Advertisement

Be Constructive: Learning Computational Thinking Using Scratch™ Online Community

  • Bushra Chowdhury
  • Aditya JohriEmail author
  • Dennis Kafura
  • Vinod Lohani
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11841)

Abstract

Online learning communities are predicated on the assumption that social interaction among participants will lead to learning. Yet, research has shown that not all interactions result in learning and that there is a need to develop a more nuanced understanding of the nature of activities in online communities and their relationship with learning. We analyzed data from the Scratch™ online learning community, a platform designed to teach Computational Thinking (CT) through block-based activities, using the Differentiated Overt Learning Activities (DOLA) framework to assess learning. We found that users who engaged in constructive activities demonstrated higher learning, as illustrated by the complexity of their contributions, compared to users who were merely active on the platform. We compared users across two sub-communities within Scratch and found that participation and contributions across the two domains resulted in different learning outcomes, showcasing the effect of context on learning within online communities.

Keywords

Online community Computational thinking Informal learning Collaborative learning Scratch 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by U.S. National Science Foundation Awards #142444, 1408674, & 1712129 (PI: Johri) and Award#1624320 (PI: Kafura). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. We thank Ben Gelman for his support with the data collection and analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., Jochems, W.: Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 19(3), 335–353 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gelman, B., Beckley, C., Johri, A., Yang, S., Domeniconi, C.: Online urbanism: interest-based subcultures as drivers of informal learning in an online community. In: Proceedings of ACM Learning at Scale Conference 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chi, M.: Active-constructive-interactive: a conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1(1), 73–105 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brennan, K., Resnick, M.: New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dasgupta, S., et al.: Remixing as a pathway to computational thinking. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robles, G., et al.: Software clones in scratch projects: on the presence of copy-and-paste in computational thinking learning. In: IEEE 11th International Workshop on Software Clones (IWSC) (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., Román-González, M.: Scratch: automatic analysis of scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. RED Revista de Educación a Distancia 15(46), 1–23 (2015). https://www.um.es/ead/red/46/moreno_robles.pdf
  8. 8.
    Resnick, M., et al.: Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52(11), 60–67 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., Biggers, M.: Improving secondary CS education: progress and problems. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. ACM (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bryant, R., et al.: Computational thinking: what is it, how is it relevant, who’s doing what with it? J. Comput. Sci. Colleges 25(1), 170–171 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Velasquez, N.F., et al.: Novice Programmers Talking about Projects: What Automated Text Analysis Reveals about Online Scratch Users’ Comments (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scaffidi, C., Dahotre, A., Zhang, Y.: How well do online forums facilitate discussion and collaboration among novice animation programmers? In: Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fields, D.A., Giang, M., Kafai, Y.: Understanding collaborative practices in the Scratch online community: Patterns of participation among youth designers. In: CSCL 2013 Conference Proceedings. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sylvan, E.: Predicting influence in an online community of creators. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang, S., Domeniconi, C., Revelle, M., Sweeney, M., Gelman, B., Beckley, C., Johri, C.: Uncovering trajectories of informal learning in large online communities of creators. In: Proceedings of ACM Learning at Scale (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manovich, L., Remixing and remixability. Retrieved on Jan, 2005. 10: p. (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hill, B.M., Monroy-Hernández, A.: The remixing dilemma the trade-off between generativity and originality. Am. Behav. Sci. 57(5), 643–663 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hermans, F., Aivaloglou, E.: Do code smells hamper novice programming? Delft University of Technology, Software Engineering Research Group (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matias, J.N., Dasgupta, S., Hill, B.M.: Skill progression in scratch revisited. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ota, G., Morimoto, Y., Kato, H.: Ninja code village for scratch: Function samples/function analyser and automatic assessment of computational thinking concepts. In: Proceedings of 2016 IEEE Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scaffidi, C., Chambers, C.: Skill progression demonstrated by users in the Scratch animation environment. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 28(6), 383–398 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Monroy-Hernández, A., Resnick, M.: Empowering kids to create and share programmable media. Interactions 15, 50–53 (2008). ACM ID, 1340974Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Menekse, M., et al.: Differentiated overt learning activities for effective instruction in engineering classrooms. J. Eng. Educ. 102(3), 346–374 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chi, M., Wylie, R.: The ICAP framework: linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educ. Psychol. 49(4), 219–243 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martin, S., et al.: OpenOrd: an open-source toolbox for large graph layout. In: IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging. International Society for Optics and Photonics (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sparck Jones, K.: A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. J. Documentation 28(1), 11–21 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Manning, C.D., Raghavan, P., Schütze, H.: Introduction to Information Retrieval, vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bruckman, A.: Learning in online communities. In: Sawyer, R.K. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 461–472 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wing, J.M.: Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49(3), 33–35 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., Hong, H.: Computational thinking for teacher education. Commun. ACM 60(4), 55–62 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brandt, J., Guo, P., Lewenstein, J., Dontcheva, M., Klemmer, S.: Two studies of opportunistic programming: interleaving web foraging, learning, and writing code. In: Proceedings of CHI, Boston, MA, USA, pp. 1589–1598 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Johri, A., Yang, S.: Scaffolded help for informal learning: how experts support newcomers’ productive participation in an online community. In: Proceedings of Communities and Technologies (C&T) (2017)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Almatrafi, O., Johri, A.: Showing and telling: response dynamics in an online community of makers. In: Proceedings of CSCL 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Teo, H., Johri, A., Lohani, V.: Analytics and patterns of knowledge creation: experts at work in an online engineering community. Comput. Educ. 112, 18–36 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., Rangwala, H.: Needle in a haystack: identifying learner posts that require urgent response in MOOC discussion forums. Comput. Educ. 118, 1–9 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lester, J., Klein, C., Rangwala, H., Johri, A.: Learning Analytics in Higher Education. ASHE Monograph Series, vol. 3, Issue 5 (2017). https://twitter.com/_CHINOSAUR/status/461864317415989248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bushra Chowdhury
    • 1
  • Aditya Johri
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dennis Kafura
    • 1
  • Vinod Lohani
    • 1
  1. 1.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations