Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:46:55.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Learning Sciences for Computing Education

from Part II - Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2019

By
Lauren E. Margulieux ,
Brian Dorn  and
Kristin A. Searle
Edited by
Sally A. Fincher  and
Anthony V. Robins
Sally A. Fincher
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Anthony V. Robins
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses potential and current overlaps between the learning sciences and computing education research in their origins, theory, and methodology. After an introduction to learning sciences, the chapter describes how both learning sciences and computing education research developed as distinct fields from cognitive science. Despite common roots and common goals, the authors argue that the two fields are less integrated than they should be and recommend theories and methodologies from the learning sciences that could be used more widely in computing education research. The chapter selects for discussion one general learning theory from each of cognition (constructivism), instructional design (cognitive apprenticeship), social and environmental features of learning environments (sociocultural theory), and motivation (expectancy-value theory). Then the chapter describes methodology for design-based research to apply and test learning theories in authentic learning environments. The chapter emphasizes the alignment between design-based research and current research practices in computing education. Finally, the chapter discusses the four stages of learning sciences projects. Examples from computing education research are given for each stage to illustrate the shared goals and methods of the two fields and to argue for more integration between them.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Computing Education Research , pp. 208 - 230
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Reynolds, R. E. (2009). What is learning anyway? A topographical perspective considered. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 176–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almstrum, V. L., Hazzan, O., Guzdial, M., & Petre, M. (2005). Challenges to computer science education research. In Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 191–192). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1996). ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition. American Psychologist, 51(4), 355.Google Scholar
Barab, S. (2014). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 151–170). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Ben-Ari, M. (2008). Fertile zones of cultural encounter in computer science education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Bender, E., & Gray, D. (1999). The scholarship of teaching. Research and Creative Activity, 12(1). Retrieved from www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v22n1/p03.htmlGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, A. F. (2002). First steps in programming: A rationale for attention investment models. In Human Centric Computing Languages and Environments (pp. 2–10). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (2), 141–178.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given. In Anglin, J. M. (Ed.), Beyond the Information Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing (pp. 143–175). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.Google Scholar
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In New directions in Educational Technology (pp. 15–22). Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
Collins, A., & Kapur, M. (2014). Cognitive apprenticeship. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 109–127). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, S., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Teaching computer science in context. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.Google Scholar
Deitrick, E., O’Connell, B., & Shapiro, R. B. (2014). The discourse of creative problem solving in childhood engineering education. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 591–598). Boulder, CO: ISLS.Google Scholar
Deitrick, E., Shapiro, R. B., Ahrens, M. P., Fiebrink, R., Lehrman, P. D., & Farooq, S. (2015). Using distributed cognition theory to analyze collaborative computer science learning. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 51–60). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deitrick, E., Shapiro, R. B., & Gravel, B. (2016). How do we assess equity in programming pairs? Singapore. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 370–7). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar
DiSessa, A. A. (1991). Local sciences: Viewing the design of human–computer systems as cognitive science. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing Interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface (pp. 162–202). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B. J., & Bruckman, A. (2009). Questioning video games’ influence on CS interest. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 272–278). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B., & Bruckman, A. (2010). Race and gender in play practices: Young African American males. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 56–63). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B. J., Crowley, K., & Norwood, R. (2008). Learning in context: Digital games and young black men. Games and Culture, 3(2), 131–141.Google Scholar
DiSalvo, B., Guzdial, M., Meadows, C., Perry, K., McKlin, T., & Bruckman, A. (2013). Workifying games: Successfully engaging African American gamers with computer science. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 317–322). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiSalvo, B., Yardi, S., Guzdial, M., McKlin, T., Meadows, C., Perry, K., & Bruckman, A. (2011). African American men constructing computing identity. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2967–2970). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence, J. T. (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 135–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–21.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Esmonde, I. (2017). Power and sociocultural theories of learning. In Esmonde, I. & Booker, A. (Eds.), Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories of Learning (p. 6). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G., & Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning in activity. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 128–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2003). A media computation course for non-majors. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(3), 104–108.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M. (2010). Does contextualized computing education help? ACM Inroads, 1(4), 4–6.Google Scholar
Guzdial, M., & Tew, A. E. (2006). Imagineering inauthentic legitimate peripheral participation: An instructional design approach for motivating computing education. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 51–58). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Hermes, M., Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2012). Designing Indigenous language revitalization. Harvard Educational Review, 82(3), 381–402.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.Google Scholar
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.Google Scholar
Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326, 1410–1412.Google Scholar
Hutchings, P., & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 31(5), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kafai, Y. B. (1995). Minds in Play. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected Code: Why Children Need to Learn Programming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kafai, Y. B., Lee, E., Searle, K., Fields, D., Kaplan, E., & Lui, D. (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.Google Scholar
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38(5), 1008–1022.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. (2015). The preparatory effects of problem solving versus problem posing on learning from instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, 23–31.Google Scholar
Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelleher, C., Pausch, R., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Storytelling Alice motivates middle school girls to learn computer programming. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1455–1464). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Kelly, A., Finch, L., Bolles, M., & Shapiro, R.B. (2018). BlockyTalky: New programmable tools to enable students learning networks. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 18, 8–18.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L. (2004). The learning sciences: Past, present, and future. Educational Technology: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 44(3), 37–42.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lishinski, A., Good, J., Sands, P., & Yadav, A. (2016). Methodological rigor and theoretical foundations of CS education research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 161–169). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Malmi, L., Sheard, J., Bednarik, R., Helminen, J., Kinnunen, P., Korhonen, A., … Taherkhani, A. (2014). Theoretical underpinnings of computing education research: what is the evidence? In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 27–34). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Maloney, J., Burd, L., Kafai, Y., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., & Resnick, M. (2004). Scratch: A sneak preview [education]. In Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing. (pp. 104–109). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the Clubhouse. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Margolis, J., Estella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J., & Nao, K. 2008. Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Margulieux, L. E., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2012). Subgoal-labeled instructional material improves performance and transfer in learning to develop mobile applications. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Margulieux, L., Morrison, B. B., Guzdial, M., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Training learners to self-explain: Designing instructions and examples to improve problem solving. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 98–105). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Decker, A., & Margulieux, L. E. (2016). Learning loops: A replication study illuminates impact of HS courses. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 221–330). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 21–29). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Nathan, M. J., Rummel, N., & Hay, K. E. (2016). Growing the learning sciences: Brand or big tent? Implications for graduate education. In Evans, M. A., Packer, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (Eds.), Reflections on the Learning Sciences (pp. 191–209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nathan, M. J., & Sawyer, R. K. (2014). Foundations of the learning sciences. In Sawyer, R. Keith (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 21–43). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Bringing computational thinking into high school mathematics and science classrooms. In Proceeding of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 705–712). Singapore: ISLS.Google Scholar
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Google Scholar
Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 285–299.Google Scholar
Porter, L., Guzdial, M., McDowell, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Success in introductory programming: What works? Communications of the ACM, 56(8), 34–36.Google Scholar
Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1990). LEGO/LOGO – Learning through and about Design. Cambridge, MA: Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory.Google Scholar
Robins, A. (2015). The ongoing challenges of computer science education research. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 115–119.Google Scholar
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.) (2009). Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning science. In Keith Sawyer, R. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 2nd edn. (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.Google Scholar
Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2015). Boys’ needlework: Understanding gendered and indigenous perspectives on computing and crafting with electronic textiles. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 31–39). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Shapiro, R. B., Kelly, A., Ahrens, M., Johnson, B., Politi, H., & Fiebrink, R. (2017) Tangible distributed computer music for youth. The Computer Music Journal, 41(2), 52–68.Google Scholar
Sommerhoff, D., Szameitat, A., Vogel, F., Chernikova, O., Loderer, K., & Fischer, F. (2018). What do we teach when we teach the learning sciences? A document analysis of 75 graduate programs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(2), 319–351.Google Scholar
Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79–90.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121.Google Scholar
Tan, E., Kang, H. O’Neill, T., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2013). Desiring a career in STEM-related fields: How middle school girls articulate and negotiate between their narrated and embodied identities in considering a STEM trajectory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1143–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.) (2009). Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure? Abingdon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistemological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 16(1), 128–157.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49–78.Google Scholar
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.Google Scholar
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In Wentzel, K. & Miele, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 55–75). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Yoon, S. A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2017). What do learning scientists do? A survey of the ISLS membership. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(2), 167–183.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×