IDC 2017 Plan

IDC 2017 Plan Note the conference theme: Logo: the next 25 years. How is what I’m doing here like logo? 

It’s a structuration.  It’s like a microworld. 

“bring children’s voice and sentiments into this process”

Roy suggests “bracketing” as a way of thinking about the figure/ground inversion in my “telescoping.” Can we think about interactive fiction as a sort of cognitive apprenticeship?

Look at my notes from Situated Cognition: This will be well-received in the Logo world if we can frame it as a micro-world + cognitive apprenticeship in language ideologies.. Helping students to do the tricky work that adults invisibly and expertly accomplish.

Notes

Generally, I’d like to frame this as a possibility of critical pedagogy. As presented, it’s a bit boring and doesn’t speak to the possibilities. This should be reflected in the title and the abstract; the article itself actually gets there by the end. Also in the IF aspirational part. Bring out “Coming Out Simulator” -> Show how the curriculum was inspired by this. 

Notes from re-reading first paper

I think I should further surface the formations/identity stuff I’ve been working on. 

Fill out analysis around imagined audience with some theoretical support.  passive uptake: Freire?

Performativity?

When arguing that Computer Science shoudl be taught in context (Computer Science is taught in context) Cite the Situated Cognition bit!!!

I’d like to de-emphasize the school disciplines. 

The language ideologies bit comes too little and too late. 

Include the third observation in the writeup. 

Talk about positioning in CS classroom observation, connect to Brigid’s work? 

Next steps:  Conduct another round with Inky, perhaps combined with an explicitly language-ideologies-inspired curriculum, and do linguistic ethnography while also collecting artifacts to analyze. Supplement the existing paper with analysis of particular artifacts and interactions, drawing on language moves shared by Rosa for the analysis. 

Vossoughi: social analytic artifacts. 

Half-baked microworlds Kynigos_others_2007_Half-baked logo microworlds as boundary objects in integrated design.pdf

DiSessa’s toolsets (1997), instrumentalization

Epistemic games:      Why is such an interface useful or necessary? It allows us to play epistemic games with language, surface epistemic forms. 

IDC 17 WIP REVISION STRATEGY

SUBSTANCE OF REVIEWS: The authors need to make clear how they connect STEM, Papert, Scratch to story-telling,

Section “ITERATION I”: The final paragraph refers to the methodology   employed for content analysis. I would add here the reference to Gee [13]   from section “Results”, to clarify the way the analysis was conducted. It   is not very clear how iteration I and iteration II consist of two   different but subsequent research phases. State here and explain this   connection and the rationale for conducting a two-phase study. Also, make   clear the difference between the type of analysis chosen in phase I,   compared to that in phase II. Consider to change the titles “Iteration I

  and II”, or to better explain the difference and rationale.

The authors claim that “textual literacy could support the   development of computational literacy for students who are oppressed by   stereotypes excluding them from STEM fields”. Throughout the paper   though, this link to STEM education was not made explicit. How is this

  achieved? 

The authors make some links to Papert’s (1980) notion of how by   interacting with constructionist learning environments, students can see   the shared product of their work and can construct new understandings.   But again the arguments are not well formed and the links are not made

  explicit. A more in depth analysis is needed to address this issue.

In the section titled “ITERATION1: FORMAL POSSIBILITIES”, the   authors state that “after selecting a story users could toggle between   edit mode and play mode (Figure 2) in much the same manner as Scratch”.

  Why mention Scratch here? And not any other digital tool? 

The structure of the paper can be enhanced by presenting clearly the   studies, e.g. What were the research questions? What was the aim of the

  studies? What were the methods used?

Also, the sections titled “Results” and “Analysis” should not   necessarily be presented as separate. Also, part of the “Results”   section should be considered as “Methods”. The analysis section needs   to provide a more in depth analysis of the data and how the types of   literacies are observed/used and how the authors’ claims are

  supported/evidenced.

WHAT AM I GOING TO DO?

  1. Reframe the study without two iterations. 

  2. Introduction

  3. Background

  4. Methods

  5. Three phases: 

  6. exploratory

  7. testing curriculum

  8. [upcoming] evaluation

  9. Results

  10. Analysis

  11. Conclusion

  12. Move the bit about critical computational literacy to another paper. 

  13. Somewhere I need to present the curriculum I developed

  14. 3 primary lessons

  15. Minilessons from each domain

  16. Edit the whole thing down a lot!

  17. Touchups

  18. Better pictures

Return to literacy structure, Papert’s observation, in my analysis.  What about restructurations? Mention experimental methods in cs ed research