AlvaradoM.GutchR.WollenT. (1987). Learning the media. London, England: Macmillan.
2.
BenklerY. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
BlackR. W. (2005). Online fanfiction: What technology and popular culture can teach us about writing and literacy instruction. New Horizons for Learning Online Journal, XI(2), Spring 2005.
4.
BlackR. W. (2009). English-language learners, fan communities, and 21st-century skills. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 688–697.
5.
BoothJ. (1999). PhotoWork: A case study in educational publishing for and by young people. In Sefton-GreenJ. (Ed.), Young people, creativity and new technologies (pp. 42–56). London, England: Routledge.
6.
BuckinghamD. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
7.
BuckinghamD.BurnA. (2007). Game literacy in theory and practice. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 323–349.
8.
BuckinghamD.Sefton-GreenJ. (1994). Cultural studies goes to school. London, England: Taylor & Francis.
9.
BuechleyL.EisenbergM. (2008). The LilyPad Arduino: Toward wearable engineering for everyone. Wearable Computing Column in IEEE Pervasive, 7(2), 12–15.
10.
CassellJ.JenkinsH. (1998). From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
CongdonK. G.BlandyD. (2003). Zinesters in the classroom: Using zines to teach about postmodernism and the communication of ideas. Art Education, 56(3), 44–52.
12.
ConsalvoM. (2007). Cheating. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
CowanP. (2004). Devils or angels: Literacy and discourse in lowrider culture. In MahiriJ. (Ed.), What they don’t learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth (pp. 47–74). Oxford, England: Peter Lang.
14.
CunninghamH. (1998) Digital culture: The view from the dance floor. In Sefton-GreenJ. (Ed.), Digital diversions: Youth culture in the age of multimedia (pp. 128–148). London, England: UCL Press.
15.
DennerJ.CampeS. (2008). What do girls want? What games made by girls can tell us. In KafaiY.HeeterC.DennerJ.SunJ. (Eds.), Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New perspectives on gender and gaming (pp. 129–145). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
DeweyJ. (1980). Art as experience. New York, NY: Berkley Publishing Group. (Original work published in 1934).
17.
diSessaA. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
EisenbergM.BuechleyL. (2008). Pervasive fabrication: Making construction ubiquitous in education. Journal of Software, 3(4), 62–68.
19.
EisnerE. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20.
EricksonJ.LehrerR. (1998). The evolution of critical standards as students design hypermedia documents. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 351–386.
21.
ErstadO.GilyeØ.de LangeT. (2007). Re-mixing multimodal resources: Multiliteracies and digital production in Norwegian media education. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 183–198.
22.
FergusonB. (1981). Practical work and pedagogy. Screen Education, 38, 42–55.
23.
FieldsD. A.KafaiY. B. (2010). Stealing from grandma or generating cultural knowledge? Contestations and effects of cheating in Whyville. Games and Culture, 5, 64–87.
24.
FreireP.MacedoD. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
25.
GeeJ. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
GeeJ. P. (2010). New digital media and learning as an emerging area and “worked examples” as one way forward. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
GilsterP. (1997). Digital literacy. New York, NY: Wiley.
28.
GuzdialM. (2004). Programming environments for novices. In FincherS.PetreM. (Eds.), Computer science education research (pp. 127–154). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
29.
GuzzettiB.ElliottK.WelschD. (2010). DIY media in the classroom: New literacies across content areas. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
30.
GuzzettiB. J.GamboaM. (2004). Zines for social justice: Adolescent girls writing on their own. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 408–436.
31.
HarelI. (1991). Children Designers: Interdisciplinary constructions for learning and knowing mathematics in a computer-rich school. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32.
HayesE. R.GamesI. A. (2008). Making computer games and design thinking. Games & Culture, 3, 309–332.
33.
HeeterC.WinnB. (2008). Implications of gender, player type and learning strategies for the design of games for learning. In KafaiY.HeeterC.DennerJ.SunJ. (Eds.), Beyond Barbie to Mortal Combat: New perspectives on gender and gaming (pp. 165–177). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34.
HetlandL.WinnerE.VeenemaS.SheridanK. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
35.
HmeloC. E.HoltonD. L.KolodnerJ. (2000). Designing to Learn about Complex Systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298.
36.
ItoM.BaumerS.BittantiM.BoydD.CodyR.HerrB.. . . TrippL. (2009). Hanging out, messing around, geeking out: Living and learning with new media. Cambridge, England: MIT Press.
37.
JenkinsH. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York University Press.
38.
JenkinsH.ClintonK.PurushotmaR.RobinsonA. J.WeigelM. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: MacArthur.
39.
JewittC. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267.
40.
JewittC.KressG. R. (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
41.
KafaiY. B. (1995). Minds in play: Computer game design as a context for children’s learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
KafaiY. B. (1996a). Gender differences in children’s constructions of video games. In GreenfieldP. M.CockingR. R. (Eds.), Interacting with video (pp. 39–66). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
43.
KafaiY. B. (1996b). Learning through making games: Children’s development of design strategies in the creation of a computational artifact. In KafaiY.ResnickM. (Eds.), Constructionism in practice (pp. 71–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
KafaiY. B. (1998). Video game designs by children: Consistency and variability of gender differences. In CassellJ.JenkinsH. (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and computer games (pp. 90–114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
KafaiY. B. (2006). Constructionism. In SawyerK. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46.
KafaiY. B.ChingC. C. (2001). Affordances of collaborative software design planning for elementary students’ science talk. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 323–363.
47.
KafaiY. B.FieldsD. A.BurkeW. Q. (2010). Entering the clubhouse: Case studies of young programmers joining the scratch community. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 22(2), 21–35.
48.
KafaiY. B.PepplerK.ChapmanR. (Eds.). (2009). The computer clubhouse: Constructionism and creativity in youth communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
49.
Kahn-EganS. (1998). Pedagogy of the pissed: Punk pedagogy in the first-year writing classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
50.
KelleherC. (2008). Motivating middle school girls: Using computer programming as a means to the end of story telling via 3D animated movies. In KafaiY.HeeterCDennerJ.SunJ. (Eds.), Beyond Barbie to Mortal Combat: New perspectives on gender and gaming (pp. 247–265). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51.
KressG. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London, England: Routledge.
52.
KressG.van LeeuwenT. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
54.
LankshearC.KnobelM. (2010). DIY media: Creating, sharing and learning with new technologies (New literacies and digital epistemologies). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
55.
LenhartA.MaddenM. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.
56.
LovelessA. (1999). A digital big breakfast: The Glebe School Project. In Sefton-GreenJ. (Ed.), Young people, creativity and new technologies (pp. 32–41). London, England: Routledge.
57.
LowoodH. (2006). High-performance play: The making of machinima. Journal of Media Practice, 7, 25–42.
MaloneyJ.BurdL.KafaiY. B.RuskN.SilvermanB.ResnickM.. (2004, January). Scratch: A sneak preview. Paper presented at the second international conference on Creating, Connecting, and Collaborating through Computing, Kyoto, Japan.
60.
MaloneyJ.PepplerK.KafaiY.ResnickM.RuskN. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with Scratch. Portland, OR: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education.
61.
ManifoldM. C. (2008). Cosplay. In ReidR., (Ed.), Women in science fiction and fantasy (Vol. 2, pp. 75–77). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
62.
ManovichL. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63.
MargolisJ.FisherA. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64.
MartinecR. (1998). Cohesion in action. Semiotica, 120, 161–180.
65.
MastermanL. (1980). Teaching about television. London, England: Macmillan.
66.
MastermanL. (1985). Teaching the media. London, England: Comedia.
67.
McInnesD. (1998). Attending to the instance: Towards a systemic based dynamic and responsive analysis of composite performance text (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Sydney.
68.
MitchellG.ClarkeA. (2003). Videogame art: Remixing, reworking and other interventions. Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA), Utrecht University. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/
69.
NareyM. (2008). Making meaning: Constructing multimodal perspectives of language, literacy, and learning through arts-based early childhood education. New York, NY: Springer.
70.
National Research Council. (1999). Being fluent with information technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
71.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
72.
NossR.HoylesC. (1996). Windows on mathematical meanings: Learning cultures and computers. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
73.
PalumboD. (1990). Programming language/problem-solving research: A review of relevant issues. Review of Educational Research, 45, 65–89.
74.
PelletierC. (2008). Producing difference in studying and making computer games: How students construct games as gendered in order to construct themselves gendered. In KafaiY.HeeterC.DennerJ.SunJ. (Eds.), Beyond Barbie to Mortal Combat: New perspectives on gender and gaming (pp. 145–161). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75.
PennerD. E.LehrerR.SchaeubleL. (1998). From physical models to biomechanical systems: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 429–449.
76.
PepplerK. (2010). Media arts: Arts education for a digital age. Teachers College Record, 112(8). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org
77.
PepplerK.WarschauerM.. (2010). Lessons from Brandy: Creative media production by a child with cognitive (dis)abilities. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Denver, CO.
78.
PepplerK.WarschauerM.DiazgranadosA. (2010). Developing a culture of critical game design in a second grade classroom [Special issue]. E-Learning, 7, 35–48.
79.
PepplerK. A.KafaiY. B. (2007). From SuperGoo to Scratch: Exploring creative digital media production in informal learning. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32, 149–166.
80.
PerkelD.. (2006, September). Copy and paste literacy: Literacy practices in the production of a MySpace profile. Paper presented at the DREAM-Conference: Informal Learning and Digital Media: Constructions, Context, Consequences, Odense, Denmark.
PerkinsD. N. (1986). Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
83.
ReasC. (2006a). Media literacy: Twenty-first century arts education. AI & Society, 20, 444–445.
84.
ReasC. (2006b). Processing: Programming for the media arts. AI & Society, 20, 526–538.
85.
ResnickM.KafaiY.MaedaJ. (2003). ITR: A networked, media-rich programming environment to enhance technological fluency at after-school centers in economically disadvantaged communities. Proposal [funded] by the National Science Foundation.
86.
ResnickM.MaloneyJ.HernándezA. M.RuskN.EastmondE.BrennanK.. . . KafaiY. B. (2009). Scratch: Programming for everyone. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.
87.
RideoutV.FoehrU.RobertsD. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation.
88.
SalenK. (2007). Gaming literacies: A game design study in action. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16, 301–322.
89.
SalenK.ZimmermanE. (2004). The rules of play. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
90.
SchofieldJ. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
91.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
92.
Sefton-GreenJ. (2006). Youth, technology, and media cultures. Review of Research in Education, 30, 279–306.
93.
SenivirateO.Monroy-HernándezA. (2010). Remix culture on the web: A survey of content reuse on different user-generated content websites. Web Science 2010. Retrieved from http://www.websci10.org/home.html
94.
SimonH. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
95.
SmithB. K. (2006). Design and computational flexibility. Digital Creativity, 17(2), 65–72.
96.
SoepE. (2005). Critique: Where art meets assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 38–63.
97.
SpencerA (2005). DIY: The rise of lo-fi culture. London, England: Marion Boyars.
98.
TorreyC.McDonaldD. W.SchilitB. N.BlyS. (2007). How-to pages: Informal systems of expertise sharing. In OlsenD.ArthurR.HinckleyK.MorrisM. R.HudsonS.GreenbergS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th European conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 391–410). Boston, MA: Association for Computing Machinery.
99.
van LeeuwenT. (1999). Speech, music, sound. London, England: Macmillan.
100.
WarschauerM.MatuchniakT. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of the equity in access, use and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 179–225.