Diversifying high school students' views about computing with electronic textiles
Abstract
More than twenty years ago, Turkle and Papert wrote about the lack of epistemological pluralism in computing and the resulting exclusivity in the field. Although research on what constitutes a personal epistemology has expanded since then, students continue to hold narrow views of computing that are disconnected from the field at large. To align with current research, we use the term "views" to encompass students' expectations of, attitudes towards, and beliefs about computing. We took a crafts-oriented approach to expanding students' views of computing and broadening participation in computer science by engaging high school students in a 10-week electronic textiles unit. Students were introduced to computational concepts and practices as they designed and programmed electronic artifacts. We found their views shifted from pre- to post-interviews in ways that allowed them to see computing as accessible, transparent, personal, and creative. We discuss how e-textiles materials and the design of classroom activities brought back a diversity of ways thinking about who can do computing, how to do it, and what computing can be.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Programs that integrate robotics with other forms of social, cultural, and creativity-based motivation achieved relatively greater success.
“and (2) studies demonstrating the relatively greater success achieved by programs that integrate robotics with other forms of social, cultural, and creativity-based motivation, such as Searle and colleagues (2014), Terry andcolleagues (2011), andDoerschuk andcolleagues (2011).”
From A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics (2019) · cites this paper as Searle et al., 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics
Anwar, S., Bascou, N. A., Menekse, M., & Kardgar, A. (2019) · Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) · doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1223 · Cited by 419 · see citing works
Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M. N., & Jaccheri, L. (2017) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002 · Cited by 317 · see citing works
Assessing learning in technology-rich maker activities: A systematic review of empirical research
Lin, Q., Yin, Y., Tang, X., Hadad, R., & Zhai, X. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103944 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
- Authors
- Searle, K. A., Fields, D. A., Lui, D. A., & Kafai, Y. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Utah State University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on International computing education research
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2014-07-28
- Pages
- 75-82
- OpenAlex
- W2032632828
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.48
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (855868)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Science Education and Perceptions
- Keywords
- smart textiles, personal epistemology, high school students, epistemological pluralism, creative computing, classroom activity design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
