Multilingual learners have been overlooked and understudied in computer science education research. As the CS for All movement grows, it is essential to design integrated, justice-oriented curricula that help young multilingual learners begin to develop computational thinking skills and discourses.
Purpose:
We present a conceptual framework and accompanying design principles for justice-centered computational thinking activities that are language-rich, with the aim of supporting learners’ agency and building their capacity over time to use computing for good in their communities.
Setting:
Our work takes place in a research–practice partnership centered in an elementary school in California with a significant multilingual Latinx population.
Research Design:
We have engaged in two cycles of design-based research with preservice and in-service teachers at an elementary school. Through analysis of one case study during the second and most recent cycle, we examined the potential of teachers using our design principles for supporting multilingual learners’ language development through engagement in computational thinking.
Conclusions:
Our findings suggest that multilingual learners will engage in productive discourse when computational thinking lessons are designed to (1) be meaningfully contextualized, (2) position students as agentic learners, and (3) promote coherence over time. However, more research is needed to understand how teachers use these principles over time, and what additional supports are needed to ensure coordination between stakeholders to develop and effectively implement coherent learning progressions.
AndersonJ. A.AdamsM. (1992). Acknowledging the learning styles of diverse student populations: Implications for instructional design. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 49, 19–33.
2.
AthanasesS. Z.de OliveiraL. C. (2014). Scaffolding versus routine support for Latina/o youth in an urban school: Tensions in building toward disciplinary literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46(2), 263–299.
3.
BarabS.SquireK. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
4.
BarrV.StephensonC. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
5.
BliksteinP.MoghadamS. H. (2018). Pre-college computer science education: A survey of the field. Google LLC. https://goo.gl/gmS1Vm
6.
BlumenfeldP. C.SolowayE.MarxR. W.KrajcikJ. S.GuzdialM.PalincsarA. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.
7.
BunchG. C.MartinD. (2021). From “academic language” to the “language of ideas”: A disciplinary perspective on using language in K-12 settings. Language and Education, 35(6), 539–556.
8.
Celedón-PattichisS.TurnerE. E. (2012). “Explícame tu respuesta”: Supporting the development of mathematical discourse in emergent bilingual kindergarten students. Bilingual Research Journal, 35(2), 197–216.
CoburnC. E.PenuelW. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.
11.
DennerJ.CampeS. (2018). Equity and inclusion in computer science education. In SentanceS. (Ed.), Computer science education in school: Perspectives on teaching and learning (pp. 189–206). Bloomsbury.
12.
DennerJ.MartinezJ.AdamsJ.ThiryH. (2015). Computer science and fairness: Integrating a social justice perspective into an after school program. Science Education and Civic Engagement, 6(2), 49–62.
13.
DomínguezH. (2005). Bilingual students’ articulation and gesticulation of mathematical knowledge during problem solving. Bilingual Research Journal, 29(2), 269–293.
FernandezC.YoshidaM. (2012). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Routledge.
16.
FortusD.KrajcikJ. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In FraserB. J.TobinK.McRobbieC. J. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 783–798). Springer Netherlands.
17.
GibbonsP. (2018). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom: Students, teachers and researchers. Bloomsbury Academic.
18.
GoldenbergC. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we know—and don’t yet know—about effective instruction. American Educator, 37(2), 4–11.
19.
GriffinC. C.MaloneL. D.KameenuiE. J. (1995). Effects of graphic organizer instruction on fifth-grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 89(2), 98–107.
20.
GroverS.PeaR. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
21.
GroverS.PeaR. D. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In SentanceS.BarendsenE.SchulteC. (Eds.), Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–38). Bloomsbury.
22.
GutiérrezK. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164.
JacobS.GarciaL.WarschauerM. (2020). Leveraging multilingual identities in computer science education. In FreiermuthM. R.ZarrinabadiN. (Eds.), Technology and the psychology of second language learners and users (pp. 309–331). Springer International.
25.
JacobS. R.WarschauerM. (2018). Computational thinking and literacy. Journal of Computer Science Integration. doi:10.26716/jcsi.2018.01.1.1
26.
LeeO.QuinnH.ValdésG. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science Standards and with implications for Common Core State Standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42(4), 223–233.
27.
LeeO.StephensA. (2020). English learners in STEM subjects: Contemporary views on STEM subjects and language with English learners. Educational Researcher, 49(6), 426–432.
28.
MargolisJ.GoodeJ. (2016). Ten lessons for computer science for all. ACM Inroads, 7(4), 52–56.
29.
MartínezR. A.MejíaA. F. (2020). Looking closely and listening carefully: A sociocultural approach to understanding the complexity of Latina/o/x students’ everyday language. Theory Into Practice, 59(1), 53–63.
30.
MillerE.ManzE.RussR.StroupeD.BerlandL. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075.
31.
MollL.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31, 132–141.
32.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). English learners in STEM subjects: Transforming classrooms, schools, and lives. National Academies Press.
33.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.
34.
ReiserB. J.NovakM.McGillT. A. (2017, June27). Coherence from the students’ perspective. Board on Science Education Workshop, “Instructional Materials for the Next Generation Science Standards,” Washington, DC.
35.
RivetA. E.KrajcikJ. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20203
36.
RogoffB. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching in to family and community endeavors: An orientation. Human Development, 57(2–3), 69–81.
37.
RoseD.MeyerA. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age. American Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
38.
SaldañaJ. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
39.
SanninoA.EngeströmY.LemosM. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599–633.
40.
SeveranceS. (2021). Learning with purpose: Orienting student agency towards community solidarity in a secondary science curriculum. In de VriesE.AhnJ.HodY. (Eds.), 15th international conference of the learning sciences—ICLS 2021 (pp. 1165–1166). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
41.
SeveranceS.KrajcikJ. (2018). Examining primary teacher expertise and agency in the collaborative design of project-based learning innovations. In KayJ.LuckinR. (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count, 13th ICLS 2018 (Vol. 2, pp. 1177–1180). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
SólorzanoD.VillalpandoO.OsegueraL. (2005). Educational inequities and Latina/o undergraduate students in the United States: A critical race analysis of their educational progress. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4, 272–294.
44.
TéllezK.WaxmanH. C. (2006). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on effective teaching practices for English language learners. In NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (Vol. 13, pp. 245–277). John Benjamins.
45.
TurnerE.DominguezH.MaldonadoL.EmpsonS. (2013). English learners’ participation in mathematical discussion: Shifting positionings and dynamic identities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 199–234.
VakilS. (2018). Ethics, identity, and political vision: Toward a justice-centered approach to equity in computer science education. Harvard Educational Review, 88(1), 26–52.
48.
ValdésG.KiblerA.WalquiA. (2014, March). Changes in the expertise of ESL professionals: Knowledge and action in an era of new standards. TESOL International.
49.
van LierL.WalquiA. (2012). Language and the Common Core State Standards. Commissioned Papers on Language and Literacy Issues in the Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science Standards, 94, 44–51.
50.
VogelS.GarcíaO. (2017). Translanguaging. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181
51.
VogelS.HoadleyC.Ascenzi-MorenoL.MenkenK. (2019). The role of translanguaging in computational literacies: Documenting middle school bilinguals’ practices in computer science integrated units. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 1164–1170). Association for Computing Machinery.
52.
VygotskyL. S. (1980). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes (ColeM.Jolm-SteinerV.ScribnerS.SoubermanE., Eds.). Harvard University Press.
53.
WarrenB.VossoughiS.RoseberyA. S.BangM.TaylorE. V. (2020). Multiple ways of knowing*: Re-imagining disciplinary learning. In NasirN. S.LeeC. D.PeaR.McKinney de RoystonM. (Eds.), Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 277–294). Routledge.
54.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
55.
YoonB. (2008). Uninvited guests: The influence of teachers’ roles and pedagogies on the positioning of English language learners in the regular classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 495–522.
