y. A., Chisholm, A., Williams, I., Dahn, M., Flood, V. J., Abrahamson, D., & Steen, F. F. (2022). A multi-dimensional framework for documenting students’ heterogeneous experiences with programming bugs. Cognition and Instruction, 41(2), 158–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2022.2118279

  • Denner, J., Green, E., & Campe, S. (2021). Learning to program in middle school: How pair programming helps and hinders intrepid exploration. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(4–5), 611–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1939028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeyer, S., Van Rysselberghe, F., Girba, T., Ratzinger, J., Marinescu, R., Mens, T., Du Bois, B., Janssens, D., Ducasse, S., Lanza, M., Rieger, M., Gall, H., & El-Ramly, M. (2005). The LAN simulation: A refactoring teaching example. Eighth International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE’05), 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWPSE.2005.30

  • Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., Hall, R., Koschmann, T., Lemke, J. L., Sherin, M. G., & Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickes, A. C., Farris, A. V., & Sengupta, P. (2020). Sociomathematical norms for integrating coding and modeling with elementary science: A dialogical approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09795-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The Stance Triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, C. H. (2020). “Run it through me:” Positioning, power, and learning on a high school robotics team. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 29(4–5), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1770763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enyedy, N. (2005). Inventing mapping: Creating cultural forms to solve collective problems. Cognition and Instruction, 23(4), 427–466. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic Microanalysis of Interaction. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education (pp. 201–225). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esmonde, I., & Booker, A. N. (Eds.). (2016). Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories of Learning (1st ed.). Routledge.

  • Fowler, M. (2019). Refactoring: Improving the design of existing code (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.

  • Gomez, K., Gomez, L. M., & Worsley, M. (2021). Interrogating the Role of CSCL in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. In U. Cress, C. Rosé, A. F. Wise, & J. Oshima (Eds.), International Handbook of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (Vol. 19, pp. 103–120). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65291-3

  • Goodwin, C. (2006). Retrospective and prospective orientation in the construction of argumentative moves. Text & Talk, 26, 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative Action. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., & Jurow, A. S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1204548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy, E. C., Gendreau, C. A., Bush, J. B., Nixon, J., & Recker, M. (2023). Toward a debugging pedagogy: Helping students learn to get unstuck with physical computing systems. Information and Learning Sciences, 124(1/2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-03-2022-0051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2001). Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ionescu, T. B., Schlund, S., & Schmidbauer, C. (2020). Epistemic Debt: A Concept and Measure of Technical Ignorance in Smart Manufacturing. In I. L. Nunes (Ed.), Advances in Human Factors and Systems Interaction (pp. 81–93). Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–34). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. (2016). K-12 Computer Science Framework. ACM. https://k12cs.org/

  • Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9059-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keifert, D. T. (2021). Family culture as context for learning through inquiry. Cognition and Instruction, 39(3), 242–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.1913162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobiela, M., & Lehrer, R. (2015). The codevelopment of mathematical concepts and the practice of defining. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education JRME, 46(4), 423–454. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.46.4.0423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolikant, Y.B.-D., & Pollack, S. (2004). Establishing computer science professional norms among high-school students. Computer Science Education, 14(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.14.1.21.23497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, T., Kuutti, K., & Hickman, L. (1998). The concept of breakdown in Heidegger, Leont’ev, and Dewey and its implications for education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0501_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer-Osuna, J. M., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2017). Understanding Relations of Power in the Mathematics Classroom: Explorations in Positioning Theory. In A. Chronaki (Ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 645–653). University of Thessaly Press.

  • Lee, U.-S.A., DeLiema, D., & Gomez, K. (2022). Equity conjectures: A methodological tool for centering social change in learning and design. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2010211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyva, L. A., McNeill, R. T., Marshall, B. L., & Guzmán, O. A. (2021a). “It seems like they purposefully try to make as many kids drop”: An analysis of logics and mechanisms of racial-gendered inequality in introductory mathematics instruction. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(5), 784–814. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1879586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyva, L. A., Quea, R., Weber, K., Battey, D., & López, D. (2021b). Detailing racialized and gendered mechanisms of undergraduate precalculus and calculus classroom instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 39(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1849218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C. M., & Shah, N. (2015). How equity and inequity can emerge in pair programming. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research - ICER ’15, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787716

  • Lopez, L. M., & Allal, L. (2007). Sociomathematical norms and the regulation of problem solving in classroom microcultures. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Third edition.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

  • Nader, L. (1996). Naked Science: Anthropological Inquiry into Boundaries, Power, and Knowledge. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overdijk, M., van Diggelen, W., Andriessen, J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). How to bring a technical artifact into use: A micro-developmental perspective. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-014-9195-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (1st ed.). Basic Books, Inc.

  • Philip, T. M., & Azevedo, F. S. (2017). Everyday science learning and equity: Mapping the contested terrain. Science Education, 101(4), 526–532. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, T. M., & Gupta, A. (2020). Emerging perspectives on the co-construction of power and learning in the learning sciences, mathematics education, and science education. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20903309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, T. M., Gupta, A., Elby, A., & Turpen, C. (2018). Why ideology matters for learning: A case of ideological convergence in an engineering ethics classroom discussion on drone warfare. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(2), 183–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1381964

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philip, T. M., & Sengupta, P. (2021). Theories of learning as theories of society: A contrapuntal approach to expanding disciplinary authenticity in computing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(2), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2020.1828089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radkowitsch, A., Vogel, F., & Fischer, F. (2020). Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(1), 5–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-020-09316-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., & Franklin, D. (2019). A K-8 Debugging Learning Trajectory Derived from Research Literature. Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 745–751. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287396

  • Rich, K. M., Strickland, C., Binkowski, T. A., Moran, C., & Franklin, D. (2018). K–8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. ACM Inroads, 9(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romeike, R., & Göttel, T. (2012). Agile Projects in High School Computing Education: Emphasizing a Learners’ Perspective. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/2481449.2481461

  • Ryoo, J. J., Tanksley, T., Estrada, C., & Margolis, J. (2020). Take space, make space: How students use computer science to disrupt and resist marginalization in schools. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1805284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. V. (2021). Voicing code in STEM: A dialogical imagination. MIT Press.

  • Shah, N., Christensen, J. A., Ortiz, N. A., Nguyen, A.-K., Byun, S., Stroupe, D., & Reinholz, D. L. (2020). Racial hierarchy and masculine space: Participatory in/equity in computational physics classrooms. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 254–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1805285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, N., & Lewis, C. M. (2019). Amplifying and attenuating inequity in collaborative learning: Toward an analytical framework. Cognition and Instruction, 37(4), 423–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1631825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. S., Fields, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2020). Leveraging local resources and contexts for inclusive computer science classrooms: Reflections from experienced high school teachers implementing electronic textiles. Computer Science Education, 30(3), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1805283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikorski, T.-R., & Hammer, D. (2017). Looking for coherence in science curriculum. Science Education, 101(6), 929–943. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvis, D., Clarke-Midura, J., Shumway, J. F., Lee, V. R., & Mullen, S. (2022). Children caring for robots: Expanding computational thinking frameworks to include a technological ethic of care. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 33, 100491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2022.100491

  • Simpson, A., Bannister, N., & Matthews, G. (2017). Cracking her codes: Understanding shared technology resources as positioning artifacts for power and status in CSCL environments. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12(3), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-017-9261-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, S., Rogat, T. K., Adams-Wiggins, K. R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2015). Collaborative group engagement in a computer-supported inquiry learning environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 10(3), 273–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-015-9218-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siyahhan, S., Barab, S. A., & Downton, M. P. (2010). Using activity theory to understand intergenerational play: The case of Family Quest. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(4), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9097-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2006). Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge. MIT Press.

  • Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined Perception: Learning to See in Technoscience. In M. Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and learning (pp. 107–150). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stoecklin, S., Smith, S., & Serino, C. (2007). Teaching students to build well formed object-oriented methods through refactoring. SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1145/1227504.1227364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suryanarayana, G., Samarthyam, G., & Sharma, T. (2014). Refactoring for software design smells: Managing technical debt. Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Suzuki, H., & Kato, H. (1995). Interaction-Level Support for Collaborative Learning: AlgoBlock—An Open Programming Language. The First International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 349–355. https://doi.org/10.3115/222020.222828

  • Techapalokul, P., & Tilevich, E. (2019). Code Quality Improvement for All: Automated Refactoring for Scratch. 2019 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2019.8818950

  • The Politics of Learning Writing Collective. (2017). The learning sciences in a new era of U.S. nationalism. Cognition and Instruction, 35(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2017.1282486

  • Thompson, C. (2020). Coders: The making of a new tribe and the remaking of the world. Penguin Books.

  • Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., & Abelson, H. (2019). From computational thinking to computational action. Communications of the ACM, 62(3), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tissenbaum, M., Weintrop, D., Holbert, N., & Clegg, T. (2021). The case for alternative endpoints in computing education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1164–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsan, J., Vandenberg, J., Zakaria, Z., Boulden, D. C., Lynch, C., Wiebe, E., & Boyer, K. E. (2021). Collaborative Dialogue and Types of Conflict: An Analysis of Pair Programming Interactions between Upper Elementary Students. Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 1184–1190. https://doi.org/10.1145/3408877.3432406

  • Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs, 16(1), 128–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakil, S. (2020). “I’ve always been scared that someday i’m going to sell out”: Exploring the relationship between political identity and learning in computer science education. Cognition and Instruction, 38(2), 87–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1730374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dormolen, J., & Zaslavsky, O. (2003). The many facets of a definition: The case of periodicity. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(03)00006-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vinner, S. (2002). The Role of Definitions in the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. In D. Tall (Ed.), Advanced Mathematical Thinking (pp. 65–81). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47203-1_5

  • Vossoughi, S., & Escudé, M. (2016). What does the camera communicate? An inquiry into the politics and possibilities of video research on learning. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 47(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. C., Flood, V. J., & Cady, A. (2021). Computational Thinking through Body and Ego Syntonicity: Young Children’s Embodied Sense-Making Using A Programming Toy. In E. de Vries, Y. Hod, & J. Ahn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 394–401). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/7494

  • Watkins, J., Hammer, D., Radoff, J., Jaber, L. Z., & Phillips, A. M. (2016). Positioning as not-understanding: The value of showing uncertainty for engaging in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(4), 573–599. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). SAGE Inc.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant nos. 1612770, 1607742, and 1612660. We wish to express deep gratitude to the students and educators who collaborated on this research. Our CSCL reviewers also provided generative feedback during the peer review process, and we wish to thank them for their contributions. We are also grateful for the time that Geoffrey Herman, Colleen Lewis, members of our NSF advisory board, and UMN graduate students in the “Debugging Failure” course gave to share their helpful feedback on early analyses and drafts of this paper.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Oia Walker-van Aalst

    Present address: University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA

    Morgan M. Fong

  2. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, MN, USA

    David DeLiema

  3. University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Virginia J. Flood

Authors
  1. Morgan M. Fong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David DeLiema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Virginia J. Flood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Oia Walker-van Aalst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Morgan M. Fong, David DeLiema or Virginia J. Flood.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: In this article, the subsection titled “Summary of theoretical framework” appears to be correct in the online version, but incorrect in the PDF version.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Table 2

Table 2 Transcription Key
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fong, M.M., DeLiema, D., Flood, V.J. et al. Contesting sociocomputational norms: Computer programming instructors and students’ stancetaking around refactoring. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09392-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09392-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation