Although participatory culture promotes productive engagement in online spaces, members may respond in ways that constrain digital composition practices. This article provides theoretical and contextual background regarding a shift toward digital media production and programming-as-writing for youth. In addition, I describe the intersecting of computational thinking, computational participation, and participatory culture within Scratch, an online programming community. Findings from a descriptive case study focused on early adolescents as they engaged in digital media composition within an online programming community called Scratch are examined. Specifically, I discuss the contrast in the digital composition experiences of two participants as they leveraged participatory culture in the creation of digital media. This research highlights assumptions made regarding participatory cultures and the need to consider how to foster productive and sustainable digital literacy practices for youth in participatory cultures.
BakerE. A. (2021). Wag the dog: A digital literacies narrative. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 38–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377211027556
BurkeQ.O’ByrneI.KafaiY. (2016). Computational participation: Understanding coding as an extension of literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(4), 371–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.496
4.
DeVaneB.StewardC.TranK. M. (2016). Balancing expression and structure in game design: Developing computational participation using studio-based design pedagogy. Educational Technology, 56(3), 42–47.
5.
DomingoM. (2011). Analyzing layering in textual design: A multimodal approach for examining cultural, linguistic, and social migrations in digital video. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(3), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2011.563619
6.
DomingoM. (2014). Transnational language flows in digital platforms: A study of urban youth and their multimodal text making. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 9(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2013.877554
EhretC.BoegelJ.Manuel-NekoueiR. (2018). The role of affect in adolescent online literacies: Participatory pressures in BookTube culture. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.881
9.
EllisonT. L. (2023). Normalizing black students/youth and their families’ digital and STEAM literacies. The Reading Teacher, 76(5), 594–600. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2182
10.
HaddixM.Sealey-RuizY. (2012). Cultivating digital and popular literacies as empowering and emancipatory acts among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(3), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00126
11.
HaggeJ. (2016). Subtext of decisions: Literacy practices in the context of coding. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/6247
12.
HaggeJ. (2018). Coding to create: A subtext of decisions as early adolescents design digital media. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 23(2), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9359-y
13.
HaggeJ. (2021a). Easter eggs and semiotic cues: Embedded meaning as early adolescents engage in programming-as-writing. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 20(3), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-07-2020-0077
14.
HaggeJ. (2021b). Viral affirmation as pressure to perform: Exploring the role of affect in participatory culture. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 65(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1166
HassenfeldZ. R.BersM. U. (2020). Debugging the writing process: Lessons from a comparison of students’ coding and writing practices. The Reading Teacher, 73(6), 735–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1885
17.
HatchJ. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. SUNY Press.
18.
ItoM.BaumerS.BittantiM.BodyD.CodyR.Herr-StephensonB.TrippL. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. The MIT Press.
19.
JacobsG. E. (2012). The proverbial rock and hard place: The realities and risks of teaching in a world of multiliteracies, participatory culture, and mandates. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2), 98–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.00109
20.
JenkinsH. (2006). Fans, bloggers and gamers: Exploring participatory culture. NYU Press.
21.
JenkinsH. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MIT Press.
22.
JenkinsH.ClintonK.PurushotmaR.RobisonA.WeigelM. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. An occasional paper on digital media and learning. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
23.
JenkinsH.ItoM.boydd. (2016). Participatory culture in a networked era. Polity Press.
24.
JensenA. (2019). Fostering preservice teacher agency in 21st century writing instruction. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 18(3), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-12-2018-0129
25.
JociusR. (2017). Good student/bad students: Situated identities in the figured worlds of school and creating multimodal production. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66(1), 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/238133691771817
26.
KafaiY. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K-12 Education. Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114
27.
KafaiY. B.BurkeQ. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. MIT Press.
28.
KhadkaS. (2018). A broad-based multiliteracies theory and praxis for a diverse writing Classroom. Computers and Composition, 47, 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.12.002
KrippendorffK. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
31.
LammersJ. C.CurwoodJ. S.MagnificoA. M. (2012). Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 11(2), 44–58.
32.
LappD.MossB.RowsellJ. (2012). Envisioning new literacies through a lens of teaching and learning. The Reading Teacher, 65(6), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01055
33.
LewisT. (2013). “We txt 2 sty cnnectd”: An African American mother and son communicate: Digital literacies, meaning-making, and activity theory systems. Journal of Education, 193(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300202
34.
LindgrenC. A. (2021). Writing with data: A study of coding on a data-journalism team. Written Communication, 38(1), 114–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320968061
35.
MaloneyJ.ResnickM.RuskN.SilvermanB.EastmondE. (2010). The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 10(4), 16:1–16:15. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868358.1868363
36.
MartinN. M. (2008). Digital literacy and the “digital society”. In LankshearC.KnobelM. (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 151–176). Peter Lang.
37.
McCartheyS.DukeN. K.BloomeD.FaustS.Garcia-SanchezI. M.StornaiuoloA.AlvermannD. (2020). How can we study children’s/youth’s out of school experiences to inform classroom practices?Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 69(1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336920937261
38.
MerriamS. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.
39.
MillsK. A. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310364401
40.
MillsK. A.ExleyB. (2014). Time, space, and text in the elementary school digital writing classroom. Written Communication, 31(4), 434–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314542757
NicholsT. P.JohnstonK. (2020). Rethinking availability in multimodal composing: Frictions in digital design. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 64(3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1107
43.
PandyaJ. Z.PagdilaoK.KimA.MarquezE. (2015). Transnational children orchestrating competing voices in multimodal, digital autobiographies. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 117(6), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811511700707
44.
PapavlasopoulouS.GiannakosM. N.JaccheriL. (2017). Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing, 18, 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002
45.
PattonM. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
46.
Price-DennisD. (2016). Developing curriculum to support Black girls’ literacies in digital spaces. English Education, 48(4), 337–361.
47.
RobinsonB. (2022). “Yeet nitro boosted”: A postdigital perspective of young people’s literacy engagements with the Discord platform. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 71(1), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377221115
48.
RushkoffD. (2010). Program or be programmed: Ten commands for the digital age. O/R Books.
49.
StornaiuoloA. (2019). Studying young people’s multimodal composing on the move: A transliteracies approach. In S. McCarthey (Chair), How Can We Study Children’s/Youth’s Experiences Out Of School To Inform Classroom Practices? [Integrative Research Review Panel]. 68th Annual Conference of the Literacy Research Association, Tampa, FL, United States.
50.
UzunboyluH.KinikE.KanbulS. (2017). An analysis of countries which have integrated coding into their curricula and the content analysis of academic studies on coding traning in Turkey. TEM Journal, 6(4), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM64-18
VeeA. (2017). Coding literacy: How computer programming is changing writing. MIT Press.
53.
WargoJ. M. (2018). Writing with wearables? Young children’s intra-active authoring and the sounds of emplaced invention. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(4), 502–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X18802880
54.
WegerifR. (2015). Toward dialogic literacy education for the internet age. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 64(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2381336915617616
