ICER scratch

ICER scratch Nelson and Ko’s concerns that overemphasis on theory building  may hinder innovation, understanding, and evaluation are important and need to be addressed within the CS education research community. However, we take issue with the implicit suggestion that design could be pursued separately from theoretical engagement. Sandoval’s (2014) conjecture mapping distinguishes between design conjectures (hypotheses about how a design might result in mediating processes) and theoretical conjectures (hypotheses about how mediating processes might result in learning outcomes). In concrete terms, we can collect analytics about how students use a programming interface to answer a design conjecture, but a theoretical conjecture (supported by further evidence) is required to support the claim that a particular kind of learning outcome has occurred. Design-based research, as practiced in the learning sciences, “often aims to innovate not just processes of instruction but the kinds of outcomes desired from instruction” (Sandoval, 2014, p. 24). Furthermore, we argue that foregrounding theoretical perspectives are what make the priorities and perspectives of diverse stakeholders visible within the context of research and policy. The diversity of perspectives on computational thinking is a resource, and not a stumbling block, for understanding the complex ecologies in which learning and teaching in CS education is situated. Placing an individual research project’s framing within a broader theory space, could make it possible to engage with legitimate and important questions based in other framings.

ADD TO REFS: Vogel, Santo, & Ching, 2017 (and Proctor, Bigman, and Blikstein, 2018) do a nice job of showing how perspectives on content and purposes of CT are situated in political concerns and identities of stakeholders.