skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Digital and Physical Fabrication as Multimodal Learning: Understanding Youth Computational Thinking When Making Integrated Systems Through Bidirectionally Responsive Design

Published:16 January 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article proposes and explores the kinds of computational thinking, creative practices, design activities, and inclusive learning opportunities provided to diverse high school youth when designing integrated systems through simultaneously physically and digitally responsive wearable games and systems. Previous work in this area, conducted by Richard, coined the term “bidirectionally responsive design” (BRD) to describe the design of dual-feedback systems using multiple digital and physical interfaces. BRD also emphasizes using simplified fabrication tools, media and coding platforms, and microcontrollers common in youth content creation communities and makerspaces. This study provides a framework to analyze computational concepts, practices, and perspectives that leverage an integrated systems and multimodal learning approach, such as BRD, adding to, building on, and integrating previous analytic approaches to looking at Scratch coding, media design, physical computing and e-textiles. Using a detailed case study of one team during one of the early workshop iterations, we conduct a multimodal analysis of bidirectionally responsive making activities and discuss the ways that they present novel understanding of integrating diverse interests and encouraging collaborative and distributed computational thinking. We further examine how BRD operationalizes and extends multimodal learning theory by adding tangible and integrative dimensions as additional modalities learners can leverage to facilitate meaning making, metacognition, and agency. We also discuss how designing integrated systems, as facilitated through BRD, provides an opportunity to engage in authentic practices around the design of complex systems.

References

  1. Shaaron Ainsworth and Nicolas Van Labeke. 2002. Using a multi-representational design framework to develop and evaluate a dynamic simulation environment. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Dynamic Visualizations and Learning. Knowledge Media Research Center, Tubingen, Germany, 1--9. Retrieved November 10, 2018 from https://www.iwm-tuebingen.de/workshops/visualization/proceedings.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Phillip Anderson. 1999. Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science 10, 3, 216--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Ryan S. Anderton, Li Shan Chiu, and Susan Aulfrey. 2016. Student perceptions to teaching undergraduate anatomy in Health Sciences. International Journal of Higher Education 5, 3, 201--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Edward Baafi, Collin Reisdorf, and Amon Milner. 2013. ModKit Alpha. Retrieved September 30, 2016 from http://www.modk.it/alpha.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Paulo Blikstein, Tamar Fuhrmann, Daniel Greene, and Shima Salehi. 2012. Bifocal modeling: mixing real and virtual labs for advanced science learning. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, New York, NY, 296--299. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. P. Blikstein. 2013. Digital fabrication and “making” in education: The democratization of invention. In FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, J. Walter-Herrmann and C. Bóching (Eds.). Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers, 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Tara Brady, Camille Salas, Ayah Nuriddin, Walter Rodgers, and Mega Subramaniam. 2014. MakeAbility: Creating accessible makerspace events in a public library. Public Library Quarterly 33, 4, 330--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Lisa Brahms and Kevin Crowley. 2016. Making sense of making: Defining learning practices in make magazine. In Makeology, Vol 2: Makers as Learners, Kylie Peppler, Erica Halverson, and Yasmin Kafai (Eds.). Routledge, New York, 13--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Karen Brennan and Mitchel Resnick. 2012. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. AERA, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1--25. Retrieved November 10, 2018 from https://web.media.mit.edu/∼kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Beth Buchholz, Kate Shively, Kylie Peppler, and Karen Wohlwend. 2014. Hands on, hands off: Gendered access in crafting and electronics practices. Mind, Culture, and Activity 21, 4, 278--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Leah Buechley, Michael Eisenberg, Julian Catchen, and Ali Crockett. 2008. The LilyPad Arduino: Using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Languages (SIGCHI’08). ACM Press, New York, NY, 423--432. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Kathy Charmaz. 2008. Constructionism and the grounded theory method. In Handbook of Constructionist Research. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Gongxiang Chen and Xiaolan Fu. 2003. Effects of multimodal information on learning performance and judgment of learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research 29, 3, 349--362.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Edgar Dale. 1950. Audio Visual Methods in Teaching. The Dryden Press, Inc., New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sayamindu Dasgupta, William Hale, Andres Monroy-Hernández, and Benjamin M. Hill. 2016. Remixing as a pathway to computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing (CSCW’16). ACM Press, New York, NY, 1438--1449. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Stefan Decuyper, Filip Dochy, and Piet Van denBossche. 2010. Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review 5, 2, 111--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Sharon J. Derry, Roy D. Pea, Brigid Barron, Randi A. Engle, Frederick Erickson, Ricki Goldman, Rogers Hall, Timothy Koschmann, Jay L. Lemke, Miriam Gamoran Sherin, and Bruce L. Sherin. 2010. Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 19, 1, 3--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Andrea A. diSessa. 2001. Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Peter E. Doolittle, Andrea L. McNeill, Krista P. Terry, and Stephanie B. Scheer. 2005. Multimedia, cognitive load and pedagogy. In Interactive Multimedia in Education and Training, S. Mishra and R. C. Sharma (Eds.). Idea Group, Inc., London, 184--212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Dale Dougherty. 2013. The maker mindset. In Design. Make. Play. Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators, Margaret Honey and David Kanter (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, 7--16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Allison Druin. 2002. The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology 21, 1, 1--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Michael Eisenberg and Narcis Pares. 2014. Tangible and full-body interfaces in learning. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, 339--357.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Waguih ElMaraghy, Hoda ElMaraghy, Tetsuo Tomiyama, and Laszlo Monostori. 2012. Complexity in engineering design and manufacturing. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology 61, 2, 793--814.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Barbara Ericson and Tom McKlin. 2015. Helping African American students pass advanced placement computer science: A tale of two states. In Research in Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT’15). IEEE, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Frederick Erickson. 2006. Definition and analysis of data from videotape. In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, Judith L. Green, Gregory Camilli, and Patricia B. Elmore (Eds.). AERA/Lawrence Erlbaum, Washington, DC, 177--192.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Charles Fadel and Cheryl Lemke. 2008. Multimodal Learning Through Media: What the Research Says. Cisco Systems, San Jose, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Deborah Fields, Michael T. Giang, and Yasmin Kafai. 2014. Programming in the wild: trends in youth computational participation in the online scratch community. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WIPSCE’14). ACM, New York, NY, 2--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Deborah Fields, Michael T. Giang, and Yasmin Kafai. 2016. Coding by choice: A transitional analysis of social participation patterns and programming contributions in the online Scratch community. In Mass Collaboration and Education, Ulrike Cress, Johannes Moskaliuk, and Heisawn Jeong (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 209--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Allan Fowler and Brian Cusack. 2011. Kodu game lab: improving the motivation for learning programming concepts. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, 238--240. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Connie Golsteijn, Elise Van Den Hoven, David Frohlich, and Abigail Sellen. 2013. Hybrid crafting: towards an integrated practice of crafting with physical and digital components. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 3, 593--611. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Thomas A. Henzinger and Joseph Sifakis. 2007. The discipline of embedded systems design. Computer 40, 10, 32--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Margaret Honey and David Kanter. 2013. Design, Make, Play: Growing the Next Generation of STEM Innovators. Routledge, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Carey Jewitt. 2008. Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education 32, 1, 241--267.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Yasmin B. Kafai. 2006. Playing and making games for learning: Instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture 1, 1, 36--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Yasmin B. Kafai, Quinn Burke, and Chad Mote. 2012. What makes competitions fun to participate?: The role of audience for middle school game designers. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 284--287. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Yasmin B. Kafai, Deborah Fields, and Kristin Searle. 2014. Electronic textiles as disruptive designs: Supporting and challenging maker activities in schools. Harvard Educational Review 84, 4, 532--556.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Yasmin B. Kafai, Eunkyoung Lee, Kristin Searle, Deborah Fields, Eliot Kaplan, and Debora Lui. 2014. A crafts-oriented approach to computing in high school. TOCE ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14, 1, 1--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Yasmin B. Kafai and Kylie A. Peppler. 2011. Youth, technology, and DIY: Developing participatory competencies in creative media production. Review of Research in Education 35, 1, 89--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Ivan Kastelan, Nikola Teslic, and Miodrag Temerinac. 2016. Challenges in embedded engineering education. In Embedded Engineering Education, Roman Szewczyk, Kastelan Ivan, Miodrag Temerinac, Moshe Barak, and Vlado Sruk (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Paul A. Kirschner, John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark. 2006. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist 41, 2, 75--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Gunther Kress, Carey Jewitt, Jon Ogborn, and Tsatsarelis Charalampos. 2001. Multimodal Teaching and Learning: The Rhetorics of the Science Classroom. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury, London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. David Kushner 2011. The making of Arduino. IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved February 6, 2016 from https://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/the-making-of-arduino/0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Edward A. Lee. 2015. The past, present and future of cyber-physical systems: A focus on models. Sensors 15, 3, 4837--4869.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Edward A. Lee and Sanjit A. Seshia. 2017. Introduction to Embedded Systems: A Cyber-Physical Systems Approach (2nd ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Eunkyoung Lee, Yasmin B. Kafai, Veena Vasudevan, and Richard Lee Davis. 2014. Playing in the arcade: Designing tangible interfaces with MaKey MaKey for Scratch games. In Playful User Interfaces, Anton Nijholt (Ed.). Springer, 277--292.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. SC-Y Lu, Waguih ElMaraghy, Günther Schuh, and Robert Wilhelm. 2007. A scientific foundation of collaborative engineering. CIRP Annals 56, 2, 605--634.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Jay L. Lemke. 2000. Across the scales of time: Artifacts, activities, and meanings in ecosocial systems. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7, 4, 273--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Mark W. Maier. 1998. Architecting principles for systems-of-systems. Systems Engineering: The Journal of the International Council on Systems Engineering 1, 4, 267--284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. John H. Maloney, Kylie Peppler, Yasmin Kafai, Mitchel Resnick, and Natalie Rusk. 2008. Programming by choice. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 367--371.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Lee Martin. 2015. The Promise of the Maker Movement for Education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) 5, 1, 30--39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Richard E. Mayer. 2003. The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction 13, 2, 125--139.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. mBlock. n.d. Retrieved November 10, 2018 from http://www.mblock.cc/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Amon D. Millner. 2010. Computer as chalk: cultivating and sustaining communities of youth as designers of tangible user interfaces. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Amon D. Millner and Edward Baafi. 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. ACM, 250--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Tamara J. Moore, Aran W. Glancy, Kristina M. Tank, Jennifer A. Kersten, Karl A. Smith, and Micah S. Stohlmann. 2014. A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) 4, 1, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Roxana Moreno. 2002. Who learns best with multiple representations? Cognitive theory predictions on individual differences in multimedia learning. In Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology. AACE, 1380--1385.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Roxana Moreno and Richard Mayer. 2007. Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review 19, 3, 309--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Jiquan Ngiam, Aditya Khosla, Mingyu Kim, Juan Nam, Honglak Lee, and Andrew Ng. 2011. Multimodal deep learning. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML'11). International Machine Learning Society, 689--696. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Daniel O'Sullivan and Tom Igoe. 2004. Physical Computing: Sensing and Controlling the Physical World with Computers. Thomson, Boston, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Sofia Papavlasopoulou, Michail N. Giannakos, and Letizia Jaccheri. 2017. Empirical studies on the maker movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review. Entertainment Computing 18, 57--78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Seymour Papert. 1980. Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Allan Paivio. 1986. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Katarina Pantic, Deborah A. Fields, and Lisa Quirke. 2016. Studying situated learning in a constructionist programming camp: A multimethod microgenetic analysis of one girl's learning pathway. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, New York, NY, 428--439. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Kylie Peppler, Melissa Gresalfi, Katie Salen Tekinbas, Rafi Santo, and Leah Buechley. 2014. Soft Circuits: Crafting e-Fashion with DIY Electronics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Anthony G. Picciano. 2009. Blending with purpose: The multimodal model. Journal of the Research Centre for Educational Technology 5, 1, 4--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Kanjun Qiu, Leah Buechley, Edward Baafi, and Wendy Dubow. 2013. A curriculum for teaching computer science through computational textiles. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, New York, NY, 20--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Alexander Repenning, David Webb, and Andri Ioannidou. 2010. Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 265--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Mitchel Resnick, Robbie Berg, and Michael Eisenberg. 2000. Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9, 1, 7--30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Mitchel Resnick and Brian Silverman. 2005. Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, New York, NY, 117--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andres Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Evelyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2009. Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM 52, 11, 60--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Gabriela T. Richard. 2008. Employing physical computing in education: How teachers and students utilized physical computing to develop embodied and tangible learning objects. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society 4, 3, 93--102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. Gabriela T. Richard and Sagun Giri. 2017. Inclusive collaborative learning with multi-interface design: Implications for diverse and equitable makerspace education. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. ISLS, Philadelphia, PA, 415--422.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Gabriela T. Richard and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2015a. Responsive Make and Play: Youth making physically and digitally interactive and wearable game controllers. In More Playful User Interfaces: Interfaces that Invite Social and Physical Interaction, Anton Nijholt (Ed.). Springer, Singapore, 71--93.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Gabriela T. Richard and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2015b. Making Physical and Digital Games with E-Textiles: A Workshop for Youth Making Responsive Wearable Games and Controllers. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design 8 Children. ACM, New York, NY, 399--402. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Gabriela T. Richard, Yasmin B. Kafai, Barrie Adleberg, and Orkan Telhan. 2015. StitchFest: Diversifying a college hackathon to broaden participation and perceptions in computing. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 114--119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Terry Royce. 2002. Multimodality in the TESOL classroom: Exploring visual-verbal synergy. TESOL Quarterly 36, 2, 191--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Bernd Rüschoff and Markus Ritter. 2001. Technology-enhanced language learning: Construction of knowledge and template-based learning in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning 14, 3--4, 219--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Michael Sankey, Dawn Birch, and Michael Gardiner. 2010. Engaging students through multimodal learning environments: The journey continues. In Proceedings of ASCILITE 2010: 27th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education: Curriculum, Technology and Transformation for an Unknown Future. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 852--863.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. Kimberly A. Scott, Kimberly M. Sheridan, and Kevin Clark. 2015. Culturally responsive computing: a theory revisited. Learning, Media and Technology 40, 4, 412--436.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  80. JooYoung Seo and Gabriela T. Richard. 2018. Accessibility, making and tactile robotics: Facilitating collaborative learning and computational thinking for learners with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 3. ISLS, 1755--1757.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. Sarah A. Sheard and Ali Mostashari. 2009. Principles of complex systems for systems engineering. Systems Engineering 12, 4, 295--311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Jay Silver, Eric Rosenbaum, and David Shaw. 2012. MaKey MaKey: improvising tangible and nature-based user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM, New York, NY, 367--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Arnan Sipitakiat and Paulo Blikstein. 2013. Interaction design and physical computing in the era of miniature embedded computers. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, New York, NY, 515--518. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Shaunna Smith. 2013. Through the teacher's eyes: Unpacking the TPACK of digital fabrication integration in middle school language arts. Journal of Research on Tech in Education 46, 2, 207--227.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Kihyuk Sohn, Wenling Shang, and Honglak Lee. 2014. Improved multimodal deep learning with variation of information. In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. NIPS, 2141--2149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. Gerry Stahl, Timothy Koschmann, and Dan Suthers. 2006. Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R. Keith Sawyer (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 409--426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Norbert A. Streitz, Peter Tandler, Christian Müller-Tomfelde, and Shin'ichi Konomi. 2001. Roomware: Towards the next generation of human-computer interaction based on an integrated design of real and virtual worlds. Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millennium. Addison Wesley, New York, NY, 551--576.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. Joshua D. Summers and Jami J. Shah. 2010. Mechanical engineering design complexity metrics: Size, coupling, and solvability. Journal of Mechanical Design 132, 2, 021004-1-11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  89. Karen Swan. 1991. Programming objects to think with: Logo and the teaching and learning of problem solving. Journal of Educational Computing Research 7, 1, 89--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Jaons Sztipanovits, Gautam Biswas, Ken Frampton, Aniruddha Gokhale, Larry Howard, Gabor Karsai, T. John Koo, Xenofon Koutsoukos, and Douglas C. Schmidt. 2005. Introducing embedded software and systems education and advanced learning technology in an engineering curriculum. ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems 4, 3, 549--568. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  91. Brygg Ullmer and Hiroshi Ishii. 2000. Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Systems Journal 39, 3.4, 915--931. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. Veena Vasudevan and Yasmin B. Kafai. 2016. Bridging Crafting and Computing in Making: Designing Interactive Touchpads and Board Games with MaKey MaKey. In Makeology: Makerspaces as Learning Environments. Vol. 1, Kylie Peppler, Erica Halverson, and Yasmin B. Kafai (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. Stefan Wermter, Cornelius Weber, Mark Elshaw, Christo Panchev, H. Erwin, and Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2004. Towards multimodal neural robot learning. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 47, 2, 171--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  94. Linda Werner, Jill Denner, Sharon Campe, and Damon Chizuru Kawamoto. 2012. The fairy performance assessment: measuring computational thinking in middle school. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, 215--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Jeannette M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49, 3, 33--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  96. Oren Zuckerman, Saeed Arida, and Mitchel Resnick. 2005. Extending tangible interfaces for education: Digital Montessori-inspired manipulatives. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 859--868. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Digital and Physical Fabrication as Multimodal Learning: Understanding Youth Computational Thinking When Making Integrated Systems Through Bidirectionally Responsive Design

                    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

                    PDF Format

                    View or Download as a PDF file.

                    PDF

                    eReader

                    View online with eReader.

                    eReader

                    HTML Format

                    View this article in HTML Format .

                    View HTML Format