skip to main content
research-article

A Crafts-Oriented Approach to Computing in High School: Introducing Computational Concepts, Practices, and Perspectives with Electronic Textiles

Published:01 March 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In this article, we examine the use of electronic textiles (e-textiles) for introducing key computational concepts and practices while broadening perceptions about computing. The starting point of our work was the design and implementation of a curriculum module using the LilyPad Arduino in a pre-AP high school computer science class. To understand students’ learning, we analyzed the structure and functionality of their circuits and program code as well as their design approaches to making and debugging their e-textile creations and their views of computing. We also studied students’ changing perceptions of computing. Our discussion addresses the need for and design of scaffolded challenges and the potential for using crafts materials and activities such as e-textiles for designing introductory courses that can broaden participation in computing.

References

  1. Baretto, F. and Benitti, V. 2012. Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 58, 978--988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Brennan, K. and Resnick, M. 2012. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruckman, A., Biggers, M., Ericson, E., McKlin, T., Dimond, J., DiSalvo, B., Hewner, M., Ni, L., and Yardi, S. 2009. “Georgia computes!”: Improving the computing education pipeline. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCSE. 86--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Buechley, L. 2006. A construction kit for electronic textiles. In Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC). 83--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Buechley, L. and Eisenberg, M. 2008. The LilyPad Arduino: Toward wearable engineering for everyone. IEEE Perv. Comput. 7, 2, 12--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Buechley, L. and Hill, B. M. 2010. LilyPad in the wild: How hardware’s long tail is supporting new engineering and design communities. In Proceedings of Designing Interactive Systems (DIS). 199--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Buechley, L., Eisenberg, M., and Elumeze, N. 2007. Towards a curriculum for electronic textiles in the high school classroom. In Proceedings of the Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCS). 28--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Buechley, L., Peppler, K., Eisenberg, M., and Kafai, Y. 2013. Textile Messages: Dispatches from the World for e-Textiles and Education. Peter Lang, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Charmaz, K. 2003. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructionist methods. In Strategies for Qualitative Inquiry 2nd Ed., N. K. Denzinger and Y. S. Lincoln Eds., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 249--291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig, M., Petersen, S., and Petersen, A. 2012. Following a thread: Knitting patterns and program tracing. In Proceedings of SIGCSE. 233--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Denner, J., Werner, L. and Ortiz, E. 2012. Computer games created by middle school girls: Can they be used to measure understanding of computer science concepts? Comput. Educ. 58, 1, 240--249. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Dimond, J. and Guzdial, M. 2008. More than paradoxes to offer: Exploring motivations to attract women to computing. Tech. Rep., Georgia Institute of Technology. http://gacomputes.cc.gatech.edu/Members/jpdimond/dimondParadoxes.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. DiSalvo, B. and Bruckman, A. 2011. From interests to values: Computer science is not that difficult but wanting to learn it is. Commun. ACM 54, 8, 27--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Eisenberg, M., Elumeze, N., MacFerrin, M., and Buechley, L. 2009. Children’s programming, reconsidered: Settings, stuff, and surfaces. In Proceedings of the 8th International International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y., and Searle, K. S. 2012a. Functional aesthetics for learning: Creative tensions in youth e-textiles designs. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences. 196--203.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fields, D. A., Kafai, Y. B., Searle, K. A., and Min, H. S. 2012b. Debuggems to assess student learning in e-textiles. In Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Forte, A. and Guzdial, M. 2004. Motivation and nonmajors in computer science: Identifying discrete audiences from introductory courses. IEEE Trans. Educ. 48, 2, 248--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kafai, Y. B. 1995. Minds in Play. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kafai, Y. B. and Peppler K. A. 2011. Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Rev. Res. Educ. 35, 89--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Kafai, Y. B., Burke, W., and Mote, C. 2012a. What makes things fun to participate? The role of audience for middle school game designers. In Proceedings of the Interaction Design for Children Conference (IDC10). 284--287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kafai, Y. B., Fields, D. A., and Searle, K. A. 2012b. Making learning visible: Connecting crafts, circuitry & coding in e-textile designs. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). 188--195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaplan, E., Griffin, J., Kafai, Y. B., and Burke, W. Q. 2011. A deconstruction kit for the LilyPad Arduino: Designing debugging sets for learning about circuitry & programming for high school students. In Proceedings of 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelleher, C. 2008. Using storytelling to introduce girls to computer programming. In Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Gaming, Y. B. Kafai, C. Heeter, J. Denner, and J. Y. Sun Eds., The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 247--264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelleher, C. and Pausch, R. 2005. Lowering the barriers to programming: A taxonomy of programming environments and languages for novice programmers. ACM Comput. Surv. 37, 2, 83--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Maloney, J., Resnick, M., Rusk, N., Silverman, B., and Eastmond, E. 2010. The Scratch programming language and environment. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 10, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Margolis, J. and Fisher, A. 2001. Unlocking the Clubhouse. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J. J., and Nao, K. 2008. Stuck in the Shallow End. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Millner, A. and Baafi, E. 2011. Modkit: Blending and extending approachable platforms for creating computer programs and interactive objects. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC). 250--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Monroy-Hernandez, A. 2012. Designing for remixing: Supporting an online community of amateur creators. Unpublished dissertation, Media Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://llk.media.mit.edu/papers/andres-dissertation.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson, C., Sudol, L., Stephenson, C., and Stehlik, M. 2010. Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K--12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. ACM. http://www.acm.org/runningonempty/fullreport.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Wing, J. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 33--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Wolber, D., Abelson, H., Spertus, E., and Looney, L. 2011. App Inventor: Create Your Own Android Apps. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Yardi, S. and Bruckman, A. 2007. What is computing? Bridging the gap between teenagers’ perceptions and graduate students’ experiences. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Computing Education Research. 39--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Yardi, S., Krolikowski, P., Marshall, T., and Bruckman, A. 2008. An HCI approach to computing in the real world. ACM J. Educ. Res. Comput. 8, 3, 1--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Crafts-Oriented Approach to Computing in High School: Introducing Computational Concepts, Practices, and Perspectives with Electronic Textiles

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
      ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 14, Issue 1
      March 2014
      98 pages
      EISSN:1946-6226
      DOI:10.1145/2600089
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 March 2014
      • Revised: 1 September 2013
      • Accepted: 1 September 2013
      • Received: 1 March 2013
      Published in toce Volume 14, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader