None But Ourselves Can Free Our Minds: Critical Computational Literacy as a Pedagogy of Resistance

Lee, Clifford H.; Soep, Elisabeth

doi:10.1080/10665684.2016.1227157

Cited by 74 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these CPS-focused interventions, some attempted to embed CT skills in content transmission (e.g. Boticki, Pivalica, & Seow, 2018;Lee & Soep, 2016;Peel, Fulton, & Pontelli, 2015;Sengupta et al, 2013;Sabitzer, Demarle-Meusel, & Jarnig, 2018), while many focused singularly on teaching students to write code (e.g. Atmatzidou & Demetriadis, 2016;Denner, Werner, Campe, & Ortiz, 2014;Djambong & Freiman, 2016;Leonard et al, 2016;Portelance & Bers, 2015;Pugnali, Sullivan, & Bers, 2017;Rijke, Bollen, Eysink, & Tolboom, 2018;Zhong, Wang, Chen, & Li, 2016).…”

Section: The Nature Of the Ct Conceptualizations Guiding Current Ct Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, interventions rarely combined CPS practices with other CT-MS practices. Fifty-five (69%) studies employed intervention activities only classifiable as CPS; Twelve (15%) studies' activities were classified as CPS+1 (e.g., Adler & Kim, 2018;Berland & Wilensky, 2015;Bower, Wood, Lai, Howe, & Lister, 2017;Chaudhary, Agrawal, Sureka, & Sureka, 2017;Chen et al, 2017;Daily, Leonard, Jörg, Babu, & Gundersen, 2017;Orton et al, 2016;Portelance & Bers, 2015;Shen, Chen, Barth-Cohen, Jiang, & Eltoukhy, 2017;Vakil, 2014), eight (10%) studies' activities were classified as CPS + 2 (e.g., Basawapatna, 2016;Fronza, Ioini, & Corral, 2017;Jun, Han, Kim, & Lee, 2013;Repenning et al, 2015;Thomas, Odemwingie, Saunders, Watlerd, & Carlette Odemwingie, 2015;Wu, 2018), and five (6%) studies combined all four categories of CT practices (e.g., Lee & Soep, 2016;Sengupta et al, 2013;Seoane Pardo, 2018). Lastly, Programming was the most frequently employed among the seven CT-MS CPS practices.…”

Section: The Nature Of the Ct Conceptualizations Guiding Current Ct Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, working with systems of social and economic inequality or moral dilemmas seem to provide especially rich opportunities for CTCI (e.g. Lee and Soep, 2016;Seoane Pardo , 2018;Vakil, 2014). Finally, activities that include systems thinking seem to be more complex than activities that do not include systems thinking practices.…”

Section: Section 32 Strategies For Integrating Ct In Core Curriculummentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Code-Centric Nature of Computational Thinking Education: A Review of Trends and Issues in Computational Thinking Education Research

Kite¹,

Park²,

Wiebe³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<div><div><div><p>Computational thinking (CT) is being recognized as a critical component of student success in the digital era. Many contend that integrating CT into core curricula is the surest method for providing all students with access to CT. However, the CT community lacks an agreed-upon conceptualization of CT that would facilitate this integration, and little effort has been made to critically analyze and synthesize research on CT/content integration (CTCI). Conflicting CT conceptualizations and little understanding of evidence-based strategies for CTCI could result in significant barriers to increasing students’ access to CT. To address these concerns, we analyzed 80 studies on CT education, focusing on both the CT conceptualizations guiding current CT education research and evidence-based strategies for CTCI. Our review highlights the code-centric nature of CT education and reveals significant gaps in our understanding of CTCI and CT professional development for teachers. Based on these findings we propose an approach to operationalizing CT that promotes students’ participation in CT, present promising methods for infusing content with CT, and discuss future directions for CT education research.</p></div></div></div>

show abstract

Section: The Nature Of the Ct Conceptualizations Guiding Current Ct Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Nature Of the Ct Conceptualizations Guiding Current Ct Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Section 32 Strategies For Integrating Ct In Core Curriculummentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Code-Centric Nature of Computational Thinking Education: A Review of Trends and Issues in Computational Thinking Education Research

Kite¹,

Park²,

Wiebe³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For these students, there is a need for their work to have an impact in their community and for it to help them develop a sense of fit and belonging (Pinkard et al, 2017). Lee and Soep (2016) argue that a critical perspective for computing is essential for students to develop a critical consciousness around what they are learning and making, moving beyond simply programming, instead of asking the students what they are programming and why they are programming it.…”

Section: Computational Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MIT App Inventor: Objectives, Design, and Development

Patton

Tissenbaum

Harunani

2019

Computational Thinking Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MIT App Inventor is an online platform designed to teach computational thinking concepts through development of mobile applications. Students create applications by dragging and dropping components into a design view and using a visual blocks language to program application behavior. In this chapter, we discuss (1) the history of the development of MIT App Inventor, (2) the project objectives of the project and how they shape the design of the system, and (3) the processes MIT uses to develop the platform and how they are informed by computational thinking literature. Key takeaways include use of components as abstractions, alignment of blocks with student mental models, and the benefits of fast, iterative design on learning.

show abstract

“…Other work focuses more specifically on students' critical engagement with technology. Drawing on critical literacy (Janks, 2002;Shor & Pari, 2000), multiple literacies (Ito et al, 2013;New London Group, 1996), culturally relevant pedagogies (Ladson-Billings, 2009) and computational thinking (Wing, 2006), for instance, has led to an approach to critical computational thinking for civic engagement (Lee & Soep, 2016). Similarly, a model of critical digital design combines critical literacy with design-based approaches to enable both critical consumption of available media products and young people's own affective and creative production (Pangrazio, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The “digital subjects” of twenty-first-century education: On datafication, educational technology and subject formation

Macgilchrist¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How are young people constituted as subjects in schools today, as digital technology becomes increasingly widespread? Buzz words for twenty-first-century education include “creativity”, “critique”, “collaboration”, “communication”, or sets of core skills that are often linked to the now classic flexible, entrepreneurial selves of neoliberal imaginaries (Miller & Rose, 2008; Sennett, 1998). This chapter overviews recent critical scholarship on education and technology in the twenty-first-century, highlighting three aspects: practices, datafication and subject formation. It then explores subjectivation in more detail, looking closely at one worked example to map the kinds of future students imagined in current policy (in Germany and across Europe). Mainstream policies for education in a digital world foreground three digital subject figures: The User, the Critic, and the Maker. Each of these, in some ways, re-establishes dominant power relations and relations of inequality in today’s schools. On the margins of the policy discourse are, however, further subject figures which interrupt dominant imaginaries: The Expert, the Ecosoph, and the Social Designer. The chapter suggests that these marginal subject figures illustrate diffraction patterns in today’s world in which we can think otherwise about what constitutes a livable, legitimate life.

show abstract

None But Ourselves Can Free Our Minds: Critical Computational Literacy as a Pedagogy of Resistance

Cited by 74 publications

References 2 publications

The Code-Centric Nature of Computational Thinking Education: A Review of Trends and Issues in Computational Thinking Education Research

The Code-Centric Nature of Computational Thinking Education: A Review of Trends and Issues in Computational Thinking Education Research

MIT App Inventor: Objectives, Design, and Development

The “digital subjects” of twenty-first-century education: On datafication, educational technology and subject formation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About