Developing the theme of computing and social learning in practice

In my later writing on the primary computing theme (Revised edition of work 4 and work 7), I focused more specifically on the social learning aspects of coding. I was influenced by Kafai and Burke’s ideas (2013) about moving ‘from computational thinking to computational participation’ and by the work of Mitch Resnick (2014) on the principles underlying the Scratch community. These authors envision classroom computing as a social activity, which involves children remixing and sharing code together.

My writing on ‘Computing and Digital Literacy’ (work 9) considers the computational thinking approach of ‘tinkering’ to describe the playful nature of coding, noting that primary-

‘Tinkering is what happens when you try to do something you don’t quite know how to do, guided by whim, imagination and curiosity. When you tinker, there are no instructions – but there are also no failures, no right or wrong ways of doing things.’ (The Tinker Factory, 2012):

The creative cycle described here has much in common with Papert and Harel’s (1991) constructionist philosophy, in which children are guided to learn by doing and making in a technology-mediated environment in collaboration with their peers. This builds on the

constructivist theories of Dewey (1938), Piaget (2005) and Bruner (1996), and is based on the premise that the process of constructing something meaningful creates conditions for new knowledge, as it makes space for the iterative development of ideas (Papert, 1980). Expanding on these ideas, Ben-Ari acknowledges the role of bricolage, a term coined by Levi-Strauss, to describe the process of experimenting, testing and debugging in computer science education (Ben-Ari 1998). Mitch Resnick of MIT also suggests that the development of early computing skills has much in common with play within communities of learners:

‘Our ultimate goal is a world full of playfully creative people who are constantly inventing new opportunities for themselves and their communities’ (Resnick, 2007. p.1).

In line with these ideas, one of my initiatives has been the development of ‘Digital Playdates’ as CPD events based on the acronym, ‘People Learning and Asking Why’. These involve groups coming together in a physical space to tinker and invent with technology. The notion of play is useful in encouraging people to suspend their disbelief and let go of preconceptions about where the learning experience will take them. Over time I have tested this concept with children, university students, visiting academics and university staff, and my experiences of running this style of event suggest that they lead to unexpected results.

Figure 3.8: A digital playdate allowing time for tinkering and experimenting

Figure 3.9: Example digital playdate from the DLaB pilot blog (work 9)

In one session, for example, one academic used the tool Thinglink to analyse a law report alongside another academic producing a guide for supporting writing.

Figure 3.10: Academics using Thinglink to create interactive images on the themes of academic writing and understanding a law report.

https://www.thinglink.com/scene/759762885869043714

This highlights an advantage of TELCs in that they can demonstrate how technology tools can be used in different ways across diverse groups, and that this often provides sufficient nudge for someone to apply an idea to their own context.

The playdate approach demonstrates an iterant view of knowledge construction, based on the idea that people learn in cycles and are constantly involved in refining or ‘debugging’ their theories of the way the world works. This has an affinity with the process of applying computational thinking to solve problems. Papert (1980) uses a similar analogy in his constructionist theory that suggests that computers provide a powerful environment for constructing and refining knowledge. If they are to tap into this potential, teachers need to understand children’s social worlds to enable then to make culturally meaningful

representations:

‘Thus we are brought back to seeing the necessity for the educator to be an

anthropologist. Educational innovators must be aware that in order to be successful they must be sensitive to what is happening in the surrounding culture and use dynamic cultural trends as a medium to carry their educational interventions.’ (Papert, 1980, Chapter 8.)

Ben Ari echoes this need to be sensitive to learners’ prior knowledge and mental models in his guide to the practical application of constructivism in computer science education (Ben Ari, 1998). He suggests that cognitive change is a result of teachers guiding their students in the modification of their mental models through individual reflection and social interaction. Two basic tenets of his theory are that models must be explicitly taught and that individuals construct knowledge in their own subjective way. Within a constructivist pedagogy, then, a good

computing teacher refines students’ prior models of the world through active, authentic and meaningful experiences, which, for beginner programmers at least, would be social in nature. Wegerif and Dawes add to these ideas by defining education as ‘a capacity to engage effectively in learning dialogues’ (Wegerif and Dawes 2014, p.133), suggesting that new technology and spoken language are ‘the two most powerful resources people have created’ (p.133). They also view computing as a social activity, at its best consisting of, ‘learning dialogues with focussed peers framed by technology that give real significance to the constructionist experience and create ‘a climate of collaborative enterprise’, (Wegerif and Dawes, 2004, p.131).

To relate these ideas to my own works, the ‘Lessons in Teaching Computing’ book and MOOC (works 4 and 5) and the book chapter ‘Planning Computing in the National Curriculum’ (work 8) posit that shared programming projects, wherein students ‘make things that do things’ are external representations of internal problem-solving processes, and so help them to ‘think about thinking’. ‘Teaching Computing Unplugged’ (work 7) stresses the need to build vocabulary and metacognition around computational thinking concepts so that they become familiar strategies to draw upon, apply, discuss and then reuse in new contexts. This resonates with the ideas of Kimble, Hildreth et al. (2001), who state that it is not the artefact per se which is important but the process involved in its creation.

To sum up this section, my view of computational thinking developed through the works embraces the social nature of computing. I aim to create scenarios where learners can collaborate in digital making projects, and learn to apply and refine their computational thinking skills. A playful approach that emphasises time for exploring and tinkering has been successful for me across educational sectors. I am currently engaged in creating a physical maker space to be known as the STEAMspace for the university and the local community to continue to work together in this way.

3.4 Chapter summary

The themes that emerge from this selection of public works on primary computing broadly match the summary of five successful strategies identified by Sentence and Csizmadia (2017) in their survey of 336 computing teachers’ approaches: unplugged activities, contextualisation of tasks in the real world, collaborative learning, computational thinking and scaffolding

programming tasks. As these authors acknowledge, their self-selecting sample came in the main from members of the lively and supportive subject association Computing At Schools (CAS) who are already enthusiastic about teaching computing. The nature of this sample therefore suggests that the data provides strong evidence of good practice. A challenge for me within my own writing and learning communities, however, has been to build confidence and belief amongst a much less experienced audience of non-specialist primary teachers with limited experience of computer science.

These selected works were timely, in that they extended the embryonic knowledge base of pre- and in-service teachers during a period of national reform, and the conference

presentations and MOOCs associated with them raised the level of national and international debate (see Appendix 3).

My public works in this field firstly helped teachers to understand the new terminology associated with curriculum change and then supported them to gain first-hand experience of computational thinking concepts and approaches so that they could transfer this to their own learners.

Building on this, the TELC platforms associated with the works gave teachers a voice so that they could state what computational thinking meant to them in a public arena. The fact that this was a collective voice engaging in sustained debate in a space where they had developed interpersonal trust empowered teachers to speak with more confidence. The TELCs cited in this section demonstrate that it is not sufficient for teachers just to assimilate new subject knowledge; they also need time for shared understandings to emerge around the delivery of a new subject. In this way, the TELCs begin to crystallise what primary computing looks like in practice from within the profession.

The TELCs associated with this chapter have informed the models presented in Chapter 6 in various ways. For example, the Master Teachers group represents a contrasting form of

community in that the members of the parent group generated new self-sufficient offspring communities with similar goals and aspirations. The resulting constellation of related communities might be described as satellite in form. There is an example of an expansive community growing in response to participant interests in the sharing of coding projects on the Scratch website. The idea that computational participation should feature in our classrooms and face-to-face CPD events suggests that the interplay of personal and collective learning can take place in physical environments as well as digital. And the Let’s Teach Computing MOOC shows a community moving from being inspired by the course content to being motivated by making connections with each other as ideas are articulated through talking and making.

Chapter 4: Developing a pedagogy of digital literacy through technology and